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

February 13, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L145 - Mon 13 Feb 1989 / Lun 13 fév 1989

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PRESTON BRANCH 126, ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

BEEKEEPING INDUSTRY

FUTURES PROGRAM

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

COURT SYSTEM

ROAD SAFETY

PREPAID SERVICES

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

RESPONSES

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MEDIA REPORT

VISITOR

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

ROUGE VALLEY

ENERGY CONSERVATION

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH DETENTION CENTRE

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

PETITION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES ACT (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m. Prayers.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a copy of an order in council appointing Marietta Roberts, MPP, as commissioner to the Board of Internal Economy in place of Barbara Sullivan, MPP.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PRESTON BRANCH 126, ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

Mr. Farnan: It gives me great pleasure to read into the record of the Ontario Legislature a tribute to Preston Branch 126 of the Royal Canadian Legion on the occasion of its 60th anniversary. The legion represents the spirit of commitment to one’s fellow man in times of great crisis. This was reflected in the unselfish acts of young men and women who put their lives on the line to preserve a way of life. That spirit of generosity lives on.

Since 1929, Preston Branch 126 has been faithful to veterans and their families, to the traditions of the legion through its service bureau, Remembrance Day services and the familiar poppy campaign. Branch 126 has also opened its heart to embrace the entire Cambridge community. It has promoted education by public speaking activities and by bursary and scholarship programs, charities, minor sports, Scout and cadet groups and the Canine Vision Canada guide dog program.

Our community hospital and medical research have all benefited from funds donated by Branch 126. Preston, and now Cambridge, is a richer community because of the presence of Branch 126 in our midst. I am confident that in the years ahead it will continue to remain a beacon of sacrifice and a model of generosity for our community.

On behalf of all the citizens of Cambridge, I say thank you, Branch 126, and may God ever bless your work.

BEEKEEPING INDUSTRY

Mr. Villeneuve: In recent months, rural members of this Legislature have been told of a number of disturbing developments in Ontario’s small but most important beekeeping industry. This industry is important not just for the high-quality honey it produces but for the pollination value provided by the bees.

In fact, the value of produced honey is only some $7 million, compared to an estimated $53 million in direct pollination value. In addition, bees provide a great deal of indirect agricultural and silvicultural pollination of significant value.

Until now, Ontario’s beekeepers have operated quite well by themselves and have not had to approach the government for any form of help. This has changed. During the mid-1980s, due to poor United States domestic production, western Canadian honey production was increased to take advantage of the vast US market. In 1986, the US began to subsidize honey production, with the effect that Canadian honey exports dropped 57 per cent within 12 months. Since then, surplus western Canadian honey has driven down the price of Ontario’s to the point where honey is now sold below the cost of production.

To date, Ontario beekeepers are being refused help from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food for either production or marketing assistance. Until now, beekeepers have never had to approach the province for help. Their numbers are not great, nor are the dollars involved. In fact, the numbers are a small portion of the ministry’s in-year savings. I call on the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) to help this small but most important industry in Ontario.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr. Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker and members of the House, an anniversary is being celebrated today and I know you would like to join with me in offering congratulations to the celebrants. They are the former high school dropouts who will be taking

part in the first anniversary of the part-time, part-time Futures program at Notre Dame High School in Ottawa.

These hard-working, determined young people have been attending school for part of the day and working for the other part. They have been upgrading their education and developing new skills that will help them in their future careers. They have overcome a number of barriers to reach this point in their lives. I think we should offer them all the encouragement and support we can give them.

t would also like to congratulate the Ministry of Skills Development for initiating this program. Thanks also to the Ottawa separate school board which, along with the Carleton separate school board and the Ottawa and Carleton public school boards, has enthusiastically promoted this program. They have helped employment-disadvantaged youth help themselves through the part-time, part-time program.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: Today the standing committee on resources development begins its hearings on Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act. Members of this House will clearly recall the difficulty we in the New Democratic Party had in convincing the government to hold public hearings on this bill. The response from those wishing to participate has been overwhelming, and clearly the committee will have no problem obtaining comments on the proposed legislation.

Our party’s opposition to Bill 162 has been made very clear. The provisions on reinstatement immediately exclude 25 per cent of the workforce in Ontario, and the obligations on employers are weak and minimal. Far worse is the power given to the Workers’ Compensation Board to exclude any class of employers and workers in the future.

Second, in spite of recommendations from Majesky-Minna, the WCB will not be obliged to provide rehabilitation services. This should be a statutory right, as it has been shown the WCB is far less likely to provide rehab if it does not have to. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) should be condemned for his public statement that workers would abuse this. It is obvious who he represents.

Third, the dual award system, through pensions, will result in less benefits for injured workers. There is absolutely no guarantee that injured workers will receive compensation for their loss in earnings. This is based on the discretion of the board, and we all know how grossly unfair that is.

Finally, the WCB will be left to make major decisions on major issues. The government must be willing to listen to what the people say on Bill 162, unlike its performance on Bill 113 and Bill 114.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr. McCague: Frustration is escalating within the provincial courts system in Simcoe county. Plagued with severe backlogs and delays, the pressures of this overburdened justice system are being felt on the judges’ bench and right out into the community. A critical situation has evolved in Barrie. Costs are soaring, frustration is mounting and there is no solution in sight.

The following is just one example of how delay after delay stops the wheels of justice. In October 1987, a man was charged with theft under $1,000. His first court appearance was the following month, when his case was put over until December 1987 so that he could speak to a lawyer. With time lingering on, absent witnesses and attorneys, the accused made his fifth appearance on February 1, 1989. Once again, his trial was put over until an unknown future date.

Fourteen months have passed since the man was charged, and who knows how much longer the case will be tied up in the courts. Not only has valuable court time been consumed, but it has already cost the taxpayers nearly $600 in overtime for the police officer who originally laid the charge.

This is a tragic situation, but with the Alliston courthouse sitting empty, I say it is criminal. The Alliston court facility was recently renovated to meet the standards of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and it still remains closed. The people of Alliston and area, and indeed all of Simcoe county, deserve the attention of the Attorney General.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Tatham: I have a letter from J. G. Silverthorn, rural route 3, Princeton, Ontario, one of my constituents, with some recommendations for highway safety. Here is a quotation from the letter:

“If some of these proposed measures had been in effect one year ago, I would not have had to suffer a personal tragedy that took the life of my son and I feel that if even a few were implemented, then others could avoid having a deep personal tragedy such as mine in their future.

“1. Psychological profile for all A-class licences.

“2. Increased policing automatically for ‘hot spots.’

“3. Mandatory blood and/or urine samples from all drivers involved in personal injury or fatal accidents.

“4. Registered and numbered log books for all commercial drivers, American or Canadian, including out-of-province.

“5. Policy on road construction.

“I honestly believe that if these conditions or a variance thereof had been in place one year ago, my son would still be alive. Also very probably a St. Catharines’ OPP officer and his vehicular companion would still be with us.

“Yours truly, J. G. Silverthorn.”

PREPAID SERVICES

Mr. Farnan: Slenderizer Fitness Centre of 3145 Dufferin Street is the latest in a string of health and fitness clubs to fold in recent years. Last year 12 such clubs closed in Ontario.

Just last fall, Holiday Fitness announced it would not be opening its clubs in Don Mills and Scarborough Town Centre, forcing an estimated 3,000 members to transfer to other clubs or wait to get their money back. Getting their money back, as countless consumers are currently experiencing, is like trying to get blood from a turnip.

We do not want regulation for the sake of regulation, but it is now abundantly clear that the track record of fly-by-night, quick-buck artists within the health and fitness industry demands stringent controls in order to protect the consumer. Unfortunately, the minister is asleep at the switch. As ministry officials carry out their investigations, consumers continue to be ripped off. As I pointed out to the minister, the Prepaid Services Act is not the answer. It provides insufficient protection for the consumer and glaring loopholes for those who would engage in legalized fraud.

The minister must act immediately to broaden the legislation to protect members of health and fitness clubs already in existence and to establish an insurance fund similar to that existing in the travel industry. The minister has a responsibility to provide protection for the consumers of Ontario. He is clearly not living up to that responsibility.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: My ministry is creating a strong network of community programs to promote improved access to health services, access that will meet the health care needs of people and at the same time encourage health promotion and disease prevention.

It is my pleasure to announce to the House today that my ministry has approved funding for two additional community health centres.

The nonprofit Citizens Committee on Community Health of Barrie will receive just over $128,000 to establish a new community health centre, the first in the Barrie area. The Barrie CHC will provide general medical care, rehabilitation and health promotion and information services. Once it is fully operational, in about three years, its annual operating budget is expected to be $721 ,000.

In addition, South Oshawa Community Development Project, a nonprofit agency directed by a local board, will receive $144,000 in startup funding to establish a community health centre for residents of south Oshawa. The centre will specialize in services for low-income and single-parent families. Once this centre’s capacity increases, it will receive an annual operating budget of $564,800.

Both agencies are currently looking for appropriate sites. I expect they will be receiving their first patients this summer.

Community health centres, or CHCs, have proved to be particularly effective in reaching out to different community groups. The centres are run by nonprofit incorporated boards and their staff.

Community health centres are organized to provide specialized services to specific population groups who need better access to health care, such as the poor, the elderly and the immigrant community.

More recently, community health centres have been announced to meet the needs of French-speaking Ontarians, women, the elderly, teenagers and various ethnic and multicultural groups. In total, we now have 15 community health centres in operation and a further nine approved for startup.

Community health centres tailor programs and services to the specific needs of their target community. General medical care is combined with a variety of services that include health promotion, outreach and advocacy, social work and counselling.

As the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has said, our government is committed to doubling the number of people served by health service organizations and community health centres in Ontario by 1991. My ministry is on its way towards achieving that goal. These two new centres reflect our vision to provide Ontarians with effective, quality care as close to home as possible.

RESPONSES

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

Mr. Breaugh: It is a rare occurrence, but I want to say thank you to a minister who has finally done the right thing.

Mr. Reville: Is there something wrong with you, Mike?

Mr. Breaugh: I am not sick, I am just grateful, that is all.

Like most local members, I have had my little finger in this pie too. Mostly, the member directs the local community groups to the appropriate ministry, tries to figure out for them how to work their way through the bureaucratic maze that each ministry sets up, tries to make sure that the ministry does not forget about them, that the application does not get lost and that they fulfil all the little criteria that some bureaucrat thought up.

