Hansard Transcripts 1982-Mar-30 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if I may rise on a point of privilege, I want to read to you some correspondence that came into my possession through the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht).

The correspondence is on the letterhead of Golden Mile Motors Ltd., 1897 Eglinton Avenue East, Scarborough, Ontario, over the signature of Bryan Rowntree, president of that establishment. It is addressed to all members of the Toronto Automobile Dealers Association, and it reads:

"Gentlemen:

"You will no doubt recall the problem of inventory that existed with some of us last fall.

"You will also recall how co-operative our provincial minister, Mr. Frank Miller, was in helping us by removing the provincial sales tax and stimulating auto sales at that time.

"The wholesale interest saving for dealers has been estimated in excess of $8,250,000 in December alone. While it was of more benefit to some dealers than others, it helped us all.

"This successful event once again proves the benefit of dealers being united as in TADA, and then of working closely with government.

"It is now our turn to say Thank You!

"On May 10, there is to be a fund-raising dinner for Frank Miller. The very noted economist, Mr. Kaufman of New York City, is to be the highlight speaker of the evening.

"I urge you to attend along with your senior management to show your appreciation to a member of government who listens.

"Please contact Jack Buchanan at 493-6565 for tickets and additional information.

"Do it now."

I draw to your attention, sir, that the main speaker is the noted economist from the Salomon Brothers financial house in New York City, a financial agent for Ontario. The cheques for the tickets are to be made payable to the Muskoka Progressive Conservative Association at $1,200 per table.

I am asking you, sir, if you will confer with your advisers and inform the House if this procedure, whereby large political contributions appear to be solicited and made payable to the constituency organization of the man who conferred the benefit, in direct response to specific and direct tax relief, is proper under our rules. I refer you specifically to the Legislative Assembly Act, section 45:

"(1) The assembly has all the rights and privileges of a court of record for the purposes of summarily inquiring into and punishing, as breaches of privilege or as contempts and without affecting the liability of the offenders to prosecution and punishment criminally or otherwise according to law, independently of this act, the acts, matters and things following" -- I will read the last part of subsection 3 -- "or offering to or the acceptance by a member of any fee, compensation or reward for or in respect of the drafting, advising upon, revising, promoting or opposing any bill, resolution or thing submitted to or intended to be submitted to the assembly or a committee thereof."

I ask you, sir, to use your good offices to look into this matter and to report back as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I will take this matter under consideration and confer with my advisers, and I will be pleased to report back.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: Before we enter into routine proceedings, I would like all members of the assembly to join me in welcoming the members of the consular corps of Toronto who are seated in the west gallery. We extend a very warm welcome to them and thank them very much for taking the time to join us.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. He just heard my point of privilege. May I ask him what his reaction to that letter is?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the whole point of privilege. The Leader of the Opposition has already asked for your advice, Mr. Speaker. I find it rather amusing that he would now ask mine.

Mr. Peterson: Does that mean the Premier has no opinion? We sent him a copy of it, and we will wait if he wants to read it. Is that the kind of thing he approves of? I think there is a very important ethical principle here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say, knowing the gentleman involved, the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. F. S. Miller), if the member wants to attack his ethics, he can be my guest, but he will be the only one who will do it.

Mr. Peterson: Has the Premier inquired into the circumstances of bringing Mr. Henry Kaufman here from Salomon Brothers in New York, which is a financial agent for and does a considerable amount of business with Ontario, to speak at a fund-raising dinner for the Treasurer, who is in charge of hiring these people for those particular duties?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, I am not personally known to Mr. Kaufman and vice versa. I understand, and I am only going by limited knowledge, that he is a very knowledgeable person in terms of the general financial situation, particularly in the United States.

If the Leader of the Opposition does not feel it is appropriate for Mr. Kaufman to come and speak in this jurisdiction at a fund-raising dinner for a Progressive Conservative riding association, maybe he should -- I have not -- just check back on who has been to any of his riding associations to offer advice. He might even check in terms of who offered advice during his own leadership convention, for all I know. Mississauga North had Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Conway: Is the government planning to hire Ronald Reagan in some financial advisory capacity?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No.

Mr. Conway: That's the difference.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:10 p.m.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services concerning an unfolding situation of which I am sure he is aware. I am speaking of the Children's Listening Centre of North York. The centre provides intensive outpatient psychotherapy for 30 emotionally disturbed children from the age of two up to 10 years. It is widely acclaimed and acknowledged within the community, and even the ministry admits it is the only one of its kind within the province. The centre is well established in the mental health network in Toronto but needs greatly increased funding and a broader financial base to meet its objectives.

I would like to ask the minister why he is not prepared to provide the funding for that institution and why he is happy to sit by and see it fold.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am not happy to sit by and see it fold. I have been attempting to put that children's mental health centre on a stable basis of funding for 11 months.

I met them last year after we had given them $50,000, which was an interim payment. They had never approached us before, because they had a unique and unusual arrangement with the physicians attending there, who were donating part of their fees. When that appeared to be no longer a feasible situation, they approached my predecessor, who provided interim funding for them. That was the time the report was written.

They came to me and we provided, I believe, additional interim funds. At the meeting I had with them, I pointed out that it was not in the picture in the Toronto area to fund them, but there were to be two developments and I did not want to see them closed pending the decision on those developments. The first one -- and I shared my feelings with them as well as my information -- was that we were approaching the federal government for cost sharing on children's mental health centres. I gave them my word that, if that occurred, those additional funds would be used for them first. I did not want them to close while that decision was being made by the federal minister. In the meantime, I was given assurances that the doctors' funding would continue.

In February, the federal minister told me in Ottawa, "No new programs under CAP." That means they are not going to provide any share in the funding of children's mental health centres. At the same time, I understand the centre no longer can rely upon those doctors' contributions.

It is with regret that I am unable to fund, but I have priorities in other areas of the province and those priorities have to be met. No one regrets it more than I.

Mr. Peterson: I understand the minister's regret, but I want to appeal to him. He understands that to get assistance under the Canada assistance plan there has to be a provincial contribution first. Second, let me ask the minister about his priorities; if they are not his personal priorities, then they are reflective of his government's priorities.

At the present time, there is a waiting list of 1,334 children attending mental health centres. These figures are from only 45 of the 79 centres that are currently members of the Canadian Mental Health Centres Association.

I ask the minister, what more important priority could he or his government have than to properly fund this very worthwhile organization and institution, and why is he not paying more attention to it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I do not need the cheap shot about why I am not paying more attention to it. Second, if the Leader of the Opposition does not know how CAP is funded, I will be pleased to tell him. If the program is not eligible under CAP, there is not a dollar that comes out. Every cent that is spent on children's mental health centres in this province is 100 per cent Ontario dollars.

What I asked the federal minister to do was to change the rules under the Canada assistance plan to allow children's mental health centres to be funded under CAP. She told me -- and there is a tape, because she was making a tape at the time -- "No additional, no new money, no new programs under CAP."

The member has asked me what my priorities are. We are massively enriching children's mental health programs this year, as we have enriched them in previous years. In some areas of the province there is a shortfall in services that can be provided. The waiting list to which the member refers involves not only residential beds but also outpatients, home care and so forth.

The demands and needs in other areas of this province are a priority. If the Children's Listening Centre was in another area of the province, serving children who had no other access, then the member is quite right, it would be the number one priority.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the minister is making all this fuss about the Canada assistance plan. CAP has never funded children's mental health centres since it was established in 1972.

Yesterday, in the House, the Premier (Mr. Davis) said he was unable to give us the answer to one or two questions because they were budget items and he was unwilling to speak about budget items. The minister, on the other hand, outside of the House, said yesterday that he was going to be increasing the money for children's mental health centres by 19 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, I did not.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister did not say that? Then I will quote. The minister said, "He (Mr. Johnston) wanted 18 per cent; is that right? Does he know what the increase in the 1982 budget is? It is 19 per cent. I have gone over $100 million." Why doesn't the minister make it 20 per cent and fund the listening centre as well?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I did not make a statement in the House about my budget. The member put on a little light show yesterday. He knew there was going to be considerable enrichment of the children's mental health care program and he wanted to take credit for it. He held a public press conference to criticize government funding rather than mentioning the issue in the House.

When I raised the matter in the House, I did not say what my budget was but stated the percentage of increase; which made a piker out of the member, considering that he was asking for less than I was providing.

Mr. Peterson: According to the executive director of the listening centre, Mrs. Pat Wynn, the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) reported to her that, based on the contents of a report, cabinet had made a positive decision for permanent funding. The question is, who overrode the minister in cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I think the member has been misinformed. I met with Mrs. Wynn some time last spring, and she told me the same thing when the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) was Minister of Community and Social Services. I told her that I did not know where she got that information, that I had referred to cabinet and could assure her that had not been done.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities has advocated a very thorough search to see whether something could be done to fund the CLC properly. She has been extremely co-operative and helpful to me in this matter in the past 11 months, but I can say categorically that no cabinet decision was made such as that mentioned by Mrs. Wynn. I am surprised she would say that.

2:20 p.m.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. The minister will be aware that Ontario Hydro is now asking the Ontario Energy Board for rate increases of up to 14 per cent and that Ontario Hydro proposes to charge higher rates for the winter months, September to March, than for the summer months. The policy will result in an additional two per cent cost to consumers in northern Ontario because of the longer and much colder winters. Are the residents of northern Ontario to be gouged once more by this policy of higher rates in winter, when we use most of our hydro in the north, as opposed to summer?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as the honour- able member will understand, when I received the proposals for next year's rates from Ontario Hydro I referred them to the Ontario Energy Board. It is my understanding that the Ontario Energy Board has now publicized the dates for the hearings, at which time the public is invited to attend before that board and comment on those proposals. Perhaps that is where it should be left now so that the member and others might have an opportunity to go and make their representations to the Ontario Energy Board.

Mr. Martel: Surely the residents of northern Ontario should be protected against the rate increase, which will see higher rates in winter than in summer. I do not think we should be asking the public to defend the residents of northern Ontario. The Minister of Energy should be doing that. Is he prepared to do it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I just repeat once again: This matter is before the Ontario Energy Board. If, in fact, there are some proposals with respect to their rate increases for next year that the member is dissatisfied with, the member is entitled, as is any member of the public, to make representations before the OEB.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the question is pure and simple. Is the Minister of Energy prepared to defend the interests of the people of northern Ontario, or is he going to leave that decision to the Ontario Energy Board?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the defence of any section of the province is not being left to the OEB. What we are talking about are the principles upon which certain proposals for rate adjustments are being made. That is a matter for consideration by the Ontario Energy Board.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, is the minister also prepared to intervene in the field of home heating costs with regard to the prices of natural gas for home heating? Does the minister not think it is really quite unfair and even cruel of the Ontario Energy Board that in these difficult times it consciously awards increases that are predicted by the companies themselves and by the Ontario Energy Board to raise both profits and return on equity by some 25 to 50 per cent this year?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this is a recycled question that the honourable member discussed a couple of weeks ago, and it is my understanding that the member has already taken some action to have that matter reviewed.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Since we did not get much yesterday with respect to Wilco and the Ministry of Labour's response there, I want to deal with another company, called Rothsay Concentrates.

Is the minister aware that on January 19, 1982, an employee was ordered into a feather pit to remove frozen feathers from a large beater-like device, and while he was in the pit the foreman turned the mulcher or beater on and an employee was entangled in the beater, thrown up through a 10-inch space and dropped some 12 feet? Is the minister also aware that it required over 200 stitches to assist the man? He nearly lost his eyesight.

Is the minister further aware that the employee was following the instructions of his supervisor and that the proper lock-out procedure was not followed?

Will the minister tell me why his inspector refused to go to that site to investigate that accident?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, in respect to the honourable member's reference to the matter he brought up yesterday, I will have a complete report on that for him on Thursday in this Legislature. I had hoped to have it today, but I would prefer to wait until Thursday if I could.

As for the matter he has brought to my attention today, I must admit this is the first I have heard of it.

Mr. Martel: Is the minister aware that on January 26, some seven days after the accident, Mr. Addley, one of his inspectors, accompanied by the health and safety committee, discovered violations leading to 72 orders against the company? They made 14 other suggestions, but they failed to respond to the union request to have the operation shut down until the violations were repaired.

Further, is the minister aware that on January 27 a worker was ordered to go down into the same pit where a previous worker had been injured? It was only on a work refusal -- a "70" as they call it, referring to Bill 70, which it comes under -- that the inspector ordered the operation shut down.

Do we have to have refusals or more injured workers before the ministry's inspectors enforce this act?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not aware of the matters the member has brought to my attention.

Mr. Martel: What action does the minister intend to take? Some of the workers there were threatened by management with losing their jobs. Also, the company wrote the ministry two letters, indicating they had repaired 63 of the violations; the union, in checking that, found at least 11 were not touched. That is misinformation to the minister. Is he going to start to prosecute?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: If what the member tells me is correct, and I have no reason to believe that it is not, then I am as upset as he is about this circumstance. Certainly we will look into the question in complete detail, including the possibility of prosecution, if warranted.

SUCCESSOR RIGHTS

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a moment ago, the matter of Wilco will be reported in this House on Thursday, as will the commitment I made yesterday to bring back information on Dominion Auto Accessories in Windsor. I hope to handle both those matters on Thursday of this week.

Meanwhile, yesterday the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) asked me about certain difficulties that were being experienced with respect to the hiring practices under the collective agreement at Emrick Plastics in Windsor. I am advised that the United Auto Workers union has filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act which is scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Labour Relations Board next month; that is April.

In the circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on the details of the union's application except to point out to the honourable member that the Ontario Labour Relations Board has had occasion to deal with cases in which a business is sold through a receiver. However, it is the responsibility of the board to determine the merits of the union's application.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the minister's statement, surely he will remember the second part of the question, which was in regard to the lack of teeth in section 63 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

I asked the minister yesterday, and I repeat the question today, when is he prepared to introduce in this House tough deterrent penalties upon any employer engaged in such disregard of the successor rights provision of the act? When is he going to take action to bring in tough penalties so that this kind of incident will not happen again?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the only commitment I am prepared to make at this time is to look into it very seriously.

KEATING CHANNEL DREDGING

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment concerning Keating Channel.

The minister should be aware that tomorrow, March 31, 1982, is the expiration date for all exemptions under Ontario's environmental legislation for the emergency dredging of Keating Channel. Will he advise this House now that he will subject the dredging of the channel by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to a review and public hearings under what I stress is the rarely used Environmental Assessment Act? This was promised by the Premier (Mr. Davis) on November 24, 1980, after Dr. Donald Chant, the former chairman of the Premier's environmental assessment steering committee, recommended that such hearings should take place.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the present exemption expires very shortly and a request has not been brought to my attention for any pressing need at the moment for further dredging. At such time I will give full consideration to the matter.

Mr. Elston: The minister must surely be aware that since 1976 his ministry has been aware of the Keating Channel sediments, which are contaminated with PCBs, mercury, zinc, lead, oil and grease, yet his ministry ignored the problems until 1980 and permitted emergency exemptions on the ground of so-called pressing urgency, then hired an engineer, Ivor Lorant, at $550 a day to conduct a technical inquiry into the risk of the flooding of the Don River due to sediment that built up in the Keating Channel.

