The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TIGHE CROMBIE

Ms Poole: Every year at the North Toronto Fall Fair I sponsor a contest for students in my riding to win a day at Queen's Park as the MPP for Eglinton. The purpose of the contest is to provide an opportunity for a student to see what an MPP does at Queen's Park. I am pleased to announce that in the gallery with us today, with his grandparents, is the 1990 winner, Tighe Crombie, a grade 8 student at Crescent School.

I thank my colleagues for the warm welcome they have given Tighe at Queen's Park. When we were trying to decide what to do with Tighe's day, we thought it might be somewhat unfair to make his a typical day on December 16, in that we did not think he should be down here at 8 in the morning and sitting till midnight. We gave him a somewhat more relaxed schedule.

Tighe has had a tour of the Legislature. He has had lunch down in the Queen's Park legislative dining room and he met a number of MPPs and cabinet ministers there. After question period, Tighe will have an opportunity to meet with the leader of the official opposition, the member for St Catharines, and I am hoping he will also have an opportunity to speak to the Premier.

When asked as part of the contest why he thought Ontario was a great place to live, Tighe replied that "Ontario has a great cultural community, and we're lucky to have democracy and live in such a clean, beautiful city."

On behalf of all members, I welcome the new member for Eglinton for the day and hope he will be back as the real member for Eglinton 20 years from now.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mr J. Wilson: Stroke is a debilitating condition which severely undermines a patient's quality of life. The Premier's health council has established a goal of reducing the incidence of stroke by 40% by the year 2000. Recently a new stroke prevention medication, ticlopidine, has been manufactured and marketed by a Mississauga firm, Syntex Inc. All efforts to get the drug listed on the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary have been rebuffed and, as a result, the NDP government is hurting the very people it claims to defend.

Ticlopidine has been proven to be more effective than ASA in reducing the risk and recurrence of stroke and it is particularly effective as a stroke treatment for women. Not only is the NDP government undermining the Premier's health council's established goal of reducing stroke, but this government is also creating a health care system that prevents seniors and social assistance recipients from gaining access to this stroke treatment and prevention drug.

In a letter to the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee, Mr Henry Barnett, president of the Canadian Stroke Society, says, "I believe I speak for the majority of my colleagues when I say that ticlopidine is an important advancement in stroke prevention and should be made available for use with formulary dependent patients."

This government must begin to live up to its rhetoric and provide access to lifesaving drugs for all Ontario residents.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Abel: Christmas is almost upon us and the people of Hamilton-Wentworth are focusing on a major problem. Because of difficult economic times, welfare rolls have risen dramatically and more and more families cannot afford their regular grocery bill. Various groups are providing what they can to those in need through numerous food, gift and clothing drives and people in need are turning out in increasing numbers.

It is not only indicative of the charitability of the season, it is a sign of the times. That is why it is so disturbing to hear the leader of the third party, both inside and outside this House, indicate his anger over the rising welfare costs in the province. He said he believed many people are abusing the system. The member for Nipissing's statements are ridiculous considering today's economic realities. There are few experts who will dispute that the vast majority of social assistance recipients are legitimately in need.

The member's comments could counteract the public education process that would enlighten taxpayers to the extreme difficulties of so many of their neighbours. We must endeavour to get people off social assistance through well-planned programs, not cheap political statements at the expense of victims of circumstance.

The charities in our area all work for a common goal: to make this winter a little more bearable for the less fortunate residents of Hamilton-Wentworth. Insensitive and ill-informed statements from the member opposite could make this a very cold winter for the needy.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mrs Sullivan: The Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines is in need of an improved dialysis unit. The current conditions under which patients receive and doctors and nurses provide treatment is appalling. Since 1974 the dialysis unit has seen a 500% patient population increase. In order to accommodate these patients, who now number 89, the unit operates from 8 o'clock in the morning until 11 o'clock at night six days a week. The facility, needless to say, is terribly overcrowded and inadequate.

The hospital has stated that to continue to provide quality service to patients in the Niagara region, 21 new haemodialysis stations are needed. In the summer of this year the Hotel Dieu applied to the Ministry of Health for $2 million in capital to save on spiralling operating costs and to meet the increasing demands which are being placed upon it. The hospital had hoped for a speedy response to its request. However, to date, more than six months later, it has not heard a word back from the minister.

I want to urge the Minister of Health to give the application for funding for the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines the very serious consideration it deserves and to remind her as well of the New Democratic Party government's stated commitment to ensuring that all Ontarians receive the highest quality health care.

1340

CURLY HARNDEN

Mr B. Murdoch: Today I would like to congratulate my constituent Curly Harnden of Owen Sound, who has earned the Medal of Merit for more than 30 years of outstanding service in scouting. This honour is given to those whose contributions have exceeded all expectations. He is the first person to receive this award in the history of the Owen Sound district of scouting.

Mr Harnden first became involved in scouting through his church, and since then has done most of his works with Cubs. For the last three years he has been commissioner of the Owen Sound district, Bluewater region.

It is because of the dedication of people like Mr Harnden that so many young boys in our area have learned to work and play together. Mr Harnden has organized log sawing contests, sled races, scavenger hunts and cookouts while teaching his Cubs vital outdoor rescue and survival skills. As well, he has taught his charges to share and has taught them the value of volunteerism to the community.

We owe people like Mr Harnden a great debt of gratitude for their hours of selfless service and for helping our young boys to grow up to become outstanding, contributing citizens.

JIMOH FAMILY

Mr Perruzza: Sadly, I bring to the House today news of a tragic event for a family in my riding. The House may already be aware of the tragedy of the Jimoh family. On Wednesday, November 27, Mrs Janet Jimoh and her one-year-old daughter, Jamela, were struck by a vehicle while crossing Finch Avenue. Tragically, the child Jamela was killed, as was Mrs Jimoh's unborn child. Mrs Jimoh to date remains in critical condition in hospital.

The misfortune of this young family has touched us all. Since the accident, my constituency office has received numerous calls from concerned individuals asking how they can help this young family in a time of extreme difficulty. With the help of the Bank of Montreal, my constituency office has set up a fund to help ease the financial burden now placed on the Jimoh family. This fund will remain open over the holiday season and up to January 31, 1992.

I call on the members of the House to reflect on the tragedy of the Jimoh family, especially during this holiday season, and to make a contribution to the fund. Contributions can be made at any branch of the Bank of Montreal.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr H. O'Neil: I rise to give a statement on behalf of the House leader, who has been detained elsewhere for a few minutes.

This winter, farmers across the riding of Brant-Haldimand will be waiting to see if the NDP government intends to live up to the recommendations of the report of the standing committee on resources development on the income crunch facing the agriculture industry.

Brant-Haldimand is one of the most important agricultural areas of the province, with a variety of farms ranging from cash crop to dairy, to beef and hogs, to specialty vegetable crops. As with farmers in many other rural areas, like those of my own area, the farmers in Brant-Haldimand are feeling the impact of the current tough times in agriculture. As the winter begins, the bankruptcies are starting to mount.

Unfortunately, the NDP has shown no indication that it intends to move on any of the important recommendations contained in the committee report, recommendations which were supported by all three parties. Recommendations such as provincial participation in the net income stabilization account, reform of crop insurance and a long-term credit assistance program are what farmers need just to scrape by.

Farmers are upset to hear the Minister of Agriculture and Food's continuing lament that the province's cupboard is bare when they know there has been lots of money made available for the Hydro chairman, salary increases, free lunches and dinners for deputy ministers and an advertising campaign to promote the government. Obviously this NDP government has refused to make agriculture a priority.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Jackson: The proposed NDP reform to Ontario's labour legislation, Bill 143, has sent shock waves throughout our business community while at the same time frightening prospective new job creation investments in this province.

In an open letter to the NDP government, the Burlington Chamber of Commerce affirmed that Ontario does not need an overhaul of its labour laws, as it already has North America's most comprehensive labour and employment legislation. The NDP changes will only further damage Ontario's already fragile ability to compete in the world marketplace by replacing co-operation with antagonism between labour and management in an unbalanced and polarized economic playing field tipped in favour of narrow union interests to the detriment of those of all Ontario citizens.

When the Premier first assumed the Premier's chair over a year ago, he said he was in the "business of listening." In that case, he should listen carefully now to what those who are in the business of creating jobs are telling him. They are telling him that jobs depend on investor confidence and that neither government nor unions create jobs in the private sector. They are telling him it is the government's responsibility to create an environment that encourages capital investment. They are also telling him that his proposed changes to Ontario's labour legislation will only strangle that confidence and that environment by hurting not only employers, who are relocating their businesses out of the province at an alarming rate, but also the jobs of workers that the member for York South swore he would protect.

The time has now come for the Premier to start hearing and acting on the advice of Ontario's business sector. This province's future economic wellbeing depends on it.

GEORGE LLEWELLYN NUTT

Mr Sutherland: Today I would like to honour Sir George Llewellyn Nutt, one of the driving forces behind St John Ambulance in Oxford county since its inception more than 50 years ago.

Mr Nutt died last Wednesday at the age of 80 after a lifetime of community service. He was one of the founding members of the Woodstock division of St John Ambulance and was closely involved with the organization throughout his life.

In 1939 he assembled about 30 first-aid volunteers for duty during the royal visit to Woodstock of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth. The following year many of those same volunteers formed the number 83 Woodstock Ambulance Division, with Mr Nutt as division superintendent. He served as the provincial staff officer on the Ontario council of St John Ambulance for 25 years before his retirement in 1976. He then continued his involvement with the Woodstock branch as its secretary-treasurer.

At a ceremony in Ottawa in 1990 he was promoted to the rank of Knight of the Order of St John in recognition of his long service with the St John Ambulance corps. But Mr Nutt did not limit his contribution to Oxford county to strictly St John Ambulance service. He was also the executive director of the Woodstock United Way from 1964 to 1977.

Mr Nutt's life exemplifies the very important role volunteers play in communities across our province. His contributions to community life have been immense and his death is a great loss not only to his family and friends, but to all of us in Woodstock and Oxford county who have benefited from his generosity of spirit.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PROVINCIAL SCHOOLS

Hon Mr Silipo: I wish to inform the House that I have now received a report from a specially appointed review team on student care at our provincially run schools.

The Report of the Review of Student Care at the Provincial Schools for the Deaf and Blind and Demonstration Schools raises serious concerns which will require action from my ministry. The schools studied by the review team were W. Ross Macdonald School in Brantford, Ernest C. Drury School in Milton, Robarts School in London, Sir James Whitney School in Belleville, Trillium School in Milton, Centre Jules-Léger in Ottawa, and Sagonaska School in Belleville.

Allegations of abuse at two provincial schools, dating back to the early 1970s, came to light in April of this year following complaints to authorities. As a result of those allegations of abuse, the former Minister of Education, the member for London Centre, announced on May 16, 1991, the establishment of a review team to examine the current care of students in all provincially run schools.

At the same time, an investigation of the allegation was conducted by police and child welfare agencies. Since charges were laid and court proceedings are currently under way, I cannot comment further on those specific incidents. As the welfare of all children in provincial schools is of paramount concern to my ministry, immediate actions to protect children and improve the care and safety in the schools were taken.

The report I have received is the result of work conducted jointly by the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and external consultants. The team conducted its review with a mandate to assess conditions that contribute to, or work against, students' wellbeing, and to make recommendations that would promote the health, safety and welfare of students in provincial schools for the deaf and blind and in demonstration schools for the severely learning disabled.

The review team conducted extensive interviews with students, staff and parents, undertook a thorough examination of documents and records and inspected the physical facilities. Members will recognize as they read the report that the findings of the review team go far beyond the concerns raised by the original allegations. The 38 recommendations in the report offer a framework for corrective action on a broad range of issues related to student care and safety.

I want people to know that I take very seriously the findings of the review team. What we have learned is that we need to take measures to ensure that there are adequate checks and balances in the system. Some of the problems at the schools have required immediate action by the ministry. Some will require consultation in order to find lasting solutions.

1350

As my ministry endeavours to find these lasting solutions, it will also welcome suggestions for innovative ways to address the needs of provincial school students. Our provincial schools must improve, as it is apparent to me that these schools have not always been able to adequately meet students' needs.

I would like to note some key findings and outline the actions my ministry is taking to ensure that students are provided the best possible care.

The review team found that the fire safety and security measures were inadequate. Improvements have already been made in fire safety, night supervision and security.

The review team found a lack of safeguards for protecting children at the schools. Interim procedures have been developed to require stringent reference checks on prospective staff and for stricter guidelines and procedures for reporting child abuse. In addition, the ministry hired advocates for both students and parents.

The review team also found a lack of residential care standards. Residential standards, with a process for monitoring residential care, are being developed. The review team also found that there is a lack of up-to-date written policies. New policies are now being drafted.

Those are some of the immediate actions we have taken. We will take any other immediate steps we find necessary to ensure the best possible care for our students.

There are other findings in the report that will require fundamental changes in the operation and direction of the schools. For instance, the review team found a lack of direction, purpose and philosophy in the schools, human resource management is weak and physical plants are unsuitable for children.

The report noted:

"Although pride of history is justified for some of these facilities...they are unsuitable as residences for children, particularly for younger children, or for programming. The residences reflect the thinking about residential care which was current in the era in which they were constructed."

With the release of this report, officials can continue consulting with the parents, students and staff of the schools and work towards longer-term solutions. We will work closely and swiftly with existing advisory committees. We are also setting up a special advisory committee to assist in implementing changes necessary to improve our provincial and demonstration schools. We will draw membership for this special advisory committee from various groups and organizations so that we will have input from a wide range of interested parties.

I am grateful to the review team members for their quick and thorough study of our provincial and demonstration schools and I thank them for their work. I am confident their recommendations will focus discussion and provide direction to ensure the proper health, safety and welfare of all students in our care.

This government is committed to developing and implementing the necessary reforms to ensure the ongoing safety and security of students. Provincial school students, parents and all Ontarians have a right to expect that the serious issues which have come to light since April will be given equally serious attention by this government. I want to assure members that I will be doing that during the winter break, and I will report back in the spring with a more detailed plan of action.

RESPONSES

PROVINCIAL SCHOOLS

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am very happy to respond to the statement of the Minister of Education and I am more than happy to know of his personal commitment. This is very important work. It is not complete and the minister has acknowledged that. We are just beginning.

I think this morning in our briefing, though, we were assured -- I want to say how happy I am that we were assured -- that at the moment there is no imminent danger to the children in these provincial schools. I think it is very important that we underline that this was one of the discoveries of this report. Although there are many things yet to be done, there are no imminent dangers.

A joint ministerial venture, as anyone who has worked in government knows, is always a challenging matter, but in this case the ministries involved really did mesh their efforts and bring forward their best talents, and I am really very happy with the sensitivity with which they undertook the work they did. The review process has involved all elements -- staff, parents, indeed the students themselves, and ministerial officials -- and I really hope that will continue throughout the entire process. This implementation process is over years and years and the opportunities to interact and participate must be there for all levels.

The report certainly said that government can work. This report was begun less than eight months ago and today we have what we consider here a very good beginning. So government can work and bureaucrats can work with government.

I really want to reiterate, however, that I trust and hope that the commitment that has been made by the minister will flower into action and that this action will begin immediately. I understand that letters are going to every parent involved as early as this week and that those letters will be followed up with the resources, both financial and human, needed to make sure the concerns will be allayed.

The report makes several recommendations. Each recommendation is outlined and assessed in the following manner: If this action were taken, would the care provided to children be improved? I think that is a good basis upon which to make the decision.

The report has shown, as we all know, that there are several gaps. They need to be corrected. One of the most fundamental gaps is the lack of research in the area of education of deaf and blind children. Those conducting the review identified that any school serves two fundamental purposes: to provide children with sound academic training, and in an environment where children will develop a healthy self-esteem.

Yet as the report quite rightly states, research into this area has been insufficient. The focus must be brought back on to the child, and only through research can we better understand what will work best for each and every child.

The report asks for a strong commitment from each school to strengthen human resources and staff development, another very important area; to provide staff for these special children with annual appraisals; to orient staff and provide them with training plans, including training on normal child development, behaviour and managing behaviour using safe techniques, and to encourage interaction by staff beyond the school itself, through staff rotation, staff exchanges, joint training programs and boards of education.

This ministry must support those efforts if this is going to be successful. The children who have to travel long distances also provide many challenges that will have to be attended to.

There is also one other matter the report does not touch, and really was outside its mandate, but it is an important matter that this government is not attending to. The Ministry of Community and Social Services has not yet acted on the case of the Grandview Training School in Cambridge. The former residents have made allegations, similar to the allegations made here, of physical and sexual abuse directed at residents by the staff. These allegations by residents against staff were made in the mid-1970s. The Ministry of Community and Social Services has done nothing to this point to respond.

Joint recommendations and co-operation have occurred in this report. We hope that they can be carried forth into good actions and that the situation in Cambridge will be attended to with the same care.

Mrs Cunningham: Usually I say "It's with pleasure," but today I think the whole House is feeling somewhat concerned. Just last May, the Minister of Education at the time drew to our attention the allegations of abuse at our provincial schools for the deaf and blind and our demonstration schools. I said at the time that it was of great concern to us that we have well-trained professionals in Ontario to whom we entrust our children.

