The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PLANT CLOSURES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I attended a news conference at the CAW Local 199 hall in St Catharines yesterday afternoon to lend my support to a strategy to save the GM foundry and axle plant. I endorse and urge the Ontario government to accept the recommendations under provincial jurisdiction that emanated from that meeting, namely:

(1) To launch a major public investment program to create jobs now while building up the infrastructure that we will need for the future.

(2) To invest in public services to assist the victims of the recession and to maintain jobs.

(3) To launch a buy-in-Canada public sector purchasing program to create new jobs and end imports.

(4) To establish economic renewal funds to assist businesses in trouble and to support new investments.

Also, we called upon Premier Bob Rae to form a broad-based task force from businesses, community, social and labour leaders and any necessary experts from across the Niagara Peninsula and Hamilton to study the causes and effects of the deepening economic and social decline and make recommendations for positive renewal.

We joined in and supported the Fighting for our Working Future Niagara-Hamilton campaign. The symbol of the campaign will be a purple ribbon. We strongly urge all residents of Niagara and Hamilton to wear this ribbon as a symbol of our determination to survive as a growing and prosperous area of Canada.

I urge the Treasurer to abandon his ill-conceived and counterproductive special tax on automobiles and suggest that he eliminate the provincial sales tax on new vehicles to spur the sales and create a demand that will result in more jobs for our workers.

LAST POST FUND

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): The Last Post Fund is a non-profit corporation that has been serving Canada's war veterans for more than 70 years. The problem is that there are still many veterans who are unaware of how the fund operates and of the services it provides.

The Last Post Fund is funded through the assistance of the federal Department of Veterans Affairs and by private donations. The fund provides for a number of burial services, including the services of a funeral director, transportation expenses, the cost of a cemetery plot, the opening and closing of the grave and a suitably inscribed military marker.

To be eligible for these services, the deceased must be a Canadian ex-serviceman or woman who meets the fund's financial criteria and has a record of active service during the First World War, the Second World War or the Korean War. Furthermore, anyone who served in an active civilian capacity during these periods and who is receiving a disability pension or a civilian war allowance under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act may also benefit from the services of the fund.

Anyone interested in learning more about the Last Post Fund should contact its headquarters in Montreal by phoning 1-800-465-7113 or the Ontario branch at 923-1608.

I encourage other members of the Legislative Assembly to convey to their constituents the availability and services of the Last Post Fund.

I would like to thank Judge Sidney Roebuck, who has had a long and active association with the Last Post Fund, for bringing the services of this organization to my attention and to acknowledge publicly his efforts to promote its worthwhile endeavours.

WINDSOR GOODFELLOWS CLUB

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I'd like to inform the House of a group of dedicated and hardworking Windsorites who have one goal in mind. These men and women are the Goodfellows of Windsor and they collect food baskets for the needy in Windsor at Christmastime.

The Goodfellows begin their work immediately after each Christmas season and begin a journey collecting money required to purchase the food which makes up the baskets which are used at Christmastime. This important gesture will put some food on the tables at a time of the year when it's important to have some staples. The Windsor Goodfellows collect money, buy the food, assemble the baskets and then deliver them.

The Goodfellows are ladies and gentlemen from all walks of life who stand on street corners and brave the winter cold one weekend in December to sell a Goodfellows newspaper in the city of Windsor. This newspaper is printed by the Windsor Star at its expense, with money going towards the Goodfellows endeavour. With the street-corner selling, along with a radiothon at CKWW radio, hundreds of volunteers and much generosity from caring Windsorites, the food baskets are then produced.

Applause and accolades to the Goodfellows in Windsor who are good and great people. I'd like to take this opportunity to say thank you to all those who give of their time so generously to give to others. Especially at a time of year when they are busy with their own families, they make time -- a dedicated group helping and giving to those in need.

The Windsor Goodfellows will be selling newspapers in Windsor. Give what you can. Roll your car window down and help this year.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I see that the Premier has just entered the Legislature and I again would like to remind both him and his government of some of the dire circumstances we have in the Quinte-Hastings area.

I have here a paper that was just released by the director of the county of Hastings social services department. If I may quote from it, it reads:

"I am enclosing a copy of a report which was recently released by the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association. According to this report, Hastings county has had the single highest increase in the number of welfare cases for the period January to September 1992. The primary reason for this increase has been the overwhelming number of manufacturing jobs which have been lost in the Quinte area during the early part of this year. Our case load for November stood at 4,380, and as I write, we are experiencing one of the busiest weeks we've encountered throughout the entire year.

I am also told that, "At the moment, our case workers are currently carrying nearly double the recommended number of cases (188 for each worker)."

I would remind the Premier and the Treasurer and all the members of that government that we have some very dire circumstances in the riding of Quinte and in Hastings county, where some of his own members are members, and I would ask that this government look at some remedies to provide additional jobs in that area so that we do not have as many people who are on welfare and really suffering.

1340

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The NDP government wants us to believe it is serious about resource conservation. They pat themselves on the back for their energy conservation projects. They claim these will save money and energy and create jobs.

But if they really believed in conservation, why did they introduce Bill 121 on rent regulation? This bill is putting a cold stop to conservation investment in private rental housing and apartment buildings. Bill 121 takes away the incentive for private landlords to invest in conservation. Tenants can receive rent rebates for any cost savings, but landlords cannot recoup their investments.

The Minister of Housing had the nerve to say that her public housing conservation scheme will lay the groundwork for private sector energy conservation. Recently I met with a group from Aqua Save International Ltd and they've come up with some simple, effective technologies that save water and energy that would be extremely beneficial to apartments. But Aqua Save and companies like it can't sell their technology because the NDP has eliminated the financial incentive for landlords to buy improvements.

The NDP's Bill 121 is seriously flawed. Its impact is already being felt, both economically and environmentally. This illogical legislation needs to be changed, and the incentive to invest in conservation must be restored. This government comes along and in one sentence says it's going to do something good, and in another, it just throws it all out --

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): That's misinformation.

Mr Cousens: -- like the baby with the bathwater. Why don't you straighten up your act and do something right for a change?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Brantford.

JOB CREATION

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): I know we're all concerned in this House about our local economy in Brantford. I have some good news.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I don't interrupt your mouth when you are speaking. You're chattering away. You have no respect.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, order. The member for Markham, come to order.

Mr Ward: Mr Speaker, I'm losing my time here. Are we going to roll it back?

The Speaker: The member can proceed. We will adjust the clock as quickly as we can.

Mr Ward: As I said before, we're all concerned in this House about the local economy in Brantford. I have some good news. A local company, Gates Canada, has recently announced plans to spend nearly $20 million over three years in an expansion and upgrade that would create nearly 100 jobs. As Brantford's largest industrial employer, Gates operates a hose plant on Iroquois Street with 230 workers and a belt plant on Henry Street that employs 350. The Denver-based multinational decision to invest in Brantford is a coup for our community because five American plants were vying for some of the new equipment.

Brantford received this investment because of the plant's location and productivity. But one of the main reasons was the skill level of the employees and their willingness to adapt to new technology. This announcement once again has proved that good things happen when business, labour and government work in cooperation and partnership, management and labour presenting a unified effort to Gates's head office and our NDP government agreeing to meet the training needs of the new employees. This is good news indeed.

On a separate issue, I'm wearing an orange ribbon in support of my local ambulance workers in Brantford, some of whom visited us today.

HIGHWAY WIDENING

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): On December 3, last week, I wrote the Minister of Transportation concerning fatal situations on Highway 50 in my riding, at least four fatalities in 1992 and, unfortunately, three in 1991. This particular highway is currently a two-lane provincial highway. At various points, roads intersect or branch out of this busy highway. Some intersection points are controlled; others are non-controlled.

Clarkway Drive at Highway 50 is one example of a non-controlled and extremely hazardous intersection. Traffic northbound on Highway 50 must come to a complete and sudden halt when a motorist stops to turn left on Clarkway Drive. In many cases, traffic does not come to a halt. One finds oneself in a precarious situation and zips around on the right-hand shoulder all too often.

Sadly, in many cases there have been accidents at this particular area and others on the highway. Even more sadly, many of them have resulted, as I've indicated, in fatalities.

The Ministry of Transportation is currently looking at a proposal to add more lanes to Highway 50. The proposal is at the design stage, with construction scheduled to begin some time in the spring of 1994. But I've been advised by officials that it probably won't happen until 1995. I can attest to the seriousness of this situation as I drive that route from time to time and I've been in that situation.

I have suggested in my letter to the Minister of Transportation that perhaps as an interim measure we could have passing lanes so that motorists could drive around and avoid the hazardous situations they now encounter. I only asked the minister last week in writing. It has been short notice and I hadn't expected a response yet, but I make this statement to draw attention to the urgency of this matter and ask the minister to give serious consideration and expeditious consideration to my letter.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): This past week Ontario entered into an agreement with the provinces and federal government to dismantle trade barriers inside Canada within the next two years. This is an extremely important objective for the future of our province and indeed our country. As we know all too well, discussions with respect to the free movement of goods and services across provincial boundaries have been ongoing for many years. They were addressed in the 1940 Rowell-Sirois commission, the 1985 Macdonald commission, and despite a lack of firm support that is perceived out there from Ontario, they were also part of the proposed Charlottetown accord.

The approximately 500 internal trade barriers which exist are a hindrance to economic growth and activity. It is estimated that they cost the economy of Canada more than $6 billion a year. Canada's declining competitiveness can be directly linked to domestic trade barriers. The Conference Board of Canada recently confirmed what had long been suspected, that oftentimes it's easier for Canadian business to do business with the US than between provinces.

We are part of a growing global economy. At a time when Canada is part of a continental trading block, when Europe is moving to become one market and when Asian countries are creating closer trading relationships, surely we must end our internal fragmentation.

I think we have been presented with an opportunity to correct the mistake of the past, and by not making this issue a priority we will continue to deny Ontario economic opportunities which are increasingly being offered to our international trading partners. I would hope that the minister and the Premier take these negotiations seriously and make them a priority of their government. I think there's been enough lipservice paid to the issue; I think we should deal with it once and for all.

PIC PRESS

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I rise to recognize Kingston's Progressive Independent Community Press, a volunteer community organization which publishes PIC Press.

PIC Press describes itself as a grass-roots organization dedicated to alternative media as a method of "giving meaning back to the democratic process."

The latest edition of the paper highlights two themes, the issue of violence against women and the suppression and expression of ideas and images. A number of articles, editorials and a poem are included to remember the tragic death of 14 women in Montreal three years ago. Women and men write about their concern that violence against women is still a major problem in our society, and some have made suggestions for ending this crime.

Freedom of expression and mass media manipulation are explored in a review of Manufacturing Consent, a documentary film on Noam Chomsky. PIC Press shares Chomsky's views on the importance of the alternative viewpoint and freedom of expression. I quote from the review: "The alternative media, like PIC, is formed by coalitions of concerned citizens and is pivotal to the realization of Chomsky's larger ideal of social reform."

PIC Press acknowledges the controversial nature of some of its articles but prefers to let the reader decide on their merit and hopes this decision will improve the accessibility of the paper and further promote the free flow of ideas.

I applaud the volunteers who produce PIC Press free of charge, thereby promoting the awareness and the discussion necessary for a democratic society. I want to invite all people in the Kingston area to turn out at Princess Court Cinema at 7 pm, January 15, for a benefit featuring Manufacturing Consent.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I'd like to inform the members of the House that we will not proceed this sitting with Bill 94, the legislation enabling Metropolitan Toronto to implement its interim tax plan. Instead, we are sending the plan back to Metro for revision and resolution of problems I will highlight today.