Since Mr. Lorant's report indicated that diking for a few hundred metres and flood proofing of a few vulnerable structures would provide better protection for much less money than would dredging, would the minister assure us that this proposal will be placed before the Environmental Assessment Board so that alternatives to dredging can be discussed?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I do not know how much of the background the member is familiar with but he may or may not know, through the efforts of his researcher, that environmental assessment is in preparation and has been in preparation for some time. It is not yet complete. If the member is requesting it as of this moment it would not be possible, because the first step in such consideration would be the preparation of the assessment by the proponent.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, will the minister at least confirm to the House today that there will be no dredging action until that assessment, such as it is, is completed?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to give that kind of commitment on the spur of the moment. The member should not expect me to. At the moment, I am not aware of any pressing need for further dredging to take place. If such is the case and if there are any indications of situations arising that might create an emergency, such as potential flooding, which I am not aware of at the moment, then I might be required to take that into consideration in making any such decision.

Mr. Elston: But your decision has to be made tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, it does not. It simply means that as of tomorrow there can be no further dredging until such time as that issue is addressed. It does not mean a decision has to be made by tomorrow. I am not going to make some commitment on the spur of the moment which, because of changing circumstances, I may find inappropriate in three days' time.

DISMISSAL OF CIVIL SERVANT

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Natural Resources aware that a young, very dedicated forester in the employ of his ministry in Nipigon has had his services terminated by the deputy minister, simply on the basis that he was acting in a professional and responsible way and made the mistake of talking about a very important issue, namely, forest management, to the member for that area?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, it is my information that Mr. MacAlpine disagreed with ministry policies and procedures and took his disagreement into the public forum. As an employee, Mr. MacAlpine had a right to disagree and to make his views known to management. Having done so and having been instructed to follow ministry policies and procedures, Mr. MacAlpine was expected to conform and to apply the policies and procedures to the best of his ability.

To move his dispute with his employer into the public forum so long as he remained an employee was not consistent with his responsibilities as an employee. Mr. MacAlpine has the right to appeal and since I believe he has already appealed his dismissal it would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment. I would not wish to prejudice the appeal process in any way.

Mr. Stokes: Does the minister recall, when he was Minister without Portfolio and responsible for freedom of information, tabling sessional paper 215 on October 9, 1980, wherein he stated: "This government is committed to greater openness in its administration and increased access by the citizen. To this end, the Premier last week wrote to all ministers with guidelines for civil servants in communicating with the public"?

Let me quote briefly from that letter: "Between now and the time freedom of information legislation is enacted and the administrative apparatus for its operation is in place, there is a great deal we can do to give the policy of open government meaning and consistency. A step that can be taken in this interim period is to encourage open and responsive behaviour among public servants in their daily dealings with the public, particularly including members of the Legislative Assembly and representatives of the news media.

"The guidelines instruct public servants that the basic communications position of the government of Ontario is to be 'open' as opposed to 'closed' and goes on to lay out a code of expected conduct."

I am sure the Premier will remember tabling the guidelines. I will not read them all, but there are four that I would like to read for the purposes of bringing this to the attention of the assembly:

"The basic communications position of the government of Ontario is to be open as opposed to closed in its dealings with the public.

"Members of the civil service have a duty and a responsibility to communicate with the public, including particularly members of the Legislative Assembly and representatives of the news media.

"It will be normal for civil servants to be interviewed by the media in regard to factual information and to be quoted by name in regard to such interviews.

"Civil servants acting in good faith under these guidelines will not be considered as having violated their oaths of secrecy."

So said the Premier of this province. Why is the minister taking this action against a very dedicated civil servant who is doing nothing other than following his code of professional ethics as a professional forester?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I am aware of the guidelines. They have been applied in the ministry; the honourable member knows they have been applied in the ministry; all the members of the House know they have been applied. They have never had any trouble getting information. Mr. Marek has never had any trouble giving the honourable member information. In making my decision I took those guidelines and all the facts of the situation, including the transcript of the hearing, into consideration.

Mr. Bradley: Same as the feds.

Hon. Mr. Pope: It is not the same as the feds at all. The member opposite does not know anything about it.

Mr. Conway: I would like to ask a supplementary to the Premier, if you will allow it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. It has to be to the minister.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that at least in the Ministry of Natural Resources, if not across government, the minister's civil servants have been given instructions that they are not to reply directly to members of the Legislature and that all communications have to go through the minister and be approved before they get back to the member of the Legislature who asked for the information in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Pope: No, Mr. Speaker.

TELEPHONE ACCOUNT BETTING

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary for Justice, in the absence of the Minister of Commercial and Consumer Relations (Mr. Elgie), if he knows whether that ministry was aware of the proposal by the federal government to institute telephone account betting with respect to horse racing, which was announced recently by the federal Minister of Agriculture?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I would not normally attempt to answer this question, but fortunately the member for Mississauga South gave me advance notice of his question, and therefore I was able to ascertain what the facts in the particular situation might be.

Telephone account betting has been discussed between the federal Ministry of Agriculture and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on previous occasions. It was our understanding that this matter would be delayed for some time before coming into effect. Our concern is that we have many small tracks over this province and we feel that the racetracks in small towns such as Hanover or Orangeville -- and for instance Rideau-Carleton Raceway near my riding -- provide many jobs, much employment and much commerce in these areas.

2:40 p.m.

We feel that allowing this kind of regulation to go forward without an in-depth marketing analysis of how it would affect the small tracks is going to hurt many of the breeders and horsemen in this province. Therefore, we would have preferred if the federal government had allowed us some opportunity to study the various tracks so that we could be certain the horsemen and the breeders in the small tracks could have an even break when this particular kind of new betting came into place.

Mr. Kennedy: Is it the provincial secretary's view that the federal government can go ahead unilaterally and do this without approval of the provinces?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: The final decision, of course, is within their jurisdiction to make this decision as to whether or not this kind of betting should or should not be allowed. We had asked them and we thought we had agreement before that they would not proceed at this particular time with this regulation to incorporate this kind of betting. Therefore, they acted in a unilateral manner in that regard.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, has the minister talked to the federal minister responsible, the Minister of Agriculture, in regard to bringing in offtrack betting in Ontario, which has been this government's policy for some time and, given its proclivity for lotteries and so on, would seem to make some sense? Is the minister still in favour of offtrack betting, and has he asked that it be brought into Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, with regard to that, I would prefer to defer the question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

I will say that in terms of offtrack betting, intertrack betting, that is a matter that will require an amendment to the Criminal Code in order to allow that particular activity to go on. Of course, that is under the federal jurisdiction.

We are concerned with the implementation of these policies on our smaller centres which have housed many small tracks across this province, particularly in the standardbred area, and we are concerned with retaining the commerce of those small areas that have relied on these small tracks.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Premier. I think he is hiding in the alcove there, if he wants to come back in. I do not know whether he is coming in or not.

Mr. Speaker: He is not in his seat. A new question.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I may have the same problem. The Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) is hiding somewhere under his desk, and the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) -- here is the minister.

Since the day after tomorrow, April Fool's Day, is the inauguration of the government's --

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: One of my colleagues had another question from this party. We should not lose our turn just because a minister does not happen to be in the House.

Mr. Speaker: You are absolutely right, but the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) did not stand to be recognized. The member for Bellwoods did. The member for Bellwoods has the floor.

Mr. Breaugh: You not only have to be here, you have to stand up.

HOSPITAL CHARGES

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, since the day after tomorrow is April Fool's Day and is the inauguration of the government's new policy of permitting hospitals to ease their operating deficits through the sale of private and semi-private beds to sick people, can the minister tell me if he is aware that Victoria Hospital in London intends to raise its rate 56 per cent; the St. Joseph's Hospital in London intends to raise its rate 56 per cent for private and semi-private beds; and that the following hospitals which we have talked to intend to raise their prices 25 per cent: Toronto Western, North York Branson, Toronto General, Hotel Dieu, Cornwall General and Stratford General?

Is the minister aware of these impending price hikes and others? If he is, perhaps he would be so kind as to table with the House the day after tomorrow the complete price lists, hospital by hospital, for private and semi-private beds for sale in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McClellan: Since the new policy obviously represents a threat to uniform terms and conditions under the federal medicare legislation, may I ask the minister if he will require every hospital using this new policy to publish each month the waiting times for elective procedures in two separate lists, one for pay beds or for sale beds and another for nonpay beds? Will he indicate to us whether there is a significant difference in the two waiting times? I would like to see this on a monthly basis so we can assess the new policy.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I am sure the member learned from yesterday's exercise, I am happy to make as much information available as possible and as is made available to us by the hospitals. If the hospitals have any difficulty in putting together some of those statistics, I will let the member know and we can talk about it at that time. We will be pleased to share with him any information we have with regard to delays in elective surgery, any of the problems that are reported to us and any other information we have. I can say that quite comfortably --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Do you prefer a 50 or a 25 per cent increase?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Come on. Are you running for mayor or not? If you are, then do it out there, not here -- speaking of April Fool's Day.

In any case, let me tell the member the reason I can assure him that as much information as we have will be made available to him is that we intend to monitor the new program very closely so that we can see how it is working, see that administrators are following the letter and the spirit of both the existing legislation and the new plan, and make sure that patient care is not adversely affected.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware of information that has been tabled with him by, for one, Victoria Hospital in London indicating it is almost $10 million in debt. Does the minister have any specific plans to alleviate what is actually the result of annual underfunding by his ministry and leaves hospitals like Victoria Hospital in London in this desperate situation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I might say to the new Health critic for the Liberal Party that perhaps her information with regard to the problems and the root causes of the problems at London Vic hospital and the reason the deficit was built up is probably, to put it mildly, as inaccurate as the information she put before this assembly yesterday on the Victorian Order of Nurses situation, for which I know she was burned rather seriously in private. If she would do a little more research in the cases of both London Vic and the VON situation, she might find that the situation at London Vic is not at all the way she has described it.

My colleague from London has discussed this at length with me. I have met the chairman of the board of London Vic in a very lengthy meeting, a constructive meeting, and as a result discussions are going on between the board and our ministry with a view to getting a very constructive and fair resolution to that deficit.

PETROLEUM RESOURCES COMMUNICATION FOUNDATION

Mr. Kolyn: I have a question for the Minister of Revenue, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister familiar with the recent series of advertisements launched by the Petroleum Resources Communication Foundation of Calgary? Members may be interested to note the advertisements claim that only $5 out of every $15 spent by consumers go to the oil industry while the remaining $10 go to government. If indeed this is correct, could the minister inform the House how much Ontario receives from this $10 figure?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, that is a very excellent question because there is no doubt that in our open and free democratic system the petroleum resources community has every right to put that kind of publicity forward. Basically I do not disagree with the figures that are used, that approximately $10 out of every $15 one spends at the pumps goes to governments in one form or another. I think it is very important to put those numbers into context vis-à-vis the amount of revenue that comes into our coffers, that helps sustain the excellent highway system and the excellent public transportation system that we have.

Having said that, all we get out of that $10 bill is about 25 per cent. In actual fact, three quarters of that $10 bill goes to the producing province and the federal government; we get very little.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, speaking of April Fool's jokes on the consumers, perhaps while the Minister of Revenue is on his feet talking on this subject he could tell us how much extra the new ad valorem tax is going to bring into Ontario as of April 1, 1982. What will the new increase in the ad valorem tax be?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, we base our ad valorem tax, as does virtually every province in Canada, on the median retail price that we survey at the end of the quarter. Early in March we surveyed those figures for price changes as of April 1. In this particular quarter, because of pass-throughs by the federal government and others, there will be a nominal change in the rate of a maximum of three tenths of one cent per litre at the pumps. That is for regular leaded gas, and it goes down from there to actually less than a fifth of a cent per litre at the pumps. In today's climate, I would suggest that at the retail level it probably will not even show.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: That was the final supplementary.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That was the only one, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That is right.

COMMERCIAL FISHING LICENCES

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Is the minister aware that officials of his ministry are refusing to reissue certain commercial fishing licences on the pretext that these licences are not being used?

Is the minister aware that these several generation fishermen practise good management of the resource by keeping an eye on markets and on stocks, and they judiciously use their licences?

The second question: Is the minister aware that in bringing in this new policy he is ignoring a long-established principle of government in Canada and Ontario that when new policies are brought in, recognition is given to historically established patterns of use of a resource? I would remind him that this new policy came into effect in February 1982, without prior consultation with licence holders.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of all those matters.

Mr. McGuigan: If the minister is aware of this, will he step in and change these policies that, if implemented, will take away licences from some 28 Lake Erie fishermen, people who have invested thousands of dollars in nets and equipment that are specifically tied to the specific licences?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I would be happy to accommodate the member and review the specific individuals he is concerned about, but I will not be changing the policy.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: That was the final supplementary. Just to explain the policy once more, the original questioner has one supplementary, and then the opposition has a supplementary. If the opposition do not indicate they want a supplementary, that is the end.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Why should that be?

Mr. Speaker: Because I said so.

DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTES

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment, but I would hope that the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) will also listen because it falls within their jurisdictions as well. It has to do with the conspiracy between the provincial and federal governments and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to do test drilling for the disposal of nuclear waste only in northern Ontario.

I assume the minister will know that at Massey 88 per cent of the population voted against the test drilling at nearby East Bull Lake, that the town council is opposed to that test drilling, that there are possible dangers to the water supply for Massey and that there were earth tremors at the Quirke Lake mine near Elliot Lake just last week.

Why is the minister allowing AECL to continue that test drilling in view of all the opposition within the community? Can the minister tell us why no ministers of this government, let alone the local members, federal or provincial, are taking the part of the good people of Massey who are simply trying to protect their own interest?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the honourable member directed that question either to me or, as far as that goes, anyone on this side of the House. He asks why I do not stop it. To the best of my knowledge, I do not have the authority to do that nor has any permission ever been sought by the Atomic Energy Control Board.

In some instances relating to other matters under the jurisdiction of AECB we have sought some authority to influence the activities. Up to this point I have fought one case as far as the Ontario Court of Appeal and will probably be taking it to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, so far the decisions of the courts have been quite consistent -- that we do not have jurisdiction over the activities of that organization.

Mr. Laughren: That is an incredible answer. Have the Minister of the Environment or the Ministers of Energy, Northern Affairs and Natural Resources seen the letter AECL wrote to other North Shore municipalities asking them to support their test drilling at East Bull Lake near Massey? Why in that case will the minister not ask AECL, if all these other municipalities are in favour of that kind of drilling, to do its test drilling where it is wanted, not where it is not wanted by the majority of the people?

Further, will he direct -- or ask at least -- that an environmental assessment be done on that project before it goes any further this spring? Surely it is within the purview of the Minister of the Environment to at least ask AECL to have an environmental assessment done. Finally, why will he not say to AECL, "You must sign an agreement that where this test drilling is being done will not be the future site for the disposal of nuclear waste"?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member knows full well that our legislation does not apply to a federal crown agency. I have no authority to request, demand, direct or otherwise subject them to provincial legislation. I think that is clear. If the member wants copies of references to decisions in the courts of this country I can provide him with that.

On the other aspect of his question, I do not think what he is suggesting really makes much sense at all.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not recall that there is a joint agreement among the three levels involved in nuclear power? Does he not realize an undertaking was given to the select committee that sat here that if a municipality did not want that to take place it would not take place? Does the minister not recall his government's undertaking?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what undertaking the member is referring to. I had some conversation going on behind me.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Perhaps I can reword it. Surely the minister is aware that the provincial government, through Ontario Hydro, the federal government and AECL are all involved on a joint committee.