We do not expect or ever hope these things will happen. Congratulations to the government for getting on with it. Those cases are still outstanding, but what had to be done has been done. At the same time I say to the former Minister of Education, the member for London Centre, and her executive co-ordinator, Suzanne Herbert, and the present Minister of Education that we are very pleased to see the report of the review of student care at the provincial schools today for a couple of reasons.

First, we all know these schools have had tremendous success in Ontario and that we will be for ever grateful for what they have been able to do for so many of our special students. The fact is that this report has been so thorough that we now know we can do an even better job, not just at those schools but in the regular education system within our own secondary schools and elementary schools for the deaf and blind students. We have learned that, not just from experience but from the tremendous research that went into this report and the hard work on the part of the people who asked the questions.

We now have 38 recommendations, some of which we were told today have already been implemented. We are very grateful for that because they were just commonsense things that ought to have been done anyway.

1400

It is very important that the special advisory committee that will assist in implementing these recommendations include not just representative groups but individual parents themselves, who perhaps have not had the opportunity to have input or who have very young children and do not have their minds made up about the kind of education they want for their students. They must be involved in these recommendations.

I also advise the minister that local school boards must be called in immediately to be part of these discussions. I think they should have a bigger role to play, given what we have discovered from the past and given our great hopes for the future; that is, with the research that has been done, especially with educating the deaf and the great hopes we have that they will be able to speak, and also from the varied experiences we have had as members of this House in learning from and looking for leadership from the member for York East, who is doing a great job in representing his group of people. But we know there are two sides to the story and we want the minister to know that.

Also, we have to have research which will be undertaken on the effect of teaching. I would say to the minister that is not part of this report, but it should be. We have information right now in Ontario. We have students and we have parents who have gone through the system and we do not have to spend a lot of time finding out what is the right way to teach deaf and blind students, given the individual choices of families.

In conclusion, our party will be looking forward to the implementation of the 38 recommendations and we will give our full support to the minister in looking at future programs for these young people, not just in these kinds of schools but in the public education system.

Mr Harris: I would like to respond briefly to the minister's statement as it pertains to another statement from the minister today and that is that school Christmas is okay. The minister's statement today deals with Ontario schools. Tonight my son will be in his school Christmas concert. He is a Christmas tree. I really am offended that it has come to this with government today -- all levels of government -- that we have to have the Minister of Education say it is okay --

The Speaker: Order. Would the leader of the third party take his seat. The leader of the third party will know that responses are to statements made in the House and not to statements made outside the House.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Scott: I have a question of the Premier about the problem of what was said or not said by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines at Thunder Bay. We have now had a full account of that conversation, which it was agreed was initiated by a reference to a named doctor who has not been named in the House but who we will call Dr X. The minister has told the House, or she has implied, that the statements attributed to her were correctly attributed but they were untrue and without foundation. The Premier has said it was therefore a mistake on the minister's part, which will be forgiven by the Premier so that she can continue in cabinet.

If the minister at Thunder Bay told the truth -- that is to say, if the statements she made were true and she had Dr X's file or the material in Dr X's file, if not the actual file itself, and used it, would the Premier have demanded his minister's resignation?

Hon Mr Rae: It would only add to the atmosphere of complete speculation if we got into answering hypothetical questions. I say to the honourable member that the minister has given the House the very clear assurance that she has had no access to any confidential information with respect to any particular medical practitioners in the province. The only information to which the minister has had access is publicly available and which in fact, with respect to the names of doctors who were on the underserviced area program, was made readily available to the Sudbury and District Medical Society some time ago.

I say to the honourable member that those are the facts of the situation. It is on the basis of those facts that the minister has responded.

Mr Scott: I confess it does not come as a surprise to me that the Premier would evade an answer to the question by saying it is hypothetical, and I respect that. I bring to the Premier's attention a very real sense in the community, and in part in the House, that in fact the minister may have told the truth in substance at Thunder Bay, that she had accidental, perhaps, or deliberate access to a substantial portion of Dr X's file.

I bring that to the Premier's attention again because today I received a telephone call from Keith Harfield of Sudbury, a management consultant, a former member of the board of health and president of the association of small business, who got concerned about the capping issue. Mr Harfield, who is in fact now at his cottage, not in town, told me that early in November when he was preparing his own views on this question, he spoke to a person he identifies as a health official who gave him the OHIP billing figures for Dr X.

I raise this because it seems to me likely that if Mr Harfield, a citizen on the street whom I see no reason to disbelieve, had access to Dr X's billing figures, it is likely that the minister intentionally or accidentally had access to his billing figures as well.

Would the Premier like to comment on what Mr Harfield tells me?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member knows full well that I have no idea what Mr Harfield told him, apart from what the honourable member has just told the House. It would be truly bizarre if, on the basis of that conversation being reported in the House today, I were to respond in any detailed fashion.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario has been clearly asked by the deputy minister specifically to look at this question. I am sure now that the member has told us Mr Harfield's name and the fact that he was given, alleges that he was given or thinks he was given certain information by a Ministry of Health official whom the member has not named -- and I do not know what this official may or may not have done or what he may or may not have been asked -- with all the experience the former Attorney General has and the experience he is now regaining as a trial lawyer, I wonder if he would not agree that it would be a little strange for me to comment on what he will certainly recognize from my perspective is third-hand information.

Mr Scott: I well understand the rhetorical thrust of what the Premier has said. When I spoke to Mr Harfield and he told me about receiving this information from an unnamed health official, I asked him if he would name the official to me because I knew the Premier would want that information. As the Premier has now said, he would have to have it. He said the official was a friend of his and he was reluctant to name him and he would not give me the information.

I pondered on that and I phoned Mr Harfield back and I said, "If the Premier calls you, will you give that information to the Premier?" Mr Harfield said that if the Premier thought it was important to have that information to protect the confidentiality of the health system, he would give the Premier or his office that information. He gave me his unlisted telephone number at his cottage, which I have and which I will pass over.

Will the Premier or his office phone Mr Harfield to find out the name of the health official who provided this information to him?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I say to the honourable member that nothing would be more inappropriate, having asked the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who is at arm's length from me and from my office, to carry out an investigation with respect to an alleged leak of confidential information. For the former Attorney General to ask me now to conduct the investigation strikes me as bizarre in the extreme.

1410

If the honourable member has information with regard to knowing of any other individuals who allege they have received information, I would ask that the information be passed on directly to the privacy commissioner, who has clear responsibility in this area. The privacy commissioner has been asked to do this. He has been asked to carry out an investigation, and it would be entirely in keeping with the way the investigation has been carried on for the privacy commissioner to continue with that investigation.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: I would like to return to what is for me the central question in this: the Premier's standards. There are a variety of questions that attach to this issue, but for me the central question is and remains what the Premier has by way of standards, particularly for his cabinet.

Having had the weekend to think about the discussions of last week, I once again ask the Premier to indicate whether, in light of what the Minister of Northern Development has done and admitted to, and having regard to what the Premier said would be the standards of his government as contained in his December 12, 1990, presentation to this Legislature, does he still today believe that those two are compatible: the behaviour of the minister in Thunder Bay and the high-minded, stringent standards the Premier introduced here on December 12, 1990?

Hon Mr Rae: I regret very much -- and have indicated that so has the Minister of Northern Development, the member for Sudbury East -- what took place in the conversation between the member and Mrs Dodds in Thunder Bay. I think it is perfectly clear to everyone that the minister made a mistake for which she has apologized very clearly to the House. She has made it very clear she regrets very much what took place.

The minister has indicated very clearly that what took place was a mistake and that she should not have had that conversation. I have accepted that apology and accepted very clearly that sense. I have heard from a number of people in the community, across northern Ontario and in different parts of the province, who have made it very clear to me that they regard what took place -- the minister's part -- as a mistake, but feel very clearly that the minister's qualities -- her integrity, her ability, her capacity to serve the public -- are such that her apology should be accepted.

Mr Conway: The difficulty many people will have with the Premier's response is that nowhere in his guidelines of December 12 does it say that for an offence of this seriousness an apology or an admission of error is acceptable.

I am just looking at the Premier's standards. What he said so definitively a year ago would be the benchmark by which he would govern his colleagues in cabinet. Nowhere in here does it say that, for this kind of serious offence, just saying you are sorry would be good enough for the Premier or for the cabinet as a whole.

How is it that now, in the face of this situation where we have a minister admitting at the very least to telling a serious lie in Thunder Bay with a very serious effect on an Ontario doctor, just saying one is sorry is good enough, when the member for Oakwood sits in lonely isolation up in the bleachers; when we see the former Minister of Culture and Communications sacked and sitting on the back bench for reasons we are not clear about; when we have the example of the now Minister of Housing leaving cabinet for something that was transparently accidental? Can the Premier explain again why his behaviour seems to be so uneven and why his very tough minded guidelines of last year make no reference to, "Just tell me you're sorry and that will be good enough"?

Hon Mr Rae: All I heard in the question was that if the honourable member opposite were Premier, he might, in different circumstances and in different cases and on different days, act differently. I accept the fact that different members can come to different conclusions with respect to how judgement should be exercised.

I do not take that to mean that all the truth and all the righteousness and all the answers lie with any one member or any one party. This has been a difficult situation. I think we all recognize that. Others would perhaps react differently to a situation. I have been faced with a situation where the minister has carried out her responsibilities well and effectively, where she has had a tremendous amount of understanding of the issues affecting the community for which she is responsible and in which, at the end of a session and at the end of a very long day, she made an error of judgement for which she has very clearly apologized to the people concerned and she now wants to carry on in her duties. I think in the circumstances, the minister has, in making her apology and in indicating very clearly how sorry she is for what has taken place, indicated where her priorities are.

Mr Conway: Again I want to remind my friend the Premier that the circumstances are these: In a public place 10 days ago a responsible minister of the crown knowingly impugned the integrity of an Ontario doctor. That much is admitted to on all sides. There may in fact be much more than that, but that much is granted by the offending minister herself.

We have the Premier's own guidelines of a year ago which say they are going to be enforced in a way that will restore confidence, that will improve the integrity of government. Now we have the Premier telling us it is somehow all right to slander people and stay in the government.

How can that in any way give effect to the solemn promise the Premier made to this assembly and the people beyond it a year ago that he was going to be tougher, he was going to be better, he was going to be stronger?

Hon Mr Rae: Ultimately, whether I possess any of the qualities the member has described or not will be a judgement the people of Ontario will make and which they make all the time. We all recognize that, but I just want to suggest to the honourable member that the sense, from a great many people I have talked to, is that what took place was not all right. No one in this House is saying it is all right.

Mr Scott: They are all in cabinet.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David says they are all in our cabinet. Not at all. Let me refer to a letter I received from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. The president says: "While Miss Martel's responsibility in this portfolio commenced only recently, we are impressed by her obvious intelligence, sensitivity and penchant for hard work. We want to see her remain as our minister." Those are the words that are being said.

In all fairness, I would simply say that perhaps not all the truth lies in any one section of the House. What we are trying to do is be fair in the circumstances, to have an independent investigation by the privacy commissioner and to deal with it on that basis.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: I guess all the ministers who have resigned in the past were not doing a good job. I cannot quite understand the Premier's logic.

I have a question for the Premier: It has been a week since I first raised questions about the Martel affair. He has repeatedly tried to convince us that an apology was good enough. An apology was never good enough when he sat in opposition. On May 6, 1983, the Premier said: "There are countless instances in our tradition where ministers have accepted personal responsibility. Even though it is a rough test...it is a test that all of us must live by."

Presumably we must live by it, because the whole integrity of government, something that is under severe threat today in this country and in this province, is threatened if we do not live by it. Why will the Premier not insist on the same standards that all his predecessors in the Premier's chair have insisted be followed in their role as Premier of this province?

1420

Hon Mr Rae: With great respect to the honourable member, I can think of any number of instances over the years, in this jurisdiction and others, where premiers have exercised their judgement with respect to the makeup of cabinet, with respect to the decisions of ministers and with respect to the activities of ministers which have been the subject of some public discussion. To suggest that I am somehow exercising my responsibilities any differently than any of my predecessors just does not stand up to any kind of examination.

Mr Harris: A member of the Premier's cabinet has admitted she lied in her official capacity as a minister of the crown. Those are the facts. She did not make an honest mistake. She deliberately smeared a doctor's reputation for the sole purpose of defending a government policy. As long as she continues to sit in the Premier's cabinet, the credibility of the government and indeed the credibility of all politicians and all 130 of us in this Legislature is in question.

Given, as the Premier and I discussed many times in opposition, that today perhaps the biggest obstacle facing politicians in trying to lead on issues of the economy, of the homeless, of the poor and of the Constitution is the lack of credibility that politicians have today, knowing this, I ask the Premier again why he will not honour his responsibilities as leader, as Premier of this province, as every other Premier before him has done.

Hon Mr Rae: Perhaps the honourable member would agree that exaggerated rhetoric on all sides may have an impact with respect to the public's view of the political process. I think that is something we all have to look at and recognize. I say to the honourable member directly in response that I am exercising my responsibilities to the very best of my ability. I am exercising judgement.

The minister has apologized very clearly for what took place. There is a reference of this matter from the Deputy Minister of Health with respect to the matter of any confidential information by the freedom of information commissioner. In the circumstances, I think the public is very clearly being well served by the government being completely candid about the situation that has taken place and sharing whatever information is there in order for the freedom of information commissioner to make his investigation.

Mr Harris: Time and time again the Premier sat on this side of the House and condemned David Peterson and his ministers for low standards of conduct. It was not limited to the Liberals, but they happened to be here in government for a large part of the Premier's time in opposition.

On May 25, 1989, the member for York South repeatedly called for Joan Smith's resignation. He said: "I want her out. The critical question is the judgement of the Premier. If that isn't improper, I must be living in a different province."

The Premier is sitting in judgement today. Does the Premier believe today he is living in another province? Is that his explanation for why he has lowered the standards of the Premier's office in the enforcement of its guidelines in all of these matters to the lowest level in the history of this province?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the rhetoric which the honourable member has been using --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I think the way in which he is posing his question is completely out of proportion.

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat, please.

Mr Eves: You had different standards over here than you do over there. You were very sanctimonious sitting over here. How do you like it?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Whoa, whoa. Would the member take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: I think we should cut to the very core of this issue. About a year ago last week, I guess, the Premier introduced his conflict guidelines. He told us they were the toughest guidelines in history. He promised a level of honesty and integrity we had never seen. "Never seen before" I guess is the way he said it. I agree with the second statement.

He and I discussed this issue when we were in opposition together, he as leader of the New Democratic Party and I as House leader and then as leader of my party. We discussed the credibility of all politicians issue that was affecting the ability of politicians to lead.

The words are not worth the paper they are written on. In his own words of July 1986 he said, "If we do not have a Premier who is prepared to enforce the guidelines, they will not make any difference." Those are his words. Would he not agree with me and with his statement of July 1986 that if the guidelines are not enforced, then it is the same as not having any guidelines at all? Would he not agree with me on that?

Hon Mr Rae: The assumption behind the member's question is that the only way to enforce anything is to require the resignation of a cabinet minister every time something happens which should not happen. That is the premise behind the honourable member's question with respect to this matter of what he calls enforcement.

The first minister has a responsibility, as any first minister does, to exercise judgement with respect to the conduct of members of the government. The minister has clearly apologized for something which should not have taken place, and that is what has taken place. A mistake was made by the minister in a conversation she had with Mrs Dodds and she regrets very thoroughly that conversation.

Mr Harris: We have no idea what the Premier's standards are. We see some written guidelines, but he and his guidelines have no credibility any longer. In my view, he has done every single politician and every single government a disservice by not enforcing his standards. He has made it, quite frankly, impossible for us to believe anything this government says or does when he condones the actions of this minister. Is there anything the Premier will not accept as long as you say you are sorry?

1430

Hon Mr Rae: Again the member has said I have condoned what has happened. I have not condoned what has happened. All I have said is that a clear apology from the minister with respect to what has taken place, a clear indication from the minister that she regrets very much what has taken place is a clear indication on the minister's part that she recognizes something took place which should not have taken place. That does not mean any one of us here approves of what happened or condones what took place. It means that we think she has a valuable role to play as a minister of the crown. That is what it means.

Mr Harris: The Premier does not seem to realize that he has placed us in a position where we are forced to do one of two things. One, we can accept that the new standard of conduct for this government is everything goes, including lying, and if you are caught you say you are sorry. Quite frankly, we are not willing to accept that. The alternative is to fight for the integrity and honesty that the people of Ontario deserve. That is the choice my caucus is making.

We are calling on the Premier today, and I ask him to consider it carefully, to call for a full, open, unfettered investigation by an all-party committee of this Legislature into the entire Martel affair and the related involvements of the Minister of Health and Ministry of Health and the documents. Will the Premier agree with this today so that we can get on with business?

Hon Mr Rae: The leader of the third party has made a serious proposal in his last question. I cannot give him an instantaneous answer and I want to tell him why. Having asked the freedom of information commissioner to start an investigation with respect to a finding of fact on the question of the alleged leak of confidential information, if that took place --

Mr Harris: We are not interested in the civil servant. We are not interested in that.

Hon Mr Rae: The member says he is not interested in the civil servant. The freedom of information commissioner is a servant of this House, appointed I might add by an all-party committee in which members were appointed.