We made this decision after careful and thoughtful consideration of the issues.

It became increasingly clear during the last few days of the public hearings that the financial consequences of Metro's interim plan would not be confined to Metro Toronto alone. The cost of this plan would be borne by communities beyond Metro's borders and could well have a detrimental effect on the provincial economy as a whole.

The public hearings have been productive and useful, bringing the negative consequences of Metro's plan clearly into focus. The more we listened to the public deputations, the more we were convinced that this plan would lead to unacceptable levels of economic disruption both within and outside Metro. As the public hearings into Bill 94 continued, day and night, accommodating 175 individuals and organizations, the ultimate workability of Metro's plan was also called into question. In particular, we cannot reconcile certain aspects of Metro's financial analysis with our own.

1350

There are simply too many unanswered questions and too many unresolved issues arising from Metro's plan as it now stands. Valid questions have been raised, questions which this government cannot in all conscience ignore. In the absence of answers, we believe it would be irresponsible to pass this legislation this sitting.

The government is prepared --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Didn't you read it?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: The government is prepared, however, to pass legislation that would implement a revised Metro plan that addresses the questions and concerns I will highlight today. We do not intend to withdraw the bill. We simply want a workable Metro plan.

From the beginning we saw Metro's interim plan as an attempt by a duly elected body to update a property tax system that had not been reviewed for 50 years. It was an interim plan only, not full market value assessment. Metro's compromise interim plan is a unique system of phased-in increases and decreases, unlike any other property tax system in the province. However, this phasing in of increases and decreases would not apply to all properties within Metro. The plan called for certain categories of properties to be moved to full market value assessment immediately upon implementation. Not all classes of properties would be included in the cap and the clawback system.

Members of this House will also know that I stated early on that I was concerned that a change in home ownership would automatically move that property to full market value assessment. We also expressed concern that other properties, like railway and hydro rights of way, vacant lands and municipal parking authorities, would move to full market assessment immediately upon implementation. We tried to address those concerns by crafting the bill in such a way that Metro would have the permissive authority to apply its system of caps and clawbacks to these categories. We even asked Metro to specifically consider this option. But at no time during the public hearings did Metro indicate that it would in fact do so.

If the property owned by Ontario Hydro were to be assessed at the full market value of the adjacent property, as Metro's plan requires, the cost to Ontario Hydro would be $60 million. Hydro rates would go up for all Hydro's customers across the province. Cutbacks and layoffs would result. Jobs would be lost. There is clearly a provincial interest here.

The cost to CN and CP is estimated at $40 million. Fares would likely increase, jobs would be lost, and there could be serious deterioration in rail service for both freight and passenger travellers. I remind members that the rail system services the business community as well as commuters. GO Transit and its customers would obviously also be adversely affected by Metro's plan.

The exporting of the financial costs of Metro's interim plan beyond its boundaries is not acceptable to the government. A more studied look shows that there is a wider provincial interest in the details of Metro's plan.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: Neither Ontario Hydro nor CN and CP had a chance to make deputations to Metro on the final plan which was struck on October 29. The public meetings were held prior to the formulation of the final package, before the complete financial consequences on the final plan were known to anyone, including Metro. It was at the province's public hearings, not in the dying hours of the October 29 Metro council meeting, that these serious financial costs surfaced.

Members will know that there are certain vacant lands in Metro, large and small, that are in the final stages of development approval. According to Metro's plan, these lands would be subject to full market value assessment immediately upon implementation. A dramatic increase in property tax assessment based on full market value could put an end to that planned development. Badly needed construction jobs would be lost. Badly needed affordable housing would be at risk.

We had committed ourselves to work with Metro over the next five years to find a more workable tax system for the future. We believe that those attempts to find a more workable system would be compromised with a significant portion of Metro properties already subject to full market value assessment.

There are too many unanswered questions, too many unresolved issues. There are questions about economic impact and job loss. There are serious concerns over inequities and treatment of different categories of property.

The government has already made the right and responsible decision today. Metro's interim tax plan is not workable in its current form, and there is not enough time to properly amend the bill in this sitting of the House before proceeding with third and final reading. Instead, we are returning the plan to Metropolitan Toronto with a request for a revised plan that addresses these concerns and provides the province with a full financial analysis.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I am pleased to inform the House that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in Ontario took an important step today in support of rural economic development by directing the use of ethanol-blended fuel in ministry vehicles.

Agriculture and Food staff have been directed to fuel ministry vehicles with --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Minister?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. With your permission, I'll start from the top again.

I am pleased to inform the House that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food of Ontario took an important step today in support of rural economic development by directing the use of ethanol-blended fuel in ministry vehicles.

Agriculture and Food staff have been directed to fuel ministry vehicles with ethanol-blended gasoline where it is available and competitively priced.

OMAF's Ridgetown College has already received authorization from the Ministry of Transportation to fill its central fuel tank with ethanol-blended gasoline for use by all its college vehicles. All five of OMAF's agricultural colleges are being directed to purchase ethanol, where possible, for the bulk fuel tanks which service college vehicles.

I wish to thank my colleagues in the government, especially the rural members, who have joined my ministry in encouraging the ethanol industry in Ontario and in promoting the greater use of ethanol in government vehicles. Indeed, the ministers of the Environment, Health, Natural Resources, Transportation and the Solicitor General, including the Ontario Provincial Police, support our policy and are planning to implement a similar ethanol procurement policy.

The government is committed to encouraging the use of all alternative fuels to gasoline. I am pleased that the Ontario government fleet administration council, which administers the government's fleet of vehicles, supports the use of ethanol as well as all alternative fuels.

Ethanol is a renewable fuel which requires no modification of automobile engines and it is now competitively priced.

I believe that there are substantial benefits to be drawn in Ontario by encouraging the development of the ethanol industry. That is why I commissioned an interministerial committee on ethanol last April to assist in the development of options and opportunities for my ministry to pursue the development of Ontario's ethanol industry.

The committee reported in September, after consulting farm producers, retailers, cooperatives, municipalities, researchers, engineers and other interested parties. The committee produced a discussion paper which outlined ethanol-related issues, including the impact on the environment, energy and agriculture, health and safety aspects and trade, regulatory and fiscal implications. It also clarified aspects of production and distribution here in Ontario.

1400

Consideration of the many issues highlighted in the discussion paper led me to direct my ministry to support the ethanol industry through this procurement policy, effective today. Supporting greater use of ethanol within my ministry and within government benefits Ontario in several ways. First of all, ethanol is produced from grains and thus provides an enhanced market for farmers' crops.

In addition, as the ethanol industry continues to develop in Ontario, we're at the same time supporting the development of vital economic partnerships with our rural communities, partnerships between business, farmers and government.

I am pleased to have already received the support of other government ministries and I will continue to encourage all my colleagues to support ethanol use in ministry vehicles.

My federal colleague Mr Bill McKnight, Minister of Agriculture Canada, has also today encouraged Agriculture Canada staff to use ethanol in department vehicles where available and competitively priced. I applaud this effort and once again I invite all my colleagues to join in this important initiative.

On one final note, the critic from the official opposition, the member for Cornwall, Mr Cleary, has been away from the House with some health problems. I understand he's on the mend. I would like to wish him all the best, because he's been on his feet many times asking me questions about ethanol. In the same vein, I'd like to thank the critic from the third party, who has also joined with me in working on ethanol and making this announcement possible today.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I stop and shake my head at the issue --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: Sorry, Mr Speaker, the members in the government benches of course don't take this place very seriously, have never really taken this place very seriously. I hold up as exhibit A the statement that was made today with respect to the reasons behind the government putting the stall on Bill 94.

Many of the things which have been highlighted by the member for Windsor-Riverside, the minister, are items which have been brought to the attention of many of us prior to this bill being brought into this place. Nothing new has really been brought forward in the public hearings, although I can tell you, Mr Speaker --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): You weren't listening, Murray.

Mr Elston: The Treasurer says I wasn't listening. I at least was at the hearings, unlike you, sir, and you are one of the people responsible for the tremendous tax hit the people of this province are suffering. In fact, the Treasurer of this province is proposing new taxes at a time when our economy is sputtering.

If he wishes to create more chaos in this province, then let him go at it. Let him argue with the Minister of Transportation, who is going to bring in new taxes. Let him argue with the Premier, who says new taxes are on the way. Let him argue with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has bungled this whole problem.

He said he was a partner with people, looking at fairness and taxation. The Treasurer has declared fairness as an exhibit of his efforts through the Fair Tax Commission. Those people are fairly and squarely to blame for the new crisis in this province, economically, politically and socially, as they botch up the entire world of the Ontario that used to respond so well to the competitive forces that have faced us throughout these last 125 years of our nation's history.

It has taken but two years of New Democratic bungling and fumbling of issues to show how poorly governed this province really is. When they declare an intention, when they declare a provincial interest, it is of interest to note that if it's one declaration today, there will be another tomorrow and there will be another the day after that.

We are very close to the end of this session. We are, I understand, to prorogue in this place. There is still time for these people to change their minds. For those people who think there is fairness in these individuals' hearts, as they meet around the cabinet table, they only need to know that the only people they are trying to be fair to are themselves.

This New Democratic government has one intent, and it is its own interest, that it wishes to sponsor. I give again to you as an example exhibit A, the speech by the member for Windsor-Riverside.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): We agree that the Minister of Agriculture and Food's announcement regarding the use of ethanol gasoline is positive and we thank him. It's positive for the citizens of Ontario because ethanol burns cleaner and it's positive for farmers who produce the renewable resource from which it comes.

We request the minister to act further, however, because there's been no real action from the government on the pilot project funding for Seaway farmers' ethanol co-op, and indeed no announcement for funding for 13 existing proposals for ethanol funding. We encourage all members, in fact all citizens of the province, to use ethanol gasoline. Let's get on with it. We request the government to reduce or eliminate any excise taxes presently on the production of ethanol so that ethanol gasoline indeed will be cheaper to use.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): While he was doing that, I was wondering why the Minister of Agriculture and Food didn't announce special aid for the Niagara region. While this will help many parts of the province of Ontario and in that sense he's responding to what the opposition has called for, I would have thought his statement would have had included an announcement included about more help for the Niagara region and the farmers who are struggling so hard to preserve their livelihoods in that part of the province. I hope he'll make that announcement before the week is out.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): For nine years in this Legislature, since elected, I have been pushing and asking governments of different stripes to support an ethanol industry. In March of this year, immediately after the federal budget, I stated that now that the federal budget eliminates the excise tax on fuel ethanol, Ontario must include measures to further the use of fuel ethanol. One way to promote demand is for Ontario to require its own vehicles and those of provincial agencies to utilize 10% alcohol fuel.

This is a win-win-win situation. We have some very poor quality corn in Ontario this year. If we only had the distilling facilities to utilize this corn, we would have a home and a market for it. Eastern Ontario will have some cogeneration facilities. Eastern Ontario has the corn; it has the livestock to utilize the byproducts. Eastern Ontario should be where at least two or three of these plants should be set up. We fully support the minister on this one.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I wish to comment on the statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. If ever we have seen a government so totally incompetent, if ever we've seen a government that, to use an analogy, makes the Beverly Hillbillies look very good, all one has to do is read the statement of about a month ago of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, talking about how he was going to bring in enabling legislation to allow what is a Metro issue in Metro council to proceed, versus the statement that he makes today. Just read those two statements, Mr Speaker, anybody, and Jethro looks awful good in the province of Ontario.