Mr. Charlton: It was called the joint federal- provincial task force.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Exactly. Thank you. I do not recall all the names, but assurances were given to the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs that if municipalities did not want exploratory drilling to take place they would not get it.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not aware of such an undertaking, but I can assure the member that if this undertaking were given, and if it were adhered to, then I could probably predict that there would never be any testing done whatsoever. If that is what the member wants, then he is on the right course of action.

SECONDARY EDUCATION REVIEW PROJECT

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education.

The minister will be aware that there has been a good deal of discussion amongst people in the educational profession, parents and others generally interested in education about the secondary education review project report and that some concern has been expressed about the possible method of implementation of certain of the recommendations.

Will the minister assure the House this afternoon that she will take public reaction into consideration and, before the recommendations are implemented, will allow some kind of public hearing and public input into the specific recommendations of the report?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I will most seriously consider that suggestion.

Mr. Bradley: Will the minister also assure the House that when any of the recommendations from the report are implemented, this will be done by means of legislation rather than by regulation so that members of the Legislature will have the opportunity to comment in a meaningful way on the changes?

Will she assure the House that before legislation is passed, the matter of the specific recommendations will go a legislative committee for detailed discussion?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Certain of the recommendations have to do with modification of curriculum. Is the member asking that every time the curriculum is changed or modified in any way in this province it should be enacted through legislation? If that is what he is suggesting, then I think we should all have very serious reservations about that.

If he is talking about structural changes, then most certainly that will be debated. I do not know what the appropriate mechanism would be, but I will certainly consider the member's suggestion.

IRWIN TOY DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have both a question and a request of the Minister of Labour. I wonder whether the minister is prepared to make a commitment to send Mr. Joyce and Mr. Meagher back into the Irwin Toy Ltd. situation here in Toronto as quickly as possible to prevent the complete collapse and undermining of the arrangements that were made in that plant.

Mr. Speaker: Just before the minister answers that question, I would ask the two honourable members who are conferring with the ministers to please carry on their conference some place else. The Minister of Labour.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the background the member is referring to, but I will be happy to discuss it further with him as soon as the question period is over and certainly will give every consideration to having Mr. Joyce and Mr. Meagher go back in.

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health if he will resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker: He is not in his chair.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: In the interest of time, will the member please proceed?

Ms. Copps: Yesterday, the inquest into the death of Norman Davis, a 27-year-old patient at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre, received a written police statement to the effect that more than 900 patients escaped or wandered off the grounds in 1981. More than half of these people were legally committed escapees for whom the centre was responsible under the Mental Health Act.

The minister will recall that in January the Peat Marwick report on the centre indicated as many as 10 patients a day were away without leave. It concluded that more locked wards and responsible use of physical restraint were needed.

In view of his ministry's total failure to run and fund this provincial institution properly, will the minister finally take the advice of the Ontario Council of Health and Peat Marwick? Will he give up the management of Ontario psychiatric hospitals and turn them over to boards of management which will represent the communities served?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the member could not be with us here yesterday during the discussion of our supplementary estimates when my friend the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and I were discussing the Peat Marwick report. My friend the member for Bellwoods thinks we should not implement the advice offered by Peat Marwick.

On the other hand, the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps), who is Health critic for her party, feels we should proceed swiftly with the implementation of the Peat Marwick report, and I agree. She has noted the new staffing that has been put in place -- the new administrator, the new chief of psychiatry there and Sister Janet Murray, who is in charge of the implementation committee -- to prevent the recurrence of past problems. I am sure the member will agree that is the responsible way to handle that situation.

Ms. Copps: I remind the minister that the movement of psychiatric patients into the community has caused the loss of 12,000 psychiatric beds across Ontario since 1963.

What will the minister do to relieve the dreadful conditions facing people who have been pushed out of the hospitals? What will he do in the Parkdale area of Toronto, where 1,200 ex-patients have to compete for 250 community-based beds? Will the minister arrange proper funding for these community-based programs, which are so starved for dollars that six of 10 discharged patients are back in the Queen Street Mental Health Centre within one year?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Many of the figures the member is using result from one person's analysis of the records at Queen Street. One of our major problems is the way Queen Street was run in the past, which has left a great deal of uncertainty as to whether patients are readmitted or go elsewhere when they leave the Queen Street facility. That was what led to the Peat Marwick study and the revamping of the way Queen Street is run. The problems are now in the process of being solved.

I am not satisfied with the way Queen Street has been run over the past several years. I am satisfied that we have an important and useful study in place and that we have an excellent administrator and chief of psychiatry in charge. Together, they will begin to solve those problems, including the serious one of controlling the discharge of patients.

Someone has commented -- I am not sure whether it was in the Peat Marwick report or the community services study -- that planning for discharge should begin when the patient is first admitted. That has not always been the case at Queen Street, but it has to begin to happen. I am satisfied that it will happen under the new administration.

I am also determined to work with Metropolitan Toronto and all the groups operating in the community to begin to solve the Parkdale problem. It is not a satisfactory situation at present.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP AND CULTURE ACT

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Sterling, first reading of Bill 36, An Act to establish the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

Motion agreed to.

3:10 p.m.

ONTARIO REFERENDUM ACT

Mr. T. P. Reid moved, seconded by Mr. Riddell, first reading of Bill 37, An Act to Provide a Referendum for Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, this is the same bill I introduced in the session last year in regard to referenda in Ontario.

It is interesting that questions were raised on the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., drilling in northern Ontario, which was one of the reasons I was prompted to introduce a private member's bill that would give people either across the province or in a particular region or area of the province the ability to express by way of a referendum their views on any particular subject, such as, perhaps, nuclear energy or nuclear drilling for waste deposits in Ontario.

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE ACT

Hon. Mr. Walker moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 38, An Act to establish the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Motion agreed to.

TRESPASS TO PROPERTY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Charlton, first reading of Bill 39, An Act to amend the Trespass to Property Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to authorize the distribution of information in the public areas of shopping centres in Ontario.

ASSESSMENT APPEAL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Epp moved, seconded by Mr. Haggerty, first reading of Bill 40, An Act respecting Assessment Review Procedures.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for a new assessment appeal procedure whereby appeals from decisions of the assessment review board, formerly the assessment review court, would no longer be heard by county court judges but by a division of the Ontario Municipal Board.

I introduced a bill somewhat similar to this one last December 10, and since that time I have had a lot of responses, particularly from municipalities across the province. In addition, I have had some private input. On the basis of the input from both the public and private sectors, I have made some important changes in the bill. I think the bill I have just introduced is an improvement over the earlier one, and I hope the government will support it.

Mr. Speaker: May we have the consent of the House to revert to petitions?

Agreed to.

PETITION

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES, 1978-79

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition pursuant to standing order 33(b) of the Legislative Assembly.

"We, the 20 undersigned members of the assembly, hereby petition that the annual report of the Ministry of Community and Social Services for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979, tabled in the House on November 19, 1979, sessional paper 256, be referred to the standing committee on social development for such consideration and report as the committee may determine."

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the answers to questions 9, 10 and 12 on the Notice Paper and the interim answer to question 14.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (CONTINUED)

On vote 3202, institutional health services program; item 4, institutional care services:

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of other items, in addition to the one I spent some time on yesterday, I want to raise with the minister. I am sure I have his almost undivided attention. Is that true?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do I have a choice?

Mr. McClellan: No, you don't have a choice. This is not a choice question.

I want to ask the minister if he can give us a little bit of help in trying to figure out what the situation is with respect to the relationship between active treatment beds and long-term-care beds in our general hospitals. It is necessary to ask the ministry at regular intervals for updates on just raw numbers, and to spend a fair amount of time trying to get basic factual information, as my colleague the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) was attempting to do for more than an hour yesterday, when he tried to find out what the $88 million in these supplementaries is actually being spent on. We still do not know in detail.

We have a similar problem with respect to the number of beds in our hospitals and the mix between active treatment beds and long-term-care beds in hospitals and in other parts of the health care system, because the previous minister played such a wonderfully amusing game with the numbers. At one point, the number of beds had increased by some 6,000 over a five-year period. At another point, it was 3,000.

At various times, the picture changes and recedes into the mist and then re-emerges restructured and altered. All we know for a certainty is that there are serious overcrowding problems in many of our general hospitals, and they show up in the phenomenon of patients having to be admitted to active treatment beds via the emergency department and in many hospitals having to wait in emergency corridors or emergency holding facilities until active treatment beds become available.

The cause of the problem dates back to the ministry's new bed-population ratio established in 1978. I know the minister does not like to go into all these sordid historical episodes inflicted on him by his predecessor, but it is necessary to try to make some kind of sense out of this.

3:20 p.m.

We have a situation now where, despite repeated promises that the problem would be well on its way to being solved, there is pressure on the hospitals caused by so many people, particularly elderly people, being in the wrong kinds of beds -- in active treatment beds instead of in long-term-care beds. The solution of that problem ostensibly was the purpose of the new policy of switching from a major reliance on active treatment beds to an expansion of the number of long-term beds, chronic care beds, nursing home beds and homes for the aged beds.

We have had a whole series of promises over the course of the last four years by the minister's predecessor -- different figures being promised every year, different commitments being made, remade, undone, revised, recanted, remade again, and each time the figures are different.

Just to refresh the current minister's memory, we know, for example, that in October 1980 the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto released its study of long-term-care bed needs in Metropolitan Toronto. I really wish the minister would at least go through the motions of paying some attention.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am going through the motions.

Mr. McClellan: I know you are going through the motions. I expect that will be your epitaph.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: My colleague was talking to me.

Mr. McClellan: I am also concerned about the fact that when the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto made this report in October 1980, the minister of the day said the report indicated that some 2,000 patients in Metropolitan Toronto were receiving care in facilities that were inappropriate. Two thousand patients were in the wrong kind of beds. They were in the wrong kind of beds because of the shortage of long-term-care beds, the shortage of chronic care beds in our general hospitals and the shortage of extended care beds in nursing homes and homes for the aged.

Because of the shortage of long-term-care beds, many of these patients were occupying active treatment beds in our general hospitals. So the ministry brought in this policy of cutting active treatment beds and promising to expand the number of long-term-care beds. They have done a wonderful job of cutting active treatment beds. From March 1978 until August 1981, they managed to cut almost 2,500 active treatment beds out of the general hospitals of this province.

Unfortunately, and tragically for our hospitals and for the people of this province, they have failed miserably to implement the other side of the equation, which was to expand the number of chronic care beds, extended care beds, nursing home beds and homes of the aged beds.

When the then minister introduced the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto's report on long-term-care beds in October 1980, he made a number of promises, one of them being that he would establish an additional 300 nursing home beds immediately that year in Metropolitan Toronto. That was the first of a series of promises with respect to additional nursing home beds.

Again, the purpose was to take pressure off the general hospitals to make it possible to move people who are wrongly in active treatment beds into more appropriate beds, and to move people who are wrongly even in long-term-care beds in our hospitals, out of the hospitals into less costly and more appropriate alternatives.

What was the record after the most recent time this was raised in the assembly, December 1, 1981? In response to a question from the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), the then minister boasted again in the House that in the course of the last two fiscal years -- and I think that is 1979-80 and 1980-81, but it may have been 1980-81 and 1981-82 -- "In the last two fiscal years I have had approval to add 1,000 nursing home beds to the system. This approval I have granted."

I asked by way of supplementary, "How many of those 1,000 beds have already been set up?" The minister answered, with a certain amount of pique, "Well, 223." Out of the 1,000 nursing home beds that had been promised over two full fiscal years, at the end of that period, 223 actually had been set up.

What a wonderful record. What a wonderful way to honour commitments and promises made to the health care system and particularly to the elderly people of this province. That is not, of course, the extent of the failure on the part of this government to honour its commitment with respect to the establishment of additional long-term-care beds.

The Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto introduced its report almost two and a half years ago. They indicated that in Metropolitan Toronto alone, as of October 1980, the immediate need for additional chronic care and extended care beds was 2,070. They projected that between 1980 and 1985 we would need a total of 2,598 additional beds. The important point is that the immediate need was the day before yesterday, and that was two and a half years ago.

The ministry has failed utterly to bring in the promised beds. Instead, they have moved ahead with their cutback of active treatment beds so that the situation in our hospitals deteriorates. In the summer, when they are on short staff, it approaches a crisis in which people are at risk. From time to time during the course of the year at individual hospitals we are in a state of severe overcrowding, and I believe at many times in a critically dangerous position, because of the pressure on active treatment beds. In the meantime, nothing appears to have been done to establish additional long-term-care beds.

It is necessary to go through this preamble, because I do not know any way of explaining the concern in shorthand. I wish to ask the minister what it is that he intends to do specifically to introduce additional long-term-care beds into the system -- in our general hospitals, in our nursing homes and in our homes for the aged. What are his plans, and how quickly does he intend to act? I say to the minister, please be specific and precise; we are sick of the kind of flim-flam that your predecessor has inflicted on us. There is no nice way of putting it; he has been caught out too many times.

You are a new minister and you have an opportunity to write a new chapter; so, first, I ask you -- because I am a Metro member, as you are -- what are your plans for Metropolitan Toronto? That is not to put any priority on that; it is simply that Metro has probably been studied to death and we have a better sense of the urgency of the crisis in Metro because the studies have been done.

I ask, first, what the minister intends to do with respect to the crisis identified two and a half years ago by the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto.

Second, and without any kind of priority, what does the minister intend to do with respect to the establishment of long-term-care beds in the rest of the province?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, with regard to the allegations about the last few years, may I say with respect that I do not think the figures will bear out some of the rather extreme statements you made. So that I might assist you in having --

Mr. Nixon: They were trying to close Doctors' Hospital. You know that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, but they didn't because of some --

Mr. Nixon: It wasn't because of government policy.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Eminent good judgement finally prevailed in the government.

Mr. Nixon: A little game of hardball.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A government that has always been open to advice.

So that you will have the figures, in point of fact I will be delighted to give you specific figures as of today. I know you are very experienced in these matters, so you will know that these figures change as hospitals put beds into service or take beds out of service. On December 31, 1975, there were 39,770 acute care beds in the province and today there are 36,341 for a total --

Mr. McClellan: I don't want to be difficult, but you are giving 1975 figures, which are rated beds, and the current figures are approved beds. Your officials know those are phoney statistics because they are apples and oranges. We have been through that before. If you want to give me comparisons you have to start in 1976, when you moved to a system of counting based on approved beds rather than rated beds.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will be delighted. Do you want to start with December 31, 1976?

Mr. McClellan: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Okay, 38,637 acute as of December 31, 1976; 10,260 on the same date for chronic; nursing home beds, 27,111; and homes for the aged, 12,743, for a total of 88,526. Is that satisfactory?

Mr. McClellan: I have those figures.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Terrific. So the previous Minister of Health did give you the figures. I am delighted to hear you have had all these figures all these years.

Mr. McClellan: You know how many times he gave me the figures? Four times.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: So you have had them.

Mr. McClellan: This is the fourth set, and each set is different. Give us the current set.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: At least you have had this set four times, so all sets weren't different.

Mr. McClellan: No. This is the second time I have had the fourth set.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Are you ready for the current figures? I have them in this envelope. The current figures are: acute, 36,341 --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And here to accept the award --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not quite so left-leaning, though, I might add.

Total chronic, 12,171; licensed nursing home beds, 28,295; and homes for the aged, extended care, 13,118.