I am not rejecting out of hand at all the proposal he is making. We have nothing to hide with respect to what has taken place. I am sure the House leaders are going to be meeting this afternoon and perhaps it will be possible for us, in consultation with others, to fashion an answer to the request that is being made by the leader of the third party that will allow for a full airing of the facts, which I am certainly fully in favour of. We have had, I believe, a very full airing of the facts over the last week, but if there is a way for us to end up reaching some kind of a conclusion, I am not opposed to what he is suggesting.

Mrs Caplan: My question is to the Premier in light of his answers of just a few minutes ago. I would like to ask him questions about the conduct and responsibility of ministers.

We know that confidential and sensitive information was sent from Kingston to the offices in Toronto of the Ministry of Health at the request of the minister's office. We know this information was received by Eugene LeBlanc, a senior official of the Ministry of Health. Dr LeBlanc is responsible for conducting briefings on health policy for cabinet ministers.

We know the Minister of Northern Development had extensive briefings by staff before she went to Thunder Bay. We know as well that there were concerns raised during those briefings about questionable billing practices of northern doctors. We believe -- in fact we know -- that what happened in Thunder Bay was that she selectively took bits of that information and blurted it out to win an argument. Is that acceptable conduct for a minister of the crown?

Hon Mr Rae: The premise of the member's question is based on all kinds of things that she says she knows. I would say to the honourable member that she is alleging things thst I have no reason to believe are true in their entirety. She is alleging that she knows what has taken place in terms of information, first of all, between Kingston and Dr LeBlanc, and between Dr LeBlanc and any political figures or others.

She is alleging things to be true about which I have some considerable doubt as to their accuracy. I would only say to her that she should not leap to conclusions on the basis of what she believes to be true. The purpose of having an inquiry is to establish the facts rather than to simply assume what the facts are.

Mrs Caplan: The Premier would know that, having been in a somewhat unique position of having received those briefings, I am very much aware as to the content of briefings from staff at the Ministry of Health. The minister herself, the Minister of Northern Development, in this House on December 11 admitted, "I asked the Ministry of Health for...information with respect to the underserviced area program, which is public, and second, numbers with respect to the physicians or specialists who were going to be exempt, who were going to have a problem with the threshold in northern Ontario." That is what she said.

We know she has been fully and extensively briefed by Ministry of Health staff as well as by staff of ministers' offices. We know she has received, as she is entitled to as a minister of the crown, sensitive information. We know from what she has said was true in Thunder Bay -- that is, what was actually attributed to her in quotes -- that it is not possible that she fabricated all those concerns. Therefore, bits and pieces of it were based on facts from her briefings. She maliciously manipulated that information to tarnish the reputation of a specific Sudbury doctor. Is that conduct acceptable for a minister of the crown, and why has the Premier not demanded her resignation?

Hon Mr Rae: This question is a classic from the member opposite. She is drawing her own conclusions on the basis of what she thinks she knows. She says, "When I was a minister this is the kind of information I got; therefore I know what it is that Dr LeBlanc told any minister of the crown," which is in itself an absurdity. There is no logical connection between those two things. I say to the honourable member that the information the Minister of Northern Development asked for is information that is readily available. It is two kinds of information: First, who is in the underserviced area program and how many doctors are there? Second, in terms of the numbers, how many doctors in which areas are going to be covered by this capping area? Not the names, not the identity, not the who, not how much they are billing, none of those questions is there; the question is, what is available?

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: The member talks about manipulating. She is jumping from one set of facts to another set of facts and then reaching out to a third set of facts and saying, "How do you feel about that?" It is not a form of argumentation I can accept as the premise of a question.

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Premier. Why did he ask for Joan Smith's resignation?

Hon Mr Rae: The member is asking me to go back in time. Does he want to talk about all the other things that have happened? I would say to the honourable member that I am quite happy to answer questions with respect to the decisions I have made since becoming Premier.

Mr Eves: It is a very simple, short, succinct question that the Premier should be able to understand. Why did he ask for Joan Smith's resignation?

Hon Mr Rae: I would respond directly to the member by saying again, if he wants to get into an argument or a discussion about a whole range of things that took place, I would say why not ask someone over here why they did not do it? There are all kinds of questions that should be asked about the past.

1440

Mr Miclash: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development, and it is about health care in northern Ontario. Our health care system is one that is built on a delicate balance of interrelationships. It is a system where the fundamental basis is trust. Trust is actually the key to the whole thing, and the minister knows that. A patient's trust and a doctor's trust in his support services and in his ministers are all crucial to that system and for that system to work, particularly for us in northern Ontario. The fact of the matter is that the minister has totally violated that sacred trust with her highly personalized slander.

As Ontario's northern development representative, the minister's function in developing northern health care systems and recruiting northern health care practitioners is absolutely crucial to us in our ridings in the north. Her credibility with these people has gone. How is she going to continue as the minister responsible for these vital issues with no credibility in this field?

Hon Miss Martel: I ask the member to consider my track record, both in opposition and as a minister of the crown. If he goes back in opposition, he will know clearly that I and my northern colleagues were instrumental in working 18 months to go across northern Ontario to produce two very significant reports with respect to health care and our concerns about it.

Second, he will know that I have been a very strong advocate of the family residency program, both at Lakehead and at Laurentian, and was very pleased to visit the program at Lakehead about a month ago and meet with the staff and some of the doctors who are participating in that program.

Third, he will know that when I was in opposition, both the Treasurer and I fought very hard to get a specialist to come to the Cancer Treatment Centre in Sudbury. We spent a great deal of time lobbying on behalf of that centre to get that specialist to this community.

He would also know that in the last number of weeks, I have spent a great deal of time dealing with the Ministry of Health and the physicians in Sudbury to try to find a resolution to the particular problems in Sudbury with respect to the threshold. That is my record. I stand by it.

Mr Miclash: I am talking about today. I am talking about attracting health care professionals to the north, whom we need today and whom we will need in the future. The minister talks about her past. I would like to say that the Ontario Hospital Association just recently passed a resolution questioning this government's ability now to attract doctors to the north. I am talking about today and the incidents that have happened in the past two weeks or so.

The minister is going to be approaching medical graduates out of medical school to come to the north. What is the minister going to tell them? "Trust me as the Minister of Northern Development. Everything will be all right. You come and work in the north. We will provide for you"?

The people who have really suffered through this entire issue are my constituents, the people of northern Ontario, because of the lack of trust we now have in our Minister of Northern Development.

The minister went on about her record in the past. It is today that I am worried about. It is the trust that the other northern members have in the minister today. I think the real issue here is that maybe she could give good consideration to stepping aside so that we can get on with the real issue of providing health care in the north.

Hon Miss Martel: Very clearly, I am going to tell them that northern Ontario would be a wonderful place for them to come and practise. I fully supported the underserviced area program. It is the reason I spoke to those people who were recruiting during the underserviced area drive in the province some eight weeks ago.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Could the minister succinctly conclude her response, please.

Hon Miss Martel: I certainly think that once they come and practise in the north, whether it be through the residency program or through another program where they can experience the north, they will want to stay. I repeat to the member that I am very concerned about northern health care. I always have been. That is why I have committed to the group in Sudbury as well that I will continue to work with it to resolve a very important health care issue surrounding our community at this time.

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Treasurer, who is also the Deputy Premier and, as members will know, a cabinet minister from the Sudbury region. Has the Treasurer ever seen or been given any information about the billing practices of any Sudbury physician?

Hon Mr Laughren: No.

Mr Eves: Prior to the incident involving the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, has the Treasurer ever been told by anyone that charges were being considered against a Sudbury physician?

Hon Mr Laughren: No.

HUNTING OF WOLVES

Ms Carter: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I recently read that he has reinstated bounties on wolves as a result of difficulties farmers have encountered with these predators which are causing damage to livestock. While I understand the need for the minister to be sensitive to the needs of farmers, many of my constituents are concerned about the indiscriminate hunting and trapping of wildlife which this policy seems to imply.

Hon Mr Wildman: The information the member has is incorrect. The ministry has not reinstated a bounty on wolves. The bounty has been illegal for many years. The problem with the bounty is that wildlife in the wild tends to reach a balance with the food chain. The more wolves that are shot, the more that are bred. As a result they continue in balance, so the bounty is not effective.

In dealing with nuisance animals, however, farmers are faced with a serious problem in that some wolves and coyotes on occasion attack sheep and other livestock and the farmers have to be able to protect their livestock. So what we have agreed to do, in negotiations with municipalities and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, is to allow farmers, with the permission of their neighbours, to pursue specific nuisance animals on to their neighbour's property if necessary in order to destroy them and protect their own livestock.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Premier. I think members can appreciate the issue has now become the Premier's issue and it is his judgement, his standards and his credibility that are now under scrutiny. What is clear is that on Thursday, December 5, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines publicly attacked the reputation of a Sudbury doctor. She alleged that she had seen his file -- supposedly confidential -- and that criminal charges would be laid against him.

Three days later, on December 8, a whole new story emerged and the minister said these comments were entirely fabricated. Knowing how crucial this case is to the Premier, I would like to ask him if the Premier's office has reviewed this critical case. Has the Premier's staff assured the Premier that there is no way the minister could have had access to or been informed of confidential information on the doctor in question?

Hon Mr Rae: I have relied on my conversations with the minister. I have asked the minister, "Have you seen any confidential information with respect to any doctor?" She has told me clearly, "No." I asked the minister very directly: "Have you had any conversations with people who have seen confidential information? Have you been told anything with respect to a particular doctor or any group of doctors with respect to their billing practices?" She has told me that she has had no such information.

I then asked her, "What took place on Thursday night?" She said: "It was the end of the day. I was very tired. I got into a very animated, heated discussion with Mrs Dodds and I lost my temper. That's what happened." I said: "If you tell me that's what happened, I believe you. You have to apologize very clearly for what has taken place, because it's not the kind of conduct which any of us can say is a great thing to have happened or we approve it or we condone it." The minister has indicated very clearly to me and to the House that she has apologized for what has taken place.

That is what I have done and what I think the honourable member would expect me to do in the circumstances, to speak directly to the minister in question, to get the minister to answer as directly as she can questions that I have put to her and that I am relaying now to the House, as I have on other occasions.

1450

Mr Phillips: The problem is that it strains the credibility of the situation when we have this almost unbelievable coincidence. I think it is unbelievable, but I will use the term "almost unbelievable." OHIP was asked to prepare information on certain physicians. That information was prepared and released to government officials. Almost at the same time, the Minister of Northern Development was in Sudbury and made a public accusation about a doctor. That is not in question. What I would like the Premier to respond to is, when he asked the minister to explain this incredible coincidence, what was her answer to him and why did he believe that answer?

Hon Mr Rae: The member seems to be saying it is almost unbelievable. I think the member has to tell us if he does not believe the minister and if he thinks the minister has told an untruth in this House. If he thinks the minister has misled the House, I think he has to say that. I do not think he can continue to hide behind the situation.

With respect to this question, the minister has told me that she has had no access to confidential information with respect to any doctor, that she does not have any confidential information with respect to the billing practices of one physician or another and that this information has not been shared with her. She got into a very heated exchange with Mrs Dodds about a situation that, I am sure the member will understand, has been an area of concern for people across northern Ontario. That was her explanation. It is an explanation I accept.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Carleton.

Mr Sterling: I have a question of the Premier. I have listened for the last two or three days in question period. He has used the idea that he is asking the Information and Privacy Commissioner to investigate this matter as a shield against taking any further action.

There are only two sections within the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act where the freedom of information commissioner has power to act. Section 52 has quite wide powers in dealing with an appeal from a citizen who has been refused access to information. The only other section is section 59, a general section which gives the freedom of information commissioner the right to comment on practices within a ministry with regard to recordkeeping and giving of information. He has no powers to call or subpoena witnesses outside of or within the government.

I am very much concerned about the Premier's use of that office as a shield to keep us from getting to the bottom of this matter. Will the Premier consider withdrawing his request to the freedom of information commissioner as being inappropriate and call a full public inquiry or refer this to a legislative committee?

Hon Mr Rae: I have already said to the House and to the leader of the member's party that, at the end of his six questions, he asked me specifically about the question of a parliamentary committee. I told him I would consider that request or what else might be done in order to achieve a satisfactory resolution in the sense of what procedures can be followed to get at, as the member has said, the bottom of this. I want to assure the member I am not interested in shielding anything. I am interested, as much as anybody else, in finding out exactly what took place.

Mr Sterling: The act is quite specific in limiting the powers of the freedom of information commissioner under, for instance, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to protect witnesses and people who would appear before such an investigation or inquiry. Given that the fact of the matter is that I believe the Premier is not utilizing the office of the freedom of information commissioner in the right way and the commissioner's job is not to point fingers at people and get to the bottom of matters but to make general recommendations with regard to his records under section 59, will the Premier immediately withdraw his request for the freedom of information commissioner to undertake an investigation in this matter?

Hon Mr Rae: I have a lot of respect for the honourable member, in particular for his knowledge and interest in this area. I think members of the House know that when he was a member of the Davis government, he played a role in trying to get such legislation considered by the cabinet.

I say to the honourable member that I am not going to withdraw the request instantaneously, immediately, in the House today, but I am going to consider the request that has been made by his party leader.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Kormos: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Down in Welland and Crowland the people are as proud as anybody could be about the Welland County General Hospital. I remember the campaign wherein public support was solicited to build that hospital. But over the years, people in that community, people in Welland and Crowland, have seen the quality of care decline, not because the people who work there do not care but because there have been cutbacks after cutbacks.

I was out helping the cystic fibrosis people sell their $1 raffle tickets at Zellers down at the East Main Street Zellers mall on Saturday night. I tell members, all hell has broken loose in that community now that another 56 people have received layoff notices. We are not talking about high-priced, high-wage people. We are talking about people in support staff and nurses and nurses' aides. We are talking about people who are very important to the standard of health care there. There have been substantial cutbacks in beds, and the community is very concerned about diminishing health care that is going to happen as a result of those cutbacks. Mr Barton says this is the result of underfunding.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Kormos: Of course, Mr Speaker.

I asked the Minister of Health -- I spoke with her about this last week -- what she is going to do to respond to the crisis that is imminent at the Welland County General Hospital and that I suspect is not unique but is shared by more than a few other hospitals.

The Speaker: Would the member complete his question, please.

Mr Kormos: That is my first question to the minister.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

Hon Ms Lankin: May I say first of all to the member that I appreciate his interest in this issue and that of the people of his constituency. One of the things I need to point out, however, is that although the language that is used in the hospital community frequently refers to cutbacks in health care spending over the years, in fact if we look at the record with respect to the hospital community, there has been an average increase, year over year, of about 10% in hospital budgets and in transfer payments to hospitals. This year, while some hospitals are saying they have experienced cutbacks, there was over $600 million transferred to hospitals, and it was about 9.5% in terms of our health care budget. We have reached a point where we have to look at how we are spending our money in the health care sector and a whole range of priorities, and it means some restructuring of the hospitals.

I am concerned when I hear hospitals' first inclination in dealing with the deficit problem is to lay off front-line workers. One of the things I have done on a regional basis is ask district health councils to bring all the hospitals in the region to the table to sit down and look at their deficit recovery plans and what other ways those can be achieved without looking first at layoffs of front-line workers.

Mr Kormos: Margaret Clark, president of Local 89 of the Ontario Nurses' Association, says, and I do not think anybody here is prepared or in a position to disagree with her, "These cuts will develop a crisis in morale and will bring patient care down to a dangerous level." Tom Small, representing yet another group of workers at the hospital, shares those concerns.

My question is simple. The fact is that these people in the community of Welland are the ones losing their jobs and the patients in that hospital are not having the attendant staff to take care of them. Will this minister meet with those people, the representatives of the workers, both unionized and non-unionized, concerned people in the community -- people like Mrs Scozzafave's daughter, who stopped me on the street just last weekend -- and talk with them so they can share their concerns and get some direct responses from the minister? The community has some genuine concern that has to be addressed. It cannot be swept away.

Hon Ms Lankin: Let me say to the member directly that I hope he will play a role in helping to convey information to the community. I have met with the district health council in that community. The DHC has been and will continue to meet with the hospitals to review deficit recovery plans and attempt to bring about a rational approach on a regional basis. I think as we go through the next year or so these difficulties are going to become even more pressing on all of us.

I can assure the member that through the hospital funding review we are undertaking, with full partnership from the hospital community from front-line workers and their representative unions sitting at the table together, we are looking at the overall pot of moneys being transferred to the hospital sector and how that can be done on a more equitable basis. One of the things that has been happening is that among hospitals the allocations of dollars do not often reflect what is the true work being done in those hospitals.

While I appreciate his request, I will ask the member to convey information at this time and I will continue to try to work with the community to resolve the problem.

1500

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Conway: My question is to the Premier. I am quite intrigued by an answer he gave about half an hour ago to the leader of the third party indicating a willingness to consider an investigation of the Martel affair by a legislative committee of this assembly. Obviously the Premier is thinking about doing this, and I think it would be a very wise thing for the Premier to do.

As he ponders that possibility, I expect the Premier would take note of a certain pair of precedents that go back just a few years when all-party committees of this Legislature with opposition majorities investigated the cases of my colleagues, the now member for Oriole and the former member for Cochrane North. Certainly, in the case of the member for Oriole, she immediately resigned pending that particular legislative inquiry.