You say in this statement, Mr Minister, that there's not enough time to properly amend the bill. We called for hearings on November 3; you refused to hold them until November 30. If you had started the hearings when we called for them, there would have been plenty of time for the Legislature to deal with this in an orderly fashion and in a responsible way to both Metropolitan Toronto and the city of Toronto councils.

Secondly, if you weren't in such a hurry to get out of here this Thursday, there's still time next week. There's still time in January if you were up front in telling us what the real objective is. The real objective appears to be to try and cover up for our incompetence, to cover up for the fact that we didn't know what we were doing and perhaps to delay the implementation of market value assessment until after the by-election in St George-St David. Why don't you come clean with us and tell us exactly why you are doing what you are doing? None of it is in the interests of either Toronto taxpayers or in the interests of Metropolitan Toronto or in the interests of Ontario taxpayers.

If you had announced an economic impact study while you were waiting, if you had announced a cancellation of the commercial concentration tax while you were studying this, I would have thought today that you might actually have the best interests of the taxpayers of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto at heart, but you have only your political interests at heart, and I say shame on you.

1410

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): There are probably going to be a significant number of very disappointed taxpayers in Metropolitan Toronto today. It's very difficult to keep track of what the policy of this government is. I guess it must depend: the last person they speak to before they come into this House dictates policy for the day. This government must have stepped through the looking-glass. You've got to be in Wonderland.

People had expected this to go through because you have said you would do it. A month ago you were talking about the good things Metro council did, about the autonomy of local council, about the ability for local council to chart its future. If they had read the legislation that came from Metro, none of these things is a surprise. What have you been doing for the last month?

I read in the newspaper that you were sick of the public hearings because they were repetitive. Little did I know that two days later you would stand in this House and repeal the action you have taken as a government. People believed the position you took, although how can they be shocked? You campaigned on the promise you were opposed to MVA. You get elected, and suddenly you're in favour of MVA. Not 30 days later, you're opposed to MVA again.

To suggest that you're just incompetent is flattery. You couldn't organize a two-car funeral --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: -- and you've got members heckling who are so distorted in this House about what position your party is putting forward that it is absolutely insane to expect the people of this city to understand what you're doing with taxes. Shame on you. Shame on all of you. Get your act together.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. It is time for oral questions.

Point of order, the member for Bruce.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: This guy said we were heckling. Holy smokes.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Have you ever had a single thought in your life, Gord?

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is asked to come to order.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, as you will know, having observed last evening's proceedings, we were saddled with two pieces of business yesterday which became, as a result of timing, incompatible. One was the time allocation motion which dealt with the so-called advocacy bill package, Bills 74, 108, 109 and 110, which by the motion of the government through its new rules was time-allocated to finish at 5:45 of the clock yesterday, when it was called for third reading.

At the same time we were saddled with a deferred vote on the so-called OTAB bill, which had been finished on second reading on Thursday and was deferred by motion of the government to yesterday's date at 6 o'clock. Because we could not complete the deferred vote by 6 o'clock, as was required by the deferral notice -- the deferral notice having been made under the standing orders, which indicate that the deferred vote must be taken the next business day after routine proceedings but in no case after 6 o'clock on that day -- I stood in my place and said that the bill as a result fails and in fact cannot be voted on after 6, and that since it was not moved to be voted on prior to 6 o'clock, in fact the government by its action had withdrawn it and the bill as a result is a nullity.

My point of order, of course, is that the bill has now appeared on the Orders and Notices paper and has been shown to be now ordered for committee proceedings. That has been, I think, taken to mean that in the intersession we will meet on it.

Mr Speaker, I would ask your ruling on the matter with respect to whether or not this bill can appear on our Orders and Notices paper at all, since my contention is that you cannot vote on a bill that does not any longer exist because it was not called in due course.

From that point of view, I ask you now to rule whether or not that bill really does in truth exist at all, since we did not comply with the standing orders and vote on it prior to 6 of the clock yesterday. It was not for us to challenge the Chair because that no longer is available to us; there is no challenge to the Speaker's ruling, although I was sorely disappointed in the ruling that was taken.

It is not possible for us to abstain from a vote. As you know, that means that when a member has been called, he/she is ejected from the chamber, and as a result that is not a way to protest. We, as a result, were forced to cast a vote because we had no other option available to us.

Our option today, however, Mr Speaker, is to come to you to provide us with a ruling as to whether or not a bill can be perfected when it fails for process in this place, ie, not being voted on in time to meet the standing orders for a deferred vote.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Bruce, you will know that this matter was raised yesterday, and --

Mr Elston: No, no, it's on the Orders and Notices paper.

The Speaker: Order. The member has presented some information and I am attempting to respond to him. Perhaps I was a bit hasty. The member for Parry Sound had something to add on this point?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point, Mr Speaker: I believe the member for Bruce indeed has a valid point of order and I would ask you to consider this matter very carefully. The request that was put in writing to the Speaker, as is proper, by the chief government whip was that the vote take place at 6 pm. I've looked at the wording of the letter and that is exactly what it says; it doesn't say 6:07, it doesn't say 6:05.

The member is also quite correct, in my opinion, in that the standing orders clearly say that a vote cannot be deferred any later than 6 pm. We had a similar instance in this Legislature a few weeks ago with respect to matters happening after 6 pm, and I think this is indeed a very serious matter.

As it happens, the previous vote on the advocacy bills was not completed until 6:07 pm yesterday. The standing orders clearly state that a vote cannot be deferred any later than 6 o'clock, and in fact it was impossible to take the vote in accordance with the standing orders on Bill 96. I would ask you to very carefully consider this matter and perhaps give us a written judgement or submission from yourself, with all due respect, after you've carefully considered the matter, because I do regard the matter as being of some importance.

The Speaker: To the member for Parry Sound and the member for Bruce, I appreciate the concerns which they have expressed. This matter was brought to the attention of the Chair yesterday and a ruling was made. I was certainly aware of the events as they occurred. I had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the table officers and with the other chair occupants and indeed the ruling was correct.

I think members should realize two particular points: One, of course, is that the deferred vote process is one which was implemented as a way to assist members in an orderly way so that they would have a better opportunity to be present when votes are being called. So when a vote is deferred from one day to the next, it allows all members of the House to organize their affairs so that they can be here, if at all possible.

Secondly, I think the other point to be kept in mind is that once a procedure has started, then of course it is fully proper to complete the procedure. It is impossible to vote on two things at the same time, so once the process was started on time, as per the directions of the House, then of course the matters proceeded until everything had been dispensed with.

I would ask the members to reflect that, should we not be able to do that, then the extreme consequence would be that you might never be able to vote on anything. If you started into a process, were unable to complete it for a second item, as was the suggestion with respect to yesterday's, then if you take that to its logical extreme, you wouldn't ever be able to be presented with the opportunity to vote on that second matter -- which may appeal to some but not to others. So the Chair was perfectly right yesterday in saying that having started the process on time, they were able to indeed continue with the business until they had concluded the matters that had been brought before the House.

As the member has mentioned it previously -- and this is the last point -- with respect to the ability to abstain, as he will know, it has not been the practice in this chamber. That's not to say that it shouldn't be the practice, and indeed the Legislative Assembly committee perhaps should take a look at that practice to see if it's something we should be adding to our procedures here so that members do have an opportunity. The member made his point quite strongly and with great strength the other day, and I may be sympathetic to the member's point, but the rules do not allow anyone to abstain.

1420

ORAL QUESTIONS

RESIGNATION OF AGENT GENERAL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, your Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology refuses to deal with the resignation of Ontario's agent general in New York. He has stated that the agents general are appointed by the Premier; they are the sole responsibility of the Premier. Therefore, you must now be prepared to field the questions on this issue.

Your government's Management Board directive of March 1992 outlines very specific procedures for harassment investigations in the Ontario public service. In fact, the Globe and Mail reported on August 12, 1992, that under its own guidelines, the government has trained more than 500 employees to investigate sexual harassment complaints, and that Management Board itself was overseeing investigations which are complex or involve senior officials.

Premier, I would simply ask you: Given the special units your government set up to investigate sexual harassment, given that you have already trained over 500 people to investigate these cases, given that cases involving senior officials are to be investigated by Management Board, why did you order a special investigation of the Masters case? Why did you deviate from your own directives?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think the Treasurer answered the questions yesterday very effectively and, in the circumstances, gave the only answer that can be given: that is, I have no comment to make other than what has already been said with respect to Mr Masters's decision.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, it seems that your government has a history of hiding behind the freedom of information legislation when it wants to avoid answering difficult questions. You suppressed the Grandview report despite the ruling of the freedom of information commissioner that its release would not hamper investigations; you've placed a gag order on Al Holt and the Hydro board members, even though the commissioner had ruled that our questions were acceptable at that committee; and now you refuse to answer even the most basic questions surrounding the Masters investigation, as we understand it from the Treasurer's response yesterday, on the grounds that it will violate privacy laws. Premier, this government seems to hold the privacy laws in high regard, unless your name happens to be Judi Harris.

The press has been publicly reporting the allegations against Mr Masters since August. It is unfair to leave this hanging. Will you stop hiding behind this legislation and simply tell us what investigations have been carried out by your government to probe these allegations, over what time period, and what the investigations revealed?

Hon Mr Rae: I'm as bound by the law as any other member of the House is. I've made my decision, and the government has made its decision, in terms of how we are responding overall to any number of situations, and we certainly have indicated very clearly to the member the position we're taking in this regard.

Mrs McLeod: Let us then recognize very clearly, Premier, that this is your decision; it is not a matter of the legislation. You have so often said that justice must not only be done, but that it must be seen to be done. In this case, you have not only failed to apply your government's own clear directive for the investigation of harassment cases, but you have also refused to disclose why a special investigation was ordered and what the investigation revealed.

As a result of your stonewalling, as a result of the fuelling of the fires of speculation, there is no question that Mr Masters is being judged in the court of public opinion. We don't know if justice was done to Carl Masters, we don't know if justice was done to the women or woman who made the allegations. All we have are rumours and speculation. Premier, do you not agree that your continued silence on this issue casts serious doubts on the fairness of the entire process to everybody involved in it? And I ask you today, will you not break that silence?

Hon Mr Rae: Neither rumour nor speculation will come from me. I would say to the honourable member that the law is very clear, and I think the government's obligations under the law are very clear too.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: Well, Mr Speaker, in entire frustration on this issue, let me turn to an entirely different question.

HIGHWAY FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Again to the Premier, I would suggest that after the scandals and the incompetence of this session, we thought the government couldn't possibly look more confused, but it seems we were wrong.

Yesterday, we saw another example of members of the cabinet taking totally different positions on an issue, causing considerable concern and speculation again for the people of the province. Our offices are now receiving phone calls from worried drivers, asking whether or not they are going to be facing tolls on Ontario's highway in the future. The Transportation minister says he is sold on the idea. The Treasurer has called the notion "pie in the sky."