I am pleased to say, as I know the minister herself knows, that in south Oshawa they are a pig-headed group of folks. When they have a good idea in their heads, it takes a whole lot of bureaucrats to drive it out of them. They succeeded, in this instance, in taking what we thought was a much-needed type of facility, in thinking about how it should be put together and how the proposals should be done. We think we have a workable, practical means of providing good community health care to a part of our city that is sadly lacking in that right now.

It is one of those rare occasions in politics when you actually get to see something come true that has taken a long time to put together. I know that the nonprofit board that has directed this proposal so far will be happy today to see that Queen’s Park has recognized its hard work. We hope that in a short period of time a good idea will become reality for the residents of south Oshawa.

We thank the minister for doing what a minister is supposed to do. It is such a rare sight around here that we should stand it out as a good day for Oshawa.

Mr. Reville: Now for the bad news. If we could get the crash cart to stand by for the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), she is going to hear me thank the Ministry of Health for these initiatives in Barrie and in Oshawa. Now she is going to hear me castigate the Ministry of Health for continuing to have such a small ambition as to double the number of community health centres by 1991. As I have said before in the House, that will bring the number of people served by CHCs in the entire province of Ontario up to four per cent. It is not enough.

We also know that the ministry continues to make the mistake of feeling that community health centres are organized to provide specialized services to specific population groups. This is a gross error. CHCs can provide health services to everyone. It is not necessary to target a particular group before the ministry can get around to funding a community health centre.

We note, for instance, that CHCs have been announced to serve the needs of French-speaking Ontarians, and while we welcome those services to French-speaking Ontarians here in Toronto, we are aware that right across the north there continues to be a scarcity of services for French-speaking Ontarians.

Mr. Speaker, if you can imagine trying to receive counselling in a language that is not your own, you can see the futility that this government continues to pursue with respect to the delivery of health services to people in the province.

What I think must become clearer and clearer to this government -- I am very sorry to see the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) walking away, but perhaps she could come back and read the Hansard tomorrow -- is that until we shift significant resources into the community, the Ministry of Health is going to continue to face crises in the institutional care system that it cannot solve by the mere pouring in of money.

We have to create a system in this province where care can be delivered at the community level to all people, not just to specific groups, and where the reliance we have come to have on the institutional system, on the Ministry of Sickness, has to change so that we create health in the community, where health must always begin.

Mr. Eves: It is my pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon and to again congratulate the minister with respect to this community initiative.

An hon. member: Again?

Mr. Eves: We have already had two congratulatory messages no more than 30 seconds ago.

I think this is a step in the right direction. However, I would like to echo the comments made by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville). I do not always associate myself with the comments of my colleague --

Mr. Reville: You could do worse.

Mr. Eves: Yes, I could do worse; especially today I could do worse.

I repeat the caution the member for Riverdale has made, in that by the year 1991 we now are going to be servicing just some four per cent of the population of Ontario with respect to community health centres. I think much more could be done in a very real and aggressive way by the Ministry of Health with respect to its proportion of its total budget.

With respect to Barrie, I hope this does not mean the minister is not going to be proceeding with respect to the Barrie hospital in the near future, as indeed she has not to date; and speaking of community health, what about the community of North Bay and its hospital as well?

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. B. Rae: I was expecting the Minister of Financial Institutions to be announcing the 17 per cent increase in rates to allow the --

Interjections.

Mr. B. Rae: I have read it. I have read the whole thing and that is where the figure comes from. The Ontario Automobile Insurance Board has stated that it will in fact be allowing increases as high as 17 per cent plus in order to allow the insurance companies to make 12.5 per cent return on equity on their investment.

The question I have for the minister is, does he agree with the statement by the insurance board that it is bound, in its view, to quote its phrase, that the rates or range of rates must give insurers “an opportunity to earn” the return on equity selected by the board? Is it the view of the minister that this is what the act does, that it is

an act to ensure profits, to ensure rates of profitability and not

an act to protect the interests of consumers?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is wrong. The gentleman knows full well that the board’s mandate is to ensure that the rates that are set are reasonable and yet not inappropriate. He knows they are not required to guarantee return for any company. What they are designed to do is give the consumers a reasonably priced product and the companies, as before, are going to have to manage in a way that is worth while from their point of view. They are going to have to be very keen in the competitive marketplace, as is allowed under the setting of rates within the ranges that have been established.

The people of the province know that the benchmark rate for auto insurance increases is 7.6 per cent.

Mr. B. Rae: The benchmark rate is 7.6 per cent, but the insurance companies are allowed to charge an additional nine per cent without even going to the board, without so much as a by-your-leave or anything else in order to shaft consumers. That is over a nine-month period until the end of 1989.

My supplementary question to the minister is this: He says the mandate of the board is to provide rates that are just and reasonable, and not excessive or inadequate. I wonder what he says to the young person from Scarborough with two years’ driving experience who is 30 years old and who is going to face increases of some 82 per cent, thanks to the increases that have been imposed by the insurance board. Can the minister explain how that kind of increase, 82 per cent for somebody with a two-year clear driving record, is just and reasonable in any way, shape or form?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman has a lot of merit to a number of his attributes, but he is not being very reasonable in reading what is occurring with respect to this setting of rates.

This honourable gentleman sat in this forum when we were talking about eliminating age, sex, marital status and handicapped discrimination from setting rates. He, like all of us here, is in favour of eliminating those discriminations. Some of those problems in setting up a new way of dealing with auto insurance rates are in developing a new plan dealing with making adjustments, adjusting the marketplace to take into consideration that we do not wish to have that discrimination.

That gentleman will want to tell the people of Ontario that he participated in making sure we were fairly distributing the risk right through the population, without looking at age, sex, marital status or handicap as a means of discriminating in rates. That gentleman will want to indicate that is part of the result of putting in a new classification plan. That gentleman will also want to tell the people of Timmins that the same person who is 30 years old in Timmins will be getting less of an increase. He will want to say that the younger person --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Thank you.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister is very generously trying to share his plan with our party. I want to return the gift to him and tell him that we have no intention of sharing this lousy, stinking plan. It is theirs. It is a Liberal plan. They brought it in when they said they were going to lower rates, and they did not.

The minister is right about the man in Timmins he is referring to. He is not going to get an 82 per cent increase. The increase in Timmins is going to be 50 per cent. I will let the minister go to Timmins and tell the drivers in Timmins that their increase is going to be 50 per cent at a time when they said they were going to lower the rates.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: This plan is for a 17 per cent increase without so much as a by-your-leave and an 82 per cent increase for some drivers because the government replaced the discrimination against younger drivers with a discrimination against lack of experience. That was their plan and their decision, to do that.

I wonder if the minister can explain how any of these increases, any of these ripoffs that will result in huge profit increases for the insurance industry, in any way conform to the promise his leader made in September 1987 that he would lower insurance rates if he was re-elected on September 10.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman fails, as he often does in this forum, to give the entire story to the people of the province. How am I going to tell people about the decreases in insurance rates, about the 17-year-old driver in Scarborough who sees a decrease of about 50 per cent in his rates, about the 17-year-old driver in Timmins who sees a decrease of upwards of 58 per cent in his or her rates?

Can the member tell me those are not decreases? We have been saying right along that when we brought in the new classification plan, in fact there were going to be adjustments as a result of eliminating the discrimination, the discrimination elimination for which all of us here in this House stood so well to be counted.

We are in favour of that, but there are adjustments and there is no question that there will be situations in which increases will occur. That member over there cannot tell the people of the province that there are not decreases, as he would suggest. He cannot let on that in fact there is a guarantee to anybody to earn profit, he cannot indicate that the people in the insurance business will continue to write insurance coverage with a guarantee of return, because that is not what this is about.

This board, with its public mandate, has set a reasonable benchmark rate, and it is a reasonable rate, 7.6 per cent over the last rates.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Mr. Chiarelli: Show and tell, Bob?

Interjections.

Mr. B. Rae: I borrowed this chart from the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan).

The minister would have us believe rates are going down overall. Rates are not going down overall. Rates are going up steadily, as they have gone up ever since the Premier (Mr. Peterson) made his promise in 1987. He said rates would go down. They have not gone down; they have gone up.

I want to ask the minister this simple, very direct question: I wonder if the minister can tell us why it is that his government has condoned and indeed accepted a situation where the insurance board would say its entire rate structure and the rates being proposed by the insurance board are designed to allow the insurance companies to increase their rate of return for car insurance from around four per cent to around 12.5 per cent. Can the minister tell us how such a plan could possibly lower insurance rates, which is why his government was elected in September?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman likes to confuse the public by indicating there is some guarantee of return. There is no such guarantee of return. We require the private sector, in this case the insurance companies, to be competitive and to make their own competitive savings within the rates they set.

In the current rate structure, there is the possibility that people can set a rate minus 20 per cent from the benchmark, can go way below the benchmark if they choose to do so, and in fact can get as low as minus 20 without coming to the board for any sort of approval.

The socialists, who find it so difficult to say that word, would like to take us into another area of endeavour. We like the competitive marketplace. We like the opportunities that are here in terms of competition. We like the opportunities here because the benchmark rate, which is set for the purposes of the consumers of this province, is set at a very reasonable rate.

I think what the honourable gentleman would like to tell the people of the province is that he was wrong about the board in his criticism of it, that he was wrong when he said it could not come to a fair and reasonable rate, that he was wrong when he said the hearings would not amount to anything. In fact, they were --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. B. Rae: Just so the minister knows what the board has said in its “Questions and Answers” -- l do not think he does. He is talking about how the insurance companies can reduce their rates by as much as 20 per cent overall. They could have done that up to now. Nothing has stopped the insurance companies over the last year from dropping their rates by 40 per cent, 60 per cent, 100 per cent in order to gain some market share and do things right. We are still in Kansas. The minister has to come down to earth on this one.

To quote from the board: “The board’s average benchmark rate increase of approximately 7.6 per cent relates to the expected annual increase in loss costs. The nine per cent above the approximate 7.6 benchmark is the increase factor that relates to the opportunity to earn a 12.5 per cent return on equity.”

That is where the additional figure comes from. The additional figure the average driver is going to be stuck with in this province comes directly from a government that has committed itself to fuelling the profits of the insurance industry.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the minister can explain why such an increase has been imposed and allowed by the insurance board when the return --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Thank you. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think the honourable gentleman said “on all business,” and of course that is where he likes to muddy the waters. We are talking about a board that has been charged to understand and look at all the components that go into setting the rates with respect to auto insurance, and that is what this board has done.