My question is very specific. In any favourable consideration of a legislative investigation of the Martel matter, surely the Premier would agree that in that eventuality he would expect or insist that the Minister of Northern Development stand aside from her ministerial responsibilities as a minimum pending that legislative examination of the affair?

Hon Mr Rae: I said I would consider the proposal put forward by the leader of the third party. I think the proposal has certain precedents in this House. There are some questions, however, I have raised with respect to the work of the commissioner with regard to getting to the bottom of things as well.

I am concerned about the two things not getting in the way of each other. The honourable member the minister has clearly apologized for what has taken place, and I think in the circumstances that the two things are not necessarily related. The minister and others can have their conduct questioned and can have other kinds of questions asked with respect to what has taken place, and that is the premise upon which I believe the question was put to me by the leader of the third party.

Mr Conway: I have no idea what the Premier means.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. Would the member take his seat, please.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CO-OPERATIVE CORPORATIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SOCIÉTÉS COOPÉRATIVES

Mr Charlton moved first reading of Bill 166, An Act to amend the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act with respect to Co-operatives / Projet de loi 166, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les sociétés coopératives et la Loi sur la location immobilière en ce qui concerne les coopératives.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Charlton: I rise today to move first reading of amendments to the Co-operative Corporations Act, 1991.

This bill is designed to encourage the development of more co-operatives in Ontario, especially in such areas as housing and worker co-ops. It also enhances the role these community-based, democratic institutions can play in rebuilding our economy.

In particular, the amendments recognize worker co-ops as businesses owned and operated by workers. The bill entrenches the democratic nature of worker co-ops, in which each member has only one vote regardless of the number of shares held.

The amendments also preserve non-profit housing co-operatives so that they cannot be sold or turned into profit-making businesses. The bill also ensures members receive similar protection as tenants in privately owned rental accommodations while preserving the distinctive character of co-ops and member control.

The bill was produced following extensive consultation with representatives of the co-op movement. I urge all members to give their support to this legislation when we get to debate it here in the House.

The Speaker: Orders of the day.

Hon Mr Cooke: I would like to call the government orders 36 to 47, which are the concurrences. By consent, we are going to do them all in one package for the next six hours.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: Concurrence in supply for the following ministries: Labour; Industry, Trade and Technology; Housing; Transportation; Skills Development; Northern Development and Mines; Natural Resources; Health; greater Toronto area; Energy; Agriculture and Food; Financial Institutions.

Hon Mr Cooke: I believe we have to revert to introduction of bills. The leader of the third party has a bill. I believe we also have a report from a committee. Could we revert to reports from committees as well as introduction of bills?

The Speaker: Is it agreed to revert to reports by committees?

Agreed to.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Sutherland from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 156, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act / Projet de loi 156, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration financière.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

The Speaker: Is it agreed to revert to introduction of bills?

Agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WEST NIPISSING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT, 1991

Mr Harris moved first reading of Bill Pr119, An Act to establish the West Nipissing Economic Development Corporation.

Motion agreed to.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL PR119

Hon Mr Cooke: Before we go to orders of the day, by unanimous consent I have a motion I would like to move to facilitate the introduction of the bill by the leader of the third party.

Mr Cooke moved that standing order 85 respecting notice of committee hearings be suspended for the consideration of Bill Pr119 by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday, December 18, 1991.

Motion agreed to.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Mr Cooke moved concurrence in supply for the following ministries and offices:

Ministry of Labour;

Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology;

Ministry of Housing;

Ministry of Transportation;

Ministry of Skills Development, votes 3601 and 3602;

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, votes 3001 and 3002;

Ministry of Natural Resources;

Ministry of Health;

Office for the greater Toronto area;

Ministry of Energy;

Ministry of Agriculture and Food;

Ministry of Financial Institutions.

The Speaker: Is there any discussion?

Mr Conway: Just a moment if we can. I came here today and I am quite anxious to get involved in this, but to be told that really there is no business decided until two seconds before the order is called is a little difficult.

Hon Mr Cooke: That's not true, Sean. Your staff was told at the beginning of question period.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Guelph. The Speaker is at a disadvantage in that the Speaker is not aware of arrangements made by House leaders. If it will assist the business of the House, we could recess for 10 minutes. Would that give people an opportunity -- no?

Mr Conway: Let's just calm down. I want to speak, for example, on concurrence for the ministry of justice. It may not even be on this list. I do not think I heard the clerk mention it. Maybe we should take a recess and figure out what is on this list.

The Speaker: We will wait patiently. I am sure the members in a few moments can begin a discussion. All the items are being dealt with as one package. You may speak to any of them at any particular time.

Mrs Witmer: At this time I would like to speak to the Labour estimates. In the original comments the Minister of Labour made to us in June, he indicated there was a need for labour and management to work together in a spirit of partnership, and also there was a need to reshape the long-standing confrontational approach to labour-management relations.

I would like to indicate at this time that I certainly agree with the Minister of Labour. However, I would like to remind the minister this is going to take time. Many of these attitudes have taken years to develop and we cannot ever hope to change them overnight. We need to be sensitive to both employees and employers in all we do. I would encourage the minister to proceed slowly and clearly demonstrate that he is prepared to seriously consider the views of both labour and management as he develops his policies.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I hate to interrupt the member for Waterloo North, but I believe we have agreement among the three House leaders to divide the time equally during this concurrence debate.

The Speaker: Is it agreed to divide the time evenly three ways?

Agreed to.

Mrs Witmer: I remind the Minister of Labour that it is prudent to remember that historically changes to Ontario's labour and employment legislation have evolved after a very thorough process of consultation with sufficient time for meaningful input.

Given the present economic climate, his ministry must also start asking itself questions. Can we afford to do what we are proposing at the present time? Will what we are proposing to do lead to further job losses? These are the issues we need to take a look at.

I am very concerned about the impact of some of the new policy changes on jobs. Although I support the aim of much of the legislation, I am very concerned that changes such as those proposed for the Labour Relations Act will do absolutely nothing -- I repeat, absolutely nothing -- to protect workers' jobs and will only further serve to discourage job retention and creation. We must remember that this is a very challenging and a very troubled time for the business community in Ontario. I am reminded of that constantly as I learn of yet another plant closing in my community and the loss of jobs for men and women. We have seen an exodus of business to the south. We need to stop that flow. We need to curb the loss of jobs for our people.

The Deputy Speaker: Please tone down your conversations so I can hear the member for Waterloo North.

Mrs Witmer: Unfortunately, some of the proposed policies are contributing to economic uncertainty and a very poor investment climate in the province. They are going to increase the cost of doing business, or they are perceived to increase the cost. If the government's proposed policies cause business costs to increase at a faster rate than in the United States, it is going to become even more difficult to compete with our neighbours than it is now. This is not only going to encourage new investment to leave Ontario; it is going to encourage more relocation of existing businesses and is going to contribute to further job losses and hardship for people in our communities. If we are to protect the workers and their jobs, we must be cognizant of the fact that business concerns about all the proposals, such as the Labour Relations Act, and their impact must be considered and included in the drafting of all new legislation.

I would like to address now the Labour Relations Act reforms. The time line for consultation has been set at February 14. I do not personally believe this gives sufficient time to allow for the type of broad or meaningful process of consultation that is necessary, because there are many far-reaching ramifications. I am also very concerned that my own community of Kitchener-Waterloo was not included as one of the locations. There are many varied businesses in Guelph, Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo and it is unfortunate that those businesses will not have access and an opportunity for input.

I am concerned about the potentially damaging consequences to the Ontario economy, as has been emphasized by the business community over and over again. I urge the minister to fully consider this and I ask him not to make the same mistake again as he did with Bill 70, when he acted in too much haste and without true consultation. I again remind the minister that it takes time to develop a spirit of partnership between labour and management, and it is going to take a long time to develop trust and understanding. The process that is used to reach that goal is going to be critical to the success if we want to level the playing field and create co-operation between management and workers.

I remind the minister that these proposed reforms have the potential to do irreparable harm to the very fragile industrial fabric of Ontario. I encourage him to extend the consultation process. I encourage him to do everything possible to restore the confidence of the business community in order that people can be assured of secure jobs, because I am concerned that after Christmas we are going to see many more closures of businesses and stores in the province.

1520

I have concerns about the proposed changes to the minimum wage. This government has proposed, over a four-year period, to increase the minimum wage from the current level of $5.40 an hour to 60% of the average industrial wage. If that policy were in effect today, the minimum would be $7.20 an hour.

We all know this commitment has sparked concern about the impact of such an increase on the province's competitive position and job creation rates. In fact, a study done by the University of Toronto's Institute for Policy Analysis indicates that the promise to increase the minimum wage to 60% of the average industrial wage is going to cost Ontario 53,000 jobs. Who is going to be impacted the most? The people who can least afford it, women and young people.

I have some concerns about training and retraining programs for workers. These are primarily to enable them to compete in an increasingly global market. We have a shortage of useful and effective training programs for workers, particularly older and immigrant workers, and we need to do much more to develop an economy in which our workers and our businesses are skilled and flexible in effecting change. We need to approach training in a different manner than we are presently doing in order that our people are prepared.

I would like to share some of my concerns about the Workers' Compensation Board at this time. The level of service needs to be examined, as well as the underlying reasons behind the deplorable levels of service that all our constituency offices hear about on a day-to-day basis.

The unprecedented changes and the reorganization have left the Workers' Compensation Board spinning out of control. It is time to apply the brakes and for good management to take hold. Major legislative, organizational and policy changes have taken place since 1984 and this has caused tremendous upheaval. The focus should now be on improving the service that is offered by the WCB.

There needs to be a complete moratorium on the development of new policies. We have seen hundreds of new policies developed over the last few years. We have seen administrative changes. It is time that the WCB staff are there and that they take the time and training to ensure they understand the new policies and are able to apply them fairly and consistently. What we do not need is a task force out on the road for six months looking at the inclusion of stress. That is totally unnecessary when there is already so much upheaval and this board is totally out of control.

It is time to take a look at the cost of the WCB. We have seen that go up to $9.9 billion in the area of the unfunded liability. The costs are totally running out of control. There needs to be a complete assessment of the board's financial and service operations to assist the administrators in their planning, and we need to deploy our resources much more effectively.

There is concern about the WCB's implementation of recent legislative reforms. Yes, it is extremely important that the WCB take a look, that there be a complete re-evaluation of the services it is offering and that it become more responsive and much more accountable, particularly financially, to the people it serves. We hear workers and employers continually, every day, phoning our offices to complain about the services that are provided.

I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that if we are ever going to restore prosperity to this province, if we are ever going to provide jobs for those people who are unemployed -- just last week I received letters from people wanting to meet with me to help them find a job; they are desperate -- if we are ever going to establish the true partnership and the co-operation the minister is looking for, if we are ever going to prepare our workers to compete in the increasingly global market, we should not only focus on creating new jobs; we must ensure that we retain the jobs we already have.

If we are going to do this, we must ensure that we do not burden the business community with additional taxes and costs and that we do not introduce legislation that is going to cause more distress in this province. Only if we do this and very carefully take a look at the consultation process and at the labour relations reforms, can we ever restore, next year or the year after, prosperity to this province.

Mr Turnbull: My comments are addressed to the Minister of Labour, who knows very well that I have asked questions in this House, with very unsatisfactory answers, with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board.

On December 4, I asked for confirmation from the Minister of Labour about the letter of intent that had been signed to lease 500,000 square feet of prime new office space in downtown Toronto within a complex that is known as the CBC Centre. The minister did not respond to my question in terms of the cost of the rent or the add-ons. The estimates we have put together are that it would be in the region of $25 per square foot net for the rent, plus an additional $18 a square foot for taxes and operating costs, or $22.5 million.

I did considerable research on this and found that many developers would be pleased to offer built-to-suit offices to suit the Workers' Compensation Board requirements outside the downtown core which could be built for $15 a square foot net, plus the add-ons would be something in the order of $8 a square foot net, and that would mean the total cost would be in the order of $11.5 million per year, so there could be a saving, conservatively, of $10 million per year.

The argument that is made by the ministry is that it must be in downtown Toronto and must be on a subway route. I suggested to them that it could be very close to a subway route in the northern parts of the city, and that if it was not immediately on a subway route they could provide a shuttle bus that would be capable of transferring people in wheelchairs or anything. The technology exists to easily do this today. Yhey could still come out with at least $10 million worth of savings per year, $10 million that the minister has chosen to ignore, $10 million that should be used to help the people in need, to help the hospitals that are underfunded by this government, to stop the layoffs of nurses that is occurring under this government and to fund the police forces around this province, particularly the Ontario Provincial Police, which is chronically underfunded.

I have been told that around this province, after 4 o'clock in the morning, some nights there are 15 police on duty with the OPP between Windsor and Toronto. It is a shocking fact that here is a government that is spending $10 million more per year on a building, and yet is ignoring the needs of people in hospitals and the need of all people for proper protection by the police.

This very same board, the Workers' Compensation Board, has significant unfunded liability, and we know that nepotism is rampant throughout the Workers' Compensation Board.

1530

I refer to an article from the Toronto Star dated November 25: "Among the newly hired are people close to Gordon Wilson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, and his predecessor, Cliff Pilkey."

It goes on to say: "Wilson's daughter Susan, 22, and 23-year-old Marty White, son of Pilkey's friend Judy Robbins, have just been hired to jobs paying salaries of $57,000 a year plus generous benefits."

I find it absolutely unconscionable that a government that is complaining that it does not have enough money to fund the police force and hospitals is allowing an arm of the government to run wild with nepotism. Incredible amounts of money are being spent on people who are just out of school and are being paid sums which can make the heads of the average inhabitants of this province spin.

The increase in the amount of space they are going to occupy is of the order of 50%, and I suggest that at a time of very great difficulties in this province most companies are saying, "Okay, we will not increase the amount of space we have per employee, and typically we have 100 square feet per employee." This ministry is okaying the Workers' Compensation Board going up to 50% more than this.

I really have to question the minister as to what sort of controls he is putting in place to stop the abusive use of taxpayers' money and what he is going to do to immediately stop the nepotism in this ministry.

Hon Mr Pouliot: That's a little strong. That's bull.

Mr Turnbull: I hear the Minister of Transportation saying, "That's bull." Well, the facts speak for themselves. I challenge any minister of this government to suggest that the Board has not spent $10 million per year more than it needs to for this new office building. I challenge them to suggest it is untrue that nepotism is running wild through the Workers' Compensation Board.

Mrs Caplan: Many of my constituents, I think, will be wondering what this debate today is all about. The debates of concurrence are the opportunities for members of this House to review the plans of the different ministries and then vote in agreement with the policies, the practices, the plans and the intentions.

Today we are discussing concurrence in a number of different ministries and in different policy areas, and the one I would like to address specifically is concurrence in supply for the office for the greater Toronto area. The reason I have asked to speak during this important debate is that it is important for my constituents and the people of this province to understand and participate wherever they can in the kinds of debates that are going on in this province about issues that affect the greater Toronto area.

I wanted to take this opportunity to explain why the greater Toronto area office was established. It was established under the Liberal government, and it was established because the greater Toronto area is very different from just Metropolitan Toronto. The greater Toronto area includes the regional municipalities of Durham, York and Peel. The greater Toronto area extends from Hamilton on the west to Oshawa on the east, and as far north as Barrie.

Within that area lives almost 45% of the population of this province. That particular area, the greater Toronto area, generates nationally 20% of all the income tax and 20% of all the economic activity in this country. That is the reason we refer to the GTA as the engine of this country and as the engine of this province. That is why the activities that take place in the areas of infrastructure renewal, waste management, transportation planning, urban planning, density and economic incentive for business have an effect right across this province and right across this country.

Those of us who live in the greater Toronto area -- I live in the city of North York, which is in the greater Toronto area, and I represent the great riding of Oriole, which is right in the middle of the GTA -- when we travel and people say, "Where are you from?" we tend to say, "I'm from Toronto," and we mean we are from the greater Toronto area. We know the importance to business, industry, commerce and economic activity of things that happen in the greater Toronto area. We know the importance of the decisions the government makes in stimulating economic activity and creating jobs. The reason it is so important to all of us is that it is a reflection of our quality of life.

In order to have a good quality of life, people have to have jobs. People have to have housing. They have to have bridges. They have to have good roads. They have to have public transit.

In order to have a good quality of life we want to have neighbourhoods. We want to have communities. We want community centres. We want to be able to put our garbage out and have it taken away and processed and looked after in the most environmentally sensitive way. Environment policy is also economic policy.

We know the great innovations and new technologies that are being developed. We know the impact these new technologies. Whether it is new street lighting, how we dispose of our garbage, how we build our subways, how we build our roads, what kind of new transportation initiatives we have under way, we know that all these things affect our quality of life.

My constituents are just beginning to ask questions about planning in the greater Toronto area because they are reading in the newspapers and they are hearing discussions about the great changes that are taking place in our society. They are reading articles about the Crombie Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, they are hearing discussions about lakefilling and they want to know what that is all about.