Mr. McClellan: Would the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) mind if I just took 30 seconds to point out to the minister that between August 31, 1981, and -- I assume those figures are for December 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The last set of figures I just gave you were today's.

Mr. McClellan: As of March 30, 1982, the number of chronic care beds has declined since last August 31 from 12,575 to 12,171, so you have lost another 400-plus beds there. The number of nursing home beds has declined from 28,324 to 28,295, so you have lost another few beds there. You are up about 100 or 200 in your homes for the aged beds, and you have lost another 40 active treatment beds.

I have some bad news for you: you are moving backwards. By your own figures the number of chronic care beds is down, the number of nursing home beds is down and the number of active treatment beds is down. So what kind of policy is this? It is just nuts.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have some bad news for you; those were the 1981 figures. Now I will give you the 1982 figures. The 1982 figures --

Mr. Nixon: Let's have the fifth list.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I regret I must disappoint my friend when he discovers that the figures are substantially up this year over last year.

Mr. Wildman: Why don't you give him the right ones then?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just relax. I know you are a little embarrassed, but just relax.

Mr. Wildman: You should be embarrassed; you are the one who gave him the wrong figures.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What do they call it in the movie? That was the setup, and this is the sting.

As of March 31, 1982, as estimated by us today -- and we have agreed that they can only be estimated by us as of today; the final figures will be in shortly -- the acute care beds are 36,636, a number which seems to me to be up substantially from last year; for total chronic, 12,588, and I know you will be distressed to find that also is up from last year.

Mr. McClellan: It is up seven beds.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Seven beds? You have to get your calculator. I have 12,588, and a year ago 12,171. You will grant me that you added wrong. What is 400 beds, eh?

Nursing home beds, 28,643; that figure also is up by 350 or so. So a pretty good figure.

Homes for the aged: I should let my colleague answer that question because they are his responsibility. It does not come under this vote.

Mr. McClellan: You can compute if you want to.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, I will give you the figure. It is 12,928, which is down from last year.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Chairman, I would like to start off by telling the minister that I am new to this field and, unlike the situation with the minister who, presumably, the moment he steps into a new portfolio is omniscient and all-knowing, that is not the case in my situation. I am going through a very difficult learning process; difficult, I might add, because of the response I have received from people across this province, people who have beds in chronic care institutions, people who have beds in acute care institutions and are extremely concerned about the situation facing them.

I would like to read into the record a couple of letters that I think will put the point very acutely for the minister. He can slip around these numbers all he wants, but when you are talking about the human beings who are living in those institutions the situation is not that smug.

I received this letter from a constituent in Hamilton:

"My mother has multiple sclerosis. Five years ago I had to have her admitted to Chedoke continuing care as I was no longer able to take care of her myself. She is 55 years old and has had the disease for 26 years. She has no use of her legs, limited use of her arms and very little use of any of her other faculties. The unfortunate part is that she is still acutely aware of her surroundings.

"In my mother's room at Chedoke there are seven other patients. Each person has a three-foot space around the bed in which to live. There is one bathroom for this room plus the room across the hall that has eight other people. One of the ladies in my mother's room is retarded and screams most of the night.

"Personal belongings are kept to a minimum as the space is so limited, and there is a surprising number of visitors or staff who feel that even the invalids are fair bait for theft.

"The staff at the CCC are just wonderful and are a great comfort to all of us who have friends and loved ones in this horrible place. This is not the only indication of unfairness. If you were to visit the continuing care facility in Hamilton, I can guarantee that you would pray God you never get sick in Hamilton. Best of luck in your report."

The minister can talk all he wants about numbers, but when there is a situation such as in the continuing care facility in my community -- and this is not the only time the issue has been raised, this is not the only letter that has brought the situation to my attention -- then it may be numbers to the minister; it is not numbers to people out in those communities who are living in those situations.

I would like to take another letter from another constituent, in London, a Conservative supporter -- albeit in the past and not in the future. This letter is dated March 18, 1982:

3:40 p.m.

"Dear Mr. Grossman:

"It is in anger, disgust and frustration that I write to you. I am the mother of five children and a registered nurse who is still working part-time at present in a busy four-doctor office." So she is familiar with the medical field. "My husband works for the London board of education in an administrative position. However, until our youngest daughter, a 13-year-old girl, needed psychiatric help, we had no idea how lacking in these facilities the city of London is.

"We took Jennifer to a child psychiatrist, Dr. Paul Patterson. After seeing her several times he felt she needed to be hospitalized in order to receive proper treatment. He and his staff pounded on doors and begged to get her admitted to the psychiatric ward at Victoria Hospital." This is the hospital about which the minister spoke so flippantly during question period.

"Because Jennifer is not 14 years old they refused her admittance. Dr. Patterson has been trying to open a four-bed unit at War Memorial Children's Hospital for young teens like Jennifer without success.

"The alternative -- a week ago Jennifer was admitted to London Psychiatric Hospital. Here is a 13-year-old girl, a grade A student in grade 8, brought up in a loving, caring home, in need of psychiatric help. But because she is not 14 she has to go to the London Psychiatric Hospital, in with teens mostly older than she is who have been placed there by the courts. In order to survive in that setting she will have to become tough. Jennifer hates it and is begging us to take her out of it or she will go AWOL. It is a very traumatic, heart-breaking situation for all of us to be in.

"We have always been Conservatives. Six of us are able to vote and we conscientiously vote in every election. We are so disgusted with these circumstances and many other situations caused by the Conservative government here in Ontario that we have probably voted Conservative for the last time. We are not the only ones who feel this way. I would wonder how you would feel if this were your child -- frustrated, angry, determined to improve the situation."

I believe the minister received that letter on March 18. I am expecting that very shortly he will have a report on that situation, as well as the situation faced by patients in chronic care in my own community of Hamilton.

But at the same time we have story after story of how these hospital cutbacks are hurting patients, real people across Ontario. It is very easy for us to sit here in this House and talk about numbers and beds and whether there should be homes for the aged looked after by the Ministry of Community and Social Services or whether they should be nursing home beds looked after by the Ministry of Health. But for those people who are forced to live out their lives in that situation, as in the chronic care facility in Hamilton, it is more than numbers.

Look at the situation in Ottawa. A hospital run by the Sisters of Charity has raised more than $1 million in private donations for a hospital unit for the terminally ill that will have to be returned unless the province guarantees the funds to run the project. That situation has not been brought to the attention of this House but was raised in the Ottawa Citizen of March 13. I think the minister is already familiar with that situation.

In the Premier's own riding, patients' services are being cut at Peel Memorial Hospital because the provincial health ministry has not paid a $2-million deficit the hospital has accumulated over the past two years, $500,000 for 1980-81 and $1.4 million for 1981-82. "If the $1.4 million and $500,000 aren't funded, the hospital will be in a very difficult situation," assistant administrator J. J. Penaligon says. "Without a doubt there will be cutbacks in services to the community."

In Cornwall women have been petitioning -- as a matter of fact I see a lovely picture of the very attractive Minister of Health on the front page of the Cornwall edition of the Ottawa Citizen of March 2. "Two Cornwall women are hoping to collect 15,000 names by the end of this month on a petition to be presented to Ontario Health Minister Larry Grossman asking for additional hospital funding. 'The population must stand together to tell our members of Parliament that we need our hospital beds to remain healthy. Sometimes you have to be at your last breath before getting a bed,' says Darlene Brabant."

What has been the ministry's response to this situation? As raised by my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) in the House today, it has been to turn hospitals into private money-making organizations, a plan I might add, despite the extensive polling facilities and techniques of this government, that is not appreciated by the majority of residents in Ontario.

"About two thirds of Ontarians disagree with the provincial government's proposal that hospitals raise charges for beds and parking and try other business activities to earn extra money," according to a survey by the Ontario Hospital Association. "Of 700 Ontarians questioned about the policy, 59 per cent said they did not support the plan while 35 per cent agreed that hospitals should raise extra money in order to become less dependent on government financing."

Basically, it was pointed out to your predecessor, the Honourable Dennis Timbrell, numerous times, and I see the same intransigence on the part of the new minister, that we are moving into an area where Ontario will be developing a user-pay philosophy with respect to our hospitals. That is a completely unacceptable approach, and the decision by the provincial government to allow differential charges for semi-private and private beds is simply the thin edge of the wedge. It is the beginning of a two-price system in health care in Ontario. It is the beginning of an erosion of universal accessibility to health care, which was one of the primal considerations in the national health act.

It is time when the new minister, in a new portfolio, can turn a new leaf and fight in cabinet so that the limited resources at present made available to the hospitals and the health sector can be extended to allow expansion in these most needed areas. Similarly, in the Ottawa area, hospitals believe the increase of 12 per cent, the increase promised in the 1982 provincial grants, will not suffice to save the institutions facing problems.

As the minister knows, the Liberal Party has attempted to address this issue by taking it to the people across the province. We will be visiting 10 communities on a fact-finding tour. It is my earnest hope that people out in the community will not be afraid to speak out, will not be intimidated by a government that is constantly warning them not to bite the hand that feeds them, and that the government will be prepared to come out into the open and let us know what the situation is in hospitals and in health institutions across the province.

If the mail I have received to date is any indication of the seriousness of the situation, the minister is going to have his hands full. You are going to have to make an immediate commitment to two things. One is a concerted effort to clean up the situation, particularly that facing the psychiatric aspect of your health delivery system. It is not only the Parkdale situation; it is not only the Toronto situation; communities like Hamilton and communities in the north are hurting.

Communities in the north are hurting because, even though they stand a greater chance of suffering from depression due to the situation of isolation in which many of the people live, they are being paid, on a per capita funded basis for health care delivery, less than people in southern Ontario. You know there is an access problem, according to a study that was done by a professor at Lakehead University. I assume those statistics are available for anybody who reads the Sudbury Star, the North Bay Nugget or the Sault Ste. Marie Star.

Mr. Wildman: We lack psychiatrists, but life up there is good.

Ms. Copps: Oh, life is good. The psychiatric problem, which is definitely a problem in northern Ontario to the best of my knowledge, is that the community of North Bay Psychiatric Hospital does not yet have a staff psychiatrist.

That problem is filtering into southern Ontario. It came to my attention in recent days that Haldimand-Norfolk mental health services do not have access on a rotating basis to a psychiatrist who used to be made available to them through the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital. The case load on psychiatrists at the HPH is just too great now to allow it to loan out its psychiatrists on a biweekly basis to Haldimand-Norfolk mental health services.

The situation is spreading across Ontario. I pointed out during question period the problem facing the minister due to erosion and to the policy of this government of moving into an area of deinstitutionalization. I would agree that possibly the previous Minister of Health, seeing as he was moving into the area of farming and living out in a suburban area of Toronto, did not understand the impact and the shock of deinstitutionalization upon people like the people of south Parkdale.

3:50 p.m.

I believe the new downtown Minister of Health does understand that. He realizes it is a problem and probably if he sat for a day or two in his own constituency office he could find people out there who are really hurting. I know it because I see it in my own community. I am sure the minister sees it in his community, and it is about time the minister and the government stopped studying the problem and did something about it.

We were told last December that the previous Minister of Health did not have a plan for deinstitutionalization in this province and yet the gradual program to move psychiatric patients out of institutions has been ongoing for years. You have the report in hand. When are you going to do something about it to alleviate a very difficult situation facing those people who have literally been thrown out into the streets?

You can all sit here and laugh. I think it is a very interesting reaction on the part of the critic as well as the minister, but for those people out in the community who need a sound, effective delivery of health care service in this province, it is a very serious question and one which I think the minister should start to take a little seriously.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me say before I welcome the new Health critic, with regard to your last comments and to set the record straight, I would not want Hansard to indicate that the minister or, in fact, the critic for the NDP were laughing or not taking this matter seriously. That is unfair to both myself and my critic for the NDP.

In point of fact, the reason we were sort of smiling at each other was because he was acknowledging, I think, as I was when I smiled at him, the irony that a Minister of Health finds himself in when yesterday, in your absence, he was criticizing me for trying to implement the report in order to solve the problem, and you were, a moment ago, criticizing me for not implementing it. After listening to you I got confused.

I would want the record to show that it was not a matter of us not taking this matter seriously. In fairness to the member for Hamilton Centre, neither the critic for the NDP nor myself made any issue yesterday of your absence in the House when a matter of $88 million for supplementary estimates for this ministry was being discussed because we presumed that did not indicate a lack of interest on your part, or that you did not care about the supplementary estimates. We presumed you had a good and valid reason for not being here yesterday.

All I am saying to the honourable member is, if she wishes to spend the next several years having a constructive dialogue on the matter of health, then she should --

Mr. Sargent: She doesn't get paid $70,000 a year like you do.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Eddie, go back to eating your sandwich up there. The only point I am making is that the member for Bellwoods and I should not --

Ms. Copps: Correct the record then but don't talk about yesterday, because it is totally irrelevant.

Mr. McClellan: Speak for yourself.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Okay, I should not be criticized for not taking this matter seriously. Let the record show the member for Hamilton Centre is now laughing.

Just to set the record straight, the member for Bellwoods and I were just noting to each other the irony involved when a minister finds himself criticized by one party for implementing and another party for not implementing the same report, which only goes to prove a very important point, which is that the answers are difficult and there are some valid arguments to be made on both sides of almost every solution one develops.

Ms. Copps: Is that why you were laughing?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I just indicated why we were laughing. Do you want me to go through it again?

Ms. Copps: Repeat it please, if you can remember the sequence of events that far back.

Mr. Chairman: Centering in on the supplementary estimates.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In any case, I would just urge the member for Hamilton Centre to understand that and to accept the forbearance we showed yesterday in not taking her absence as an indication of lack of interest, and, in fairness, to extend the same tolerance to her colleagues in this assembly. Having said that, may I take this opportunity to welcome --

Ms. Copps: On a point of order --

Mr. Chairman: Nothing is out of order. What is out of order?

Ms. Copps: The minister is out of order.

Mr. Chairman: No, he is not.

Ms. Copps: I do not need a lecture from him or from anybody else. There was a representative of the Liberal Party here at the supplementary estimates yesterday.

Mr. Chairman: The member is out of order.

Ms. Copps: I am not out of order.

Mr. Chairman: There is nothing out of order. Show me, in the standing orders, where the minister is out of order, or where something is out of order here.

Ms. Copps: The minister was commenting on my absence yesterday and I do not need to be lectured by the minister.

Mr. Chairman: That has nothing to do with the standing orders. Has the minister finished?

Mr. Sargent: I am going to give you $1 for your leadership campaign.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Half a dollar will do it. May I welcome, without lecturing, my new Health critic.

Ms. Copps: I do not think it is possible.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I welcome my new Health critic. I sympathize with her problems of learning about a very difficult area. I have shared that difficulty in the first six weeks --

Mr. McClellan: The member and the minister deserve each other.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think the member for Bellwoods and the member for Hamilton Centre deserve each other.

As I said, I understand the complexities. I share with her very much the problems of learning this area and trying to struggle with these problems. I wish her well in her task force efforts and hope the public comes forward to offer her some advice which will help her understand that this government is not negligent in the way she is suggesting.

Conversely, if the member comes back from those efforts with some constructive advice for this government, I assure her -- and I am sure the task force members will so assure those people they see out on their trips -- that this minister will be quite open to any suggestions or information they may glean that we do not already have. It would surprise me if they found new ideas, but if they do, I would be delighted to hear about them and to consider them.