Premier, we ask who is speaking for your government on this issue. Is it the Minister of Transportation, or is it the Treasurer? Is your government seriously considering toll roads, or is it not?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Who's speaking for the government? On transportation matters, it's the Minister of Transportation who speaks for the government. On overall financial matters, it's the Treasurer and the Deputy Premier. Other ministers have their responsibilities, and I have my responsibilities.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I want to indicate to the honourable member that the government has no intention or plans of applying tolls to existing roads. However, I would say to the honourable member that with respect to future construction of new roads, obviously we're looking at a range of financing alternatives, of which tolls are one. Beyond that, no final decisions have been made. But I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition giving me the opportunity to answer the question. I think she can assure all the worried drivers who are phoning her office on a regular basis that this is an issue that will be fully debated and discussed within the public realm, as well as around the cabinet table, and I look forward very much to the positive and helpful suggestions from the leader of the official opposition.

Mrs McLeod: Well, I'm sure the Premier in turn immediately after question period will discuss with his Treasurer what he actually said, and whether that rationalization sufficiently explained the inconsistency of what the Minister of Transportation and the Treasurer have said on the particular issue.

But let me ask the Premier about what he himself has said about his government's intention to raise taxes in general. He is surely aware that the Treasurer has said that he would be forced to raise taxes in order to deal with the government's financial crisis. We are also aware that you have said that you would make sure that the taxes that would be introduced don't slow the economy down, don't discourage investment and don't discourage economic activity.

Now you've indicated that one of those taxes that you may be looking at on new roads is a toll tax. Clearly, we all want highways to operate efficiently, but we recognize that tolls are a form of taxation that drivers would pay out of their pockets for new roads.

Premier, given the fact that you do not want new taxes that deter business activity in Ontario, can you assure us that if you or the Minister of Transportation or the Treasurer or, by some miracle, all three of you, are looking at tolls on new highways, that economic studies have been done and that you will table those economic studies to prove that toll roads in any form will not harm Ontario's economy?

1430

Hon Mr Rae: After a little over two years in government, I can say to the honourable member that --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): You've never had more fun.

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I've never had more fun, quite right, and second of all --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say to the honourable member for Ottawa West, the Beverly Hillbillies lasted for a long time and they're still in syndication and they're still in reruns, so I'm not too worried about that.

I say to the honourable member in answer to her question, of course the government will be studying whatever impacts decisions have, but in all seriousness, there are things that need to be done in order to get the economy going, in order to get the transportation system moving and in order to deal with -- if you'll pardon the pun -- many of the roadblocks which now seem to exist in the system and which I can say, as Premier, I find increasingly frustrating in terms of getting this done. So we are determined to get on with things, and of course we will share the information and of course we will have the debate, but the point, I think, is clearly to get things moving in the province.

Mrs McLeod: I wonder whether the Premier has checked the recent Nielsen ratings for the reruns of the Hillbillies show.

If either the Premier or the Minister of Transportation or the Treasurer had decided, again by some miracle, to consult with the affected groups before making up their minds whether to introduce toll roads, they might have talked to people from the trucking industry and they might have found that trucking groups are particularly affected by taxation in the transportation sector and that they have complained that the province already takes more out of the industry in taxes than it now spends on roads.

In 1991-92, Ontario received $2.8 billion in transportation taxes, mainly in the form of fuel taxes, but the provincial government only spent $1.9 billion on road maintenance and construction. Toll roads, as we understand it, might be accepted by trucking groups, but the province, to make that acceptable, would have to give back to drivers, in the form of lower gas taxes, the difference between what it takes from this sector and what it spends on roads.

Premier, I would ask if you will make a commitment today that, if you do decide on toll roads, it will not be just another tax grab. Will you commit, as a move to stimulate the economy, to lower gas taxes by the amount of money you raise from any road toll system that your government may introduce?

Hon Mr Rae: The first thing I want to say to the honourable member is that I can't let stand on the record the statement she's made twice, that there's a disagreement of any kind between the Treasurer and the Minister of Transportation.

I've sat in at meetings in cabinet and at P and P with both individuals, and I can assure the honourable member that disagreements between them are very rare indeed, and on this subject I have not heard any. I've heard a very substantial agreement between the Treasurer and the Minister of Transportation, of a desire, which I certainly share, to get things moving and to move ahead in terms of more creative ways of financing, so that we can in fact begin to drive things through the system a little bit more quickly.

Let me say to the honourable member, I've heard her suggestion, and of course there are ongoing discussions with members of the trucking industry and with all kinds of interest groups out there. We'll continue those discussions, but I'm not prepared to make any blanket statements with respect to taxation or anything else at this point in the session of the House.

RESIGNATION OF AGENT GENERAL

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Premier. Section 21(2)(a) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act allows information to be disclosed when "the disclosure is desirable for the purpose of subjecting the activities of the government of Ontario and its agencies to public scrutiny." That is what the freedom of information act says, Mr Premier. This is the act that your Deputy Premier yesterday and now you today appear to be hiding behind.

I'd like to ask you this, Premier: If the eradication of sexual harassment against women is not of the highest public interest, what is?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can only say to the member that the sections of the act are there. You've read one section; I could read out others. Generally speaking, matters involving personal privacy of people who are in the employ of the government of Ontario are not matters to be divulged, and that remains the basic law of the province. Those are the rules the government has followed and that's the direction we've taken.

Mr Harris: The act was never intended to allow a government to hide behind it. In fact, the act is there and this clause 21(2)(a) is there to encourage, where there is a matter of public interest, that disclosure can be made, should be made and ought to be made.

Mr Premier, we're dealing now with employees of your government who have made allegations of sexual harassment against Mr Masters. If it's in the public interest to get to the bottom of this sexual harassment against female employees in Ontario, let alone your own female employees of this government, if eradication of that sexual harassment is at all important to you, then my reading of the act obliges you to come forward with the information.

I would ask you this: Is it because you cut a deal with Mr Masters not to disclose the information that you're not talking? Or is some misguided interpretation of the freedom of information act that you're trying to hide behind the reason you will not answer our questions today?

Hon Mr Rae: When the honourable member says this is something that no other government has done, quite the contrary; there are many circumstances in which people leave the government in which the clear indications are there. I think it's very clear.

Mr Harris: Will you confirm today, Mr Premier, that you in fact made a deal, that you or your government or somebody on behalf of the government of Ontario made a deal with Mr Masters as part of his resignation that you would not disclose any of the details? Will you confirm or deny that today?

Hon Mr Rae: I've answered the question as clearly as I can and said to the honourable member that I think this is the fairest position to take in the interests of all concerned.

Mr Harris: I would ask you this question: Why did Carl Masters resign?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Masters resigned. I can add nothing further to that. He resigned in order to return to the private sector.

Mr Harris: Given that this matter cuts to the heart of one of the top priorities of all 130 members of the Legislature, to eradicate sexual harassment against women in the workplace, given that it cuts to the heart of that, why did you accept Mr Masters's resignation?

Hon Mr Rae: I accepted Mr Masters's resignation because it was offered.

Mr Harris: Clause 21(2)(a) clearly calls upon you and upon the government of the day to disclose information that is in the interests of subjecting the activities of the government of Ontario and its agencies to public scrutiny. This case cries out for disclosure of what happened on behalf of those women who have made allegations against Mr Masters, on behalf of all victims of sexual harassment within the province of Ontario, particularly those who work for you, the government of Ontario, for you as Premier. This cries out for disclosure if that is indeed one of your priorities.

I would ask you again. If this is your priority, and if you haven't cut a secret deal with Mr Masters -- which is another issue, if you have -- will you now come forward with the information in the interests of these women who have alleged sexual harassment and in the interests of all women past, present and future, to make sure that we can proceed as best we can to a harassment-free workplace here in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I think my answer has clearly been given. I really have nothing to add to the answer I've given to the member.

1440

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Treasurer. Last night I attended a St Catharines city council meeting. One of the recommendations that came out was to move up the move of the Ministry of Transportation to St Catharines. They recommended -- and I would ask the Treasurer if he would agree with this: That the purchase and sale agreement for the lands comprising the MTO site be signed by December 31, 1992.

-- That approvals of demolition of vacant properties be granted by January 31, 1993.

-- That the province proceed with requests for information from the development community relative to the construction of the Ministry of Transportation building by December 18.

-- That the province establish a vanguard office.

-- That the province move 200 people in 1993 and another 200 in 1994, and the balance of 1,000 positions as the building is available.

-- That the contract for construction of the Ministry of Transportation building be awarded by June 1993.

I've given the Treasurer a copy of the recommendations. Would he agree that the government is prepared to do that to assist the city of St Catharines and the Niagara region, which are hit by very high unemployment and plant closings?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I appreciate the member for St Catharines sending me over a specific copy of the proposal. As a matter of fact, I saw him on television last night in attendance at that meeting, I believe.

I'm pleased that the member no longer feels there's an attempt to slow down the relocation, which I hear he was rumouring in the last week or so around St Catharines, which of course is not the case at all. I'm glad he now sees the error of his ways in that regard.

I do regard the proposal as serious, and I commend St Catharines for the work it's done on it. I am prepared to sit down with the ministries involved. There are many ministries involved in this. There's Government Services, there's Industry, Trade and Technology, and there's the Ministry of Transportation as well. It's not a simple case of snapping one's fingers. There have been commitments made already, particularly, in some cases, to people who work in various ministries and so forth.

I would, however, say to the member for St Catharines that we think it's a serious proposal, well done, and we'll take the requests in it very seriously.

Mr Bradley: The requests which are not in this category but for other matters include:

-- Fifty thousand dollars to develop a St Catharines strategic economic plan such as is available to municipalities in eastern Ontario.

-- That you create a Niagara heritage fund similar to the northern Ontario heritage fund and with all of those implications.

-- That the province allocate PRIDE moneys to St Catharines in 1993 and 1994.

-- That the province, through Treasury and Economics, allocate moneys to the city in its 1993-94 budget for mutually agreed-upon projects.

-- That the province fast-track any applications for assistance under any provincial program.

-- That the province provide an additional Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology field officer.

-- That the province direct Ontario Hydro to freeze or decrease industrial hydro rates in the Niagara Peninsula until a study of the area is completed.

Those are among a number of other recommendations.

I would ask the Treasurer to give a commitment in the House this afternoon that he is prepared to accept these recommendations and implement them at the earliest possible opportunity.

Hon Mr Laughren: I certainly wouldn't give the commitment to accept and implement all of those proposals; it's a very comprehensive list. But I appreciate the fact that it is a comprehensive list and not just one demand and an insistence that that demand be met. I think it's a very responsible way to approach government that the city of St Catharines has taken, and I appreciate the fact that the member for St Catharines has raised it here.

As I indicated, I will sit down and talk with the various ministers involved just to see what is possible. I know the member for St Catharines and other members of the Liberal caucus understand that in some cases there could be precedents set that would be somewhat worrisome. But having said that, whatever can be done, I can assure the member, we'll take a very serious look at.

RESIGNATION OF AGENT GENERAL

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. There is nothing in the freedom of information act that prevents you from telling us whether you are stonewalling because of the act or because you cut a deal with Mr Masters. Presumably, if you cut a deal, the deal was to stonewall. Presumably, if you didn't, you're using the freedom of information act.

Given that there's nothing in the act to prevent you from disclosing which one of those two it is that you're using to stonewall information on the Masters affair -- in my view and in the view of many certainly preventing information from coming forward that may be of benefit to eliminating sexual harassment in the workplace -- and given that there is nothing in there to prevent you from telling us which one of the two you are using to cover up this information, I would ask you again: Is there anything in the deal you cut with Mr Masters where you agreed to not disclose any of the information in any of the questions we're asking?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I think the freedom of information act is very clear and the protection of privacy principles are very clear. I think I've answered the member to the very best of my ability.