They have done it in a very professional, very reasonable, very rational and very thorough way so that the people of this province will understand all the components that go into setting rates. They also know very well and full well, as the people in the street know, that competition in the marketplace is preserved by the setting of the rates in the manner in which they have been set. We will be watching to see the result of that, but right now we know that the benchmark rate is 7.6 per cent, and that is the important figure for the people of the province.

Mr. B. Rae: The rate is 17 per cent. That is the rate they are allowed to charge without going to the board, without going, through you Mr. Speaker, without going to the Premier who in an argument said he was going to lower rates; 17 per cent is the additional amount they are allowed to charge without any kind of additional approval by the board or anything else. You can get a 17 per cent rate increase notice in your mail and there is nothing you or anybody else can do about it. That is the rate now permitted by the law in Ontario, thanks to this government’s laws. The minister might try to deny it, but he cannot deny it.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: Is the minister standing in his place today and denying that as of March of this year insurance companies will in fact, under the laws of the province passed by the Liberal Party, Liberal laws, be legally entitled, allowed, to send a 17 per cent increase notice, a Liberal 17 per cent increase notice to each and every driver in this province if that is what the insurance companies so choose?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman knows the benchmark is 7.6 per cent. There can be an increase of nine per cent above that, which is 16 per cent. The member is right, except he said 17 per cent. He likes to round up all the time. The thing he also forgets is there can be a decrease from that 7.6 per cent of some 20 per cent as well.

That gentleman does not tell the whole story. He has always had a problem doing that and he refuses again to deal with that problem of his. The whole story, and I will be quite clear for the people of Ontario, is there is a variation from the 7.6 per cent benchmark rate as established by the board, as it is required to do in the public interest, to go up nine per cent, but there can also be a decrease of 20 per cent.

There is very large leeway for a whole lot of competition in the marketplace. We know the socialist New Democratic Party does not like competition in the marketplace.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: They like 18 per cent increases in Manitoba.

Hon. Mr. Elston: They like 18 per cent increases in Manitoba. They like the things that has brought.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other members who would like to ask questions.

Mr. Harris: Due to the transportation infrastructure problems in Toronto being at least 17 per cent worse than they were three years ago, the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) was delayed. In view of that, I want to proceed with a housing question.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Harris: The minister said in January that there were affordable homes in Toronto. I will admit I had my doubts when she made that statement, but she was absolutely correct: there were about 20 in all of Metropolitan Toronto that fitted her definition. One of these was purchased before Christmas for $120,000. Today, that same house is on the market for $189,000. Because of the publicity that house received, a small, one-bedroom bungalow has gone up in price 57 per cent in less than three months.

Does the minister today really believe there are affordable homes for sale in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: This story is another indicator of something we have been saying for a long, long time, and that is that the biggest task we face is making sure there are more homes, more houses, more condominiums, more town houses, more housing of various forms that people in this province can afford to buy and that there be a greater supply of them than there is today.

That is the reason we are doing so many of the things we are doing. That is the reason we are using government lands to make sure there is more housing built which people can afford. That is the reason we issued our land use statement in which we told municipalities that we expect them, in the way in which they use land, in the way in which they allow creativity on the part of the builders in a more effective and creative use of land, to allow the supply of housing that is more moderately priced to be built, to be developed in this province, and to be sold to people who can afford it.

That is the reason we have made so many of the decisions we have made, because we know that in a province in which 100,000 people are coming from out of the province and out of the country every year, in a metropolitan area in which the pressure of growth is very high, we must do everything we can to make sure the supply of housing that people can afford to buy is increased, and that is what we are doing.

Mr. Harris: The minister keeps indicating, for some reason or other, that she is proud of the work she is doing to improve the housing situation. I would ask her to look at the record. When her party came to power in 1985, the average new home in Toronto was $108,000. After three years of Liberal government, a new home in Toronto now costs more than $250,000. That was before Christmas; we know that some homes since then have gone up some 40 per cent to 50 per cent.

I guess I would want to know from the minister, is this the record she is so proud of? This is the legacy of her party’s three years in office, and I would ask her in a very serious way, from what she is telling us, has she given up on ever being able to bring back the dream of home ownership for the average Ontarian?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I and members of this government and many people in this province, and I assume the member opposite as well, are concerned that people have the housing choices that we want them to have, and that people of moderate income be able to buy homes which they can afford, whether those homes be free-standing or attached or town homes or condominiums.

It is for that reason we have indicated that we expect municipalities to work with us and with the private sector, the private builders, to make it possible for the private-sector builders to build the housing which people of modest income can afford to buy. I know from my conversations with people in the industry that those homes can indeed be built, if the municipalities, together with us, are willing to use land in more creative and innovative ways. I am very pleased about the indication that we have made about this and about our invitation to municipalities to work with us.

Let me point out to the member that the previous Housing critic of his party, who sits right behind him, thought our efforts in this area were premature, perhaps because the area he represents has not been particularly interested in this.

The other thing I am proud of is that this government has doubled its spending on social housing over the spending of the previous government. Our commitment in this area is clear in the actions we have undertaken, in the heat we are prepared to take and in the clear signal we have given to the municipalities of this province that we expect them to be part of the solution, to allow the building of the homes that people in this province can afford. If the member opposite is as concerned as I know he is, I expect him --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. It seems like a fairly comprehensive response. Final supplementary.

Mr. Harris: Clearly nothing that the minister has done has had any effect on solving the housing crisis, but instead there are a number of things she has done that have directly and substantially contributed to the problem. She brought in new lot levies on new home construction. Since she took office in 1985, lot levies in Ontario’s major centres have increased by some 94 per cent.

Now we hear of plans to add another $5,000 at least to every new home built in Ontario. We know and we have seen the effect that driving up the price of new homes has on all of the existing housing stock, be they any one of the 50 choices the minister seems to want to think or mention are there.

Will the minister at least agree to undo some of the damage that clearly she, her predecessors, her party or her government have done in the last three years by backing off the proposal to add even more new lot levies and take one small step towards resolving the affordable housing crisis that we have in this province today?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite is strangely misinformed. At the instigation of some municipalities and regions, there have been lot levies in place in this province for a long time. One of the things that we have done as a government is to work together with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the community of builders to rationalize that system and to make sure that it covers legitimate costs of infrastructure in various development communities.

I consider that to be a reasonably good thing to have done, and I am sure the member opposite does as well. But let me point out to him that the housing needs of the people in this province extend to the people of moderate income, for whom we have done a variety of things to address their needs, and also to people who have had very severe housing problems in this province. All of us know about them.

I, as well as the member, have seen some of the situations in which people who have no homes at all have to live. I consider that what this government has done to address the needs of people who have no permanent housing to be one of the most important things this government has ever done. In increasing the supply of social housing, in doubling our financial commitment to social housing since the member’s party was in power and in making the commitment to build more permanent housing for people at the lowest end of the income scale who have the most difficulty, I think we have done some very good things. I do not pretend that solves all the problems that are left to solve.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions related to the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board meeting this morning and early this afternoon.

In respect of the Mercer study that was tabled with the board some months ago and indicated a 35 per cent to 40 per cent base rate increase, I am wondering if the minister will indicate to the House whether indeed that report tabled by Mercer was, as suggested at the time, a costly setup so that consumers in this province would not be irate at a 17 per cent increase, which is what, in effect, we have had announced today as a base. That is, in reality, what is going to occur, so the consumers will breathe a sigh of relief at that kind of an increase.

We had it clearly indicated some months ago about the insurance company ties that Mercer has. I would like to hear the minister’s comments in respect to the credibility of the Mercer company, how much we paid for that report and whether we are going to ask for the money back.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman was described not too long ago in the newspaper as not wishing to display too much of his right-wing underpinnings, I guess. This sort of indicates just how far he has strayed away from what got him here.

He is denying that there will be competition within the range. In fact, he talks about a 17 per cent increase, which cannot be further from the truth. The member should understand that there is competition in the marketplace and, in fact, the benchmark is at 7.6 per cent. I have to keep repeating that, because some of these other members refuse to give the full story to the people of the province. It is a 7.6 per cent increase, up nine percent, down 20 per cent. One has to know the full range.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that the Mercer report was based on certain data which, by the report and the nature of the report’s comments, could not all be accepted. If the member has been able to read part of the report, which I am sure he has, he will have seen that there are explanations as to which of the criteria have been accepted from the Mercer report and which assumptions have been rejected for valid reasons as established by the board and the province. He knows that, in fact, the work done by Mercer has been invaluable in allowing the board to get on with holding the hearing, assessing the nature of the rates to be set and in fact --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Runciman: The reality is that there is no enforcement mechanism. All insurance companies are able to go up to the approximately 17 per cent base rate increase. That is the reality, and I am sure the minister will not attempt to deny that.

When we talk about 17 per cent, I wonder if we might refer to the tabling of this document and take a look at one specific area. Let’s take a look at young female drivers in this province and look at the specific example of a 30-year-old female driver, two years licensed, who has taken an adult driver training course and now could be facing an increase of 82 per cent.

We are talking about a period over nine months. That is another point we should be emphasizing here. We are not talking about a full year. We are talking about nine months that that particular driver or drivers in that category could face increases up to 82 per cent.

I would like to know, and I am sure all of the female drivers who are going to fall into this kind of a category would like to know, where the specific plan of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to reduce auto insurance rates comes into effect in terms of their particular policy. How does it affect them?

Hon. Mr. Elston: In the various examples from both the NDP leader and the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman), who seem to be snuggling very closely together on this issue, we have seen that they are picking out the example of the 30-year-old driver. I can tell them that in fact there are going to be adjustments as a result of the removal of discrimination on the basis of age, sex, marital status and handicap, just as this House and all the members of the House had determined there ought to be.

When we set up the new classification plan, it was because we as a group of legislators required the end to the discrimination which had resulted in certain savings to certain people. This particular new classification plan, and the way it is structured, will have some increases. But this gentleman, as he snuggles closer to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), is likewise having problems giving the full story to the people of the province.

As much as there can be a nine per cent increase above 7.6 per cent, there can be a 20 per cent decrease from that. In fact, the reduction in auto premiums can be seen best by the 17-year-old driver in Timmins who is going to have a decrease of over 50 per cent in the rates that he will pay.