The member for Hamilton Centre indicated that this is not a numbers game, that I should not play with numbers, that there are real people involved. I remind the member that I did not raise the question of numbers. A justifiable request was made for an up-to-date count of beds and I was responding -- although this should not be taken by the Health critic for the New Democratic Party to be an indication that we think this is a matter of numbers.

On the other hand, a moment ago, after having lectured me that it is not a matter of numbers, the member for Hamilton Centre went on to discuss whether there were enough beds, by actual count, in certain parts of the province. I take exception to anyone's suggesting that we deal with this on a mechanical, numerical basis. I would not accuse this member of doing that simply because she pointed out that in her opinion there is a shortage of beds in certain parts of the province. It is a matter of real people and we are all struggling with the problem.

The honourable member refers to some problems at Chedoke-McMaster Hospital in Hamilton and suggests that it is underfunded. In fact, in the last fiscal year its budget was increased by a total of 15.8 per cent, up to almost $60,267,000, which is a fairly substantial increase.

As to whether all the problems there have been solved, I suspect that with Hamilton's Chedoke Hospital, as with many other hospitals, problems will continue to be brought to the attention of the ministry and we will continue to deal with them. That is why, when one looks at the allocation to various hospitals throughout this province, one finds differing increased budget figures. It is because we do attempt to address the particular problems of hospitals as they come up from time to time.

4 p.m.

The member mentioned the Peel Memorial Hospital and its $200,000 deficit. I understand the problem that you acknowledged at the top of your remarks with regard to information. With all due respect, that deficit is no longer in existence; they do not have a $200,000 deficit. A lot of hospitals that were talking about having deficits a few weeks ago no longer have deficits for several reasons, including: (1) The ministry has gone through an appeal process and has paid off some of those deficits for the hospitals; and (2) some of the hospitals were projecting deficits which, as they got closer to the end of the fiscal year, they did not have.

With regard to the specific cases the member noted, I am distressed about the case she cited in London. I am distressed quite outside of the politics involved; it matters not to me who that poor child's parents vote for or how many votes are in the house. The fact is, it is a difficult situation and if she would continue to draw those matters to my attention, I think it would be constructive for the patients involved if she forwarded that information to us privately. We will continue to try to see, if there are any problems in the system, that those kinds of situations do not recur.

In terms of the availability of psychiatric facilities in the London area, which that case related to, we have a total of 44 beds at St. Joseph's Hospital in London, 20 psychiatric beds at University Hospital, 42 beds at London's Victoria Hospital and another 544 beds at London Psychiatric Hospital, of which 36 are adolescent.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order simply to set the record straight. The correspondence from the family in London was not directed to me; it was directed to the Minister of Health. And the letter is dated March 18; so I assume it has already been brought to the minister's attention.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The point I was making was that it had been brought to my attention. I was pointing out that if this kind of process continues, these people corresponding with the minister, I will be delighted. I do not care if they send copies to you. I just raise the concern of showing carefully considered judgement when specifics are raised in the House which may allow people to identify a particular patient and his or her problems. That kind of process where people do write to us allows us to deal with those problems as they arise. It is a good process.

I hope the member heard in question period today of the business-oriented new development program which was raised. I did indicate that we intended to monitor the situation with the hospitals very carefully. We go into the program not that sure how it will operate because all new programs have some unpredictability involved; some are better run than others. We will be monitoring that development very seriously, hospital by hospital, as they introduce their various programs.

Mr. McClellan: Are you going to cancel the programs?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If it does not work, we will cancel it, but I am convinced it will cause some sensible rationalization to occur within the system, which is not a place where too much attention has been paid. For example, the part of the program which allows hospitals --

Mr. McClellan: I am not objecting to that part of it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not think the member was. That is part of the program. What he meant to say was that we should get rid of the part of the new program that we are going to --

Mr. McClellan: The part I told the minister about in question period.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I understand. I just want to be clear and understand your position as clearly as you wanted to understand the former minister's position. You have been as unclear in your position as you accused the former minister of having been in his.

In any case, I want to make this sincere pledge to the assembly. That program is a new venture. It is one that was done after a great deal of consultation with the hospital community. It is one that various hospitals are responding to in a variety of ways. The performance throughout the hospital community will undoubtedly be uneven; some will be more successful than others at it, while others will have problems with it.

We are going to watch very carefully to make sure not only that the legislation, the rules and the principles surrounding it are honoured, but also that patients are in no way affected in terms of the universality and accessibility of the system as a result of that program.

Mr. McClellan: How many cases will it take?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It will just take one for us to react. Which does not mean to say you will stand up in question period and say you have found one and ask whether I will revoke the program; I am not saying that. But I would like you to draw my attention to any instances you get that you think violate the principles of accessibility and universality.

It might even be more helpful if you would let us know, say, one day in advance, so that when you rise in the assembly -- your colleague the would-be mayor is saying "no," but, of course, he does not want me to have the answer when you ask the question. He wants you want to make the allegation and then to go outside and say the BOND program does not work, and the next day we will come back and explain it has been fixed. It will not be such a story, but I understand.

Mr. McClellan: We will treat you as fairly as you treat us.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have always treated you fairly -- not easily, but fairly.

In any case, may I sum up by saying to the member for Hamilton Centre that I hope she will not feel I am intransigent. I do not intend to be intransigent on the BOND program. I want to make sure it works and is altered where it has to be altered.

With regard to the success of that program, she quoted some hospitals as being unhappy with it. I would quote, of course, the response of the Ontario Hospital Association to our budget increases this year. She said they were inadequate. The OHA says, and I quote:

"We think that for hospitals starting in good financial shape, 12 per cent and the promise of a review is pretty promising. It is better than we have had in years. It is a positive approach even though there are still problems."

George Ingram of the OHA said, "On balance, a 12 per cent increase is a positive approach to some of the financial problems that are troubling hospitals."

These are pretty positive responses from the Ontario Hospital Association.

We will be monitoring the success of BOND. I think it is important to note that, contrary to the fears raised by some members opposite that as a result of introducing this program we would be cutting the budgets to the hospitals, this year we increased our transfers to hospitals over last year in the same year we were introducing the program.

None the less, I say in all sincerity to the member for Hamilton Centre, I am not intransigent on these matters. I am very concerned about how this program will work, and we are monitoring it carefully.

With regard to the Parkdale situation and the mental health situation, I say to the honourable member that my predecessor was very sensitive to those problems and deserves a great deal of credit for initiating some responses and taking some initial steps in that area.

As a person who represents a downtown Toronto riding, I can affirm what the member for Hamilton Centre has said. I walked the streets of downtown Toronto on a regular basis many years ago, and I have been in a position to canvass a lot of households in downtown Toronto and to spend a lot of time meeting people on the streets of downtown Toronto over the past six or seven years. I spend a lot of time in my constituency office; I meet a lot of people there and see a lot of problems firsthand.

As a result of that experience, I was not only willing but also anxious to assume these responsibilities, because I know firsthand some of these problems.

4:10 p.m.

The Queen Street situation, the situation surrounding Parkdale, the situations in all of downtown Toronto and in all of those catchment areas affected by discharged patients are ones that I regard as very serious problems and of high priority for us. They are problems that do not hold the promise of easy, simple and quick solutions but for which solutions must be found as quickly as possible. I give you my determination to try to solve those problems, together with you, at the earliest possible time.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, maybe the minister or his staff could tell me whether Bill 19 will be passed during this session.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, it is a new session; tell me what it is you want to know. What is the title of the bill? Just ask the question and I will give you the answer.

Mr. Sargent: Will Bill 19 be passed --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don't want to play with numbers as your colleague accused me of doing.

Mr. Sargent: I will ask you a third time. Will Bill 19 be passed this session?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer is -- I know you don't know the title of the act. I have not introduced any legislation this session; so I do not have any Bill 19 on the Order Paper. Why don't you ask me what it is you want?

Mr. Sargent: Bill 19 is an Act to amend the Mental Health Act. It was passed by all the mental health associations of Ontario in 1978 and was to come before the House for passing. It relates to a very serious situation in our province that happens when an individual faces committal without any legal representation. It proposes to change committal procedures and to allow for disclosure of patients' clinical records and revised procedures of hearings before review boards.

What input do elected people have in this Legislature? The tail is wagging the dog when highly paid officials can make decisions that affect the lives of the people of Ontario. We have the worst record in all of Canada in this field of psychiatric care. We have been waiting four years now for this bill to be passed; so what's going to happen under your hotshot administration?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Under my low-key but very effective and efficient administration, I can tell you just so it will simplify it the next time you ask me the question. Since there is no Bill 19 of my ministry on the Order Paper now, I think the question referred to Bill 19 of several sessions ago, which subsequently was enacted.

Mr. Sargent: It was an Act to amend the Mental Health Act.

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I remind the member that act was passed by this assembly.

Mr. Sargent: It has not been passed.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I believe what he is referring to is that while the act has been passed there are certain sections of the act which have not been proclaimed by the government up to the present time.

With regard to the unproclaimed portions of the amendments to the act or, as the member calls it, Bill 19 of several sessions ago, may I say that I have asked for a full review of that. I have already reviewed the unproclaimed sections and the problems surrounding the proclamation of those sections.

I know the member will be relieved and interested to know that with all of the matters I have had to deal with in my first six weeks on the job -- including the hospital budgets, the budget allocations for next year, the deficits and the doctors' negotiations, not to mention the problems surrounding Queen Street, all of which have taken a great deal of my time in my first six weeks -- I have made it my business to spend some time studying the unproclaimed sections of that bill and discussing the problems of implementing them and proclaiming them. I hope to be able to say something more about that in the next little while.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I will not take very long --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You said that before.

Mr. McClellan: I was lying. I have already made my speech and I do not intend to make it again, but my question was not answered; so I have to ask it again.

I had asked the minister whether he would give us -- not now, necessarily -- a complete statement of his plans with respect to the implementation of additional long-term-care beds -- chronic care beds, extended care beds, nursing home beds and homes for the aged beds.

You have given me a whole set of figures. I am always pleased to get those. I collect numbers from the Minister of Health as some dogs collect fleas, I suppose, but --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A good analogy.

Mr. McClellan: But which is the dog and which is the flea?

The nursing home figures still indicate that the promises of the minister's predecessor regarding additional nursing home beds even for Metro have yet to be implemented, and we are not even talking about needs outside of Metropolitan Toronto. My understanding is that the situation identified by the hospital council is virtually identical today to what it was two and a half years ago.

Will the minister prepare for us a comprehensive statement of his concrete and specific plans which have been approved -- that is to say, for which money has been budgeted -- for the additional beds, broken down into the categories I have given? Then we can have a clear idea of what his intentions are with respect to all the wonderful promises that have been made since 1978.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the 300 beds spoken of earlier and promised by my predecessor for Metro, there are now 82 that are in operation and being occupied, and 214 others will be opened within the next 12 months; that is, they are in the process of being built and put in place.

Mr. McClellan: Those are the beds that were promised two and a half years ago.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can only report the facts as they are -- and there they are.

With regard to your request that I table a complete plan, I intend to deal with whatever added facilities I can provide to meet the immediate clearly identifiable needs in the not-too-distant future. In other words, soon I hope to have some interim measures to announce to alleviate the problem.

I am determined in this ministry not only to solve the immediate problems but also to begin to solve these problems in a longer-term sense. This is not to say we are going to ignore the short-term and real problems of today, but I am determined to do these things in a co-ordinated medium-term and long-term fashion. We do not want to be in a situation where you are coming back here year after year -- perhaps at a later time with some justification, but I hope not -- saying, "You promised X, and you produced X minus three or X minus 30 this year."

I hope to be able to arrive at a situation where I can lay out for you and for myself a long-term strategy to solve the problem. That will involve co-ordination with my sister ministry, ComSoc. But I find the current situation one that I am not comfortable with.

Mr. Laughren: Maybe you can get some BILD money for it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have spent it all. If I had only known.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mugged in the corridors of power.

4:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They were and are great projects. But I do intend to deal with the matter of extended care beds in a co-ordinated fashion, so that my colleague will not be expecting that implementation plan and that response from me tomorrow morning or next week. It is going to take me some time to draw some conclusions. I do not want to be rash about it, and I do not want to have short-term, Band-Aid solutions. It is going to take me a period of time to reach some conclusions.

Mr. McClellan: That sounds like "the fullness of time."

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That's not fair. Perhaps not on the record in Hansard and certainly not in the media, but in the back rooms I suspect you would acknowledge that, at least in my previous jobs, when I gave commitments and set out new policy thrusts, whether or not you agreed with them, I had a record of following through on those things. You might have thought the policies were wrong, but you would have to acknowledge, although not publicly --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Bad hook on the swing, but you did follow through.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I appreciate your acknowledging that voluntarily. But I really do follow through on those things, and I can promise the same kind of dedication and determination in this job, though it is more complex and difficult. I like to believe that one of the reasons I am here is that the Premier (Mr. Davis) wanted me to do the same kind of thing.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Try anything you want. I am open for questions on that.

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable minister will respond to the question.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to the debate on these supplementary estimates, and I think it is unfortunate that we seem to make so light of the inadequate health services that we are obviously providing to the people of this province.

I read two or three weeks ago in Today magazine an article entitled "Madness in South Parkdale," I think it was. As I read, I asked myself several times: "Can this possibly happen in a country like Canada? Or is it only happening in Ontario? Is this perhaps one of the reasons so many Ontario people are leaving to other jurisdictions?"

I know jobs are probably one of the main reasons they are leaving, but I also wonder whether they are not taking a look at the services that are provided by this government and coming to the conclusion that if they are going to look after the sick and the elderly they may have to go to other jurisdictions to get that kind of service.

As I continued to read that article my blood really started to boil, because I soon came to the conclusion that this type of thing does not have to happen. I recall that back in the years when the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) was the Minister of Health, the government adopted a policy of closing hospitals to cut back on health expenditures. It was an ill-conceived policy, and I am pleased to see that his immediate successor, the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) and, I hope, his most recent successor, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), will never try to implement such a policy again. As a matter of fact, when we were dealing with the Public Hospitals Act last session, the then minister gave me a commitment that the government would never again adopt a policy of closing hospitals.

But it is unfortunate that we see these mental patients without any kind of care, as was indicated in that article, when I well recall the Ministry of Health closing down the Goderich Psychiatric Hospital, the hospital that was acclaimed by countries such as England as the best hospital of its kind for the treatment of psychiatric patients. I think it will leave a scar not only on the people of Huron and surrounding areas but also on the people of Ontario that such a hospital was closed.

I have received letters from people from inside and outside my riding -- some are members of the cloth -- who read "Madness in South Parkdale" and reflected on the closing of the Goderich Psychiatric Hospital. They could not believe that this type of thing was still happening. Then we read that some 900 patients have escaped from the Queen Street Mental Health Centre owing to lack of security.

I wonder if we really care about the sick, the frail and the elderly of this province. The elderly are a concern we are going to have to direct particular attention to before we travel many more miles down the road. I have always believed that we could reduce hospital expenditures if we provided more home care services for the elderly.

The minister knows that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has developed a new homemaker services program, which I understand will be funded by that ministry but administered by the Ministry of Health, with fees paid through the existing home care offices. This plan would provide homemakers to adult frail, elderly or handicapped persons to enable them to stay in their own homes without the need for medical and professional services.

I understand that the government is selecting five or six areas in which to start this plan. I recognize that the selection may well be a political decision, but I hope the minister will find it beneath his dignity to base selection on politics.