Mr Harris: No, Premier, you have not answered to the best of your ability, nor according to what you're allowed to answer by law, or in fact according to what you are obligated and should answer by law. Given there's nothing in the freedom of information act to prevent you from telling us why you refuse to answer the questions, I ask you one more time, very clearly, very explicitly: Was there anything in the deal that you or your government cut with Mr Masters that prevents you from disclosing any of the information that would help get to the bottom of this sexual harassment case?

Hon Mr Rae: As I said before to the honourable member, I've answered his question as best I can with respect to our obligations under the law and I think that's the clearest answer I can give.

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, on the evening of November 22, residents in my community and I met to discuss the importance of Lake Simcoe. Many of them derive their livelihood from the lake. In fact, it's known that it's the ice fishing capital of the world, up in Georgina. We have many marina businesses up there and ice fishing hut operators who depend on the lake for their livelihood.

Minister, I know that last year you realized the importance of the lake because you came to a forum sponsored by the South Lake Simcoe Naturalists and talked about the need for protecting the quality of Lake Simcoe. Can you tell me what the update is, right now, of the government in trying to protect Lake Simcoe?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I'm certainly aware of the concern raised by recent reports about the state of Lake Simcoe. I'm certainly aware of the study and the committee that has been established to oversee the work on trying to restore Lake Simcoe. That committee is chaired by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and has representatives from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Natural Resources, as well as my own ministry.

The problems in Lake Simcoe include phosphorous loadings and lack of oxygen. It's certainly the position of our ministry that no further development should occur that might result in an increase in the phosphorous loading to the lake. We are also very concerned about non-point sources, especially of phosphorous, and believe those should be controlled.

Our program is designed to do that, as well as modelling studies about the oxygen depletion and the prospects for establishing a link between phosphorous and the oxygen content of the water. These modelling studies will help us to implement some of the recommendations of the Lake Simcoe environmental management study. As well as that, the CURB program, Clean Up Rural Beaches, has been applied to trying to address the problems that affect Lake Simcoe.

Mr O'Connor: Minister, the meeting I had was with a group called Georgina Against Garbage. Given your answer about the commitment of time and the resources dedicated to protecting Lake Simcoe, how can the Interim Waste Authority possibly consider a dump site so close to the lake? It just doesn't make sense to be cleaning up the lake on the one hand and having it destroyed by a potential leaky landfill. Will the government stop this process and revise it, so the tiny town of Georgina doesn't end up with a mega-landfill?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: I'd like to make two points in response to the member's question.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Way to go, Larry. Fantastic for Larry. Way to go.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Markham, come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me just say to the members of the opposition that the member for Durham-York's effective, constructive and responsible action on behalf of his constituents is a model that perhaps some of the rest of them might follow.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: With respect to his concern about the IWA, the Interim Waste Authority's search for a landfill site, let me remind him yet again that the site he has referred to is one of a list of candidate sites the Interim Waste Authority has identified. The arguments, the technical ability of that area to absorb the landfill that is being contemplated for that particular site and the surface water quality of the area, will all be issues before the Environmental Assessment Board. I know the member and his constituents will be very active in making their representations through the environmental assessment.

Let me merely comment, in conclusion, on his reference to leaky landfill sites by reminding him that landfill technology has improved considerably over the years. There have been landfills for 200 years and the ones that have been constructed in recent years and that certainly are contemplated for the future will not be leaky landfills.

1450

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. My Brother's Place is a success story. My Brother's Place was named the Daily Bread Food Bank's agency of the month in September 1992. It has endorsements from many other agencies and service providers in Metropolitan Toronto. It has a letter of support from an NDP cabinet minister. It has support from a former NDP cabinet minister.

Many individuals in the social services community have also supported the efforts of this group. Indeed, it is seen as the last and only resource for many who would otherwise fall through the cracks, helping those making that very difficult adjustment from long-time institutionalization to life in the community.

Madam Minister, what have you to say to the staff and residents of My Brother's Place, who have continued to be supportive, one of the other, as you cut staff and programs and put individuals who have high needs, high-risk needs -- in fact the broader community -- at risk by your decision?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): As I'm sure the member is aware, there were a number of different funding sources for My Brother's Place. Issues were raised about some of the accountability issues, some of the issues of care of clients and so on over time, and all funders, on discussion, began to withdraw funding for various reasons.

I have met with members of the board and the executive director of My Brother's Place personally. Members of my staff in the ministry and members of my own office staff continue to keep track of the various concerns that have been raised. These concerns have been raised by community members, by former staff members, by former board members and by former clients, and there are fairly serious issues around accountability that we continue to struggle to get to the bottom of.

Mrs O'Neill: Madam Minister, you are giving a lot of excuses. You know there are differences of opinion on this matter. You know the board has been in existence for six years. Many of the members are original members.

I have in my possession three letters you have sent from your ministry. The first one was dated March 13, 1992, and you confirmed funding for 1992 -- another broken promise. The second letter is dated July 3 and says, "We have decided not to proceed with an investigation." Finally, I have a letter from yourself dated August 5 and you announce "the final decision to withdraw funding for the programs on Dufferin Street as of June 1992," a retroactive withdrawal of funding, I may add.

I remind you that the goal of My Brother's Place is to save and help those who are falling through the cracks, whose life skills are almost non-existent, who have been in institutional settings for most of their lives, and you refused to review the program. You refused to investigate, and that's in writing, and now you have withdrawn vital funding.

Madam Minister, I ask you, what have you to say about these letters to the residents and staff of My Brother's Place? I suggest you're abandoning another success.

Hon Mrs Boyd: My responsibility, and that of other ministers and other ministries, is to ensure that the goals of the transfer payment agencies that we fund are indeed being followed out. Obviously, it must be clear to the member that, following the April letter confirming funding, additional information came forward that was there. When we decided initially not to investigate, as did the other funders, that information was not as complete as it subsequently became.

Our responsibility is to ensure that the outcomes of the programs we offer are appropriate to the clientele, and in terms of this particular program there were serious concerns about the appropriateness of a number of issues at My Brother's Place.

PROBATION OFFICERS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Chairman of Management Board. Mr Minister, at a time when increasing numbers of violent offenders are being placed back into the community, we're told that Management Board is considering the removal of the degree requirement for probation officers. In response to my question of October 21, the Minister of Correctional Services advised us that your government is reviewing this situation, so my question today is, will the current bachelor's degree requirement remain a minimum standard for a probation officer?

Hon David S. Cooke (Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet): I know the minister of corrections has been working on this issue and I will refer the question to him.

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): I'm pleased to answer the question the honourable member raises today. As I have said previously, this matter is being reviewed currently by a work group consisting of members of the Probation Officers' Association of Ontario as well as the union and members of the ministry to review and make a recommendation to me, as most of these recommendations apply to employees who are with the Ministry of Correctional Services. I expect I will be receiving that report within the next week or so and at that time will be better able to give the member a full answer as to the direction we're taking.

Mrs Cunningham: I heard the minister. It's the same answer I got on the 21st. I just have to say very simply that the governments before us have requested studies dating back to 1957, and as recently as 1987, and by the way, the taxpayers of the province pay for these.

There was a recommendation that the university degree be a bare minimum starting requirement for the probation practitioner. We see no reason, nor did the union -- of course, the lack of consultation didn't help -- that things should be changed right now unless there is some ideology behind this which isn't in the best interest of the public. The best interest of the public is its safety, and this is an extremely important job. Probation officers are seeing increasing numbers of these very serious offences, including sexual assaults and crimes involving violence.

My question to the other minister is simply this: If nine out of 10 provinces in Canada require this minimum standard, and 49 of the 52 American states, why would you even be looking at this and when are you going to give us your response? We hope it will be positive.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I think I have now answered maybe for the fourth time that the fact of the matter is that the question still had the premise that a decision has been made. There has not been a decision. That's why there was a working group that is now looking at the very issues the member raises, as well as a whole host of other issues, and I would also say that we do agree on one point, that these people provide a very valuable service. They provide an excellent professional service and nothing that is being contemplated will remove any of that.

Mrs Cunningham: Why are you looking at it?

The Speaker: Order, the member for London North.

Hon Mr Christopherson: It is a question of, will this particular requirement remain in place or will there be equivalents? I do wish the member would stop posing questions that suggest something has already been done. The consultation is under way and I expect to receive that report very shortly.

1500

CONSENT TO TREATMENT

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question is to the Minister of Health, and I think it's a very appropriate question in that we have so many young people in the gallery here. This morning I picked up the Toronto Star and I pretty near flipped out when I read that under the consent to treatment law passed yesterday, children are now able to refuse medical treatment, including vaccinations. Madam Minister, are we allowing the children the right to refuse to be vaccinated? I'd like your answer.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I can understand why the member was alarmed, and I'm sure actually a number of parents were alarmed to read that headline. I was alarmed to read that headline. It's big, it's bold and it's wrong. The legislation encodes what currently exists in common law. Existing law doesn't require or compel mentally capable young persons to take health treatment. There hasn't been anything that's changed. Quite frankly, I think to mislead the public in this way is very unfortunate. It also, let me say, is not very accurate in terms of immunizations. In the school immunization program, most children receive those by the age of six. Six-year-olds are not going to be judged by a doctor to be mentally competent.

I want you to know very clearly that the Ontario Medical Association called us today very concerned. Dr Ted Boadway said very directly that they don't believe that the legislation in any way will change the current practice on obtaining consent for children. So the OMA thinks that the Toronto Star was wrong as well.

Mr Mills: Madam Minister, in the newspaper it says words to the effect that medical practitioners are severely opposed to this and have bitter opposition to this. Are the health care practitioners opposed to this legislation or are they not?

Hon Ms Lankin: That's another thing that was wrong in the article. It said that health care professionals were "bitterly opposed." That's quoting right from the article. The Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Hospital Association certainly had a number of concerns when the legislation was introduced; there is no doubt about that. We worked with them and with members of the opposition to address those concerns, to provide a number of amendments, and they are very pleased with the changes that were made to the consent-to-treatment legislation.

Again, the doctors called us today and said they don't think the headline was right and they don't think the article was right. Let me tell you, I don't believe that it was right. Quite frankly, they're looking forward to working with the government on implementation of the bills and education of the public. So, to the headline writers of the Toronto Star, I hope that we might get a retraction that's as big and as bold as well.

CORONERS' COUNCIL

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Solicitor General. In 1972 the Coroners' Council was established on the recommendation of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. The council's role is to provide an independent forum through which the actions of the coroner can be reviewed. Could you advise the House of the status of this council?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I'm not aware of any difficulty with respect to the coroner's office except for some public comments about the speed and timeliness of some actions there. If there is some difficulty, I'd be pleased to hear about it.

Mr Curling: Mr Speaker, I hope you heard the Solicitor General.

This thing doesn't even exist. The fact is that recently a young man was tragically killed at York University, and his mother wishes to appeal the chief coroner's decision for an inquiry but does not have an avenue for recourse as the council does not exist.