Mr. Runciman: If anyone knows about snuggling with the NDP, it is that member and his colleagues on the other side of the House.

I want to talk about one other area. The minister suggests that we are not telling the facts. If you take a look at this report, there is a very real, very clear effort here to hide the facts in respect of senior drivers in this province.

If the minister looks at the report,

section 4.37 says, “A significant proportion of comments on affordability came from senior citizens.” We cannot find a description of how this is going to impact on anybody over 50. We have an indication here of a 50-year-old driver who could be facing very significant increases, one in the area of 42 per cent. We have a very real concern about the impact that this increase is going to have on seniors right across this province.

There is a real effort here to hide those facts from the public and hide those facts from seniors in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Runciman: When is the auto board going to reveal what this significant impact is going to be on senior drivers across this province? Let’s have the facts.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The left-leaning member for Leeds-Grenville, as he is counting the votes from each of his Conservative Party colleagues around the province, will want to indicate that within 30 days of making the announcement of this benchmark rate increase, there will be auto insurance companies which will be letting everyone know exactly what this means for their rates. All individual persons will find out, as they go through the system, where they fall into the new classification plans and, hence, what their new rates will be.

I have indicated quite clearly that there will be upwards of a nine per cent possible increase over 7.6 per cent, but there also can be minus 20. The honourable gentleman will also want to know that 7.6 per cent is the benchmark figure. The people of the province will want to know that. The gentleman will want to let the people know, in some of those examples he has not read, that the people in Timmins who were used as examples, almost -- I was going to say without exception -- but not quite without exception, will see decreases in the amounts of insurance that they will pay.

There are decreases and there are increases as we go through an adjustment period. I will not say anything different than that. But I can tell the honourable member that there are significant savings on the basis of the end of the discrimination which this House felt was necessary to be fair to all drivers of the province. We are doing that and this is a fair increase: 7.6 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The first four questions have taken 33 and some minutes.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I think the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is waiting patiently to ask his question.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning that affordable house on Lauder Avenue that was featured in the Toronto Star over the weekend.

Does the minister think it is appropriate in the middle of a housing crisis to sit by and watch the price of this home three blocks from her constituency office rise some $69,000 in 82 days? Is that a reasonable thing for her to do?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite knows very well that we have a lot of work to do in the Ministry of Housing to make a difference for housing in this province, and I admit that. That is the reason we have introduced some of the policy changes which we have introduced. The most important one is the one that I think will make a lot of difference in making sure that the supply of housing people can afford to buy all over the province is increased.

That, I think, is a very important policy. In fact, I know the member opposite basically agrees with it, because he knows that the real answer to making sure people have housing choices in this province is increasing their choices, increasing their options, increasing the number of homes of a reasonable price that are available all over the province.

We want to do that through building new housing. We want to do that through allowing people to use land more creatively through in-fill and through intensification.

We have told all the municipalities and regions in the province that we expect them to indicate how they will meet the goals that we as a province have set. The member opposite, I believe, agrees with those goals as well.

It seems to me that what we need to do is make sure that the rules of development and intensification all over the province are open enough to allow the province --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Perhaps we could just tighten up some of the questions and some of the responses so that maybe more members would have the opportunity.

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to tighten up something, I will tell you that.

In this instance, for example, the speculator was a real estate agent who bought the house from an individual 82 days earlier. Does the minister think it is reasonable that a real estate agent, in the middle of a housing crisis, should carry on this kind of speculation right under her nose and she does nothing about it? Is that a reasonable thing for her to do?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Let me point out to the member opposite that at this point that house has not sold at that price. Anyone is free to put any price he wants on a house that is on the market. We have to see what price it will sell at.

The important thing for us to do in this province is to make sure that we are not talking about one house. We are not talking about individual houses. We are talking about making sure that the supply of houses for people of moderate income in this province is increased. It is only when there is a significant supply of houses that people can afford to buy that we are not going to hear stories of this sort.

The other thing that the member opposite knows very well is that we are dealing with a situation in which literally hundreds of thousands of people in this province are looking for new homes because of new family formation and also because of all the people who have come to the province from all over the country and from all over the world.

That is what happens in a situation of shortage. It is our job to make sure that the possibility for supply is increased so that the shortage of houses of modest price will no longer be there.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions, that well-known right-winger. This government has set up an auto insurance regulatory board, over the objections of our party, and a mechanism to cap increases in insurance rates quite similar to what it has in place in the housing market through rent control.

The cap it has in place in rent review is 4.6 per cent. That is a cap where it says, through the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and through the Rent Review Hearings Board, that it has some say.

Would the minister agree that the cap in the auto insurance area as of today is approximately 17 per cent before the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board can do anything? If he does not agree, how can the board deal with a company, for example, that chooses to increase its rates 16.2 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The interesting thing about the marketplace, as the left-leaning member from Leeds-Grenville would want to know, is that competition has a role to play in the setting of rates. At this point. 7.6 per cent, as the people of the province will want to know, is the benchmark. Companies can go up nine per cent. What the individual would also want the people of the province to know is that it could be 20 per cent below that and even more below that because of competition in the marketplace.

I would like that gentleman to understand that in fact competition has a role to play in this marketplace. It has been a marketplace before where competition has had a role to play. He would want to acknowledge that.

In this situation, he knows that the benchmark is 7.6 per cent. In fact, there can be upwards of nine per cent or a decrease of some 20 per cent in the range of rates that could be charged by the companies in the province. Competition is at play.

Mr. Runciman: That is a bit of a joke. We have to take a look at the only comparable regulatory agency in this province, and that is the rent review board. If we use the analogy with respect to some of the things the minister has been saying here today, competition is going to result in decreases or increases in the range that has been applied by the board.

I want to ask him specifically, and using that analogy, how that has impacted on rent review in this province. We have a 4.6 per cent cap. I would like to know through the minister, and I am sure the consumers across this province would like to know, how many landlords in this province have been receiving 4.6 per cent and how many have been considerably above that cap? I know we have heard of some horror stories in this province in terms of very significant increases in rental rates. Let’s hear what is going to happen --

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not necessary to explain the reason for the question.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman will know that this is not like rent review. This is a review of auto rates. He has got himself a little confused here. After a busy weekend of handshaking all of those people who showed up at his convention, he has forgotten what the question should be.

The question should be: What was the benchmark rate set by the board? The benchmark rate set by the board is 7.6 per cent. There is a range to be charged. He will also want to know that the result of the announcement made today by the board is a heightened activity on behalf of the consumers of the province so they know what the rates are for the companies in the province.

This board has indicated quite clearly that it will provide not only the information which has been put forward in the report released today but will also be providing for the consumers a list of the rates to be charged by the various companies so the consumers can well understand what the market offers to them.

This gentleman, had he been looking at the entire report, would have told the people that the benchmark for rate increases in Ontario is 7.6 per cent. The consumers will be armed with the information that will make them wise and good shoppers in the marketplace in Ontario. If he had been aspiring to show his right-wing sort of credentials he would --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

MEDIA REPORT

Mr. Leone: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, responsible for racial relations and human rights. Last week a columnist for one of the Toronto daily newspapers wrote an

article which openly defies our Constitution and the international covenants on human rights to which Canada is a signatory. The suggestion was made that no Canadian citizen born outside Canada should participate in the democratic process and be able to vote and be elected.

The tone of the

article was offensive not only to Canadians of Italian background but to every member of the ethnocultural community. The reaction of the Italian community was immediate -- one of outrage. Can the minister tell the Legislature what his position and that of the government is with respect to such articles and their dangerous and inflammatory implications?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I appreciate the question. Those of us who have read the

article would agree that the thoughts contained in that

article are appalling and contrary to some fundamental beliefs that I think all of us in this House share. Perhaps the best way to speak out against it is to let the House know my thoughts on some of the thoughts contained in that article.

First, it suggests that a student who was born outside of Canada is somehow less a Canadian than one born here. Of course, none of us in this House would accept that. None of us believes that, and the facts find us elsewhere.

The second thing that is found in the

article is that somehow people who come to Canada are coming here solely to advance their own wellbeing. I hope all of us recognize that people are coming to Canada for that reason but also, what is important, because we, as a country, have invited them. Each year, this country invites people to come here. That is why they are coming.

Last, the

article suggests that one should not be allowed to run for public office unless one were born in Canada. Of course, that is fundamentally contrary to all that we believe in. We believe very much in people who come here participating fully, actively and totally in our society. As a matter of fact, if one looks at the founder of this country, John A. Macdonald, he would not have been allowed to be the founder of this country.

Mr. Leone: I thank the minister. Can he tell us how we can prevent these people who hide behind the principles of free speech and opinion from poisoning the fabric of our society and destroying the basic principles of our institutions?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I have two thoughts on that. The first thing that all of us need to do is to reinforce our commitment to our policy here in this province. We say that we as a province celebrate our diversity. We think it is a source of strength and enrichment that we have this diversity, and we are committed as a government to ensuring that in our programs and policies we reflect that diversity. Day in and day out as a government, we must reflect that.

More important, perhaps it is incumbent on all of us to once again recommit ourselves to ensuring that in this province every single individual truly is equal before the law and in all our institutions. We cannot ban freedom of speech, but we can, in our actions and the things we do as legislators and as individuals, say to every individual in this province, “You are welcome here, you are free and you are encouraged to participate fully and equally.”

It will be in our actions -- and not things we do to try and prohibit freedom of speech but rather the things we do as legislators and individuals -- that we will make that statement.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Just before I recognize the next questioner, I would like to ask the members to join me in welcoming Ken Monteith, the member of Parliament for Elgin, in the lower west gallery. Welcome.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In 1982, a colleague of mine, Elie Martel, raised the serious problem of the large percentage of women employees in one of the departments of the Canadian General Electric lamp plant here in Toronto who are suffering from lung and uterus cancer. As a result of his request, a study was done by McMaster University, funded by the Ministry of Labour, the Workers’ Compensation Board and the company and overseen by the company and union joint safety and health and safety committee. That study found a very large probability of cancer being caused by workplace contaminants.

That was referred to the Industrial Disease Standards Panel which has just come down with an incredible decision that there is no absolute scientific proof, eight years after the workers started raising that case. Where is the benefit of the doubt for workers? What is the value of any new health and safety legislation in Ontario if there are no consistent criteria that allow probable workplace connections in cancer cases?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Hamilton East has put a rather colourful

interpretation on the facts in this question. I think it is appropriate for me just to set the record straight somewhat.