In rural Ontario, we have a large number of senior citizens. Exeter has a population of between 3,500 and 4,000, of whom well over 1,000 are elderly citizens. In Huron county alone, there are 59,000 people, or 13 per cent of the population, over age 65.

When the minister selects areas for this new home care service program, I hope he will consider rural areas such as Huron county, which has already approached him on this matter. However, the response has been that as they do not have a chronic care program they are ineligible for this new home care program. If the minister will check his correspondence he will see that this, basically, was the response he gave to those people.

Huron county has been applying since 1977, I believe, for a chronic care program. But if they have received acknowledgement of these applications from the minister's predecessors, the fact is that approval of such a program has not been granted by the ministry. Now they are told they will not be eligible for the new program because they do not have a chronic care program in place.

I plead with the minister to give Huron county every consideration when he is selecting areas for this new pilot program. If he continues to feel they do not qualify for the new program because they do not have a chronic care program in place, I hope he will seriously consider approving a chronic care program for Huron county.

4:30 p.m.

In rural Ontario, we seem to be a voice in the wilderness, but it is also in rural Ontario where you will find, I believe, the greatest number of senior citizens and people to whom we are going to have to direct more of our attention as time goes on. With as much good grace as I can offer at this time to the minister, I simply plead with him to give areas like Huron county every consideration when he sets up his areas of the new home care program, or expands the chronic care program, so that Huron county may well be included in that.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to pre-empt too much time of the committee, but I think it is incumbent upon me at this time, when the minister is coming before the committee to ask for an additional $88 million, to bring to his attention the acute need for additional funding for hospitals in northern Ontario which suffer from the same inflationary pressures that everybody in the province does, but to a much greater extent because they are not able to effect economies of scale, because of isolation and because they have to do a lot on their own. The services available in large urban centres in Ontario are just not available to the same extent in the north.

When you talk about the delivery of life support systems, I want to put a plea in for at least a portion of that $88 million on behalf of the hospitals in northern Ontario. I want to deal specifically with Nipigon District Memorial Hospital, where it is so bad they are even putting patches on the patches on the bed sheets. By way of highlighting the problem for the minister, since he is new to this portfolio, I want to give him some idea of the problems facing another hospital, in Marathon. It is operating at quite a deficit this year. It has made application to the ministry for special funding.

On my last visit to Marathon the newly arrived surgeon -- he is the only surgeon we have in the riding of Lake Nipigon, and operates out of the Wilson Memorial General Hospital in Marathon -- approached me, accompanied by the administrator of the hospital, to ask me if there was any source of funds so that they could get much needed medical equipment for their operating room.

I have written to all the foundations operating in Ontario and Canada that indicate they will provide funding for health purposes for very needy cases and, particularly, for northern communities or small communities that do not have the necessary tax base and a sufficient number of people to generate the capital to pay the local costs of operating the hospitals and the delivery of life support systems. I would like to use this letter to explain much more succinctly, in a shorter period of time than I can, the problems being faced by hospitals like the Wilson Memorial in Marathon. I quote:

"The list of equipment we requested assistance in purchasing is essential in maintaining the high quality of health care in our community and the surrounding area. We have approached the ministry requesting extra funds, but to no avail. We are encountering a deficit of approximately $160,000 in this year's operating budget and have sent an appeal to the ministry to cover the deficit, but to no avail at this time."

They are presenting this appeal to the financial people in the ministry some time this coming week.

"The equipment we are requesting assistance in purchasing is either new or necessary to replace antiquated pieces we are presently using. This new equipment will enable Dr. G. Perales to perform the necessary operations. Our hospital serves an area of approximately 7,000 square miles with a total population of approximately 12,000 people. As you know, a large percentage are now unemployed and the acquisition of funds is very limited. Being an isolated area, and providing major surgery to this area, we have to ensure that all equipment is of the highest calibre with little or no risk to the patient.

"The population of the area, that is from White River to Schreiber, is very quickly reaching their golden years. This means the time spent in the operating room must be kept to a minimum, thus the request for this equipment. Prior to the arrival of our surgeon, the population had to travel to Thunder Bay, a round trip of 645 kilometres, or four hours minimum on the highway. Once they arrived in Thunder Bay they would not be guaranteed a bed, and in some instances they had to spend a few nights in a motel room at their own expense.

"Also, the availability of beds is at a premium and these elective patients could wait many months before being accepted. Dr. Perales is also operating more and more on Jehovah's Witnesses, which, as you know, could be very delicate work, thus making the latest equipment on the market a must. We are finding the hospitals in Thunder Bay are very grateful we are doing surgery on these people, that is locally in Marathon. I hope this information will be of some help to you in acquiring the necessary funds. We would like to thank you for your assistance and help and wish you success.

"Sincerely, M. D. Foley, administrator of the Wilson Memorial General Hospital."

He is not being overly dramatic in emphasizing the need and the pressures placed on small, remote, isolated hospitals in providing a modicum of health services. I am not being overly dramatic, but I thought that would highlight more succinctly and more earnestly than anything else I could have done to bring your attention to the fact that we hope people in northern hospitals like Nipigon and Marathon will get a piece of the action in this $88 million you are requesting of the Legislature at this time.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of short remarks. One of these deals precisely with the point that was raised by my colleague the member for Huron-Middlesex involving the extension of the service of chronic home care to the Huron county area, and in particular, dealing with the application by the Town and Country Homemakers for the operation of that program. I see that as a great way of reducing potential costs to the hospitals in terms of the need for those chronic care beds in our hospitals.

It is an extremely large problem for the communities in our area because we find we tend to have an undersupply of nursing homes, we tend to have an undersupply of chronic care beds and we tend to have waiting lists to get into all those facilities. If we could have that program in our area we would, to a great extent, alleviate the pressure on those services, and perhaps alleviate the necessity of having some of our hospitals applying for extra money.

I would also like to bring to the minister's attention the problem of some of those seniors who are staying in chronic care beds in hospitals. I note that in January of this year there was an increase of $11.88 in their supplement through the federal government. I wrote to you earlier, not that long ago, but I wanted to bring this particular matter addressed to me by one of my constituents to your attention.

I have discovered through information given to me by Mr. Eaton of Wingham that right after his mother-in-law received the increase of $11.88 through the federal government he received a letter from the Ministry of Health indicating that the cost of the care his mother was receiving was going up by $11.87. That means she netted a one-cent increase on her cheque.

4:40 p.m.

In relation to that sort of increase, I want to elicit some sort of response as to why this type of action is being taken with respect to seniors. It seems the chronic care patients in particular, while they are required to stay in the facilities supplied over the last number of years, have not been able to increase in any sense the absolute amount of money they have at their disposal for a comfort allowance.

I think what the extension of care to seniors outside the hospitals might do is facilitate a less expensive method of looking after our seniors. It could probably give them some sort of dignity in allowing them to stay in their houses rather than having to go to hospitals where they will pass their remaining days.

I wanted to bring those matters to the minister's attention, and I trust, as he has said before, he will use his good offices to deal very expeditiously with these sorts of problems.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I have one very short question to the minister. Yesterday, when he spoke on the introduction of the estimates, he mentioned the ministry had provided seven new CAT scanners to hospitals recently as part of the improvement in high-technology equipment. He mentioned that of those seven, five had gone to Toronto hospitals. He listed those, and I was disappointed to note that Toronto East General Hospital is not among those listed.

This hospital serves not only my area but that of the member for York East (Mr. Elgie). It has over 600 beds. I had inquired of the medical director a while ago, when I read in the paper about these new scanners in Toronto, whether he thought they needed one. He said, "We certainly do need one very badly, and we have been asking for one for two or three years."

I would like to ask the minister if he can explain what criteria they use to decide which of the Toronto hospitals should have CAT scanners and which ones should not. The Toronto East General Hospital has a very heavy load of treatment for senior citizens who have a wide variety of illnesses. It has a large maternity ward and a great number of orthopaedic patients and I think it has the busiest emergency department in Toronto. It seems to me it probably would be able to make use of a CAT scanner. I do not know whether a CAT scanner fits into emergency service or not; I am not knowledgeable enough on the technical uses of it.

I would like to ask what criteria were used in the choice of the five hospitals, why Toronto East General Hospital was not included and when it will be able to expect a CAT scanner?

Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make a few comments on this vote by referring to an experience I had less than two weeks ago. An elderly gentleman living in a nursing home in my community took seriously ill and was moved to Grace Hospital. The procedures followed were first-class. However, as soon as the wife of the individual who was hospitalized came back to the nursing home she was told immediately, "We will hold that bed for your husband for only three days."

It put her in a very invidious position. She had to write a cheque or provide funds so that her husband, on being discharged from the hospital, would be assured of accommodation in the nursing home. It points out the shortages of nursing homes in the Windsor area. Even though a certain number have been assigned or a certain increase has been promised for the area, it still is not going to meet the need in the community.

I wish the minister or his officials could have an opportunity to read a suggestion I made in this House probably 15 years ago that we consider a baby bonus in reverse, where people would be given a sort of "grandfather bonus" for taking care of their elderly parents or grandparents, who may not feel well but who could be accommodated fairly comfortably in their home instead of in an institution in the community, which in my estimation would probably be more expensive and also would not provide the same type of tender loving care that some children would give their parents or grandparents.

There are two points here that I want to repeat. In spite of the fact that you may be providing additional nursing home space in the community, there will still be a substantial shortage, in my estimation. I am subject to any correction the minister may want to present. I do know all three of the Windsor members get all kinds of requests concerning assistance to people who want nursing home accommodation. Fortunately, the city uses the correct procedure, where everything goes through a central source and they get on the waiting list and are accommodated when their turn comes up. However, the fact that you have to have a waiting list indicates the acute and severe shortage in the community.

The next consideration is the one I mentioned of a baby bonus or some type of financial arrangement with children so that, instead of accommodating their parents or relatives in some government supported institution or home, the children can be offered the option of taking care of their own parents for some type of remuneration, which would in some instances supplement a meagre income. Those are the two suggestions I would like to make to the minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, the last several speakers have made some quite useful comments, which I will consider as time goes on. In order to help them with regard to some of the points they made -- and I hope I do not miss many of them other than the ones I intend to miss -- may I say to the members for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) and Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) -- the latter has left, but the former, I'm sure, will relay it to him -- that I know the member for Huron-Middlesex knows me to be a sometimes decently partisan politician but always a fair one when it comes to applying government programs, and that there will be no political considerations in implementing chronic home care programs throughout the province.

It is my hope that we can implement chronic home care programs throughout the province in the course of this coming year, because it has a very high priority with me. While I cannot allow the members to go home this weekend and say they have extracted an undertaking from the minister to introduce chronic home care in Huron county, as I know they would like to and probably will, it is my hope that I will be able to accomplish that goal some time within this fiscal year. I am rather hopeful about that, and I will continue to work on it.

4:50 p.m.

My friend the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) has identified some matters for me that really do cause me some concern. The whole question of underserviced areas, the problem of providing first-class medical care in the north without allocating resources in such a way that we are not sensibly managing the system, is something I really would like to deal with and have already asked some questions about. We have identified some problems and they are very real concerns. I want to acknowledge that right away. I do not know what the easy solutions to those are, but we will be looking at them. It troubles me.

The hospital my friend mentions in Marathon -- it may not end with as large a deficit as this, but it looks like it may end with a $169,000 deficit; that is just a projection and it may come in lower -- did get a 16.4 per cent increase, well above the provincial average for this year. In fact, when its administrators came in to see us, appealing for more money to wipe out the deficit, $51,000 additional money was given to them to bring the deficit down to where it is.

Obviously that is a situation that does not solve the problem, but, as we went through yesterday, we feel the hospitals that are left with deficits have some capability to deal with those deficits in one way or another. If they have difficulty during the year, as I indicated when I announced the global transfers to hospitals this year, we will have a look at it again without holding out any false hopes.

At the Nipigon hospital, as you know, they not only do not have a deficit projected for the end of this year, but their increase was far above the provincial average. They got a 22.3 per cent increase this past year. In terms of cash flow on an operating basis to the hospitals in the north generally, and those two specifically, the ministry has treated them fairly well and is sensitive to some of the problems the member has indicated.

The question of equipment and the lack of ability to raise money in the community and of the financial base there to do so is of real concern and is something we have to deal with. It has been acknowledged, as the member will know, in terms of building projects in the north where we have a smaller percentage -- one sixth instead of two sixths required to be raised from the community -- and that part of it has seemed to nave worked fairly well. But I have heard what the member says and I will consider that.

As well, I want to assure the member for Lake Nipigon that among my priorities will be things such as telemedicine, which will help services in the north. My background in the other ministry has given me some insight into health care products, microelectronics and some of the advances made there. I hope to be able to introduce some of those things.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) raised some good points. I will consider the latter recommendation he made. The former one indicates a problem we continue to face, as raised by the members here, in keeping up with the changing needs for more extended beds throughout the province. We have talked about the shift away in previous years from acute to chronic and extended care beds. That trend will continue and whether we are able to keep up is certainly a challenge for this minister. I want to be able to keep up with the changing demands. One of the ways we do keep up is by dealing in the chronic home care field.

Obviously situations where we can keep people in their communities not only saves us money, which is important, but not nearly as important as having people in the proper setting. In my view, to have them in their own homes, in the homes of their families, wherever in the community, provided there are adequate community facilities, so that they are getting Meals on Wheels, homemaker services, adequate recreation, all those things, is far preferable to a situation of automatic institutionalization where they do not get some of the things they might get in a community.

On the other hand, to have chronic home care, you cannot have it in name without having it in fact. You must have the infrastructure in place to provide those other services to the people there. We really want to do that in a meaningful way.

Mr. Newman: Why not pay the children of the parents to take care of them rather than put them into any type of public facility?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Sorry. Would you repeat that?

Mr. Newman: Why not make some type of financial arrangements with the children to take care of their own parents? If they cannot take care of their own parents because they cannot afford it financially, those parents will go into some government subsidized facility or into a paid facility. Whereas, if the children wished to, they could take care of their own parents, if they were provided with some remuneration for taking care of their father or mother.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am going to think about that a bit, but my initial reaction is that I like to think there are not very many families that are institutionalizing their parents because they are not getting a cheque from the government to keep them home. I like to believe families like to keep their parents in their homes and will go to any extreme possible, and that an extra amount of money each month is not a determining factor in whether one keeps grandmother or grandfather at home or ships them off to another facility. However, there is always a grey ground, an area in the middle, where it might merit some further study, so I will --

Mr. Grande: You are missing the point.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I am not. I am understanding.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: The minister has the floor; there is still further opportunity for other members --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, there is not. Do not encourage him.

May I also say to the member for Windsor-Walkerville that he has identified a very important problem, which is about patients who leave nursing homes to go into hospitals for likely a short period of time and are told they have three days to get back to hold that bed. That is not a satisfactory situation at the present time, and I have asked my staff to bring forward some proposals as alternatives to the current situation. I hope to have something to report to this House shortly, if we can find something, but it is a problem identified and I have asked for some solutions to be developed.