This council was established, as I said, in 1972. You sat on it, your Premier sat on it and did not appoint a chair of that council. You sat on it and did not appoint any members of the council. Now he says he doesn't know if there is any problem with that. I ask for reassurance from the minister that tomorrow here in the House he will bring back a review of what is happening with the status of the council. Could I ask that of the minister today?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Certainly, the member can ask for a review or status on any items with respect to the coroner. If there is any difficulty in any particular case, I'm quite willing to take it up with Dr Young and respond back to the member on this or any other matter.

NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development. NorOntair's original mandate was to provide scheduled air service to communities where the private sector cannot compete. Over the years, norOntair has expanded its service and currently operates in direct competition with private sector airlines. Could the minister explain why the government continues to subsidize norOntair, in fact last year to the tune of $3 million, and allows it to utilize predatory pricing practices against the private sector airlines?

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): If the member has some examples of predatory pricing, I would like him to raise that with me, because I am not aware of any practice that is undertaken by the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission in that regard.

I should say to him that the mandate was to provide air service in northern Ontario to many of the communities. The private sector came in after we had been in those communities providing air service, and that occurred because in many cases the private sector did not want to go into the communities because it was not profitable for it to do.

I can tell the member that it is my understanding that at the beginning of December the general manager of ONTC was sitting down to meet with one of the carriers in northwestern Ontario to look at some of the scheduled flights to determine if we could have a rationalization between the public and private sector in northwestern Ontario. But at this point in time we continue to operate in all of the communities. We have been for many years now. If there is a change in that policy and a rationalization occurs, I would certainly advise the members of this House.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, I've anticipated what you were going to say and I'm sending over, at this moment, a current air fare comparison. If you look at it, you'll see the differences in prices from Thunder Bay to Sudbury. NorOntair and private airlines are exactly the same price. Miraculously, when you look at Red Lake to Sudbury, your airline manages to charge $10 more than from Thunder Bay to Sudbury and yet the private airlines have to charge $935, almost double.

Minister, what on earth is wrong? This is using taxpayers' money to subsidize the public sector against the private sector. While your Premier trotted around Asia telling people that Ontario was a good place to do business, you, in the meantime, are chiselling away at the private sector.

Hon Miss Martel: It was under the Tory government that the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission was established, and it was established because in many cases the private sector refused to go into many small, remote, northern communities to provide service because the profit was just not there. I don't think that I'm going to apologize for that because many, many northern communities and northern residents have benefited by having access to service that the private sector would not provide.

I said to the member, and I will repeat, that we have entered into discussions with one of the carriers in northwestern Ontario because we do believe that a rationalization in service can occur that would be beneficial to all residents of northern Ontario. But I would point out to the member that we will not interrupt or halt our service into remote northern communities without being guaranteed by the private sector that it in fact will provide the service. It is not our intention to leave northerners stranded without air service if the private sector does not want to come in.

HUNTING AND FISHING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question today is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Last week there was reference made in this House to the second interim hunting agreement signed by the governments of Ontario and the Algonquins of Golden Lake. Could the minister please clarify the substance of this agreement and how the public was involved in reaching this agreement?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): I want to thank the member for his question and the chance to correct some misinformation that was brought forward to the House last week.

As you know, we made a commitment of this government to negotiate last year with the Algonquins of Golden Lake. I'm happy to tell all of the members of the House that on Monday of this week the federal Minister of Indian Affairs, the Honourable Tom Siddon, joined me with the chief and council of the people of Golden Lake to indicate that the federal government agrees that these negotiations should proceed and is prepared now to participate in those negotiations.

I should indicate that the agreement with the Algonquins on hunting was arrived at after making a number of consultative approaches, including a number of public meetings and correspondence with many individuals. We sent out over 800 public notices and there were three weeks of time to respond. We consulted with the municipalities and the public input helped us to reach an even better agreement this year than we had last year.

Mr Waters: Maybe at this point, Mr Minister, you could tell us exactly what improvements you did get in this year's agreement over last year's.

Hon Mr Wildman: This year's hunting season has been shortened. We've improved the monitoring of the harvest, and one of the ways we're doing that is that the Algonquins have hired a conservation officer who will be working with them to enforce the rules, particularly in the park area, and that conservation officer will have the status of a deputy conservation officer for the Ministry of Natural Resources as well. This agreement will be reviewed by a coordinating committee which is independent, and again, the results will be made public.

This agreement improves on the one that worked well last year, where the Algonquins took only 34 deer when they were allowed to take 175, and only 47 moose when they were allowed to take 100 in the whole area, the park as well as the area outside the park. This is an example of cooperation and co-management that hopefully we can build on in the future.

1510

FINANCEMENT DU CONSEIL SCOLAIRE DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE D'OTTAWA-CARLETON

M. Charles Beer (York-Nord) : Ma question est pour le ministre de l'Éducation. Monsieur le ministre, plus tard aujourd'hui, avec mes collègues de la région d'Ottawa on va soumettre près de 3000 noms sur des pétitions au sujet du Conseil scolaire de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton.

Cela fait maintenant plus de 14 mois que le Conseil scolaire d'Ottawa-Carleton, le conseil publique francophone, est sous sa tutelle. Maintenant, on sait fort bien que la tutelle n'a pas bien marché, n'a pas fonctionné. En effet, la dette de ce Conseil est maintenant à plus de neuf millions de dollars en haut de ce qu'elle était avant que vous aviez mis la tutelle en place l'an passé.

La question que l'on pose, Monsieur le ministre -- les parents, les professeurs, les étudiants -- c'est, quand est-ce que vous allez mettre fin à la tutelle, et quand est-ce que le conseil scolaire va encore avoir la place de diriger les affaires du Conseil pour le bien-être des francophones de la région d'Ottawa-Carleton, Monsieur le ministre, quand ?

L'hon Tony Silipo (ministre de l'Éducation) : Je suis complètement d'accord avec le député quand il dit que la meilleure chose serait de retourner le plus tôt possible le Conseil scolaire à la direction des conseillers scolaires. Mais il sait sûrement que le problème qu'on a c'est que, pour y arriver, il faut une attitude de coopération entre les conseillers scolaires et M. Léger, qui est maintenant le responsable du le conseil scolaire. Jusqu'au moment où on arrive à avoir un certain niveau de coopération entre les deux côtés, la seule chose que je peux faire comme ministre c'est continuer le Conseil scolaire sous la tutelle où il se trouve maintenant.

M. Beer : Cette réponse n'est pas vraiment acceptable. Encore une fois, Monsieur le ministre, ça fait 14 mois que le Conseil est sous la tutelle. Je pense que n'importe qui devrait dire que ça n'a pas de bon sens que de mettre un conseil sous une tutelle de si longue durée.

Le ministre sait fort bien qu'il y avait une autre option devant le gouvernement que de faire ce qu'on a fait. Simplement, cette option était de nommer quelqu'un du ministère à travailler étroitement avec le Conseil, pas avec le Conseil à côté où le Conseil n'aurait absolument rien à faire sous la direction du conseil pour les parents, pour les professeurs, pour les étudiants. Et c'est ça la grande question.

Donc, je pose la deuxième question, la suivante. Est-ce que vous êtes prêt à mettre la tutelle de côté, à nommer quelqu'un du ministère et afin travailler avec le Conseil et avec le Conseil en place, dès maintenant ?

L'hon M. Silipo : La position que j'ai annoncée reste la même. Nous avons déjà essayé de faire ce que l'honorable député nous a indiqué, c'est-à-dire avoir quelqu'un de la part du ministère qui essayerait de travailler avec le Conseil scolaire. C'est en effet le rejet de cette position, de ce processus de la part du Conseil qui nous a enfin apporté vers la tutelle.

Donc, la position reste que, s'il y a une attitude de coopération de la part du Conseil scolaire, une attitude de vouloir travailler avec M. Léger pour en arriver à des solutions, il y en a, des solutions. Il y a dans ces solutions aussi un rôle que le ministère va jouer. Mais ça peut commencer seulement s'il y a cette attitude de coopération de la part du Conseil scolaire. S'ils continuent à résister et à être contraires à toutes sortes de propositions qui sont mises devant eux, alors malheureusement, la situation existante va continuer.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, you would be aware that there is a serious crisis facing children's aid societies in this province. They have mounting deficits and growing demand from the increased numbers of children who are being born in this province who are crack cocaine addicted and the numbers of children who are being born with foetal alcohol syndrome, while the numbers of children who have been sexually and physically abused have grown dramatically in this province.

Yet in that environment and with that understanding of the increased demand and with the understanding that the only people who are there to protect these children are the laws of this province as upheld by your government, I ask you, Minister, why it is that you have cut funding or reduced the levels of funding with both the base funding at a 0.5% increase when transfer agencies received a full 1% and you reduced and will reduce by two thirds the total amount of exceptional circumstance review funding in this province, which is the time-honoured funding mechanism we have to address these increased demands for children who are out there suffering and cannot receive the services.

I remind you, Minister, children's aid societies are in deficit, they have reduced their staff positions by 175 and their cuts total $13.5 million.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member complete his question, please.

Mr Jackson: Minister, what assurances can you give this House that the offensive priorities, this statement of comparative value for your funding, will be undone in your next announcement with respect to CAS funding in Ontario?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm really pleased to have an opportunity to answer once again the question that the member has asked both in the estimates process and in the House, because I think it is important for people to understand.

First of all, his claim that their funding was reduced from the amount given major transfer payments is not right. We in fact increased the funding by 0.5%, as was done with most of our other agencies. We did direct additional funding to areas of our priority.

The member is indeed right that the exceptional circumstance review way of funding is time-honoured. That doesn't mean it was ever appropriate or that it is at all appropriate since the 1985 changes to Children's Sand Family Services Act.

I have told the member before that part of our plan with the CASs is to develop funding mechanisms that meet the risk factors that are there in communities in a much more appropriate way, and we have developed and tested to the best of our ability thus far a funding structure, a strategic directions document that we expect to be able to release shortly that will give clear direction as to how the dollars under CFSA would be better allocated to meet the changing and diverse needs within the province.

Mr Jackson: Why would I be surprised? The minister isn't listening to my question, because she hasn't been listening to CASs. I said reduced funding levels. You gave a 0.5% increase to women's shelters, you gave a 0.5% increase to CASs that are out there protecting children who are the victims of sexual assault and you gave more money to transfer agencies. The comparative funding levels are down. That is the offensive set of priorities for your government.

Minister, we have increased demand in this province for children who are vulnerable. I have a case, I cannot mention the child's name, but it's documented from the mother who talked to the CAS and the crown attorney's office. They are unable to proceed with a sexual assault of a two-and-a-half-year-old child. All of it is documented, but to go and talk to the other 12 or 15 children and their families --

1520

The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Jackson: I will, Mr Speaker, but this is a very important issue about a child who's been sexually assaulted in this province, and this government is underfunding the process for that child to get help.

My question is simply this, that there are not hundreds but thousands of children in this province today who are depending on this government not to look at them and to put them at the bottom of a barrel with an 0.5% increase --

The Speaker: Will the member please place his supplementary.

Mr Jackson: -- but to provide adequate funding to protect children in this province. Minister, stand in your place and make the promises in this House today about that funding and reiterate your statements from the last election when you --

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: If the member is suggesting that there is a children's aid society in this province that is not carrying out its mandate, then he needs to give me that information, because they are not working within their mandate. The member knows very well that exceptional circumstance review funding is there to meet the needs of associations that are in that situation --

Mr Jackson: There were 175 people laid off.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Burlington South.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- and if the member has that kind of information, it is his responsibility to let me know so that we can investigate. If it is a mandatory investigation that is not being done, there are dollars to cover that through the exceptional circumstance review. It is not appropriate for the member to suggest that a decision on the part of a children's aid society not to proceed with a case is necessarily to do with funding.