First of all, we were talking about the possibility of a relationship between workplace conditions and the fact that a small but significant number of workers -- I think it was 11 women -- had suffered breast cancer, not lung or uterus cancer. Of course, that is a tragedy whether it is associated with the workplace or not.

The Industrial Disease Standards Panel, subsequent to the study in 1982, undertook a thorough and exhaustive review of that question. Its report, which as I understand it recently was made public or became available to certain members of the public, has found, after the study, that it was not able to establish a link between the illness that has arisen in a small but significant portion of the worker population at GE and any particular cause within the workplace.

It has said therefore that the WCB, in considering claims, would have to rely on subsection 3(4) of the act to consider claims on a case-by-case basis.

Miss Martel: These women have been fighting this for eight years and they are no further ahead in getting justice from the board or from this government. Before the Industrial Disease Standards Panel was established, the WCB did grant compensation for cancers related to a specific work site; for example, at Inco at the sintering plant in Sudbury and again at Dofasco at the foundry in Hamilton. In those cases, compensation was granted to the workers on the basis of a probability of the cancer arising out of the workplace.

Now the panel is demanding that conclusive proof shows that the cancer was caused in the workplace. We are moving backward instead of forward. The panel should recognize the disease is workplace-related if a probable connection is established. In the case of the workers at CGE, this was established in the McMaster study.

Will the minister tell the WCB that this situation is absolutely outrageous and that these women should receive the compensation they deserve?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am incredibly surprised at the suggestion of the member for Sudbury East that I, as the Minister of Labour, should interfere in that process. She remembers that in this very House an announcement was made that the Industrial Disease Standards Panel, after exhaustive study, had determined to establish the criteria by which widows of gold miners would finally, in the Sudbury community and in other communities such as Timmins, be awarded compensation. Would the member have asked me to interfere in that determination?

Let’s just clarify what the Industrial Disease Standards Panel said. It said that the very criteria the member for Sudbury East has suggested should apply, ought to apply. That is, compensation should be awarded if there were a probable cause or a probable link. After its study -- not my study -- the Industrial Disease Standards Panel has come to the conclusion that it did not find a probable link and, therefore, it has suggested, and I think rightly so, that the board consider the claims on a case-by-case basis in the very way the member for Sudbury East said claims were considered for those workers she referred to in Sudbury.

Although this is not happy news for those workers, I think that, at least for the time being, we have to abide by its determination and deliberation.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The minister seems to be refusing to think ahead in the decision about the east Metro transportation corridor which passes through the Rouge Valley. From the transportation plans that exist, can the minister guarantee that the Rouge Valley will not be hurt in any way by the construction of this freeway?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I would like to remind the member, as much as I appreciate her question, that she is again wrong, like her colleague the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens). The east Metro transportation corridor, which is a corridor we are protecting, does not go through the Rouge Valley. It is in the table lands, generally speaking, to the west. I would like to correct her on her statement. She does not get any points for that one.

Mrs. Marland: I hope I am not waiting for the points award system from the Minister of Transportation.

Of course the east Metro transportation corridor does not go through the Rouge Valley, if the minister is talking about the valley per se, but I would like him to know that the people of Scarborough are concerned about the table lands as well as the valley itself and I would like him to be a little more respectful of the concerns of the people of Scarborough.

In fact it is very interesting, because when the minister was a member of Scarborough council, he too voted against that east Metro transportation corridor.

Mr. Speaker: The question would be?

Mrs. Marland: My question to the minister, recognizing that the minister did not get any points, I suppose, when he voted against the corridor when he was on council --

Mr. Speaker: We are not worried about points; we are worried about questions.

Mrs. Marland: If the minister was not worried about the destruction that the freeway would do, why did he vote against that corridor when he was a member of the Scarborough council?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am not sure that a deliberation that took place in a former incarnation nearly 10 years ago has any particular relevance to this place. I am sure if the member would check the records of the issue, which her predecessors put in place, my objection as a member of Scarborough council had more to do with who was paying for the $400-million services to go in-ground across Scarborough, across the Rouge Valley, in order to provide housing in Pickering.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Looking down University Avenue at night, when we see the lovely lights shining from the many-storeyed windows of the commercial buildings along the street, one wonders is this a wise use of power. Is it for heat, is it for protection, is it for advertising? How many dollars do we have in capital investment to produce a kilowatt of power?

Hon. Mr. Wong: For planning purposes, Ontario Hydro estimates the typical capital cost for building new generating facilities ranges between $1,000 and $3,000 per kilowatt. Of course, in addition there are transportation and distribution costs.

Mr. Tatham: Right now the world’s oil production surplus capacity is at 10 million barrels a day. Only three million barrels of that surplus capacity is outside the Middle East. The Middle East has always been an unstable area. What kind of ongoing energy conservation program have we in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Wong: The Ministry of Energy conducts a wide range of energy conservation programs addressing all sectors. This year, fiscal 1988-89, all authorized expenditures are expected to exceed $14 million.

I might point out that there are several programs within the ministry that address the commercial sector specifically. The Downtown Energy Forum program, in which the current participants save about $10 million per year, and the Cities Energy Forum program are two examples.

I might add that Ontario Hydro is also embarking on an ambitious demand management program. Between now and the year 2000, it is expected that the utility will spend upwards of $2 billion on information-driven and incentive-driven programs to reduce electricity demand.

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH DETENTION CENTRE

Mr. Allen: My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. He will remember that last November, at the request of 240 staff at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre, and of myself in this House, he completed a study, through a consulting firm, of the air quality in that institution.

I am informed that the study focused simply on carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and oxygen levels in the building,

whereas anyone who has done anything with sealed-air buildings and their problems knows that you have to look at solvents, cleaning fluids, plastic emissions, perfumes, bacteria, moulds, particulate matter in the air and so on.

Can the minister clarify for me, first, whether in fact the study was that limited; and second, where this whole issue is at in the ministry now with respect to how it is being treated?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: As far as the details of the report go, I would have to get back to the member as to all the different chemicals and compounds that were analysed in that study. I do know that the chemicals and compounds that were analysed were all well within tolerances accepted by industry today, but I would be very pleased to get back with a copy of that study so the member could see that and the details of the different compounds.

Mr. Allen: I would be pleased to receive that, but so would the health and safety committee at the detention centre. I understand that this matter has been referred to the Ministry of Government Services. I would suspect that is not exactly the most neutral body in the matter, given that it is the landlord. I thought that this government’s approach to health and safety matters was supposed to be bipartite: management and workers through the health and safety committee.

Will the minister please assure me that a copy of this study will be given forthwith to the health and safety committee so that it may examine it and make recommendations of its own and not be put in a reactive position later on?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would like to assure the member that after we get the report back from MGS and its recommendations, we will share those recommendations with the occupational health and safety committee.

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

Mr. Jackson: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Today on the front page of the Toronto Star we read that the government is poised to introduce an amendment to Bill 128 that would “strike down municipal bylaws restricting the number of unrelated people who may live in a dwelling.” Can the minister confirm the accuracy of this report?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I believe I have about six bills coming before the House, I hope this week. None deals with exclusionary bylaws except Bill 128. I believe the member had mentioned he was going to move an amendment to deal with that. That will make interesting discussion at that time, and we will look forward to his comments when Bill 128 comes into the House.

PETITION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Campbell: This is a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario regarding Bill 162 from the Sudbury and District Labour Council, and I affix my signature to this petition.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Philip from the standing committee on public accounts presented the 1987 and 1988 report of the standing committee on public accounts and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Philip: It is a pleasure to table the committee’s 1987 and 1988 report. Since becoming chairman of the committee, I have been happy to table a number of special reports, but this is the first annual report.

I want to pay particular mention to Wendy MacDonald, who has acted in a very professional and competent manner as our committee’s researcher. She worked very hard and all members of the committee are very grateful for her assistance. We wish her well in her current research project of giving birth to her first child and we wish Wendy and her husband, Albert, well in this regard.

Our clerk, Doug Arnott, as always, was very helpful to the committee and provided me with sound professional advice.

All members of the committee have worked in a nonpartisan way. I greatly appreciate their efforts and their co-operation. Every committee member should be proud of his or her contribution to the excellent report I have just tabled.

In addition to reporting on its inquiries into the actions and omissions of various ministries and government agencies, this report describes in some detail procedural innovations which we believe will be of interest to other committees. The report also challenges the Legislature to change its outdated, inefficient and ineffective estimates processes and offers some constructive proposals in this regard.

On motion by Mr. Philip, the debate was adjourned.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Kormos moved, in the absence of Mr. B. Rae, that pursuant to standing order 37, the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the steady increases in rates of automobile insurance since the promise made in Cambridge by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on September 7, 1987, that he had a “specific plan” to reduce car insurance rates.

The Speaker: For the information of the members, the notice was received in the proper time. I have looked at standing order 37 and note, as I said, that it was received in proper time. However, when I went to standing order 37(b)(iv) which states, “the motion must not revive discussion on a matter that has been discussed in the same session under this standing order.” I reviewed what had taken place previously in this session and I would like to read to the members the motion that had been put on a previous occasion:

“Pursuant to standing order 37(a), Mr. Runciman moved that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, that being: recent reports indicating that drivers in Ontario will be faced with massive auto insurance premium increases as a result of the Liberal government’s mismanagement and as a consequence of its failure to honour its commitment to introduce ‘a very specific plan to lower insurance rates’ as promised by the Premier on September 7, 1987.”

This is from the Votes and Proceedings dated December 6, 1988.

“After hearing the arguments of the mover and the representatives of the other parties, the Speaker put the question: ‘Shall the debate proceed?’ and the House having unanimously agreed, the debate proceeded to conclusion.”

Therefore, I would have to note that this matter has been discussed previously during this session of parliament and would have to rule that the motion is out of order.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Generally, the order is that I have made my ruling. The member may, of course, challenge it if he so desires, but it is not debatable.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I understand that it is not debatable, but if you are not going to allow submissions to be made, I would prefer that you had either discussed this matter or raised this matter with us ahead of time. I think there is quite a different item being debated here and being submitted to you since we now have a report that has been tabled. It is quite a different matter.

Mr. Speaker: The member, I feel, is starting to debate my ruling.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have no choice but to challenge the chair.

Mr. Speaker: The matter has been challenged by the member for Windsor-Riverside. The question I therefore have to put to the House is:

Shall the Speaker’s ruling be sustained?