Finally, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) asked why a CAT scanner was not put into Toronto East General Hospital. As the member no doubt knows, we rely upon the district health council to indicate the priorities as it sees them. She knows the district health council is broadly based in the community; it is not dominated. The government has municipal representation on it and I believe, most recently, I saw they had ranked eight hospitals for CAT scanners as they became available. I think East General was seventh or eighth on the list, and there were four to be allocated last program. We usually follow the district health council guidelines because they have proven to be very effective in the past. That is where they rank and one day when, as we hope, more money becomes available, you know where their ranking is.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, briefly, I would like to ask the minister if he has given any thought to the first test-tube twins that were born in Oakville last week? I think this is a question that, of course, goes far beyond --

The Deputy Chairman: Do you have any questions having to do with the estimates? I want to make sure it is tied into that, which I have not heard so far.

Mr. Di Santo: Sure, Mr. Chairman, because --

The Deputy Chairman: I am just raising the question. How does it tie into the estimates, please?

Mr. Di Santo: I am raising a question within the administration of the hospitals, because public funds will be involved in that.

The Deputy Chairman: I am sorry, this is not part of the estimates as they have been presented and debated. I know it is a wide-ranging debate, but tie it in better, that is all I am asking.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I think this is part of the supplementary estimates we are discussing.

The Deputy Chairman: What is your point? I certainly want to give every opportunity for wide-ranging discussion but it should have some relevance to the specifics.

5 p.m.

Mr. Di Santo: If you will allow me to continue, perhaps you will understand my point, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: I just wanted to make sure that you are aware of that, because although we are in committee we still like to make sure we speak to the motion.

Mr. Di Santo: All right. Serious questions have been asked about the ethics of human conception in laboratories and --

The Deputy Chairman: I am sorry, I have to rule on the item before us and say it is out of order.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, what is the item before us?

The Deputy Chairman: The item before us is the Ministry of Health's estimates, vote 3202, institutional health services program; item 4, institutional care services.

Mr. Di Santo: Exactly. If you will turn the page, Mr. Chairman, you will see that --

The Deputy Chairman: Unless the honour- able member can do something to satisfy the chair that his question has to do with the estimates before us now, which do not include the estimates of the whole ministry but just one specific part, I must ask the member to deal specifically with the issue. Otherwise, I will have to go to another member who wishes to raise a point.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to make it clear that I am talking about an issue which is directly related to the services in hospitals, which come under the supplementary estimates that we are discussing.

The Deputy Chairman: I am not convinced. Please try again. If I remain unconvinced, I will rule you out of order.

Mr. Di Santo: I don't understand, Mr. Chairman, why you are so nasty with me. I was trying only --

The Deputy Chairman: I do not want to be nasty with you, I really don't. I would like to give you every chance, as I have done with everyone else. It is not my desire to be unreasonable.

Mr. Di Santo: I am only trying to make a very short point. I would like to ask the minister if he has given any thought to the matter, since public money will be involved in the research and probably in the development of in vitro fertilization. I think everybody agrees that as long as this new experiment will permit childless couples to have children, it is a step forward.

The Deputy Chairman: I rule the question out of order. The honourable member is out of order. Does any other member wish to participate in this debate?

Mr. Di Santo: But, Mr. Chairman --

The Deputy Chairman: I have ruled you out of order. Unless you have another question to raise, you do not have the floor.

Mr. Di Santo: I think I could challenge your ruling.

The Deputy Chairman: You cannot challenge my ruling in committee. Does any other honourable member wish to participate in this debate?

Mr. Breaugh: You have just been challenged.

The Deputy Chairman: One cannot appeal in the committee. The appeal is to the House. The chair's ruling stands.

Mr. Breaugh: Are you saying, Mr. Chairman, that the rules of this House in committee do not provide for a challenge of the chair? Since when, may I ask?

The Deputy Chairman: I draw the attention of the honourable member to section 84 of the standing orders: "(a) The standing orders of the House shall be observed in committees of the whole House so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the seconding of motions and limiting the number of times of speaking. (b) The chairman shall maintain order in committees of the whole House and decide all questions of order subject to an appeal to the House; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House on receiving a report thereof."

I have indicated to the member that if further action is to be taken, it will be taken to the House and not in this committee.

Mr. Breaugh: Excuse me for saying so but I believe the proper procedure would be for the committee to rise and report that there has been a challenge to the chair and then the House will have a vote on it.

The Deputy Chairman: You could move that the committee rise and report and then such a motion could be taken at that time.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: I have made a ruling that the question that has been asked about the Ministry of Health estimates is not in order. Now, is there anyone else who wishes to participate in this debate?

Vote 3202 agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

On vote 2103, environmental control program; item 4, plant development and construction:

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I will make a few remarks at the opening, primarily to try to explain clearly to the honourable members opposite specifically what is involved in the $30 million supplementary estimates that are before us.

I think first of all it is --

Mr. Wildman: Why weren't the House members told that before now?

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable members will allow the minister to make his opening comment. There will be plenty of opportunity for debate, discussion, questions and whatever.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The supplementary estimates before us do not in any way affect cash requirements. We are not seeking approval for increased money or increased expenditures other than in a bookkeeping sense. The $30 million relates to the transfer from the province to municipalities of the control, the ownership and the operation of sewage treatment plants. Since that is being done at the request of the municipalities and since they have expressed the desire to take over the operation and, therefore, the ownership of the asset, which, while under provincial ownership and operation appears as an unamortized asset on the books of the province, the transfer requires that there be a writing off of that asset from the provincial books.

As has been indicated as far back, I believe, as 1978, when municipalities are willing and able to take over the operation of their own sewage works and when they are interested in doing so, we will as a matter of policy encourage them to do so and try to facilitate that. It is expected that in the next few years as much as a total of $150 million will have to be written off in this way. We are proceeding this year on the basis of a $30 million write-off, which will affect only those municipalities that have expressed this intention and that in all cases have already taken over the operation of the sewage treatment plant.

What we are talking about applies only to sewage treatment plants that are in the process of being transferred to the municipalities from provincial control.

Mr. Charlton: You are trying to limit the discussion.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, I am just trying to make it clear so you do not run the risk of wandering afield.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, I think it might have been easier for all members concerned had the minister's little preamble been addressed to us before this time. I know that when I looked at the supplementary estimates as they were delivered to my office, all I could see here was an apparent expenditure of $30 million with absolutely no information available to determine how I would approach dealing with the supplementary estimates. It becomes a little bit difficult to --

Mr. Wildman: That's what I said. Why didn't he tell us before now?

Mr. Elston: That's what I am asking.

Interjection.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Elston: Unfortunately, I did not under- stand what was being done. I think in future supplementary estimates the Minister of the Environment could think about accompanying the material with a little more information than just a statement of an expenditure, or an apparent expenditure, at least, of $30 million.

There were several issues that came to mind. Perhaps if we could extend this for a couple of days as we did with the Minister of Health, who has just been through his, we will get a number of answers to a number of issues.

I would like to know what part of this $30 million would go to a facility like that at Durham which is now almost complete and which we now understand will be mothballed because its preparation predates the expansion of population in that area by a considerable number of years? It seems to me that because the planning projections made several years were faulty, we have committed a large volume of funds which could have been put to better use in other areas. I particularly note that some of those areas are in my own riding, where there are some problems dealing with sewage disposal because of soil conditions, and perhaps the possibility of expansion in relation to the Bruce energy centre. The people in some of the little towns around that area would be very happy if they could receive a commitment of funds which obviously have been put into this Durham centre.

As well, it seems to me that perhaps it is time for a clear statement of the criteria the ministry uses to determine the set of priorities used to rate various municipalities in respect of their sewage treatment facilities. I know that in the riding of Huron-Bruce, we have just recently gone through construction of facilities in the village of Blyth and also in the village of Brussels, but those came after 10 and 12 years of waiting and wondering whether or not the programs would go through. I cannot help but think that had there been some movement on the installation of those facilities in the 1960s, when they were initially thought of, there could have been a saving of many millions of dollars.

I wonder as well if you could provide for us the number of facilities included in what is known as "certain facilities qualifying for assistance." This is under the heading on the second page of the estimates, page 10. Perhaps it would be a lesson for all of us if we could decipher how you determine who gets the money, and when and in what manner you apportion it.

The other thing that comes from this Durham project which is being mothballed is that we must come to grips with how your planning process is working and how you are refining your planning process to take this overprojection of population into account.

All of these are critical areas. Perhaps if this planning error had not occurred at what I guess is called the Port Darlington sewage plant, we might very well have had other centres in Ontario able to deal with their sewage treatment problems at this time.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: Is the minister not going to respond to that?

The Deputy Chairman: He will probably make notes.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I may as well respond to everyone at once.

Mr. Wildman: Okay, fine. Mr. Chairman, I have a question with regard to the transfer of ownership --

The Deputy Chairman: How do you want it? Do you want it answered? It is just he was standing so fast that I wondered --

Mr. Wildman: It is fine with me. Whichever you prefer, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: The minister is easy. He is aware of the questions that have been asked, so carry on, the member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: I have a question regarding the transfer of the ownership of the sewage system in the township of White River, which is currently owned by the provincial government. I understand the ministry has been encouraging the township to take over ownership of that system, and the understanding of the township is that the ministry seems to be taking the position that further upgrading of the system would not take place until the transfer is completed. I would like to know if that is the case.

As the minister will know, in 1978 after a number of years of negotiation, his ministry did purchase this very old water system from the Canadian Pacific Railway. This was after the ministry had a number of studies made that indicated sewage and water systems in White River were inadequate and should be upgraded. In 1975, the ministry reduced the original scheme and did invest a large amount of money in a smaller sewage system than was originally planned. But, as I understand it, in the discussions between the municipality and the provincial government the municipality so far has not agreed to take over ownership of the system.

I think the municipality's fear in completing these negotiations is that the sewage system in the community needs further upgrading, as does the water system. It needs to be completed. As a matter of fact, a number of studies have been done that have shown the community may face very serious problems next winter unless work is done this year. It fears that if it does take over ownership without a clear commitment from the provincial government it may then be directly responsible, certainly with the assistance of the ministry, for carrying out the upgrading.

I know the township council has written to the minister to that effect. I hope he can allay their fears and give us some indication as to the ministry's position in regard to the negotiations, and in regard to whatever commitments the provincial government is prepared to make.

In the letter to the minister the township council states, "It now appears that the current MOE policy is that no firm commitments to upgrade the system can be made until the system is taken over and owned by the municipality." That is from a letter dated March 16 to the minister. The council pointed out that this problem has been going on for four years, the system has been deteriorating badly, there is low water pressure, the system has frozen up, and there have been all sorts of problems. It does indicate there has been good co-operation between ministry staff and the municipality in terms of trying to operate the current system.

I have had discussions with the ministry staff and with the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) and his staff, with regard to this problem. Of course, the problem the municipality has in agreeing to take over the system, which needs upgrading, is that it is aware of the fact that the Ontario Municipal Board would not allow it to borrow at the levels that would be required in order for it to upgrade the system and complete it unless there was additional special funding over and above the normal ministry grants which, although they are generous, would not be enough to bring it up to a level that the OMB would approve in terms of borrowing by the municipality.

I hope the minister can respond to that. I also wonder if he is as yet in receipt of the petition signed by about 300 people, and dated March 18, in which they request commitments from the ministry and from the provincial government for upgrading, and invite the minister to a meeting on April 13 to discuss the matter with them. I hope he can discuss this in the context of the transfer of the ownership of the system from the ministry to the municipality.

The Deputy Chairman: I will ask the Minister of the Environment to begin his answer because it might become too long for the other honourable members to remember the question.

5:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I was rather hoping that all the questions relating to the transfer of the sewage treatment plants might be asked in a relatively short period of time, but if it is the wish of the committee and the chairman I will respond.

First of all, responding to the comments of the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston), I would point out that in these particular figures there is nothing specifically earmarked for what he referred to as the Durham plant. I am not aware of any formal mothballing of that plant. I think what he may be referring to is the fact that it will not be functioning at capacity because of the growth projections in the York-Durham sewer system.

As far as the specific population growth projections upon which that was originally based are concerned, those were figures arrived at and relied upon back in the early part of the last decade. If you will recall, at that time there were a number of activities going on in that area including the proposed new federal airport at Claremont which I, at that time, had some very direct interest in since they were about to pave over my ancestral roots in that community. There was also the north Pickering project which --

Mr. Elston: You mean they wouldn't take them up first?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not sure whether they had thought that far or if they were even sensitive to my ancestral roots. I did not say pave over my ancestors, I said ancestral roots. There are a number of major schemes in that area that have been shelved in the last 10 years -- the airport has been shelved for an indefinite period of time and the north Pickering project for a period of time -- in terms of the kind of community development and residential development that was envisaged to go forward with the development of that airport. It has had a major impact on the demand that will be placed upon that sewer and upon the sewage treatment system.

I have forgotten the specific community that you referred to in your part of the province, but I think it is interesting that you commented that had we gone ahead with one there some several years ago, it would have been much less costly than it would be today, and that is true. I would hope that in another few years you would say the same thing about Durham. When the demand is there and we are able to fully utilize the capacity that is built into that plant, then you will be able to recognize the wisdom of the planning that went into the --

Mr. Elston: It is sort of like the wisdom behind the purchase of all of those land holdings around the province. We at some point bear the cost.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is right. I would venture to say that probably the cost of that land is going to be much greater in the year 2000 than it was in 1973 or 1974 or whenever it was acquired. I am sure the next generation of members of this assembly will recognize the wisdom of many of these things that we have difficulty seeing at the moment.

You asked about the criteria for the establishment of the management-by-results rating. I do not have sufficient detailed material in front of me to give you a specific breakdown. I would be pleased to provide you with more detail, but in general terms, the things which are regarded as the highest priority and result in a higher MBR rating have considerations of any risks that exist as a result of the present treatment of sewage in the community as it might relate to human health.

The other high priority consideration is damage to the physical environment. Those are the two things of highest priority. There are other factors that are taken into consideration. When either of those or both of those are present, it is bound to place the project much closer to the top of the scales. I hope you would recognize that some such system, however imperfect any rating system, is necessary when in any given fiscal year one is dealing with finite resources, and usually more requests than one could meet out of that year's allocation.

I can assure you that in terms of the approval of projects for this coming fiscal year, that for the overwhelming majority of requests which have any significant MBR rating at all, it is going to be possible to meet them. I have forgotten the precise number at which the cutoff occurred but in the list that was being considered by the committee I know they even included several with a zero management-by-results rating. Some of those are not going to be proceeded with but they were looking that far down the list. If there are any health or environmental implications, there is a very good chance the projects would be getting on this year's approved list.

The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) raised the question of White River. It is a situation about which I have some degree of familiarity. There are two letters that are en route to that community. One indicates I have authorized an expenditure of $20,000 to deal with emergency repairs to the system and outlines the need for the community to proceed with the acquisition of a right of way to the works. I believe that has to be arranged with the railway.

I have proposed as well that we will work with them particularly with a view to seeing if there is some way by which the proposal might be somewhat scaled down. I think that should be possible. I have heard some people refer to it as a "Cadillac proposal." Maybe we can get it down to a Buick or an Oldsmobile or something like that. I hope then we will be able to proceed with it. I recognize they have had a terrible time there this past winter with problems related to freezing. That is something on which we will work with them to try to address.

As far as the meeting on April 13 is concerned, we have received a petition. I hope that following the communication with the community such a meeting would not be necessary. The communication is on its way at the present time.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the comments of the minister. I would be happy to send him a copy of the petition I have. I am happy to hear confirmation of the $20,000 for emergency repairs. I understand the cost per household is something like $30,000, which is pretty high. If it is possible to come to some scaled-down proposal that will serve the needs of the community I think that would be worthwhile.