Children's aid societies frequently decide, in conjunction with the crown attorney's department, not to proceed with particular cases, and I would want to know the detail of this case, because I believe very strongly that the member has misrepresented the issue.

Mr Jackson: "Let's stop foster parenting so we can do more sexual assault." Is that what you're saying?

The Speaker: The member for Burlington South, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Relax, just relax. Now, I would ask the honourable minister if she would withdraw the remark.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Yes, Mr Speaker.

PETITIONS

FINANCEMENT DU CONSEIL SCOLAIRE DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE D'OTTAWA-CARLETON

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Cette pétition est adressée à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu qu'en 1989 le gouvernement de l'Ontario a mis sur pied le Conseil scolaire de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton sans en préciser les mécanismes de financement ;

«Attendu qu'en raison de promesses gouvernementales non tenues, d'un sous-financement de démarrage et de l'inéquité de l'assiette fiscale, les élèves de langue française du secteur public sont injustement pénalisés ;

«Attendu que les francophones de l'Ontario, contribuables aux systèmes d'éducation publique et séparée ont droit, selon la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, à des services éducatifs équivalant à ceux de la majorité,

«Nous, soussignés, résidents de l'Ontario, demandons à l'Assemblée législative d'exiger que le gouvernement de l'Ontario rembourse les dettes, plus de 10 millions de dollars, qu'il a contractées aux dépens des francophones de l'Ontario.»

J'y ai affixé ma signature.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the above-mentioned implementations;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I support this petition as well.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I rise in the House with great pride today to read this petition into the record:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in Parliament assembled:

"We, the undersigned, deplore the passing of Bill 75 into law. We ask that the arbitrator's report be set aside because:

"(1) It does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in the arbitration hearings;

"(2) It is not in the best interests of the area and its residents;

"(3) It awards too extensive a territory to the city of London;

"(4) It will jeopardize the viability of the county of Middlesex; and

"(5) It will allow for the progressive development of prime agricultural land."

It is my great pleasure and honour to affix my name to this petition. Thank you.

FINANCEMENT DU CONSEIL SCOLAIRE DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE D'OTTAWA-CARLETON

M. Gilles E. Morin (Carleton-Est) : J'ai, au nom du Rassemblement pour l'éducation publique en français, une pétition adressée à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu qu'en 1989 le gouvernement de l'Ontario a mis sur pied le Conseil scolaire de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton sans en préciser les mécanismes de financement ;

«Attendu qu'en raison de promesses gouvernementales non tenues, d'un sous-financement de démarrage et de l'inéquité de l'assiette fiscale, les élèves de langue française du secteur public sont injustement pénalisés ;

«Attendu que les francophones de l'Ontario, contribuables aux systèmes d'éducation publique et séparée ont droit, selon la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, à des services éducatifs équivalant à ceux de la majorité,

«Nous, soussignés, résidents et résidentes de l'Ontario, demandons à l'Assemblée législative d'exiger que le gouvernement de l'Ontario rembourse les dettes, plus de 10 millions de dollars, qu'il a contractées aux dépens des francophones d'Ottawa-Carleton.»

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here.

"Whereas the town of Georgina has traditionally been a mixture of agricultural, residential and recreational vacation land, these areas would be drastically affected by a megadump; and

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has identified sites in the town that would consume large tracts of number 1 and 2 farm land, the areas identified by the Interim Waste Authority would disrupt the vibrant agricultural communities, the farm families in these areas have continued to invest large sums of money in their farms, these communities would be destroyed by the Interim Waste Authority putting in a megadump;

"Whereas most of the people of Georgina depend on groundwater for a drinking water supply and a dump would threaten their clean supply of water;

"Whereas Lake Simcoe is the ice-fishing capital of the world; and

"Whereas Lake Simcoe's health provides a strong draw for tourists to fish year-round; and

"Whereas the effects of a megadump would destroy the local economies of the community;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"We oppose the Interim Waste Authority's proposal to take prime farm land and to turn it into Metro's and York's megadump.

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew its efforts, to seek alternatives, like waste reprocessing, to landfill and implement progressive reduction, reuse and recycling programs."

I affix my name to this petition.

LAYOFFS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is to the Premier and to the members of the Legislative Assembly:

"General Motors' announcement to close the foundry operations in St Catharines, with the resultant loss of 2,300 jobs, adds to the growing devastation of the vital manufacturing sector in the Canadian economy. The spinoff effects will result in four to six lost jobs in other sectors for every job lost in auto. The foundry closure also puts the remainder of the General Motors St Catharines operations in serious jeopardy, which has a total combined employee population of 9,000 hourly and salaried workers.

"I strongly urge the Ontario government to intervene in all possible manner to stop the erosion of jobs and the economic base of our province and, in particular, the Niagara region."

This is signed, and I'm prepared to add my name to it, because I'm in agreement with this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition signed by several hundred people in my riding, mainly in the town of Belle River. It says:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of legal holiday in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of the society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter from the definition of legal holiday and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I affix my signature to it.

FINANCEMENT DU CONSEIL SCOLAIRE DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE D'OTTAWA-CARLETON

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai une pétition de plusieurs centaines de noms du Rassemblement pour l'éducation publique en français. C'est une pétition à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario.

«Attendu qu'en 1989 le gouvernement de l'Ontario a mis sur pied le Conseil scolaire de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton sans en préciser les mécanismes de financement ;

«Attendu qu'en raison de promesses gouvernementales non tenues, d'un sous-financement de démarrage et de l'inéquité de l'assiette fiscale, les élèves de langue française du secteur public sont injustement pénalisés ;

«Attendu que les francophones de l'Ontario, contribuables aux systèmes d'éducation publique et séparée ont droit, selon la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, à des services éducatifs équivalant à ceux de la majorité,

«Nous, soussignés, résidents et résidentes de l'Ontario, demandons à l'Assemblée législative d'exiger que le gouvernement de l'Ontario rembourse les dettes, plus de 10 millions de dollars, qu'il a contractées aux dépens des francophones de l'Ontario.»

J'y ai apposé ma signature.

1530

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has not consulted the people of Ontario regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I affix my signature to it.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'm reading a petition addressed to the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario and to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas motor vehicle accidents continue to be the leading cause of preventable death in Canada;

"Whereas statistics indicate that all novice drivers are overrepresented in these accidents;

"Whereas it is a proven fact that graduated licensing saves lives by allowing new drivers to gain essential driving experience under controlled conditions;

"Whereas this is not merely a traffic safety problem but a public health concern;

"Therefore, in the interests of saving lives, preventing injury and reducing costs, we urge you to support graduated licensing for new drivers."

There are probably hundreds of signatures on this petition, and I have signed my name and dated it.

FINANCEMENT DU CONSEIL SCOLAIRE DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE D'OTTAWA-CARLETON

M. Charles Beer (York-Nord) : J'ai une petition signée par au moins 1000 personnes du Rassemblement pour l'éducation publique en français, à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu qu'en 1989 le gouvernement de l'Ontario a mis sur pied le Conseil scolaire de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton sans en préciser les mécanismes de financement ;

«Attendu qu'en raison de promesses gouvernementales non tenues, d'un sous-financement de démarrage et de l'inéquité de l'assiette fiscale, les élèves de langue française du secteur public sont injustement pénalisés ;

«Attendu que les francophones de l'Ontario, contribuables aux systèmes d'éducation publique et séparée ont droit, selon la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, à des services éducatifs équivalant à ceux de la majorité,

«Nous, soussignés, résidents et résidentes de l'Ontario, demandons à l'Assemblée législative d'exiger que le gouvernement de l'Ontario rembourse les dettes (plus de 10 millions de dollars) qu'il a contractées aux dépens des francophones d'Ottawa-Carleton.»

J'y appose ma signature.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by many residents of Ottawa-Carleton, including Russ Barton, Archie Campbell, Chris Jackotzy and many others.

"Whereas it is arbitrary and demonstrably unfair to use market value as a basis for property tax assessment in a volatile market such as Ottawa-Carleton; and

"Whereas market value assessment bears no relation to the level of services provided by the municipality; and

"Whereas the implementation of such a measure would work undue hardship on the residents of Ottawa-Carleton, on our long-term home owners, our senior citizens and our tenants; and

"Whereas Ottawa businesses are already paying the highest property taxes in North America and will be devastated by increases of 150% to 250%,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to impose market value reassessment on Ottawa-Carleton against the wishes of the people of Ottawa-Carleton, and to consider another method of property tax reform."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from citizens of the county of Middlesex who ask that the arbitrator's report be set aside because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in arbitration hearings, it is not in the best interests of the residents of the London and Middlesex area, it awards too extensive a land base to the city of London and it will jeopardize agricultural land and the viability of Middlesex county.

I have signed my name to this petition.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): I'm honoured to present this petition to the Legislature signed by many of my constituents, specifically addressed to the Minister of Transportation. It reads:

"Motor vehicle accidents continue to be the leading cause of preventable death in Canada. Statistics indicate that all novice drivers are overrepresented in these accidents. It is a proven fact that graduated licensing saves lives by allowing new drivers to gain essential driving experience under controlled conditions.

"This is not merely a traffic safety problem but a public health concern. It is in the interests of saving lives, also preventing injuries and also reducing costs, that support for graduated licensing for new drivers is being petitioned."

I affix my name to this petition to be tabled with the Clerk.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the assembly, the government of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, feel that the French Language Services Act discriminates against non-French speaking citizens (voters of Ontario)."

It's signed by 200 petitioners from all over the province.

NURSING HOMES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have many petitions to the Parliament of Ontario.

"The Rae government is proposing an $11-a-day increase in nursing home residents payments." That is a 38% increase. "Mr Rae's government feels justified by saying, 'Those targeted are able to afford it.' This increase is unconscionable and is aimed at a helpless and vulnerable group. The Minister of Health, under the NDP government, can push this through before the public realizes what has happened. We don't want this to go through without proper consultation. The people involved must be adequately consulted.

"We say no to this proposal."

To this I have affixed my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LONG TERM CARE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 101, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long Term Care / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les soins de longue durée.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Community and Social Services had the floor when we broke last night.

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): I won't take the whole 20 minutes I have left. I just have a few more comments I need to make in terms of some of the comments of our members on this side of the House as well as members opposite.

I think the petition that was just entered into the record of the Legislature raises some of the questions that are of most concern to some of the vulnerable people who are in nursing homes, homes for the aged or charitable homes for the aged, that we need to be addressing.

That member who introduced the petition suggested in it that there had not been consultation in terms of the way in which nursing homes and homes for the aged fees ought to be based, and of course that's incorrect, given the extensive kind of consultation that has been held throughout the province on this issue.

It is important for the people of Ontario to understand that the increase in the charge is an increase in the basic board and lodging portion of the charge only, and that if a person is unable to pay, based not on a means test, as the previous government had suggested, which would have taken into account all assets of the individual, but on an income test that talks about the income that person is actually bringing in at the time the income test is done, then that person would have the charges changed to meet the income level.

1540

Certainly, if a person is receiving the guaranteed income supplement from the federal government, it is clear that there is a limited ability to pay, and if a person is unable to pay that full per diem amount for accommodation, the charge would be reduced or eliminated.