The House divided on the Speaker’s ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Collins, Conway, Cordiano, Dietsch, Eakins, Elston, Eves, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fontaine, Fulton, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Harris, Hošek, Jackson, Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, LeBourdais, Leone, Lipsett;

Mahoney, Marland, McCague, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nixon, J. B., Oddie Munro, Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Pelissero, Phillips, G., Polsinelli, Poole, Ramsay, Reycraft, Roberts, Runciman, Smith, D. W., Sola, Sorbara, Stoner, Sullivan, Tatham, Velshi, Villeneuve, Ward, Wiseman, Wong, Wrye.

Nays

Allen, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Johnston, R. F., Kormos, Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Rae, B., Reville.

Ayes 70; nays 16.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES ACT (CONTINUED)

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

An Act respecting Independent Health Facilities.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that the member for Parry Sound had adjourned the debate.

Mr. Eves: I had adjourned the debate some time ago on the Independent Health Facilities Act. I would just like to underline a few points with respect to this proposed legislation and then I will gladly relinquish the floor to other members who I know want to speak on this very important bill.

I think at the conclusion of my remarks several weeks ago, I was speaking about the position of the Ontario Nurses’ Association and some concerns it had with respect to the Independent Health Facilities Act, as proposed.

The ONA is concerned that the act appears to have been developed without consideration of associations or unions involved in the health care industry and without consultation with the Ministry of Labour. Glenna Cole Slattery has been quoted as saying that the act may prove to be the beginning of a move away from length-of-stay reimbursement to case-mix reimbursement as an initial step to industry privatization.

I put on the record earlier the concerns that other health care professionals have with respect to this proposed bill. I do not want to go back to revisit them all, but I do want to raise a few points that I think are very important. We have asked the minister from time to time to respond to these questions in the House and we have not received direct answers to any of these questions that we have raised with respect to the act. I think it is incumbent upon the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and the Ministry of Health to explain to members of the Legislature and the public what the answers to these questions are and why these powers are being sought.

Some time ago, I pointed out to the minister during question period that

section 26 of the Independent Health Facilities Act gives the Ministry of Health inspectors authority to enter any health facility, and that includes a private doctor’s office. “Health facility” and “independent health facility” are both defined under the act.

My point is, and the point that many people in the medical community have made and indeed patients across Ontario have made, is that if it is not the intention of the government to allow Ministry of Health inspectors to enter any health facility, why is it proposing to give them that power under the act? If it is only supposed to apply to independent health facilities, which are totally different from health facilities as defined by this proposed act, then why is it giving this abusive power to Ministry of Health inspectors?

Under the proposed act, the inspector can take and seize records, charts, blood and tissue samples without any explanation to anybody about what is going to happen to these or what they are being seized for or taken for. It also gives the inspector the right to interrogate any person in a doctor’s office. Presumably that would include not only physicians and nurses there, but patients there as well.

The most unbelievable of all is that the government inspector can do any of this without a warrant. I think this is in violation of the most fundamental principle of patient confidentiality. I have asked the Minister of Health about this on several occasions and I have yet to receive an answer.

It was two Thursdays ago that the Minister of Health, my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville), the NDP Health critic, and myself appeared on a TVOntario program for about an hour and a half. The minister indicated that one of the concerns she had and why she had not been able to implement a Smart card system in the Ministry of Health to improve the Ontario health insurance plan computer system, and why her predecessor was saying the same thing three years ago, was that primarily she had a concern about patient confidentiality.

That is exactly the opposite from what she is proposing to do with this legislation. She is concerned about patient confidentiality so she cannot deal with improving the OHIP computer system and a Smart card, but she is not concerned about patient confidentiality at all when she is talking about the Independent Health Facilities Act.

I think not only do members of this Legislature have a right to know, but every person in Ontario has the right to know why we need these draconian measures in the Independent Health Facilities Act. We are still waiting for an answer.

Another concern I have and I am sure a lot of Ontarians have about the proposed Independent Health Facilities Act is that currently under the Health Insurance Act, OHIP covers all services rendered by physicians that are medically necessary. The Independent Health Facilities Act purports to amend this to read “such services...as are prescribed by the regulations.”

What this basically means is that the Ministry of Health, through regulation, will now determine what is medically necessary for patients in Ontario, not physicians. Quite frankly, it kind of scares me to think that bureaucrats in the Ministry of Health will now determine what is medically necessary for patients, not practising medical doctors. That concerns me greatly, and we are still waiting for an answer on that point that many members of the Legislature have raised on several occasions with respect to this proposed piece of legislation.

In addition to those concerns, we have raised in this House through question period again on several occasions other features of the Independent Health Facilities Act as proposed by the minister.

This piece of legislation sets out an appeal process in which a person can appeal a decision made by the director of an independent health facility, and we concur with that. However, it also goes on to allow the minister to completely override the appeal process. The minister can decide to revoke a licence, to not grant a licence, to come in and take over an independent health facility without any recourse of appeal whatsoever.

I do not think that speaks very well of the system. Surely there should be some right of recourse to appeal from a decision that is made by a minister. I am not suggesting that this minister or a future minister is going to use this power arbitrarily or unfairly or inequitably, but surely in our democratic society, just as we do through the court system, or the judicial system, there is a right of appeal. Surely there should be a right of appeal if somebody feels he is wronged by a decision from the minister under this act.

The possibility exists for a Minister of Health to decide, for whatever reason -- it could be personal beliefs or political reasons -- to revoke or not grant a licence without any accountability whatsoever for that decision and without any recourse of appeal whatsoever to that decision. The vast majority of health professionals across this province are aghast at granting that sort of excessive power to any Minister of Health and we are waiting for an answer as to how the minister can justify that that power is indeed necessary.

I would also like to point out several opinions and editorials that have been raised, and questions that have been raised, with respect to Big-Brother-type medicine as proposed by the Independent Health Facilities Act in its current form. There is an editorial here from the Windsor Star dated September 12, 1988, entitled “Health Care -- Unwarranted Intrusions.” which says:

“If it shows up once it is too often, this propensity of those in government to camouflage bad policies behind good intentions. As if it were the intentions, and not the policies themselves, that serve the public’s needs.

“The way Ontario Health Minister Elinor Caplan justifies some of the intrusive aspects of the new Independent Health Facilities Act is that its intention is good, even though a close reading might show that it would be more appropriate in the law books of the Soviet Union.

“In a nutshell, the law would give government inspectors the power to seize financial, medical and other records from doctors’ offices and clinics without first having to obtain a warrant.

“Quebec has its language police; Ontario now plans its health militia!

“Ontario has laws in place that give government inspectors the authority to enter medical offices and remove records after they show cause and obtain a warrant. But the new law would go beyond that, intruding into one of the few remaining preserves of personal and professional privacy. Even police investigating criminals need a warrant to enter and search private premises.”

But not Dr. Barkin; he is more important than any of us in society. We all know that. That is not in the quote from the Windsor Star. Going back to the Windsor Star editorial:

“Health ministry officials claim the new law is designed to give inspectors access to records of private clinics to ensure that proper care is provided.

“In effect, all medical offices in Ontario will be subject to such visits. Caplan maintains the intention is ‘to provide quality assurance in independent health facilities… it is not intended to interfere with the practice in a physician’s office.’

“Yet the act would leave it up to ministry officials to determine whether such interference is warranted and whether it will take place. The authority for seizure of records of private clinics will be wielded not through a judge’s warrant but on the say-so of bureaucrats who will also have the power to set standards and license independent health facilities.

“Under the circumstances it is not surprising that the medical organizations are dead set against the new plan. The authority of physicians will be undermined and patients will lose their privacy and the right to decide who may see their medical records and even their specimens -- for the law authorizes inspectors to remove ‘samples of any substances on the premises.’

“Bureaucrats will be totally in control.”

That is the end of that editorial. I think it says it better than a lot of us have said it in the House. We have been questioning the minister for several months now about why these powers are needed. We questioned her in question period; we questioned her several weeks ago during the second reading debate of the Independent Health Facilities Act. We never get an answer.

I do not know how any democratic government in western society could introduce a piece of legislation with the unilateral, militia-type powers that are being proposed by this bill. It is a pretty drastic step. I think if powers are needed that are so drastic, unilateral, possibly dictatorial and undemocratic, then we are at least owed an explanation as to why they are needed.

“Patients’ Big Brother” is a second editorial. It is from the Hamilton Spectator, dated September 10, 1988, “Medical snoopers a threat to privacy”:

“No government in a democratic society should have the right to arbitrarily seize private medical records and specimens from doctors’ offices. But health ministry inspectors will gain that abusive power if the Peterson government passes its proposed Independent Health Facilities Act in its present form.

“The act should be revised to protect the basic rights and privacy of patients before it becomes law. Health Minister Caplan said she would consult concerned people, including doctors, and consider changing the act. So the ruthless onslaught on personal privacy prescribed in the act does not yet have the force of law.

“The act lays down the rules governing private clinics, giving the government power to license and regulate such agencies as abortion centres and the outpatient clinics Ontario hopes will take the strain off the hospitals.

“It’s practical and responsible to legislate standards for these institutions. But the legislation plunges beyond the limits of necessity, reason and responsible government by proposing to arm ministry inspectors with Gestapo-like powers to walk into a doctor’s office, without a court warrant, and grab any and all documents and materials that would spread patients’ most deeply personal and private records over the desks of bureaucrats and politicians.

“Medical policing machinery already exists in the government and in the professional licensing body, the Ontario college of physicians and surgeons, to protect against false billing and medical incompetence.

“These institutionalized safeguards are backed up by any patient’s right to sue for malpractice. The extra watchdogging proposed by the new act is as unnecessary as it is intrusive.

“It would grant search and seizure powers to inspectors not only in the independent clinics but in any doctor’s office. Neither doctor nor patient would have the authority to stop inspectors from seizing records, financial documents, blood specimens or urine samples. The once sacrosanct privacy of the doctor-patient relationship would cease to exist at the whim of bureaucracy.

“People understand that rules and regulations are necessary to prevent anarchy and abuse in a complex civilization. But a government that overrules and overregulates is as bad as a government that lets chaos reign. For, either way, citizens’ rights are diminished.

“The measure of good government is in knowing how far to regulate without trespassing in people’s private lives.