During this debate on concurrence for the office for the greater Toronto area, I can hopefully tell them that a lot of work is going on and a lot more work should be going on, not only about how the waterfront is developed and how downtown Toronto responds to the rapid changes but how we are going to plan for transportation needs within the greater Toronto area, whether we are going to have urban sprawl and spread throughout the GTA or whether we are going to have a nodal concept of planning.

1540

These are the questions that must be answered now. We know the population of the greater Toronto area will increase. We know the demands on our roads and the demands on our public transit systems will increase. We know the demands on our water pipes and our sewer mains -- or our watermains and our sewer pipes -- will increase, and we should not get those confused.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You lose so much in the translation. I understand.

Mrs Caplan: The member knows what I am saying. I remember my days as a member of North York council, where they had to deal very specifically with ensuring that the pipes are there, both the water pipes and the sewage pipes, and where they have to deal with the taking away of the garbage and the planning for playgrounds and new roads in their communities.

We know that Metropolitan Toronto council is also grappling with the issues beyond the city of North York, in the municipalities of Etobicoke, Scarborough, East York, North York, those municipalities that make up Metropolitan Toronto. Metropolitan Toronto council looks at a bigger picture than the city of North York council looks at. The city of North York looks at those things which affect just the city of North York; Metropolitan Toronto council looks at those things that affect all the municipalities, those six I mentioned, that make up Metropolitan Toronto.

We know that the decisions Metropolitan Toronto make might have an impact on the region of Durham, York and Halton. We know that area immediately surrounding Metropolitan Toronto is interested in transportation planning, urban planning, rapid transit, highways, sewers, garbage disposal and a good, clean water supply, as well as those issues that affect the cities within those regions, whether it be Oakville, Brampton, Vaughan, Oshawa or Whitby. We know how important it is for the leadership in Halton, Durham, York and Peel to work together with the leadership within Metropolitan Toronto and to co-ordinate their efforts and meet those challenges that are facing such a large population today and projected for the future in this place we call the greater Toronto area.

We see all around us issues which can only be resolved by getting those folks to come together and work together. We know there is an important role for the provincial government to play, a leadership role, a facilitating role and a role of bringing together people who have common interests and helping them to find the solutions to the problems facing our society. Many of those problems cross the boundaries of those different municipalities.

They cross the boundary from Halton to Peel to York to Durham to Metro Toronto. We need to look at co-ordinated and integrated planning for affordable housing and for social housing. Where should the density go? Where should we build the nodes where people will live and work? Where should we put the transit lines? Public transit does not stop and should not stop at the border of those municipalities. People should not only be able to travel from Oakville to downtown Toronto; they should also be able to travel out to Oshawa. People from Richmond Hill cross the boundary at Steeles Avenue, which is in my riding, people from Markham cross the boundary into Metropolitan Toronto and people from Metropolitan Toronto live and work in those municipalities that make up the GTA.

We need the kind of co-ordination to bring together GO Transit, the TTC and the regional transit authorities; not to fight over whose turf this is and who is going to be responsible, but to say: "How can we work it out together? How do we decide within the greater Toronto area which are the transportation priorities? Should Highway 407 go before the expansion of Highway 404?" I know the Minister of Transportation is here today and I am pleased he is here for this debate. Transportation is very important.

I was in Brampton this morning, talking to the new mayor of Brampton who served on that city council for 15 years. He said: "We're worried. We need the 407 to come to Brampton. It was supposed to be here by 1996 and now we have heard a rumour it might not be here till the year 2002. That will have a detrimental effect on our municipality." The Minister of Transportation must understand the link between the building of roads and highways and public transit and economic prosperity.

The minister is not just moving people; he is building economic infrastructure which will lead to prosperity in this province. He must give to the municipalities in the greater Toronto area the confidence that he knows what he is doing, that he speaks to his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, that he understands the important role of the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area to ensure that his plans are co-ordinated, so that whether he is extending a highway or building new public transit lines, he understands he is creating economic activity.

One of the concerns I have is that the new government does not understand that link between its capital spending and economic prosperity, that it does not understand the tools that are available to it as it does its planning for transportation and economic prosperity, that it cuts back on its plans for the building of roads and transit and will cut back on the prosperity possible in this province as people look to the government to bring forward the kinds of plans they can count on.

For example, the cancellation of the Red Hill Creek Expressway has had enormous implications for the city of Hamilton. I see the minister shakes his head. He understands what I am saying. In the midst of a recession the city of Hamilton was doing quite well. They knew they were going to have an expressway that was going to spur economic activity for them. With the cancellation of that expressway, Hamilton went into a tailspin. The rug was pulled right out from under them.

I use these metaphors deliberately because these are examples this new government does not understand: how infrastructure, highways, roads, public transit and subways have such a huge impact on the confidence people have to invest in this province. The building of bridges, the maintaining of our roads and the building of sewer pipes and watermains have a lot to do with our economic prosperity in this province.

I thought this government understood a little about that when we first saw its anti-recession package. But when I have seen them not looking at containment of their operating expenses, which is what they should be looking at, that is the concern we all have. They have fuelled the operating expenses with big increases in wages for civil servants that sent a ripple right through all of the transfer payment agencies, through the hospitals, the universities, the colleges and the municipalities.

1550

People in this province said, "If the provincial government can give the civil servants a raise, we too should have a raise." That has fuelled an escalation of the operating expenses through all the transfer payment agencies, and that has fuelled a crisis in confidence in this province because today the government's operating expenses are out of control.

The problem is that rather than looking at containing new programs, we saw the province expand its expenditures by $1.5 billion on the operating side. We saw a recent policy on child care where the government found $75 million, and not to just provide for the kids. What the NDP did was allow its ideology to get in the way and improperly, in my view, force people providing good quality child care service out of business.

Government policy will result in the loss of jobs, the loss of service, the loss of day care spaces and child care spaces. That money could have been used better in the provision of infrastructure, in bricks and mortar. That money could have been used better in providing services for those children rather than in the way the government provided that money.

It is extremely important that they understand the impact in the greater Toronto area of the policies they are making as a government. I mentioned transportation, the planning for subways. My constituents are very interested in the Sheppard subway. The reason they are so interested in the Sheppard subway line is that they know it will help move more people, give them access from North York Civic Centre to the existing subway lines travelling right across Sheppard Avenue out to Scarborough Town Centre.

They believe it will relieve some of the congestion on our roads today, because Sheppard Avenue and Finch Avenue are two of the heaviest-travelled areas in this city, in this greater Toronto area. The volume of traffic is very high today.

My constituents also know that, as York region just to the north of us expands, more people want to get to downtown Toronto. Unless we have good public transit there, not only will they not be able to go east-west, they will not be able to go north-south. So my constituents, and I speak on their behalf today, also support the looping from the Spadina line to the Yonge Street line, because that will accommodate many of the people who are today living in York region and give them access to public transportation in Metropolitan Toronto. It will be important to have the linkages from York region to those lines.

Having talked about the transportation component, my constituents are also aware that subway construction will lead to economic prosperity as well. Subway construction not only moves people; it will say, "This is where the economic activity should take place." Along that line, we have already today high-density housing in many areas, but we have some areas where we could have affordable housing. We have some areas where we could have business activity, because we want people to live and work in an area where public transportation is readily available to them.

The government's transportation planning and its transportation policies are about economic renewal and economic development. Never think for a moment that the role of the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area does not have a lot to do with not only the transportation policies which will move people but also the policies about economic renewal and economic development in the part of this province which is the economic engine.

I want to address myself as well to the building of infrastructure around garbage, because garbage can be a resource. Each of the municipalities in the greater Toronto area collects the garbage and each wants to have it disposed of in the safest and best environmental way. I would say to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area that she is missing an enormous opportunity when she does not see the resource potential of our waste. Waste management is an issue where she should be bringing together all the people from the greater Toronto area to work together. I fear that Bill 143 has not done that.

Probably one of the greatest needs in the greater Toronto area is for new sewage capacity. That is also a responsibility of the Minister of the Environment, because along with sewage capacity comes the higher densities that allowed for affordable housing to be built. But before the minister can do that, she has to have the agreement of those at the municipal level who are making the planning decisions about what is appropriate density for their communities.

When I met with the mayor in Brampton this morning, he said they have an area set aside: Springdale, 75,000 people, at a density, he said, which is considered by the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area as the appropriate density. The people on local municipal councils are very aware of their need for tax revenues so that they can provide the kinds of services to their communities.

One of the things the mayor of Brampton said to me today was that he was very concerned because he has not heard from the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, he has not heard from the Minister of Housing regarding the Chinguacousy Health Services Centre, the comprehensive health organization and ambulatory care centre which I had expected would be well under way by now.

He has not heard from the Minister of Transportation regarding the extension of Highway 407 to give them security that it will be in place by 1996-97 as expected. He has not been able to get an answer from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Ministry of Transportation or the Ministry of Government Services about a piece of land that is needed by the trucking industry to develop a terminal on Highway 10 at Steeles Avenue. They say that if they do not have that answer within two weeks, this proposal, which will generate jobs and economic activity in Brampton and southern Ontario, will be lured away by New York state.

It is the minister's job, as minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, to cut the red tape. It is her job as minister responsible for the greater Toronto area to get answers for mayors in local municipalities and to get answers for regional chairman. On this international trucking depot, the region supports it and the city of Brampton supports it. All that is required is a piece of land the government of Ontario owns and has declared surplus to its needs.

The land is now Ministry of Transportation land. It has to be transferred to the Ministry of Government Services. It should be of interest to the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. Surely the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area can cut that red tape. She can say, "We will make this land available at market value," to save jobs and produce jobs in southern Ontario and in the greater Toronto area.

1600

Yes, it will require some action and some activity. My colleagues from Brampton, the member for Brampton North and the member for Brampton South, have been actively advocating to all the ministers in the government to take some action. The new mayor of Brampton, Peter Robertson, told me his inaugural address -- he gave me a copy of a letter he sent to the Premier -- pleads with the government to take some action, in partnership with them, to save this project for the people of the greater Toronto area. During this debate on concurrence, it is my opportunity to ask the government to do that. That is the government's responsibility.

There are many municipalities within the greater Toronto area willing to come to the table. They need to have advice and direction. I know that while there is much expertise within all the ministries, they sometimes need some skills and talents which are not available within the ministries to bring all these experts together around the table. That was the reason former Premier David Peterson appointed Duncan Allan deputy responsible for the waterfront and gave him the authority to second different experts from the ministries to come and work with people outside government to find solutions. That was why Gardner Church was appointed deputy minister for the greater Toronto area.

We know there is airport planning that has to be done and transportation that must be done and put in place. The plans were well under way, much of the work has begun and what I am hearing now is of great distress. What I am hearing now is that a general state of paralysis exists with the ministries because of the difficult economic times. Exactly the opposite should be happening. This should be a time of activity. This should be a time when those plans that were well under way come forward as action plans. That is how they will send the message to the business community in this province that Ontario is a good place to invest.

The government must have confidence in the business community if we are going to pull ourselves out of this recession. The government must have confidence in its partners in the municipalities of the greater Toronto area. The government should listen to them. They know what they are talking about.

I understand the government rejected outright a proposal for the establishment of a waste authority, and did it in a different way. It is the government's prerogative to do it in a different way, but when it gets advice and everyone agrees except the government itself, maybe something is very wrong. Maybe the government is not consulting as well as it thinks it is. Maybe it is not listening as well as it should, because there is much expertise at the municipal level and there is much expertise at the regional level.

Many of those municipalities have engaged excellent consulting firms. I know the government's own ministries have also been talking to --

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is the government's responsibility to keep a quorum in the House while we are debating these important issues. I do not believe one exists at the moment, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1606

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present.

Mrs Caplan: I believe there are many issues of great concern to people in the greater Toronto area, but no issue is of more concern than the lack of confidence the business community has in this new government. No issue is of more concern than the lack of economic activity that is being generated by the policies of this New Democratic government. No issue is of more concern to my constituents than the worry they have that they may not have their own jobs tomorrow because of the policies of this new government. They believe, as I do, that the NDP is not responsible for this recession, but it is responsible for exacerbating, for making worse the difficult situation we are in, by its lack of action in so many areas.

During this debate on concurrence, I would like to say to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, and to all the ministers in the Premier's cabinet, that they must do better. They must do better so that my constituents will not have to worry about whether they will have a job tomorrow. Now is not the time to bring in new labour legislation. Now is the time to bring in the kinds of proposals and activities that will see that people have jobs tomorrow. Now is not the time to bring in policies that will convert one day care centre to another type of governance. Now is the time to bring in infrastructure renewal policies within the greater Toronto area that will see roads constructed, bridges built and sewers established.

On behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole, I want to say that I do not concur with the policies of this new government, that it has not brought about confidence from the business community and has not brought about confidence from my constituents. I ask the New Democratic government to reconsider many of its ill-considered policies so that we in Ontario can look forward to a brighter future than the future we foresee without the leadership and guidance we all expect from our government.

I specifically say to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area that I will be watching to see what she does. When she does it well, I will support her, and when she does not do it well, I will criticize her. I am available to offer her my advice and assistance, because my interest, the reason I entered public life, was to make a positive difference in the quality of life, to make a positive difference in the future of Ontario.

Mr Stockwell: I am rising today to discuss further, in much the same tenor as the last speaker spoke, with respect to the GTA in my role as critic for the GTA.

Having spent a number of years on Metro council and Etobicoke council, there are many GTA issues I have become familiar with. In the past I have offered up some pretty specific recommendations. Considering the previous five years and the lack of action by the previous government, I felt we would be in for a far more proactive approach to the concerns that face many people in the greater Toronto area.

I think most people would agree that Toronto today is a very different city from the Toronto I knew when I was first elected in the early 1980s, and even before that. Toronto today is a much different city from Etobicoke, North York, East York, York and Scarborough, and branching out, those areas such as Durham, Peel, York and Halton making up the GTA.

Ten years ago or longer, some of the issues we faced as a city and as a metropolitan area were far different. Crime was not an issue impacting the residents in that area to nearly the same degree it is today. Crime is a very real concern, a very real issue for a great number of people who live in the greater Toronto area and Metropolitan Toronto proper. It is an issue that I think has not been addressed by this government and that is probably focused far more on Toronto itself and Metropolitan Toronto. Crime is an issue people speak to me about at my constituency office, on the phone and on the streets in Etobicoke and wherever I may travel: neighbourhood crime and neighbourhood safety and back to a more basic approach to crime.

One of the issues I remember hearing about in this House was that the Attorney General had instituted a new policy for people. It was a trial policy -- I believe it was going to start in North York -- where if they caught somebody who was involved in breaking and entering, B and Es as they are called, there would be a different approach to how that person would be dealt with through the judicial system. He felt it would be an appropriate measure and form that if the person who was caught and charged sat down face to face with the people whose house or business he broke into and apologized for breaking in and stealing their products, charges would not be continued.

To me that is an example of the government we have today. I am not really certain people in Metropolitan Toronto would see this as a good idea. I am not certain the people of Metropolitan Toronto and the greater Toronto area would like to see their Legislature enter into this as a means of combating crime.

I mention crime at the top because of all the studies I have seen in the very recent past, crime seems to be becoming a very important issue and an issue they would like to see government take on head-on. I mentioned the announcement the Attorney General made and that he thought this would be a good idea to measure how successful it would be if the perpetrator of the B and E simply sat down and said, "I'm sorry," and got off scot-free. I do not think that is right, I do not think it is effective and I do not think it is the kind of approach people would like to see taken by this government.

I want to start my comments with respect to the greater Toronto area and my concern with what has not happened with crime because, as I said before, the most significant issue facing the people in Metropolitan Toronto and the greater Toronto area today is crime. I honestly do not see this government, through the Solicitor General or the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, dealing with the issue. I am saddened to say that because this government said it would listen to the people when they spoke. I think the people have spoken very clearly and I do not see the government reacting in any positive form towards a reduction in the level of crime in Toronto.

There are some areas in my riding, in Etobicoke, where when the police get called to respond to a call, the officers will travel there in two cars. This is just to emphasize the point. They will travel to the call in two cars. Why? Because the two officers in one car go up and respond to the call and the second car watches the first car, literally for fear of bombs. That was exactly what took place in my riding a year or two ago. One of the police cars was literally bombed.

This frightens me. It frightens me to watch the news. It frightens me to read the paper and see a city, or an area like the greater Toronto area, coming under a bombardment of crime. Of course there will always be those who say that statistically crime is not up, but I think violent crime is up. There is a very real perception in the community I represent and I believe in the communities in this greater Toronto area that crime is up and that violent crime is up.

As I said, about nine or 10 years ago, when I first got elected, there was not really a question of whether or not you would walk the streets in Etobicoke or the city of Toronto or North York or Scarborough. Today I honestly think that has just gone by the wayside. People do not walk the streets any more. It is almost an Americanization of our city, and I am very concerned about it. I mention it first because I think if you do not have a safe city, then you have lost control.

I am very concerned that the cities and the greater Toronto area are becoming unsafe, in my opinion. I would say there are certain sections in Toronto, in Etobicoke, in North York and in Scarborough that I think you would be crazy to walk down at night. To say that today, when 10 years ago I do not think anyone would have said that, certainly crystallizes in my opinion that the people in the greater Toronto area really have some major concerns about the crime issue.

I have not seen a single piece of legislation or a single announcement by this government that goes about trying to restore a certain degree of safety in my community and in others. I want to make that point very clearly.