I wonder if the minister could respond to the specific question I did raise -- which I think was in order -- in regard to the transfer of the asset, which is what we are discussing. Is it a fair painting of the picture for the municipality to believe the ministry does not have a commitment to upgrading and that is the reason for their reluctance to take over the system? Is that an unfair interpretation of the ministry's position? That seems to be their interpretation.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is an accurate interpretation. I have not been involved personally in the negotiations that have been going on there. Once a system is in place the operating costs -- and to the extent that is possible, any local portion of costs for capital improvements -- would normally be borne as part of the rate charged to the users. If the member is asking if we are prepared in all cases to go in and pay 100 per cent of the cost of upgrading the system, then the answer would be no. To the question, "Are we prepared to participate by providing the provincial share?" the answer is yes. That is what we are proposing to do in a number of cases in the province.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the minister said about there probably being no component of this $30 million with respect to the Durham site -- I guess its official name is Port Darlington -- but I do wonder if he can tell us which municipalities are participating in this transfer.

5:30 p.m.

The minister mentioned that every significant, rated project in the province will be funded under his criteria. Does that mean that anyone who applied last year has been waiting on a rated list and is moving up for consideration, or are we talking about fresh applications? If he could tell us that and what municipalities are participating, we could have a good discussion.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Perhaps I could address the latter question first. I do not want to build up any false expectations; perhaps I ought to have been a little more specific in what I was saying.

I do not have all that information in front of me but my recollection, and it is just a recollection, is that projects which received a management-by-results rating in the high fifties or low sixties this year are making it on to the list. Some, perhaps, were requests from a previous year and if their ratings were very low, they may not have made it on this year. As the member will understand, the highest priority goes to those which demonstrate that there is a definite or potential health or environmental problem.

The member asked which communities are likely to be affected by this. In total, there are in the process of transfer -- that is, where the municipalities have indicated an interest and a willingness to take over the operation and also the ownership of the services -- more than we have in front of us today. What we are doing in this fiscal year is writing off $30 million of the provincial cost, which had originally been amortized over a 40-year period. With a transfer of the plants, we are writing that down, probably at a rate of about $30 million on an annual basis for the next few years

Perhaps the member would like a list of those that have been selected for this year. This is not an exhaustive list of all that are being transferred or of those where a request has been made for transfer, but I can cite two projects in Cobden, two in Kenora, one in the district municipality of Muskoka, one in Niagara-on-the-Lake and three in the regional municipality of Sudbury. It happens that in those particular ones the provincial portion of the asset to be written off as part of the 40-year amortization, totals $30 million. I can give a breakdown of the dollar figures. It is probably not of any great significance but the member is welcome to it.

Vote 2103 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes consideration of the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of the Environment.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

On vote 2902, adult and children's services program; item 4, income maintenance:

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, the particular income maintenance matters are vote 2902, item 4, and basically revolve around the fact that the original estimates did not provide for caseload growth both in family benefits and in municipal allowances or general welfare assistance. In the drug benefit plan, as you know, we are obligated to pay the actual amount and the estimate was slightly lower.

In vote 2902, item 5, adult social services, the salary and wages and employee benefits are almost self-explanatory. In regard to the transfer payments for senior citizens, there is a $2 million item for capital, which is part of the government's commitment over the five years for homes for the aged. The operating amount comes from the fact that by statute, we are required to pay 70 per cent of deficits in the 89 municipal homes for the aged. Then there is an additional amount of $651,500 under vote 2902-5, which is an increase for the municipal purchase of counselling services, primarily in Metro and particularly in the southwest region, including the city of Windsor.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, before I start my remarks on these supplementary estimates, may I just take a minute or two to thank my leader for having chosen me for this new role of critic for Community and Social Services. I intend to be as constructive as possible in my new role. The member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) is asking how many times I am going to do it. I have this occasion now in front of the minister here, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure you will agree it is within the purview of a discussion of the supplementary estimates.

There are a few points I would like to raise concerning what I believe to be the general thrust of this particular program, and I do not know whether I will be sticking to the vote exactly. If I do not, I am sure Mr. Chairman will bring me right back to order.

Mr. Chairman: I will attempt to do so.

Mr. Boudria: With great reason, of course.

I want to address a few of the issues that have been coming up of late. One of them, of course, has to do with the total of general welfare assistance under vote 2902-4. It was obvious in a report in the newspapers yesterday that in 1975 the general welfare assistance rate was at approximately 80 per cent of the poverty line of this province. Right now, with the gradual decline, we have people who are living at a mere 67 per cent of the poverty line of this province. This has created a situation that is most difficult for the needy in Ontario.

In my own constituency, I have cases where constituents really have hardly anything to eat in the home because of the amount they are getting in welfare benefits. It is a very difficult situation.

We have very high unemployment in my constituency and, of course, with the present economic conditions, elsewhere in Ontario as well. Having said that, the welfare rolls are increasing. The fact that the welfare rolls are increasing has nothing to do with this ministry in particular; it has to do with this government perhaps, but not specifically with this ministry. Nevertheless, this ministry does fund through the municipalities some 30 per cent of the cost of welfare, together with the federal government, which contributes the other 50 per cent, making an 80 per cent total contribution, which is matched by 20 per cent from the municipalities.

Another side effect is that the municipalities are having a hard time making ends meet because the welfare rolls are increasing but the municipality's assessment is not increasing, so they have to increase the mill rate in order to fund that particular type of expenditure. That places a great strain on the municipalities at this moment and I wonder if the minister intends to increase the allocations to welfare recipients to bring them to a more realistic figure as a percentage of the provincial income.

5:40 p.m.

The minister is probably thinking about the fact that when the calculations were done for the whole country, as per the Toronto Star article of yesterday, we have to take into consideration that although the figures are higher in western provinces, the rents there are higher. Also, we have to look at other facts, such as higher welfare benefits for the people in Nova Scotia than people in Ontario are getting. Perhaps the minister could briefly address that issue and tell us if the government intends to make some adjustment in that respect.

The other thing that relates to this vote has lately come to my attention from a group that has written to me, the Sole Support Parents Coalition, which is becoming increasingly concerned with the rumours that the minister wants to change the family benefits to classify women with dependents as able-bodied recipients and, therefore, add them to the welfare roll as opposed to the family benefit roll. The Sole Support Parents Coalition has written this letter, and they are apparently concerned that it is rumoured you want to do this. I am sure they have sent the minister a copy of the same documentation they are sending us. It is perhaps just a rumour, so he could inform us or deny this rumour if that is the case.

If the minister does intend in the future to change the legislation to have such a policy, I think one of the things he will have to do first is to increase day care facilities so women can have opportunity for employment. He has to do this before such legislation is implemented. That is the least we would have to do. We would have to remember as well that even if women are classified as able-bodied recipients, which means they should be out in the work force, we have to face the fact that even if they are there, on average they will only earn something like 58 per cent of what a man would be making in the work force.

Those inequities have to be adjusted before we could make such a change, if the minister envisions such a change. I will not go any further into that area before I hear the comments the minister may want to make.

The other thing I am becoming increasingly concerned about is an issue my leader raised in the House today. That is the issue of the Children's Learning Centre of North York, and although it is not very directly related to this vote it is somewhat. It comes under the vote of adult and children's services program but not under the specific item. Nevertheless, it is under the same vote. I have here some 60 letters that were sent to me by parents of that area, all expressing disappointment that this facility will be closing and all hoping that the minister will change his mind and convince the government to put in the funding that will keep it open.

I have here a letter that was sent to me by one of the parents and, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would read it into the record.

Mr. Chairman: I think we have been very indulgent in past experiences. I remember you reading a long story into the record -- I have forgotten whether it was a throne speech -- but under the circumstances, specifically in regard to supplementary estimates, no.

Mr. Boudria: Okay, Mr. Chairman. Nevertheless, I did get the point across to the minister that this particular facility is needed, as did my leader earlier today, and he may want to comment on that.

The other thing I want to comment on very briefly also concerns welfare recipients. I will go back to that issue. We have a phenomenon in rural areas of this province that is perhaps unique. Welfare recipients, especially the single women or women who have lost their spouses in the last few years and are from about 40 to 60 years old, are in many cases in a rural area where there is no employment. They have been put into a position where you would almost have to describe them as socially paralysed.

They have never been to a bank to make a deposit; they have never paid a phone bill. Then all of a sudden they find themselves on their own and having to do tasks they have never done before. They are just unable to cope with the situation they are faced with.

It is a very tragic thing. They come to my constituency office even to get such a thing as a letter from the provincial government read to them. In many cases the letter is written to them in a language they do not understand. But even in the cases where the letter is written to them in French there are a large number of people who are functionally illiterate, especially amongst women of that age in my constituency. It is a very serious problem.

To people in an urban area it may not be one. Urban people normally do not even realize this exists. To tell you the truth, Mr. Chairman, I did not even know the problem was that significant in my constituency until day after day I would see women of that age group come into my riding office in the same situation. They are generally widows or their husbands have left them and they are just unable to cope with any kind of situation. At best, they have no money, and at worst, they have a bunch of debts that were left behind by their partners or their spouses, in death or upon their departures. It is a very difficult situation.

I just want to know whether the ministry has been addressing some of those problems and if not, if it intends to do so in the future.

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, Mr. Chairman, on the question of the proposed transfer of the entire able-bodied roll to the municipal delivery service, that is not a rumour. I announced it in a speech, I believe in June of 1981. The plans are already well under way and the municipalities asked for it.

That flows into your question about the widows under 60. I would have thought you would have given me and perhaps Mme Bégin some credit because we have effectively put the widow or the single woman aged 60 to 65 into the highest possible category. I realize, as you say, it is not generally applicable in the urban areas but I know it is in the rural areas.

That is the reason we want to get the municipal delivery service handling that type of case because the province is very remote. The province sends the letter, whether or not it is in a language they understand. I realize the significance of the problem you are talking about. I think again that is a reason the municipality or the county or whatever, because it does have a delivery service, will be able to look at that problem and it will not just be a cheque at the end of the month.

As to the relative ranking of Ontario in terms of the social assistance it provides, the first time the Star did it -- which was a week before the one you talked about -- they had us in ninth place. In the course of a week we moved up to seventh place.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Where are you going to be the next time, Frank?

Hon. Mr. Drea: It depends on who writes the report, to be perfectly honest. If you write it we will be the 11th and if I write it we will probably be third.

Mr. Breaugh: You can't talk to the future mayor of Toronto like that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: When he is the mayor of Toronto, I will call him His Worship.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: He can't run in Scarborough. It would destroy the party.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Besides, I don't live there.

5:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Chairman, the reason for the discrepancy is the fact that it is very difficult to measure. Part of that was referred to by the honourable member when he said that rents were higher in certain places. Rents and hydro are much higher in Nova Scotia, too.

I think that some things have to be brought into line. Number one, in Ontario we have traditionally devoted ourselves in recent years not to cash payments to people on general welfare assistance but to sophisticated types of programs. The reason we can do this here is that we have the second lowest utilization of social assistance in the entire country, just a little bit below that of Saskatchewan. The reason for that is very fundamental: We have the second lowest number of families under the poverty line, second only to British Columbia.

Those two factors mean that we have been able to put the bulk of our moneys into programs, into services and so on, and we are greatly aided by the immensity of the subsidized housing provisions that are made. In this province there are 84,257 Ontario Housing Corporation subsidized rental units for both families and seniors and another 10,400 rent supplements.

I can give you the figures. The average family subsidy per unit is $240 per month; that is in addition to the nominal rent they pay. The senior citizens' subsidy is $187 a month. So I think you have to look at all the factors, and particularly the fact that in this province general welfare assistance is a very temporary thing, it is not a way of life. If you are going to be a long-term social assistance recipient you go on the provincial rolls.

In the past year we have also emphasized, and I made quite a point of it in my priorities when I was made minister, that the priorities were the elderly and the disabled, particularly the retarded. If you look at that Star article it grudgingly says that we are virtually number one when it comes to the elderly. As a matter of fact, we are number one.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Are you sure?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes. Alberta gives up to a certain amount; our Treasury gives it flat on top. That one we are sure of.

With regard to the question of the disabled, you will recall that last year there were two rates for the disabled and the permanently unemployable

You got lots of mail about it, if you will remember. That has all been changed. We have eliminated that; we have brought them all up to the top. In some cases that represents a very substantial increase.

The question of why it had not been done for 10 years, as the Legislature properly demanded, or 15 years or however long it was, always seemed to bog down in a question of money. I made it the priority; it is done. Again, we granted substantial family benefits: seven per cent in January 1981, an interim measure; eight per cent in October 1981. We did not give a direct increase in the general welfare assistance field because we wanted to go at a priority item, which I thought was the amounts that people were paying for shelter. Then we did bring in very substantial shelter supplements.

When you look at our budget and you look at general welfare and/or any kind of direct social assistance, just to give you some comparisons, last year, in this province, we spent more than $500 million on items that were 100 per cent Ontario dollars; no federal sharing, 100 cents on the dollar. That is more than the entire social assistance budget, for instance, of British Columbia. It is more than the direct social assistance budget of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan combined, and that is not even shared. Indeed, we will spend more money on children's mental health services than Saskatchewan does in direct social assistance even though Saskatchewan ranks up there with Alberta in that great Star chart.

We will spend more in services to develop the mentally handicapped; and this does not include their benefit under the Family Benefits Act, this is in straight service. We will spend more than BC does on all its social assistance -- you can get that chart but the Globe and Mail's chart actually is better -- more than Alberta and Saskatchewan combined again on direct social assistance.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Three million as compared with eight million people.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, but you have missed something. In this province, the number of employables as a percentage of the total caseload is far different than the rest of Canada. If you read those charts, in this province it is only 20 per cent; in British Columbia it is 44 per cent; in Quebec, it is 46 per cent; Alberta is 17.5 per cent; New Brunswick is 40.6 per cent. The all Canada average is 33 per cent.

Mr. Martel: What is Saskatchewan?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I can give you Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan is 15.8 per cent.

Mr. Martel: That is less than us, is it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, and with much less population. A province that is still exporting population.

When you put some of these things into perspective there is a far different picture of the welfare allowances and of the entire social assistance budget in this province. I hope that clears up the matter for the member.

He has also asked me, what are we doing about increases? Since I have been the minister we have brought in two increases. We have entered universality; I made that very plain last year. We are looking at needs. We are constantly reviewing. We are certainly looking at the GWA situation at this time because, as I pointed out to you, the caseloads are rising due to unemployment. We are looking at that quite closely. If you are going to ask me when, I do not know when, but we are constantly reviewing that matter as well as other matters.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, could I adjourn the debate?

Mr. Chairman: I do not think we adjourn. It is not quite six of the clock. Do you have any other questions?

Mr. Boudria: I will continue then. I have a couple more questions I wanted to ask.

Mr. Martel: You will never get the answers though. Frank can't even wind up in that time.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Prescott-Russell, is it a short statement? Well, the House leader has a statement.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to indicate that, by agreement, tonight we are going to move on to Northern Affairs, Natural Resources and then Treasury and Economics, then come back to Community and Social Services, followed by Transportation and Communications on Thursday.

Mr. Chairman: With that in mind, the member for Prescott-Russell probably will not want to get into this in the two minutes left. He will have the opportunity on Thursday.

Mr. Boudria: I will continue on Thursday then.

The House recessed at 5:59 p.m.