“In its present form, the proposed new law is more than

an act of trespass; it’s the tactical plan for an armed invasion of Ontarians’ privacy. The arbitrary powers, which the government hasn’t renounced since the act was introduced in June, throw a sinister shadow over the regime that conceived it.”

I could go on. There are many editorials from newspapers all across Ontario with the same message -- the Peterborough Examiner, the Sudbury Star, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Sun, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, the Ottawa Citizen, on and on.

I think the message is very clear. We have been asking the minister since she introduced this draft legislation in June to provide us with an answer. We are now standing here in February of the next year and she refuses to give us an answer to some very simple and serious questions about this proposed act.

For her to say, “We will look at and listen to all these complaints during the committee process,” simply is not adequate or responsible in my view. I do not see how any minister of the crown with one ounce of responsibility, being well prepared and knowing what was going on in her ministry, could even table such a document for discussion in the Legislature without raising some questions herself, behind closed doors, in her own ministry with her own bureaucrats. I do not see how this legislation could ever hit the floor of the House.

Now that it has been here since June of last year, some eight months later, we still are no closer to having an explanation as to how this has arrived and not been changed. If the minister intends to change it, why does she not stand up and say so? She has had eight months to do it. I do not see how such a regressive, draconian piece of legislation could ever hit the floor of the House without having been thoroughly reviewed in the largest ministry in the Ontario government.

I think it is a pretty sad day for health care in Ontario. The principle behind the Independent Health Facilities Act, I think we have all said, is a very good one. It may well in the long run lead to a more economic utilization of our health resources in Ontario. It may lead in the long run to more community-based health care and less institutionalized health care. But this piece of legislation has some serious flaws. I would like to have thought that any minister would have removed the most drastic of those flaws before the legislation ever hit the floor of the House.

We have heard about the concerns of the Ontario Medical Association. I made those concerns quite clear a few weeks ago and I am not going to revisit them. We have made the concerns of the Ontario Nurses’ Association quite clear here this afternoon. There are also some concerns that the Ontario Hospital Association has with respect to the proposed Independent Health Facilities Act.

The Ontario Hospital Association supports the intention of Bill 147. However, it has some concerns with the content of the legislation. The OHA is concerned that the legislation will not cover treatment or diagnostic facilities such as laboratories that set up without ministry approval. These facilities have no cap on the number of procedures that can be billed to the Ontario health insurance plan because they are not globally funded as hospitals are. The OHA would like assurances that independent health facilities are subject to the same planning and approval process as other health facilities.

Other concerns include the question of cost-effectiveness. There has been no research done regarding cost-effectiveness of the movement of outpatient services from hospitals to independent clinics. There is also some concern that these facilities will duplicate hospital operations and will result in a forced reduction of outpatient surgery at hospitals.

Hospital administrators are concerned that there is no mention in the legislation that would allow hospitals to apply to run an independent health facility. Despite the fact that both the Deputy Minister of Health and the Minister of Health have said the hospitals will have a role to play in the legislation, administrators across the province do not believe Bill 147 includes them or hospitals.

Hospitals will have to be prepared to take any patients who develop complications during surgery at an independent health facility because patients cannot stay overnight at such a facility. Beds will have to be available to independent health facility patients in case of an emergency.

We have heard now from the main health care professionals, the main groups in health care in Ontario. We have heard the concerns the medical association has, we have heard the valid concerns the nursing association has and we have heard the valid concerns the hospital association has. We have heard the concerns of patients and Ontarians generally across the province with respect to some of these reactionary and -- I do not think I could have said it better -- Gestapo-like powers that this government proposes be introduced to help inspectors in the independent health facilities legislation.

I think it would be incumbent upon the government to itself revisit this legislation before it sends it out to committee, to remove those three or four abusive, arbitrary powers it is proposing under this legislation, which really are not seen in any other walk of life or any other legislation the Ontario government currently has.

I think we have to address the concerns of the potential abuse of these powers, the potential loss of privacy between patient and doctor and the lack of recourse to appeal from a decision by the Minister of Health. I think if the Minister of Health had addressed some of those issues that some of us raised last June, we would not be standing here in February of the next year still talking about the Independent Health Facilities Act on second reading.

We all know this act is a very complicated piece of legislation. It is a major departure from health care as we know it in Ontario. That may not be a bad thing. It may be a very good thing in the long run if there is going to be, I would suggest, at least a month of public hearings province-wide on this important piece of legislation. There are also probably going to be many days, if not weeks, of debate in committee on clause-by-clause. The minister could make the road for all of us and for every Ontarian a lot smoother if she would address the major flaws in this legislation before it goes to committee.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to say a few words in this debate. It is important for members to take advantage of second reading. It is a time to speak about bills and principles and things they try to cover and the way they may succeed or fail to do so. It is also a good time to look at this in the context of other things and just why we are here doing second reading of this bill at all.

This is a bill that, as members will know, was introduced last June. It has been called for second reading since that time only twice, although we have been meeting interminably, it seems to me, since then. It is a bill that was so important that, as of about Tuesday of last week, it was dropped from the House leader’s wish list for this session. The plans were for this House to rise and the plans for the committees to get about the business they do following the completion of second reading of other bills were to go forward.

Certain groups were going to travel here and there and other groups were going to have hearings here. All of a sudden, this bill becomes important to us again, so important that it can be called a second time since last June.

Now that the government House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), is here, I would love to talk about when this took place and why there was this change of heart. It must be difficult for the House leader and for the whip these days. For the new members who thought perhaps this was the case, it has been traditional that the House leader sees to the organization of the House business and makes decisions in concert with the other House leaders about what shall be done when, who shall speak and that kind of thing.

It was this government House leader who in discussions not so very long ago indicated to the other House leaders -- that is the way they work these things -- that in point of fact he thought we could complete our business here on the things the government needed by last week. The committees could then go about the business that was preordained, prearranged and already agreed to by the House leaders and by the Board of Internal Economy where moneys were going to be spent for those committees.

All of a sudden the real power showed itself. The Minister of Health must have got on the phone, one would presume, or maybe even corralled the Premier (Mr. Peterson) personally, and indicated that this bill, Bill 147 -- called only once before since its first reading last June 2, on that auspicious day of November 7, 1988 -- was so high on the government’s agenda that she insisted it go forward this session, that we deal with it now in all its importance, with all its terrible flaws, because -- well, we will come to why in a few minutes, but it was necessary now, even though it cannot go out to committee.

All members know that. The committees are fully booked -- should they even be allowed to sit now, depending on how long the House continues, to be able to do the natural business we expect of committees in completing the kind of work this larger assembly does from time to time. If there is enough time for them to meet, everything they can do has already been established. Nothing more can be added.

Bill 147 cannot go anywhere until next summer even if we pass it on second reading now, yet we are to be here because it is of vital interest for us to be here. One would have expected that the House leader, up against the Minister of Health, given his long experience in the House and the support of the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft), the government whip, would have prevailed, not the Minister of Health.

But what should take place, to the wondering eyes of the chairman of the select committee on education and the members of other committees who had their business ordered, who had learned they were going to be able to sit and who had learned that this strange world we get into at the end of the session was not going to get in the way, that the macho gamesmanship this House is celebrated for was going to dissipate and we would all be able to get about the real business of the House -- that is, to have our committees meet -- what should occur but that the Premier himself should walk into the Liberal caucus meeting and basically say: “Forget the work of the committees, folks.

We’re going in with Elinor’s Bill 147 even though it can’t” -- sorry, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health’s bill. I was just trying to get the ambience that must have been there, although, of course, I was not there. But I have heard from enough other people who are disgruntled about the lack of initiative by committees that is going to be the result of this decision.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Ed Philip doesn’t count.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am talking about Liberals here, I say to the House leader. How hard it must be for the House leader to not interject at this point.

This is twice, two major times, that this House leader has been stepped on by the Premier. One will remember just a year or so ago, around December. This member, the House leader, obviously understood the way the House works and suggested that shutting things down around the free trade issue -- remember that free trade issue which is dissipating from all Liberals’ minds these days? That issue could actually be dealt with by closure and we could get out.

He said this sort of thing. Maybe that was the mistake, saying this to other people. Then the Premier came down and let it be known that in fact we would sit until..., we would sit until..., and we would sit until it was absolutely necessary for something to happen. It was all very vague as to why. The poor House leader who had given him his best advice was left a little blushing. He does not blush much, I know, in terms of embarrassment, but he was feeling a little awkward.

The member for Middlesex, now sequestered under the press gallery here, was also, I feel, a little chagrined again that the Premier twice now, on two major, very public occasions, stepped on people.

Hon. Mr. Conway: It’s his appendectomy.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The House leader wants to blame this on the government whip’s appendectomy. I want to let him know that the member’s appendix was in great shape a year ago.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It’s in a pickle jar now.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is only this recent time that he has had it removed and pickled, as I am told.

I say to the House leader that I respected his judgement last week. I thought this was a wonderful step forward. I suppose he has now said to the Premier that if the Premier wants to be House leader, perhaps he should give himself that title. It is like coaching and managing in hockey. What we have here is the House leader of the government being told that he can tell the Liberal members who is going to go out on what shift, “You play left wing” -- not many of them will play left wing – “you can play centre and you can play right.” That is about the extent of it now for the Liberal Party, once a reform party.

The rest of the big decisions about whether or not to hire or fire the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) with his preposterous bill of the other day, or whether to make any of those important kinds of decisions such as when we will rise or when we will sit, must be left to the Premier and his council. Where has Hershell Ezrin gone that these kinds of mistakes can be made?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Molson.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: He has gone to Molson. Has not everyone gone to Molson these days? I have some friends who will be leaving Molson, but that is another matter, unfortunately.

At any rate, what I am trying to come to here is just why we are dealing with Bill 147. What was it that was so important to the Premier and to the Minister of Health that we should be dealing with this? Let’s look at that. I can only surmise because I do not have their confidences. I know you do, Mr. Speaker, and you can perhaps correct me if I am wrong about my conjecture here as to how these decisions get made.

Mr. Fleet: You’re wrong.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: If the member for High Park-Swansea looks at the last few weeks, I say to him that things have not exactly gone right for the good ship Liberal. There have been rocky seas. Things just have not been the best.

Mr. Breaugh: The irony is they had to hire a consultant to find out about it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Exactly. In the old days they would have been told by their own good political sense that they were in trouble. Now they hire consulting firms to tell them just what desperate straits they are in.