I would ask the government to bring forward a plan to assist the Metropolitan Toronto Police and all the police forces, Peel and Halton and Durham, that surround the greater Toronto area, and hopefully we can co-ordinate some kind of approach that would resolve this issue. I will say it again, although it is somewhat repetitive: I believe that the people in the greater Toronto area think that crime is becoming one of the most important issues they face today.

As I said before, I do not see that the Attorney General's idea that you take break-and-enter people who get caught and convicted and simply sit them down in front of the person whose house they broke into and have them say, "I'm sorry," is the solution that people are looking for. In my opinion, that is just simply unacceptable as a way to combat crime.

There are many other issues involved in the greater Toronto area. When this government was first elected I had some hope that it would deal with these issues. I do not think it is any secret that in opposition, this government and its members who are elected on councils in the GTA, running under the banner of the NDP, were very specific in their attacks on public transportation and about exactly how they would co-ordinate their resolution to many serious concerns that people had in these areas.

On public transportation specifically, I can speak to a study done by Metropolitan Toronto at literally millions and millions of dollars, That was the 2011 study, the call for subway improvements, rapid transit improvements in Metro Toronto. It may not be of great interest to this House in general, because a lot of people do not represent this area, but it seems to me to be very systematic how this government is dealing with all these transportation issues.

I for one was greatly disappointed when they killed the Red Hill Creek Expressway. I was disappointed because the city had built its plans, it had built its hopes, it had built its hopeful development on this specific expressway. Simply by slashing a pen across a piece of paper they just dashed the hopes of many and they just killed years and years of public input.

Now we have seen them backtrack to some degree. They have retraced their steps, and I believe they are not nearly as tough on this stand as they originally were. They have talked about alternatives. I think they have even said, "Should there be no suitable alternatives, we will probably go ahead with the Red Hill Creek Expressway."

1620

Another problem I have is simply the total time it takes to approve any public or vehicular traffic transportation improvements. The process is bogging the system down. It is bogging the system down, I am certain, right across this province, but it is bogging the system down in Metro Toronto.

I speak of a simple light rail transit or a streetcar that was to run up Spadina -- I am certain everyone in this House has driven this street -- that would run from Queen's Quay down at the lakeshore up to Bloor Street, I believe, or to hook up with the subway. That has been caught up in so much red tape, because it is simply a system that would have a right of way. What it means is that there be about a four- or six-inch curb running along each portion of the streetcar tracks, thereby giving its own right of way on the road and free access to move without cars cutting in and out.

This was approved a number of times in council. It has been through processes that you would just find unbelievable, Mr Speaker. We have gotten so caught up in certain processes that these processes are killing opportunity for improvement and projects. This six-inch curb has to go through an environmental assessment hearing. It is absolutely insane. The streetcar was already in place. The streetcars run up and down Spadina every day, and this six-inch curb has to go through an environmental assessment hearing.

It is just insane, and it is adding years and years on to the improvement of the development. It is adding years on to the improvement to the point where you can see development take place, jobs created and so on, because we have gotten bogged down in process. As I said, it is a six-inch curb, but that is not it. It is government overgoverning and it is government getting so involved in processes that it loses sight of what it is trying to achieve.

I speak to another improvement I am certain members in this House have driven down. I suppose it is easier to be a member from the greater Toronto area or from Metro Toronto proper in this Legislature, because it matters not where you come from. All the members have to live in this city at some point during their stay here. All the members come in and they work here and they live here, and they can see and understand exactly what problems are faced by this Metro area.

I expand this debate to talk about a simple addition to the Gardiner Expressway. If any members across the floor know the Gardiner Expressway, they know that the Gardiner Expressway is bogged down between two rush hours, the early morning rush hour and the night rush hour. Literally from 7 till 9 and from 4 till 6 it bogs down. It bogs down at the border between Etobicoke and Mississauga and it bogs down at the Humber River.

This may not be of great interest to some, but the point I am trying to make is that I am certain it is not just happening here; it is happening all over the province. What is happening is government members are becoming so involved in processes, so involved in the approval of development and transportation improvements, that they lose sight of what they are here for. They are here to service the taxpayers.

This one-lane addition to each side of the Gardiner Expressway -- it is a six-lane highway now; it would become an eight-lane expressway over the Humber River and carry forward on to the QEW and hook up there, where there already are eight lanes.

When this was debated and discussed at Metro council, the time lines, as they like to say -- and I do not understand sometimes what "time lines" means; I always call that a schedule -- but the time lines -- "schedule" to me and everybody else in the world -- suggested that this project, once it is heard at council and then approved at council, going through all the processes it needs to go through, including environmental assessment hearings and so on, was going to take 17 years to be completed.

That is 17 years to put a lane on the Gardiner Expressway heading west and a lane on the Gardiner heading east for around a mile -- 17 years. It is insane that a lane addition to the Gardiner Expressway to service the taxpayers in this province, not just Metro Toronto, from Mississauga, from Oakville, from Burlington, all over, was going to take 17 years.

What is the point? The point is that by the time they get to the final stages of putting the lane on, their expressway is three lanes too small now and they are going to have begin negotiations to expand it again. This is the problem in the GTA. This is the trouble in the greater Toronto area.

I do not want to take all the time up from my members, but I will say I do not believe fundamentally that the Toronto area is working properly, from a political point of view, at the municipal level right on through to the provincial level.

As the last speaker said, we have got more studies taking place. We have got David Crombie's waterfront. We have got federal government initiatives at the waterfront. We have got provincial government initiatives at the waterfront. They are swapping land on the Toronto Islands that they do not even own. They expropriated 40 acres of prime park land from Metro Toronto and gave them 23 acres of park land that was already park land in Etobicoke.

Now we have all these levels of government involved in the greater Toronto area and all they are doing, from the school board level in Etobicoke or North York through to council level in Scarborough and East York through to Metro Toronto council through to the conservation authority through to this place, Queen's Park, is slowing down a process by overburdening it with requirements that nobody should have to live with. What it adds up to is this: We end up spending more time and almost as much money writing reports about a road expansion than we do on the road expansion itself, which to me is a colossal waste of taxpayers' money and time.

No road expansion or transportation improvement should take more than a few years to study. If it takes longer than a few years to study, in my opinion government is not working. To even suggest that a road improvement on the Gardiner Expressway should take 17 years -- in my opinion, they are absolutely out of their minds. These are the concerns my constituents are expressing to me.

Finally, much has been said by the government about the opposition parties and not offering what would be reasonable alternatives for criticism. I think Metropolitan Toronto has far too many levels of government. In my area alone -- I think I counted one time and it is roughly 75,000 people, and everyone who lives in the greater Toronto area can probably say the same thing -- people elect a separate school trustee and a public school trustee. They elect an alderman. They elect a mayor. They elect a Metro councillor. They elect an MPP. They elect an MP. They used to elect even more.

But what it gets down to is that they have eight or nine politicians representing 75,000 people, and they have so many layers of government wanting to get involved in every decision that is made that they cannot make the decision. By the time governments end up making the decision, the decision has long since passed them by. We are not proactive. We are not sensitive to time constraints. We want to study things to death because we are frightened to make decisions.

In conclusion, there will always be people opposed to decisions that government takes, but that does not mean it should not make the decisions. That is the problem we are faced with today. We cannot do public transportation improvements because there will be people opposed and they are tied up in environmental assessment hearings for ever at the OMB.

We cannot make decisions on landfill sites because people are opposed to making those decisions because they get neighbourhoods and areas upset at them. Then we are faced with the decision of expanding a landfill site without a minute of public hearing. We have not got any proactive political level.

Mr McLean: Besides resign.

Mr Stockwell: Well, besides resign. My recommendation to this government is simply that it abolish Metro Toronto council as a regional council. Abolish the regional councils in Peel, Durham and Halton and amalgamate those to create a greater Toronto area council. Give them very specific responsibilities, maybe police, garbage and a few others, regional planning to some degree, park land and so on, and allow the local councils to continue. The local councils would be local councils representing that specific city.

1630

Also, I would abolish school boards in Metropolitan Toronto. I do not think there is any reason why people cannot elect their councillor and council and they cannot manage council's money and school board's money. It does not make sense to me that an area of 75,000 people should have nine or 10 elected officials, all on the public payroll, all on pensionable earnings, etc. It seems to me that at the municipal level you could get by with significantly fewer politicians, and with significantly fewer politicians you end up having to pay them less, pension them less and, further, you would not have every level of government sticking its nose into every single decision.

It is a somewhat radical approach. I think it is an approach that certainly could be studied. It is an approach I think the people would accept, because they are tired of knowing they have to get involved with all kinds of governments and all kinds of committees at all kinds of levels to get a simple road widened and it will take 17 years to do that.

Those are some thoughts I have. To say that I am happy with the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area -- I am not. I do not know what the minister for the greater Toronto area has done since she got here. I have seen two pieces of legislation from an environmental point of view or from a greater Toronto area point of view. One was the landfill site which I am so thoroughly opposed to, and it sickens me that this government would put it forward. The second piece she did not even have anything to do with. She passed it off to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who cut a deal that gave squatters on the Toronto Islands public park land.

What that said to me was that if you break the law long enough, if you do not have a legal leg to stand on and if you flout the law and you do not own the property, eventually one day some government will cave in to your demands. That really bothers me, I am sure it will bother the council and it should bother the citizens of this province.

What it has come down to is that the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest judicial forum in this country, has ruled that the houses and land belong to Metropolitan Toronto and this government just allowed a selective group of people, who have not lived there since the beginning, to win the lottery. For the rest of their lives and their children's lives, they live on the finest piece of park land in Metropolitan Toronto and it costs them $30 a month.

Those are the two pieces of legislation this minister was involved in, and as far as I am concerned, if that is all she can point to, then she was a shameful and total flop as minister of the GTA and Environment minister. In my opinion, if she cuts those two deals, that is enough for me to call for her resignation.

Mr O'Connor: I want to thank the members who have participated so far in this debate on concurrence and supply. Being the parliamentary assistant for the greater Toronto area, I feel perhaps I should respond to some of the issues that have been raised so far.

The member for Oriole has talked about transit a little bit, maybe not in so great an extent, and perhaps she and I can spend a little time discussing some of this at a later time, but transportation is a big issue when you talk about within the GTA because you have to talk about roads, airports and all the different transit links, whether it be subways, trains or buses. It is a very complex issue.

But there are a lot of other issues that involve the office for the greater Toronto area, issues around human services, some of the hard services we have to look at, the greenlands area -- the Niagara Escarpment, the Oak Ridges moraine. There are a lot of different issues that have to be looked at.

The member talked about the size of it, and it is a large area when you consider that it contains five regional municipal governments plus 30 smaller ones. It goes as far west as Burlington and east as far as Newcastle, beyond Oshawa even, and right up to Caledon and around the shore of south Lake Simcoe, all the way around past Beaverton, right up to Gamebridge and the Trent Canal. It is an enormous area.

A lot of people do not realize that 40% of Ontario's annual gross provincial product is generated within the GTA, yet it has only 1% of the total land mass of Ontario. It is incredible. Of course, we talk about the growth in that area going up to six million in the next 30 years, which is enormous.

A look has to be taken at a lot of issues. In fact, I represent two of the fastest-growing regions within the GTA. In the York part of my riding, I represent Whitchurch-Stouffville, and newly re-elected Mayor Fran Sainsbury is there. In East Gwillimbury we have a newly elected mayor, Jim Mortson, and up in Georgina a mayor, Bob Johnston, coming back again for another term. On the Durham side of my riding, also still in the GTA, I have Mayor O'Connor of Uxbridge coming back again -- no relation at all but a good name none the less -- and Mayor Hadden of Brock township coming back one more time. These are people who will be able to be involved in the process as we take a look at how growth is going to happen over the next few years.

I think maybe some of the people out there do not realize, when we talk about concurrence, exactly where we raise some of these issues. The area for this discussion to take place in a little better detail is in the standing committee on estimates. I am a member of that committee, so perhaps I can raise some of the issues that we can talk about.

When we had the Minister of Labour and his ministry come before us and we looked at his estimates on September 24 of this year, I had an opportunity to talk to him and ask him a few questions around Bill 70. He pointed out that at that point in time, 17,000 employees were waiting for some of the money that was going to be released through Bill 70, and I thought that was terrific. It is just incredible.

On October 2, we had in the estimates committee the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. When we talk about the economy right now, we all have to be concerned about our own ridings, of course. One of the things I had to raise as related to my riding was McNeil Pharmaceutical, which is up for sale in Whitchurch-Stouffville. It is a real concern for me and my constituents and the council in Stouffville. I had an opportunity to talk about it and ask what they were going to do to try to help out. He talked about the registry of businesses and how it relates. I was glad to hear that. Perhaps I could share the Hansard with anyone who would like to have some more copies of this so they can see just how it relates. It is really important.

I also talked about how we can possibly bring some of the manufacturing, commercial-based backup into some of the communities that are losing it very quickly. They pointed to some really good figures and gave us some good facts. We talked about some of the obvious problems -- transit links, etc. It is something we talked about in estimates committee. I would be glad to share that with my local chambers of commerce.

We also had the Minister of Housing before us. On October 8, I had an opportunity to talk a little bit about the Seaton development up in North Pickering. Being a member who represents Durham and also parliamentary assistant for the GTA -- I grew up in Durham; I spent all my life there -- when we talked about the Seaton development, I was glad we had a chance to dialogue a little bit about that and bring some of the issues to the forefront. The estimates process gave us a chance to talk about some of that. I thought it was really quite useful.

Another thing too is that when we were there on October 22 we had an opportunity to talk about some of the other things as they related to transportation. We have talked a little bit about that today. At that time I was able to ask a few questions. For example, what about the rail service that is being cancelled beyond Stouffville to Lindsay? What is going to happen to those rail lines? What about the future? I had the people from GO Transit there. I was able to ask them a few questions and they were to give me some answers. They were talking about things being under review and that some of that rail land is not going to be torn up, which is terrific news.

I also talked about the GO bus on Highway 404. I travel the 404 all the time and I never see too many GO buses on it. Of course that makes me wonder, because it is always jam-packed with transportation, just as the Gardiner Expressway is. The member for Etobicoke West has raised the fact that the Gardiner is all jammed up. Perhaps we have to take a look at transit in general, and some of that has to be examined.

Mr Smith from GO Transit pointed out that they are going to take a look at it. They are going to look at greater use of the Highway 404 corridor. Some of my constituents have raised that. Last Friday one constituent raised that issue about buses on the 404. It gave me an opportunity to ask that question. I will gladly forward this to my constituent because he is interested in those kinds of issues.

1640

I also had a chance to talk about the anti-recession package with the Minister of Transportation, as we did with most of the ministers. It is really important that we take a look at making sure that money was well used. It was pointed out to us that it was quite well used.

In some of the areas there is joint money put into the anti-recession package from the Ministry of Transportation and municipalities. A good example would be Toronto Street going into Uxbridge from the south end, just north of Zehrs Market. The road is all fixed up just beautifully. As you go past the hospital, there is lots of room for people to turn. It is good to see that. In fact, Water Street in my home town received a little of that money. It is important we recognize that some of this money was anti-recession and we kept a few people working last year as a result.

On October 30 we had the Ministry of Skills Development. That was probably one of the most interesting ministries we had before us, because it gave us an opportunity to take a look at some of the things that really concerned us in trying to establish some way we can create a program that will encourage lifelong learning for people. We have to be able to encourage people to keep on learning and not give up. We saw changes to the funding there from the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. OTAB is a terrific program that is going to allow some of that to take place. I am glad that is going to happen.

Another thing we took a look at -- these were members from all sides of the House who had an opportunity to talk to these people, to the ministers and their staff, while they were there -- and had a chance to talk about in great detail, for example, was the apprenticeship program, which will encourage people to develop their skills. We talked about that and of course we were interested in how that ties into, for example, an older worker in a workplace that was going to be shut down and was there a way that could continue. We talked about that.

We also talked and asked questions about pre-apprenticeship work for visible minorities, women and different equity groups. The Minister of Skills Development spoke about $1 million that was put into the pre-apprenticeship program. I was pleased to see that this was taking place, that there was money being put there for that essential need.

Another thing was raised on November 5 in committee. I guess that day will stick out in my wife's mind because it was her birthday and she happened to come by and visit the committee while we were sitting. I wished her a happy birthday on that day.

During the time we had the Ministry of Skills Development still before us, I asked about what kind of money was available for smaller businesses. Being from an area that represents five smaller municipalities, I do not have a lot of large businesses. I am really interested. If there was something that could be accessed by them, I wanted to make sure they were going to receive it. The honourable minister had one of his bureaucrats there who was just waiting to answer the question. He talked about how first-time small businesses were not being charged a fee for some of the services provided through the Ministry of Skills Development incentive funds. They are picking up the fee. Further incentives really were to help utilize the service and make sure the Skills Development office was working up to its full capacity.

Just in closing, far too often we on this side of the House have to sit here and listen to criticism from across the floor, and sometimes I think the members across the floor opposite are even a little bit hard on themselves, needlessly. They stand in the House and say we are not doing enough, but clearly when we get into committee and work, it is not nearly as partisan as it is for viewers who see question period and wonder if that is all there is to it. There is an awful lot more that goes on. The committee work is not nearly as partisan. In fact, the members can work together and come up with consensus on many different occasions. That is something that should be looked at and highlighted as something we should be proud of on all sides of the House.

If we can forget about the name-calling and the rhetoric, and just talk about things that have to be done and discuss different alternatives, I think we can really make a big difference in this province. Working together, through a partnership of all members in this House, I think we could see that happen.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me the time for the debate. I encourage many more of my colleagues to get up and speak in this important debate on concurrence in supply.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this debate, which is rather wide-ranging. I notice there are a number of ministries whose concurrences can be dealt with this afternoon and I am pleased to be able to do so.

One of the items I would like to mention immediately as it relates to the health care system, because I see we are dealing with concurrence for the Ministry of Health as well, is the problem with the dialysis unit at the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines.

I have an interesting letter that I think best characterizes what is happening there. It is to Mr Donald Walker, who is the project co-ordinator, teaching and specialized hospital branch, Ministry of Health. It is from Mrs Diane Reed of Welland, who is a patient very familiar with the needs of dialysis patients at Hotel Dieu Hospital, which is a regional unit.

She writes as follows:

"Dear Mr Walker:

"I am aware that the Hotel Dieu Hospital has applied for phase III funding for an improved dialysis unit. I am writing in support of this urgent need.

"I am a peer volunteer at Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines, Ontario. Recently, I went to visit some of the patients on the haemodialysis unit. (The total length of the hall in the unit is only 58 feet long, and in my wheelchair I should be able to go the entire length of the hall in less than a minute.) However, it took me 15 minutes to go the length of the hall, and it took me 20 minutes to come back up the hall. Because the supply room is not large enough, there were boxes of supplies and bottles of saline along the hall. There was a scale for weighing patients in wheelchairs and also the scale for weighing patients that cannot get out of bed, in the hall. There were patients in wheelchairs waiting to get weighed after finishing dialysis, and there were other patients in wheelchairs waiting to get weighed before starting dialysis. There were also two haemodialysis machines in the hall. After getting past all these things, I then had to wait while someone from stores unloaded a cart full of supplies, some he piled along the wall and some he put in the supply room. His cart blocked the doorway preventing me from leaving the dialysis unit.

"I find this to be a very dangerous situation for the following reasons:"

I can concur with these reasons. I have read the letter. The member for St Catharines-Brock, the member for Lincoln and I had the opportunity last Friday to tour the dialysis unit at the Hotel Dieu Hospital. Mrs Reed describes the dangerous situation as follows. I think we would concur.

"1. Unsafe Working Conditions: The hallways and rooms are so cluttered that accidents could easily happen to the staff and also to the patients.

"2. It is a Fire Hazard: Should a fire break out on this floor there would be no way to get the patients and staff out quickly.

"3. What about Cardiac Arrest: If the patient at the far end of the floor had a cardiac arrest they would never get a crash cart to them in a hurry.

"The way to solve these problems is to renovate the existing unit.

"In 1974, the dialysis unit was set up to serve 19 patients. In the past 17 years the patient population has gone up 500% for a total of 89 patients, as of September 30, 1991. To accommodate these patients the unit runs for 8 am to 11 pm six days a week.

"How can the nursing staff be expected to provide quality care under such cramped and dangerous circumstances?

1650

"I believe the dialysis unit should be improved for the following reasons:

"1. The nephrology (inpatient unit) only has six beds. Earlier this year there were 18 nephrology patients admitted to other floors due to the shortage of beds on nephrology. This removes the nephrology patients, with special needs, from the quality care they need and deserve. Nursing staff on other floors have not been trained to meet the special needs of a nephrology patient.

"2. More haemodialysis beds are needed, as there is often an overflow of haemopatients that have to have dialysis down in the peritoneal dialysis unit.

"3. A waiting room is needed for patients waiting their turn to start their dialysis treatment. Presently the hallways are congested with patients waiting to start their dialysis treatment, while other patients have finished their dialysis treatment and are waiting their turn to be weighed so they can go home.

"4. We need space for the renal social workers so they can be more available to the patients. Presently, the renal social workers are in a separate building behind the hospital.

"5. We need an office on the dialysis unit for the renal dietitians. The dietitians' office is presently located on the floor below the unit.

"6. We need a large room for staff meetings and also where new patients can be trained. New patients are now trained at their bedside where their room-mates often interfere, or sometimes they are instructed in the peritoneal dialysis unit where there are other patients and other nurses, so it can very distracting.

"7. We need a small room where a patient can meet confidentially with a doctor or social worker.

"8. We need a large room for supplies so the supplies won't have to be stored in the hallway.

"9. We need a room in the unit where the technicians can repair or service the haemodialysis machines, the cycler machines and other equipment. Presently they are one floor below the unit.

"The dialysis staff work under such trying circumstances, but are always so pleasant, caring and give such good support to the patients.

"I sincerely hope you will seriously consider the suggestions in this letter and that you will grant phase 3 funding for Hotel Dieu Hospital.

"Sincerely yours,

"Diane Reed."

This matter was raised in the House this afternoon by the Liberal Health critic, the member for Halton Centre. It is a matter of great concern. I have some photographs supplied to me by the member for Lincoln, who is also interested in this issue, wherein we can really see the cramped quarters. The three of us had the opportunity to be there. We were taken on a tour by Dr Manning and other members. Dr Manning was the doctor in charge in this particular case. We met with a number of people from the staff, administration and medical people, as well as some patients and peer volunteers.

What was clear to those of us who made that tour was just how cramped these quarters are. While we can say that the nursing staff, the medical staff and the others who are assisting are doing an outstanding job -- all the patients would agree with that -- what I am concerned about is that they are doing it under very trying circumstances.

Also, the equipment has to be serviced. I got a chance to speak with those who were in charge of servicing the equipment. I can tell the members that is not even satisfactory. They are doing a fabulous job because they put on computer when the last servicing of equipment took place. There are many units that would likely put the equipment out to pasture. These people have fixed and refixed those machines on a number of occasions. In fact, there was one other jurisdiction in Ontario, the Credit Valley Hospital, which had some equipment that I believe it was going to dispose of. The people in St Catharines at the Hotel Dieu, which services the entire Niagara region, actually took that equipment to use. This was equipment that somebody else was going to throw away. That is how dire the circumstances are in this situation.

They also have to do something very special with the water they use for these patients. The water must be perfectly pure, so they have to have various ways of making it pure. They have in the basement of Hotel Dieu Hospital about the oldest and least sophisticated water treatment system that you can find in the province. It is really remarkable that the people responsible for the servicing of this equipment and the people responsible for the purification of the water are able to do the job they have been under the circumstances. That equipment obviously should be updated. They need reverse osmosis equipment. It should be updated and be much more sophisticated, as it is in virtually every other dialysis unit, as my understanding is.

I mentioned before that sometimes you do not see the same degree of pressure for this kind of item. Members have heard me talk about the genuine and urgent need for a second CAT scan machine in the Niagara region. There has been some considerable support from a number of hospitals because a number of hospitals are making bids on it. In this case there is only one hospital that delivers the service for the dialysis of kidney patients. That is why members may not see as widespread pressure, but certainly those who need that service are well aware of the urgent renovations that are required.

We toured the facility. The three of us would agree, first -- I can be pretty certain that I can speak for the others, because we chatted after -- that the conditions are in fact crowded and unsafe. Second, I think all of us would agree that the Ministry of Health has not supported the renovations or capital needs at Hotel Dieu Hospital since its inception in 1974. At that point, funding for four stations was provided. Currently 21 stations are needed. We have been fortunate that we have had good people across the Niagara region who have made donations which allowed the hospital to purchase some of that equipment, but clearly there is a need for capital funding to come from the Ministry of Health.

The 21 stations I made reference to represent a combination of treatment for all forms of dialysis. Funding for new program initiatives is mandatory, and of course that is what we want to see. Additional capacity is needed to allow for movement of patients between regions so that dialysis patients are not compromised when they move about the province. What they need, essentially, is about $2 million in capital. I know what the government worries about, and justifiably so. It worries about operating costs. But we were assured that the investment in that capital would bring about better operating costs, that it would be a saving in terms of operating costs.

We know the decision is urgent. The decision is going to be made probably in the early part of January. People have been very patient. The need is dire in this particular case and it is just not satisfactory to those of us who reside in the Niagara region to see that we are getting castoffs from other dialysis units. The people, I must say, are kind in at least providing that equipment, because it is better than having no equipment at all. As the population tends to age and more people tend to encounter these problems, we really need this kind of equipment and these kinds of renovations and changes.

This is a matter of life and death to these people. This is not elective; this is not something you can have or not have; this is not something that simply increases comfort or perhaps reduces pain, important as all of those are. This is something which is essential to keep these people living. I think everyone in this House and certainly the people in the Niagara region would support an allocation of already allocated funds. There is a special fund for these purposes. I think there would be widespread support for about $2 million of that going to the Hotel Dieu Hospital to carry out this regional responsibility.

I will not go into great detail, but members have heard me on many occasions speak of the need for a second CAT scan machine in the Niagara region. I have not been parochial in that I have not said, "It should be located in St Catharines." I am sure the hospitals in St Catharines would be delighted, the St Catharines General Hospital to have a second or the Hotel Dieu Hospital to have one, or perhaps even the Shaver Hospital might be interested. Right around the region, no matter where it is put -- in Niagara Falls the Greater Niagara General Hospital is very interested; Welland County General Hospital is interested -- all of them are interested. There is widespread support.

What I am saying is, there is a need for a second CAT scan. I am not prepared to be parochial, even though the folks in my own city would prefer that. I just say that somewhere in the region it is needed, because at the present time people have to go across the river into the United States to get the service at greater cost or they somehow have to get to Hamilton or Toronto or somewhere. This is not to suggest there is not an emergency opportunity; it is to suggest that the elective scans are lined up for about five or six months in terms of a waiting list. We believe the government would be justified in giving the okay.

Members should keep in mind, in the case of the CAT scanner, that the capital cost is raised in the community. I am sure even in these depressed economic times the people of our communities in the Niagara region would give generously so that we could have a second CAT scan machine in the region.

1700

There are a couple of other items I wanted to touch on. I am quite concerned, as all members are, at the closing of hospital beds across the province and the cutback in health care services. This is certainly not something that was predicted. I can recall knocking on some doors where people, at the time when the grants to the hospitals were very high, were saying they were dissatisfied with the level of service and they were going to vote NDP as a result. I am not going to be one who sits and blames the NDP for everything, but we have an NDP government now and, lo and behold, it is worse than it was before.

I think people are looking for quality health care service. I think everybody wants to co-operate to ensure that it is an efficient expenditure of dollars. That is everybody's goal, certainly including the present minister and past ministers. But certainly the need is there, as I say, particularly when you have an aging population.

Another concern I have expressed on a number of occasions, this week and last week, last week in question period to the Premier and to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology -- everyone must have been wondering why I was asking these questions about the automotive industry. Then we started to see some newspaper stories which suggested -- I will focus on General Motors, but also TRW presents a problem.

Obviously the whole industry is shrinking, and I alluded to this last time in the House, but this is the week where the big decision is going to be made. George Peapples of General Motors has in fact made many statements about this. He has been interviewed about it. Representatives of the CAW have expressed their concern about the potential for some plant closings, and I am sure the people in St Catharines and in Oshawa particularly, and perhaps in other plants in Ontario, are very concerned this week that some bad news is going to be announced.

We know we have an efficient workforce. We know we have plants that are working hard to be competitive and have been competitive in the past. We also know there are a number of factors that go into that decision.

What I would like to see the Premier do -- because he is the boss of the government, and the others have some influence, but the Premier essentially runs the show, and his group of people who sit as advisers to him; they will make the final decisions, but they get input from members of the caucus -- are the following things.

I hope, first of all, the Premier will withdraw his tax on auto workers, his tax on automobiles, which really sends a bad signal to the automotive industry when we are slapping additional taxes on those cars. That is one thing I hope he will do; in fact I hope he will go beyond that.

The sales have dropped so dramatically and the industry is so important in terms of its direct effect on our economy and the spinoff effect that the second thing I would like the Premier to do is to remove the sales tax on vehicles sold in this province so we can spur the economy, so people will be encouraged to make those purchases at the present time and so the international aspect of General Motors and other companies, the multinational aspect of it, will understand that Ontario is interested in seeing vehicles sold in this province and is bringing about circumstances where retail sales can be enhanced and certainly can be multiplied by several times what they are at the present time. Those are two suggestions I have immediately.

The third suggestion is that the Premier take a careful look at his legislative agenda and determine which pieces of legislation perhaps do not have to be introduced in Ontario, which can be modified significantly and which can be postponed, in order that we can demonstrate to the business community, in this case the international, the multinational automotive industry, that we are a place where it is good to invest; that we are not going to be slapping more taxes on people in these recessionary and highly competitive times; that we are prepared to withdraw certain other taxes we think may be punitive to the industry; that we are prepared to tone down the anti-business rhetoric that sometimes emanates from certain sections of the government; that we are prepared to withhold changes to regulations which are going to be anti-business regulations, without any appreciable benefit to the province except to say, "We did this because we said we were going to do it."

In other words, what I indicated the other evening and I reiterate this afternoon is that if it means this government is going to have to break its promises -- and I would say this is one government that has been elected in Ontario in circumstances where most people hope it will break its promises -- this government should forgo --

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: Yes, the member for Cochrane South is absolutely correct. The reality is they know there will be criticism for breaking those promises. That is something they are going to have to tolerate.

Let me tell the members opposite it means more to those of us in here than it does to the people we represent. We tend to think in terms of retreats. They will hear me say, "Sound the bugles of retreat" many times, and we remind them of broken promises. My suggestion is that the people of the province may not care as much about that if they see that the government is trying to set up a good investment climate in Ontario.

I look at the headline from the St Catharines Standard of Thursday, December 12 -- this was about a week after I had initially raised this in the House -- and it says, "GM Plant Closing Likely." That was a reference to Oshawa because of the considerable speculation about the assembly plant in Oshawa.

However, we are concerned in other parts of the province, particularly in St Catharines, about other plants there. We have a major foundry there. We have an engine plant in St Catharines. We have other operations on both sides of the canal on Ontario Street and on Glendale Avenue. We have one on Welland Avenue. People who work there are genuinely concerned this week that some announcement is going to be made which will be somewhat devastating for the future. I hope that is not the case. I think all members of this House share the hope that it is not the case.

We do recognize, with General Motors restructuring, with TRW talking about eliminating thousands of jobs in its worldwide operations, that we in Ontario are vulnerable. The government here cannot accept the full blame if we see any of these closings -- the opposition will certainly suggest a lot of the blame would go to the government -- because we have other policies of governments from other levels, particularly the federal government, that may influence this and we have international circumstances that may influence it.

What I am saying is if the final straw is represented by the taxes, the rhetoric, the legislation and the regulations of this government, then it is in the hands of the Premier and members of the cabinet and members of the government caucus to try to avoid the circumstances of closings in Ontario and the devastating effect that has on individuals and their families and on the communities from which they come.

My urging is to the Premier to perhaps swallow his pride, perhaps abandon some of the socialist or social democratic approach to things in order that he can show he is prepared to invite business to stay in Ontario. Those are certainly some of the issues I am concerned about.

I am also concerned about the fact that not everybody gets to see question period at the appropriate time. I can remember when TVOntario, when there was a Conservative government, I think, or at least a Liberal government in power, used to show the question period at either 11 o'clock or 11:30. Then when there was a complaint it went to 12 o'clock, and when there was a further complaint it went to 12:30. Somebody told me the other night it was 1 o'clock before it got on the air.

I know we in the opposition, particularly the member for Mississauga South, have been critical of certain of the operations. I am sure it is just coincidental that the more criticism we have of TVO, or at least the expenditures in TVO, the later the question period seems to get on TVO. That has to do -- the Speaker points to this -- with the health of the province, because people are not healthy unless they can see what is going on in this province.

We are also dealing with the concurrence in supply of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who is in the House this afternoon. I once again put a plea to him that we see some assistance to the farmers in the Niagara region. The assistance that has been announced to this point in time has been insufficient.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has told people there that he is going to block any effort by the regional government to allow severances. Most people would recognize that the severances would represent some initial incursions -- perhaps there have been some already, of course -- into the farm land. In the long run that is not the best answer. These people are desperate. That is why they are doing it.

1710

The local authorities in Niagara, unlike some areas of Ontario, have been very conservative in the granting of their severances and have seen the damage that can be wrought by allowing the intrusion of urban people into rural areas. That is not what most people would want as their best option, but they have come to the conclusion that senior levels of government are not going to provide sufficient funds to make it a viable operation, and are not prepared to undertake the kind of short-term relief they need to keep them going and the kind of long-term policies that would be helpful to the maintenance of an agricultural industry in the Niagara Peninsula.

The peninsula is useful in terms of agriculture for two main reasons, and probably a third I can think of. The first is good luck. We happen to live in an area where climatic conditions are conducive particularly to growing tender fruit. The north Niagara strip, from the lake up to the escarpment, is a very unique climatic area in this province. What you see is an opportunity to have about 27 more growing days at the bottom of the escarpment as compared to above the escarpment, so that is one real plus.