The good ship Liberal was in some difficulty and on rocky seas. Traditionally, the wise thing at that point -- I do not mean to speak as a parliamentary traditionalist here; I would not want to put myself in that kind of guise.

In the old days, William Grenville Davis, once Premier, would have looked at matters, seen things on a slippery slope and said, “The best thing to do now is to take our break, regroup and stop those darn question periods that highlight certain kinds of problems we may be having these days,” whether it was with health care in its enormity, whether it was housing, whether it was the problem of Sunday shopping, which the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) will know --

Mr. Breaugh: Or where is Bob Callahan.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: -- or whether it was just why the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan) is in the House today anyway, those kinds of major difficulties. What the government does is withdraw a little bit, regroup, come back with its budget, try to set it up on its terms and take it out of the control of the opposition.

Mr. Eves: Don’t give them too much advice, Richard.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I tried to. I offered this advice, I say to the whip for the third party, just recently and thought it was sage advice and would have assisted all parties involved. But no, there is this strange death wish now gripping the Liberal Party as it wants to dissuade any voter out there from believing that they may ever have been reformers at all. The Liberals now want to make sure they all understand that the blue is over there these days and what is red seems to be with the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman). But that is another matter; that was quite a bizarre appearance today.

The world does change and conservatism has found its way back across the floor to the government side, as has been the tradition in this province. Maybe it is something to do with the seats or the air on that side of the room; I am not sure. It certainly does not seem to bother the rump a great deal, those people who seem to feel they will get themselves into cabinet by making large, rude noises, which has worked for others; I would not say that it will necessarily work for all.

When things are going wrong, what does the government do? My suggestion, as I say, was to withdraw a little bit. But no, the government’s notion -- sorry, the notion of the Premier and the embattled Minister of Health -- was to say: “What we have to do is show that we’re taking some action. We haven’t gotten anything done, except that we have finally brought through, as incompetently as we could, closure on Sunday shopping. We finally got that through. But other than that, we’ve done nothing since the accord. People are actually beginning to believe we haven’t done much since the accord.

That’s not a good thing, so let’s come through with our best shot and let’s do it in an area where we’re in the most trouble.”

That was tough because they had to choose between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Housing as to which was really in the worse shape. What they have done is come forward with the only act they have been able to present on health. There are enormous problems that are out there in the health care system at the moment. The only thing they had to offer us was this pathetic thing called Bill 147. Their intentions may have been good, but it is a very flawed bill, indeed. It does not accomplish the goals that were established. I will come to those specifically with the minister in a few minutes.

Some of them, in fact, allow for just the opposite of what she would wish for. That is a fundamental error.

Rather than coming forward with a new bill or new amendments to let us know the major changes the government wants in this bill, to show that it is something other than that which was panned last June by almost all the critics, it has come back with just this little piece of legislation to cover the terrible problems out there in the health care system.

It is like trying to use a doily to cover a cesspool. It may look okay for a second, but do not step on it because if you step on it and test it, you will go through into the mire that is below. Such are the problems that are there in terms of overexpenditure in the health care service field and a deterioration in services which is really very devastating.

To that I would like to turn, first, to look at what this bill purports to do in terms of moving things to the community and allowing greater resources to be going into community health centres, supposedly away from the institutions. This is purportedly the first choice of the government.

Today I went to visit a friend of mine who lives a few doors down from me who was recovering from a double bypass at Toronto General Hospital, which he was happy to say had only been delayed four times. As a double-bypass patient, you are not one of the more serious contenders for bumping upward on the bypass operation schedule. He had dealt with it very well, I am pleased to say, and his recovery is remarkable. He hopes to be coming home tomorrow. But the tremendous stress that is placed on those individuals who are waiting for what may be life-saving surgery -- and I say “may be” because you never know with hearts -- is a terrible burden which should not be foisted on anyone.

Members of this House will know that I had my run-ins on the heart illness side of things and I participate at Toronto General in a rehabilitation program on a regular basis. Let me tell members about the mood of the people who participate in that program these days. It used to be that people went there feeling very upbeat, never totally sure that getting our hearts stronger by running around the gym or walking around the gym, whatever the program might be, was actually going to save us in our next incident, but feeling that we were doing something to change our lifestyles somewhat to reduce the risk.

It was a very upbeat kind of place to be. There was a lot of camaraderie and support. There were always people who were having difficulties, whose angina was coming back, who were having others kinds of arrhythmia and symptoms which were causing the need for more care, sometimes more operations, but there was always a sense that basically we were well placed because of what we were doing, our proximity to the hospital and their knowledge of our cases and that sort of thing.

These days, people are a lot less secure. People really wonder nowadays what will occur for them if they start to get a recurrence of their symptoms again. Will they be bumped four or five times? Will they be like that unfortunate gentleman from Etobicoke who died as he was being bumped? Will they be like the people I have sent example after example to the Minister of Health about from my riding who were bumped, whose health continued to deteriorate and deteriorate and whose families went through enormous crises; or will they get the services which a few years ago they might have expected a little more quickly?

It is a daily thing. It is a real thing. We go Tuesdays and Thursdays and there is not one day that passes that one of our members, because there are a lot of us who participate, has not had to go back to the hospital or is not at home waiting to go back to the hospital, which is much more likely today, and there is a sense -- it is not a pall, it is not that negative, but there is a disquiet which is overtaking that group -- and a real concern that things are out of control.

What does the government offer? It offers us Bill 147. Perhaps the members remember when it was introduced. A number of us had hopes that this government would move to dramatically increase the amount of community-based programs and health facilities that would be available in the community.

The context in which it was brought in, of course, was the free trade debate. Members may recall that it was brought in at the same time as the Power Corporation Amendment Act and the Water Transfer Control Act, as part of a triumvirate of bills which would challenge the federal government’s authorities around free trade and would assert the rights of the sovereign jurisdiction of Ontario to establish itself and say that we would not be pushed around by the free trade Mulroney government.

This bill was reported widely in the press. The minister said, and her flacks pushed as strongly as they could, that this bill would be one of the ones which was most important in terms of establishing Ontario’s rights in health care, to stop free trade in health.

It is interesting that since those first announcements, I have not heard one word about free trade and health care come out of the minister’s mouth. I read again her speech of November 7, a very short speech for such an important bill, which is now being called today for us to discuss for the second time at second reading even though it will never be able to go to committee until the summer, but we are told that it must be finished second reading in this next week. It is a very short speech which does not mention free trade once.

The reason for that, of course, is that it was a bogus assertion that this bill would ever be established to do anything at all about free trade. One would presume that if they wanted to do something about free trade, they would have established in this act, Bill 147, the right of the government of Ontario to ban multinational health corporations from establishing themselves as independent health facilities in Ontario. That is what you would have seen if this really was an anti-free-trade bill.

Is that anywhere in this act, I ask rhetorically? No, it is not, not at all. In fact, there is nothing in this act which says that they will even stop more commercial development in this health care system of ours, which is overburdened by the profit motive, which is being bankrupted by the profit motive and other kinds of concerns.

No, this was as much an anti-free-trade bill as that silly thing we passed at second reading the other day that was brought forward by the Minister of Natural Resources. You will remember the debate on that, Mr. Speaker, and the wonderfully astute analysis by one of our pages, Richard, in terms of the absolutely ludicrous notion that we can control water supplies being diverted from the Great Lakes to the United States, and that the minister actually got up in this House and sat over there in the seat of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and had the nerve to tell us that he would stop the Americans from coming across and taking water out of the mouth of the Humber River.

It is just a silly bill. There we were, and we have no jurisdiction. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who is usually so precise and so precious about the legal nuance, did not even tell him that we do not have control over the Great Lakes. There is an international joint decision-making process which must take place. The only bodies of waters and basins of waters we can control are those within our jurisdiction entirely. Whenever I am feeling low and need a little chuckle, I will read that Hansard for years to come. The longer I sit here, the more I may need to read it, but it was one of the most preposterous legislative days I have ever participated in.

Just to put this in context, that, of course, is one of the three joint bills, the other being the power bill which was withdrawn because it was so inappropriate in terms of its supposed free trade effects. Then we have this bill. Again, I would say the Minister of Health went on and on, when she introduced this in June, about how this was going to assert our position versus the federal government and our rights to control our health care system and to stop free trade. Yet there is not one provision in this act which does that and which she is now even willing to talk about, even willing to mention, let alone say that is one of the major functions.

Let’s look at one of the issues of this which concerns me the most. I am the women’s critic for this party, a role that in fact I volunteered for but would rather have the leader still hold. I have some real difficulties with these kinds of portfolios being in the hands of secondary ministers rather than in the hands of the Premier and under his control, as something which will with his authority then permeate more easily all the aspects of the various ministries.

One of my major concerns over the last number of years -- in fact, I could say I have been involved in the issue since I was elected in 1979 -- is the question of access to abortion. I know this minister, in her first election campaign, spoke out very strongly on this issue. She came under a pretty substantial attack in her own riding, as some of us have become used, election after election, to being the targets of certain groups which disagree with us.

Mr. Philip: But she beat John Williams. For that everyone is eternally grateful.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale reminds me, she did force the demise of the previous member, Mr. Williams. There are days when I still feel positive about that, I admit. Then there are days, like today, when I really wonder what we have gained, not through lack of the minister’s being well-meaning but, unfortunately, through either sloppiness or incompetence, which really worries me.

I say to the minister, knowing how she feels about this issue, that on the question of how independent health facilities would affect access to abortion, she needed to write a bill which could not be subverted by any Minister of Health who felt opposite to her. To make this personal, because I remember the comments about this bill when it was brought forward and how different the comments were between the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr.

Sweeney), I suggest this bill needed to be written, from my perspective as somebody who is pro choice, as if the Minister of Community and Social Services were going to become Minister of Health some day; so that in no way could a minister, who had a different approach than pro choice and equal access on abortion, subvert this legislation.

The Minister of Community and Social Services rightfully said this bill, in the guise of actually being able to assist women to have independent health clinics across Ontario, could actually be used and would actually be used to guarantee that we would have no more.

If members read this bill, as I have now done carefully several times, I think it is inescapable that the analysis of the Minister of Community and Social Services is right and that the approach by the Minister of Health has been faulty, to be generous.

Look at it in terms of what it does. This act, it is true, will allow the Scott Clinic and the Morgentaler Clinic to have a year’s grace in which to apply to be approved as independent health facilities. As such, they will have to prove the