The second is that in many places in the Niagara Peninsula there is very good agricultural land, good soil; not every spot, but in many of the places there is some very good and unique soil that is conducive to farming, particularly tender fruit farming.

The third is that there are a number of people who reside there, some who came from other countries years ago, some who have come from other countries recently and some who have been here for dozens upon dozens of years, perhaps a couple of centuries. All these people have developed a certain expertise in farming and they are people we are extremely proud of in the peninsula. We believe that the Minister of Agriculture and Food should provide the necessary relief to those people, so that they do not have to go to the Niagara region and demand severances, which they see as their only lifeline to keep going.

I know the Minister of Agriculture and Food and his ministry and others are examining options for long-term relief, long-term options. He is looking perhaps at Massachusetts and some of the other New England states that have looked at the preservation of land through certain conservation easements. He looks at the total cost and says it is a lot of money. I look at the total cost of bailouts of major industries and the profits that are in one particular city or town and I recognize they are costly as well.

Farmers are saying, "If we were all in one area, if we represented a lot of people in one concentrated area, our chances of getting assistance would be much greater." I certainly support any effort on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to assist the farmers in that area. We can do two things: We can preserve the agricultural land, and second, we can preserve farmers and farming in the Niagara Peninsula.

I want to share the time on concurrences with some of my colleagues. I made reference to the removal of the tax on auto workers, which this government is pursuing and was debating the other night, as one of the options, I suggest to the Premier, and the other option is to remove the sales tax on vehicles sold in this province. One impact it will have is that it will generate sales in Ontario. A second impact is that it will send a good signal to the automotive companies that this is a good place to keep investments and to put new investments. Third, it will have the effect, which would please all of us concerned about energy conservation, of putting newer vehicles on the roads that get much better miles to the gallon, as I still call it, much better fuel efficiency than older vehicles. Fourth, of course, they have emission controls that are far superior to those older vehicles.

I hope the government will not simply pass away and say, "We'll drone on this afternoon, but we won't pay much attention to what the opposition says."

Mrs Caplan: They are not paying attention. They should pay attention to these good ideas.

Mr Mills: I am.

Mr Bradley: The member for Durham East has been riveted to his chair and he is listening. I know he always does. He is a fine fellow and he is listening to this. I hope he will bring the message to his caucus and to his government. I cannot speak for him, but I suspect he has the same concerns I have with many of these issues and will draw them to the attention of the people who really control this government, the people right in front of me, the Premier and his many minions who are part of his ever-growing staff. Federally they call it the Prime Minister's Office. Here we call it the Office of the Premier, and some refer to it as the Pink Palace.

Mrs Marland: I am happy to have the opportunity to rise this afternoon and speak on the various concurrences of the various ministries. There is a great deal to be said about all these ministries. Unfortunately, the great deal that there is to be said is not very good.

I would like to start off by saying something about the Ministry of Housing, and in so doing I would like to place on the record one aspect of a concern I had in a meeting of the standing committee on general government, which is dealing with Bill 121, the new rent control legislation for Ontario. During that meeting the Liberal critic for Housing and myself were asking the Minister of Housing a number of questions. We were also trying to establish the real cost in terms of maintenance for rental accommodation in the province.

The really interesting point the minister made, to which my colleague the member for Eglinton and I took strong exception, was that it did not cost any more money to operate older buildings. I was saying that there should be some address to the fact that older buildings, because of their age, by necessity needed larger amounts of money for maintenance and repairs, not even dealing with renovations but just straightforward maintenance and repairs. The minister chose not to agree with me on that point. She even used as an example the fact that she lives in a 65-year-old home herself. We asked her if she had new windows and a new furnace and so forth, and she said, "Oh, yes," that she did. Of course she had already made the capital investment to upgrade her building.

But the point we were making, and particularly I was making, was that to be fair to these property owners, who with older buildings much sooner than with newer buildings, will be meeting a major capital investment. They will have to find the money, perhaps to perhaps replace windows and make them energy-efficient so they do not burn more fuel, perhaps to replace plumbing and electrical, and also of course to replace the fuel source itself in whatever form of furnace or heating the older buildings have.

Anyway, the significant thing was that the minister was trying to tell us that older buildings just simply did not cost any more than newer buildings. Since that debate, I have fortunately come across A Consultation Paper from the Ministry of Housing. It was published in February of this year and is called Rent Control: Issues and Options.

Here we have the minister's own publication. I read from page 76, where it is talking about the percentage of rental stock, the size of buildings and so forth. There is one paragraph in here that I found particularly significant in light of the minister's misinformation about the cost of operating older buildings versus new buildings, because obviously she is not familiar at all with a publication from her own ministry.

1720

I read as follows: "Age of building has an important bearing on the condition of the rental stock. Generally, the older the building, the greater the need for repairs and maintenance." Is that not interesting? Here is a consultation paper from the minister's own ministry that says exactly what I was arguing and which is exactly in contradiction to the statement this minister was making.

That is not surprising, because the Minister of Housing, as I have mentioned a number of times in our committee meetings, based on her answers and her whole philosophy in the approach to the provision of rental accommodation in this province, is totally out to lunch and this document just goes to confirm it.

Also, we always hear about how well other systems operate under other socialist governments. I am not quoting this minister particularly here, but certainly I am reflecting on some of the statements made by the Bob Rae socialist government recently. It is rather interesting to read a publication called the British Columbia Report, dated November 11, 1991.

I only want to read one paragraph in here, because I think it says it all. It says if you have to have a socialist government, you are probably better off in British Columbia. Lord forgive me. I never would have thought you would be better off anywhere with a socialist government, but let me just read you this quote, Mr Speaker, and you will understand why.

"Victoria Hillside MLA Robin Blencoe, the NDP's Housing critic during the Socred government, says his party has no intention of wreaking similar havoc here. The intention of the NDP's planned rental legislation will be to prevent the 'small numbers' of cases of 'unconscionable' rent gouging by rapacious landlords. 'If you're looking for rent control, no, you won't be getting that from us,' he cautions."

Is that not interesting? The socialist government in British Columbia at least has a clue about why rent controls do not work. Obviously, now that they have become the government in British Columbia, they have no intention of introducing rent controls.

The article does not go on to talk about whether they are going to do direct shelter subsidies, which is what our party is suggesting. We are saying the people who cannot afford high market rents need to be protected, people on fixed incomes, senior citizens and people on limited pensions and so forth. Those people need to be protected, and the way to protect them is to directly subsidize them through a shelter allowance rather than rent controls, which directly subsidize the entire building.

An hon member: Send your paper over to Gilles there.

Mr Bisson: I thought it was an interesting quote.

Mrs Marland: No, I will not. If the member is interested, he can read Hansard tomorrow. But I guess I should say I am flattered that the member wants to read my quote.

When we talk about shelter subsidies, we are talking about looking after the people who need to be looked after, and while I am on that subject, I want to emphasize where the non-profit housing program is taking us in this province. Originally when it was started in the mid-1970s -- and I think the first non-profit housing program, as a matter of fact, was in the region of Peel, just prior to my becoming a Peel regional councillor in 1978 -- the concept was to build affordable housing for those people who could not have any other access to rental accommodation.

In theory, when it was conceived, it was a good idea. Now when we look at the tremendous cost for non-profit housing, we realize we would be better to use that money, as I mentioned a moment ago, to directly subsidize the people who need the subsidization through a shelter allowance and not have entire complexes protected across the province through rent control.

It is not a mythical story about the number of subsidized buildings there are in this province where, when you go into the basement, you find BMWs, Mercedeses and so forth in the garage and at the same time the taxpayers in this province are subsidizing the rents.

As of September 1991, the non-profit housing program subsidy -- this means the cost of operating the non-profit housing program in this province -- was over $1 billion. The really sad part is that I do not think anybody in this House could guess how many rental units we would get for an annual operating cost subsidy of $1 billion. I think members will be surprised when I tell them that for a $1-billion annual operating cost we get only 115,000 units. Is that a wise use of taxpayers' money?

We have looked at some direct shelter subsidy programs where you subsidize the people who need it directly and our estimate is that for $1.7 billion we can directly subsidize something like 700,000 units as opposed to 115,000 units. The other aspect we have to keep in mind, of course, about non-profit housing programs is the capital cost. We are talking about a capital cost now of upwards of $200,000 a unit. First we spend $200,000 a unit building these apartments and then we have the for ever ongoing cost of operating them.

It really is time we reviewed this program in terms of what is going on in the provision of that kind of housing in the province. It is not the answer in the long term, because we are saying to our children and grandchildren, "We think it's okay to spend your unearned money now and make a commitment for it, because we are into this program."

I think a smart government would look at existing programs and make changes if there is a better way to do them. A better way to provide affordable housing in this province is to make sure that the people who need the help get it and that we do not invest $200,000 a unit building new units when there are existing units that could be bought.

I am talking about blocks and blocks of condominiums that are on the market for sale and could be bought. I think we would be better to write cheques and hand the money out of our Treasury pot, for the Treasury to give direct cheques to people to go and buy their unit for $100,000, $115,000 or $130,000 than spend $200,000 building it and then $1 billion or more a year operating all those units.

If we are really sincerely committed to helping people have somewhere to live, we had better start spending this money wisely. At the moment I do not think we are very impressed about the way the money is being spent.

1730

I would like to touch just for a moment on the Ministry of Health. I was very concerned last week when I heard the member for St George-St David ask a question of the Minister of Health about the future directions of her ministry. I will just read the quote, as the member can put it far better than I can. He says:

"My question is for the Minister of Health. Last week" -- and this is why my constituents would be concerned -- "they read in the press that the Deputy Minister of Health Michael Decter, a mandarin from Manitoba, had indicated, 'We are looking very hard at the type of services delivered and what are the outcomes. For instance, we spend large amounts of money treating lung cancer, which frankly does not do much good.' He went on to give another example of services that might be cut out. He spoke of heart bypass surgery and organ transplants for people over 70 years old. The serious question I have for the Minister of Health is, are these things Mr Decter speaks about being actively considered in the ministry and does the deputy minister in that respect speak for the government?"

That is a pretty depressing thought. There are two things here. Obviously we have a very powerful Deputy Minister of Health. He has obviously been selected because of his strong partisan background in Manitoba. That is one thing. Second, apparently his mentality is that people's lives are over when they are 70 or that people with lung cancer do not deserve any remedial help. I think it is a depressing statement about the future of our health care if we have a deputy minister who actually thinks that way. I guess, since they are his words, that must be the way he thinks.

We already know what they are doing with the health care system in this province. It is in the headlines every day, so I am not going to take the time of this House now to repeat all the concerns about the exodus of our most highly qualified specialists, physicians and doctors who are leaving because of a situation that prohibits them from being allowed to practise their profession to the utmost of their abilities because there are cutbacks on how much time they can use in the operating rooms and what procedures they can do.

Now we are getting into a situation where the Deputy Minister of Health, Michael Decter, is going to decide whether bypass surgery and organ transplants should be done for people over 70 years of age. I have not met Mr Decter, but my husband is 70 years of age and he could outrun anybody in this House in terms of physical fitness. My husband practises dentistry from 8 o'clock in the morning until 5 o'clock in the afternoon, four days a week. He is totally committed and capable of the highest level of professional service to his patients.

We have here a Deputy Minister of Health who might decide that at 70 years of age a patient should not have bypass surgery or an organ transplant. Who do Mr Decter and this socialist government think they are? Are they about to play God and decide on who will live and who will die, depending on who may have access to this kind of surgery? If we are saying somebody's life is over at 70, then I think we are in far worse trouble than we thought we were. I hope this is not the thinking of this government.

However the answer to the member for St George-St David's question of the Minister of Health was, "As we review how our health dollars are spent, we are committed to trying to put in place a process that ensures every procedure is evaluated based on health outcomes."

If that is the case, then it had better be on health outcomes, not on anything to do with age. If we are going to say: "I'm sorry, if you're 70, you can't have a bypass. I'm sorry, if you're 70, you can't have an organ transplant." Who do they think they are? They should see some of our 90- and 95-year-old people today who have had the benefit of that kind of procedure maybe 15 or 20 years ago who are still living healthy, productive lives. I challenge any one member of this government to decide which grandchildren are going to lose their grandparents because his government decides they cannot have bypass surgery or an organ transplant.

Mr Mills: That is awful to say.

Mrs Marland: Yes, they will get upset, because when you tell the truth, they react. If they want to play God and decide who will have bypass surgery and organ transplants and relate it to somebody's age and say to them: "I'm sorry, you're 70, you're past it. It's over and gone. We can only invest our money in younger people" -- that is what the Deputy Minister of Health was talking about -- it is very scary stuff. In fact apparently, according to the member for St George-St David's Hansard, he takes it to be entirely clear that Mr Decter does speak for the Minister of Health and the government when he says, "This government is actively considering whether OHIP services should be provided in respect of certain cancer treatments, bypass operations for the elderly and organ transplants."

This is the government which pushed, with the Liberals, to stop doctors from extra-billing. The reason they wanted to do that was so that we would not have two-tier medicine in this province. What an irony, because that is exactly what we have. We have two-tier medicine in this province because these socialists now send to the United States patients who can afford to have their surgical procedures done in the United States. So when we talk about two-tier medicine, we have it, folks. If you have enough money and you can afford to go to the United States for your medical and health needs which are not being met in this province, then you get to go, and the people who do not have the money have to stay here and have the second tier of health service. If you are 70 years of age, possibly you may get the third tier, which is no surgery at all.

Mr Mills: You're being too dramatic.

Mrs Marland: A member is saying I am being too dramatic. That member is possibly a grandfather. It is pretty dramatic when he reaches 70. I do not know the member's age, but I have a lot of respect for him and I think he is a way from being 70. But when his grandchildren have to forfeit him -- possibly as an example -- because he cannot get a bypass because he is 70 and therefore they lose their grandfather or their grandmother or their business associate, or whatever the relationship is --

Interjection.

Mrs Marland: I think it is sad that the Minister of Culture and Communications finds this humorous. It is not humorous.

Hon Mrs Haslam: I wasn't laughing at you, Margaret. That's not fair. I was laughing at something Irene said.

1740

Mrs Marland: I want to read members a letter from Mrs Kathleen

Giles of 1294 Lake Breeze Dr, Mississauga. It is dated December 3, 1991.

"Dear Mrs Marland:

"I was told in June that I would need a pacemaker inserted in order to help my heart beat. I have been told my heartbeat is slow and erratic.

I have been waiting since June 27 to have this procedure done, which is now over five months. Last week, I was phoned by Dr Rebane's office -- who is a heart specialist -- that I could have this work done at the office of Dr Louch, who has an office at Jane and Bloor.

"Today I was informed by Dr Rebane's office that this procedure could not be done by Dr Louch because of lack of money. I am now back to waiting until St Michael's Hospital has the operating room space and enough help to have this done.

"I am discouraged, to say the least, to have this happen. I feel it is time something was done about the waiting period and, in general, the whole hospital situation.

"Can the government do anything in this regard? Your comments would be appreciated and also anything you can do for me and the hundreds like me.

"Yours truly,

"Kathleen Giles."

As of December 3, this month, this patient has been waiting since June for something as simple as a pacemaker, and she is told she cannot have that done because there is a lack of money.

I do not know Mrs Giles's age. I do not know her at all. She is a constituent who has written to me. I have referred this matter by letter to the Minister of Health, but this is the kind of thing that is happening every day in my community office. We are getting letters from people who are not accessing the health care they need.

Of course, as I continue to say, the majority of people in this province are healthy. It is only when you are sick that you find out exactly what a shambles this province is getting into in terms of its health care.

I would also like to comment on another matter, since this is such a wonderful collection of ministries and, as I say, I am trying to find something good to say about one of the ministries; I have not found it yet.

One other thing I wanted to say, just to revert for a moment to the Ministry of Housing, is that there have been studies done about shelter subsidies, direct subsidization of people who have to rent their accommodation. It is very interesting to note one of the studies where the annual cost per taxpayer to assist 310,000 core-need households -- I am sure there is a very clear definition of what a core-need household is -- at the moment in non-profit housing is $1,000 per taxpayer.

It costs $1,000 per taxpayer in this province, through non-profit housing, to look after 310,000 households. However, if we had a direct shelter allowance to the people who qualified in that same category -- not through non-profit but through a general access to rental accommodation through the private sector -- it would be $60 per taxpayer. There is quite a difference between $1,000 per taxpayer and $60 per taxpayer. That is why it is time to review this program and decide where best that money should be spent.

While we are on the subject, I cannot let the opportunity pass without making some comment about this government's decision to build non-profit housing on the Toronto Islands. This is the biggest regression in the history of the Toronto Islands housing debate that we could possibly have been introduced to. How ironical that those islands were originally considered to be preserved and conserved for park land and now we have this big sell-off, as we have said, as the member for --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. The honourable member for Mississauga South will have the opportunity of resuming her participation in the debate but, pursuant to an agreement last week, we now have to have a vote on Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act. We would like at this particular time to call in the members for a vote on Bill 86.

1750

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE

The House divided on Ms Wark-Martyn's motion for second reading of Bill 86, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 63

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 30

Arnott, Bradley, Carr, Chiarelli, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Jordan, Mancini, Marland, Miclash, Murdoch, B., O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Witmer.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

[Report continues in volume B]