It is also important to note that many of those who would be paying the new fee of $37 a day are currently paying a great deal more, because there is a charge for many of the services that are now being offered in those facilities that we would not allow to be chargeable under the new system.

It is very important also to understand that these acts will enable the government to ensure that if there is overcharging for any of the services that are offered by homes -- for accommodation, for additional services such as hairdressing, particularly different services that might be offered on a discretionary basis -- this legislation would give the government the ability to recover those charges from the nursing home and return those dollars to the individuals involved.

That is an improvement in the situation that has been demanded from time to time, certainly by us as an opposition party but also by other members in both of the other parties. It is very important for those of us who have loved ones who are in facilities and for those who are in facilities themselves to know that there is some recourse when in fact overcharging does occur, and we think that's one of the most important changes that this bill would make.

The issue of vulnerability has been raised a number of times, and certainly the vulnerability of people in facilities has been an ongoing concern for us in this party and continues to be, I believe, given what we heard during the consultation, a major concern of most people who are interested in the issue of long-term care in the province.

We would have under this legislation the ability to ensure that the nature of the care, the quality of the care that is offered to people in long-term care facilities meets a standard that is clear, that is clearly set out to the resident himself or herself, as well as to the family of that resident, and that in fact there would be a required and posted plan of care. There would be a quality assurance portion to the kind of care planning that would be done that would give some of that confidence, and there would be appeal mechanisms if people had concerns about care.

Naturally, the Advocacy Act, which we passed yesterday, is an important component of our assurance of quality care and safety to residents, because we now would have not only the assurance of the contractual agreement that is in place between a long-term care facility and the funding government, but also an ability to monitor that and to ensure in fact that vulnerable adults had the services of the advocates if problems should arise. We believe that's an important improvement and one which I think will give added assurance to those of us who have loved ones who are either seniors or are physically disabled and require care in long-term care facilities.

In closing, I would emphasize that these changes that are included in Bill 101 are only the beginning of the long continuum of legislative, regulatory and program changes that will be required to bring into full force the full vision of long-term care, as the Minister of Health, I know, will be announcing in the very near future.

We are introducing this bill at this time because it is very important that we bring some financial stability to those who are providing care within the facilities in our communities. There have been many complaints over a long period of time about underfunding. It is very important for us to be moving ahead so that in fact we are able to go to committee and have the concerns raised in an atmosphere that enables us to strengthen the bill, if that is required, that enables us to answer some of the concerns that have been raised, and of course gives us another chance to have the input of the whole community.

We do want to move ahead, because we as well as the opposition members have expressed concern about further erosion in the availability of service. That is certainly not our intention or something we believe will naturally flow from this act. We believe very strongly that this will strengthen the facility sector so that it is there when it is necessary.

But we re-emphasize to the people of the province of Ontario that although facilities are part of the continuum of care, part of the kind of intervention we must have at some points in people's lives, they are only part of that care. We have put far too much emphasis on facility care for those who need long-term care and we need to be looking at the way in which to maintain people longer in the community, and to move people who have not been able to enjoy independent living within the community into the community in order to attain a truly healthy society that is fulfilling for them.

We look forward very much to moving forward in the new year with additional elements of the long-term care vision. We are hopeful that our move in this area, which fulfils some of our concerns around stabilized funding, around the kind of care of individuals, and particularly, of course, as I mentioned last evening, for our ministry, our ability to flow funds to individuals so that they can plan their own care in a self-sufficient and independent way, that these changes will show a significant beginning and give a clear message to those who have been concerned about long-term care that we intend to move ahead with enthusiasm on our plans.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for her contribution to the debate and invite questions and/or comments.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I was interested in hearing the minister speak last night with respect to the direct funding pilot project, which the Minister of Health assured us in estimates committee would have taken place last autumn. Last night, the Minister of Community and Social Services indicated that it did not occur because no one responded to a call with respect to the pilot project.

I wonder if she could clarify that. How were applications solicited? What parameters were placed on a pilot? What other organizations were contacted to be part of it? It seems to me that it's a singularly important part for the disabled community for that pilot to go ahead, and I would have thought that if nothing occurred kind of naturally with respect to proceeding with the pilot, the minister would have indeed encouraged their application for participation with specific organizations and groups, and maybe even underwritten them. I certainly would like to hear more from the minister in the time of her response as to why that pilot didn't proceed.

The other aspect I think many of us are interested in knowing, and several members have referred to it, is if the minister could clarify if it will be the federal test, which is automatically used to provide an indication of when an income supplement or supplementary assistance or maximum payment would be made, or what other process will be implemented.

I think we all want to pursue, and I'm running out of time here, the question of the charges not allowed for those institutions where existing contracts are already in place for accommodation which is more extensive or luxurious than would be the system for the average person in long-term care.

1550

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The member for Brampton South.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Not questions or comments; I'm participating.

The Speaker: Then the minister has up to two minutes to respond.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I'm pleased to respond to the member. I want her to know that I think she misunderstood what I was saying last night. I did indicate to her that I have had many individuals who have applied to me, asking me to take action to ensure that individualized funding is available. The action we are taking in the act gives us the legislative authority to do that.

When the Minister of Health spoke of pilot projects, we thought there might be a way in which we could do that funding without changing the legislation, because we knew we weren't ready to change all the legislation until we had done the survey on the levels of care. Unfortunately, our legal advice was that in order to flow individual funding it was necessary for us to do the legislative change. That's what we are doing, and as soon as we have the legislative authority to do so, we will be doing that.

I should tell the member that those who have requested individualized funding are very interested in being part of the design of the criteria for any kind of pilot project, and we have made commitments to those groups that indeed we would want to be doing that in partnership with them, because we consider self-advocates to be the experts on their own care.

In the other question the member asked, generally speaking in the area of seniors, the guaranteed income supplement has been used as one of the means to determine ability to pay, but it may not be the only one. There may be other reasons. What we are saying is that part of the measure would be based on the income that is actually available to the person to pay for his residential charges. Yes, additional luxurious accommodation might be allowed, but we now have the ability to ensure that there is no overcharging for that, that in fact there is a regulation of how much can be charged for additional accommodation.

Mr Callahan: I am pleased to participate in this debate. I waited till midnight last night. I thought I would get on, but I didn't. I thought I was going to be the test pattern.

As I said last night and as I say again, I think all members of the House are interested in ensuring that long-term care, particularly for our seniors, and also our disabled, is of the finest quality. That was recognized by our government, the Liberal government, I think even starting in about 1986 and perhaps 1989.

I can recall that I chaired the select committee on health. We were examining this question. I recall sitting on a couple of other committees where many of the measures that are already in place to ensure that nursing homes and retirement homes would allow a resident to be fully informed, or to have his loved ones fully informed, of just what they were letting themselves in for were the order of the day. They had to be posted so that people knew fully what the rules were.

There's no question as well that in the past there have been incidents of nursing homes and retirement homes that were almost out of the middle ages. There were people there who were infirm and not able to look after their own needs who really required the assistance of government.

I have no difficulty with reform of long-term care, because I think we're dealing with people who, in the main, are not able to look after themselves, who have actually provided a great deal to this province and who now should be allowed to live in care and dignity in their golden years. They should be able to live that out as long as possible in their own homes with the appropriate support.

The difficulty I have -- I'm not trying to be pejorative and I'm not dropping the other shoe -- is that a lot of this that we're debating here and discussing is reminiscent of the days when the former Conservative government decided that it would be so much more sensitive and meaningful to let people out of institutions, close all the institutions and let them out. It was certainly a statement that was endorsed by all sensitive thinking people, but unfortunately, in doing that they let them out on to the street, and we are seeing today the net result of that.

We see people who are unfortunate enough to be wandering our streets, many of them schizophrenics, many of them suffering from other mental illnesses, and I have to say to myself, as I see them lying on the street or out in the cold or on the grates of a subway or whatever, or huddling, as I saw one poor soul as I was walking along Wellesley Street, against a pipe that emitted hot air from one of the posh health clubs, was that really a good idea? Were we being sensitive in terms of dealing with that issue in that way before we had in place alternative measures to adequately deal with every one of those poor souls? The government of the day -- as I say, I can't criticize them, because I think they were trying to take a step forward and to be more sensitive to the needs of those people. Obviously, they thought they'd planned for it, but they hadn't.

What we saw were these people I just related, or the unfortunates we see, not just in Toronto, but we're seeing them all over this province. I find that really difficult to deal with, and I'm sure any caring -- and I think we are caring -- members of this House would find that very difficult to deal with.

Why do I raise that issue? I hope both ministers will appreciate that I'm not trying to come at this from a totally negative aspect, believe me. I'm just concerned as to whether or not we are taking the right approach that is going to allow for us to properly have in place the appropriate procedures, the appropriate programs, the appropriate alternatives, once we do some of the things that I feel and I interpret this bill as doing.

I know this bill is not the totality. I know that there will be, hopefully, and I think there will be, further moves in terms of long-term care that will perhaps address the chronic care issue, but I do have some concerns because, number one, as a matter of fairness, we are in an economy which does not give the Treasurer much room to manoeuvre. I don't think anybody believes the economy is going to get any better in the next year or two. It's probably going to get worse, which means that if the figures aren't right, if the moneys we're planning on expending on alternative programs are not right, and if the alternative programs are not right, we are creating perhaps a similar scenario to what the Conservative government of the day, with all the best intentions in the world, created.

I don't know. I don't think any member of this House, of whatever political stripe, would possibly want to be the architect of that type of program and then revisit it maybe four or five years down the line and say: "My God, what did we do? Where did we go wrong?" I guess the reason I'm a Liberal, as opposed to being a Conservative or a member of the New Democratic Party, is that I like a foot in both camps. I like a foot in the camp of free enterprise, which means that "profit" is not a dirty word, and I like a foot in the other camp to say that I'm concerned about those people --

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): That's a different way of saying "sitting on the fence."

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Are you a dipper, Bob?

Mr Callahan: I'm a hybrid. I'm concerned about those people who can't help themselves. I think that's a definition of a Liberal, really. It's probably a definition of a red Tory too.

That's why I have to address the issue, and I think it's of some importance, that as we strive to achieve what is one of the more admirable parts of this long-term reform, and it was one that was started by the Liberal government in 1989, which was to introduce level-of-care funding into nursing homes and charitable municipal homes for the aged -- that was the aim; that was the direction. I can remember there were discussions about 1.5 hours, how many hours you need to look after someone who's disabled. It was kind of like, if you didn't come up with the magic formula, then the person got either too much or too little care, and perhaps it created difficulties in the homes in terms of these people being treated humanely.

I have no difficulty with that at all. It's going to be a costly endeavour, but I think it certainly would meet the concerns I would have.

1600

But when one looks at the situation at the present time, the for-profit operations, certainly of nursing homes and retirement homes, look after a considerable number of people. In fact, if my information is correct -- and I'm trying to find it -- they service something in the neighbourhood of 100,000 people. If that's wrong, when I get to it I'll correct it. They create jobs, they create a choice for people, and what's going to happen to these people if in fact they start to be phased out? This really, in a sense, may not be specifically spelled out in this act, there may be nobody out there saying that's going to happen, but if you reduce the cost of people who are paying $100 a week down to $37, unless there's going to be some sort of subsidy for these for-profit homes, what do you think is going to happen to them? They're going to get out of the business. It's going to be almost a mirror image of what's taking place with reference to day care.

I think if you people over there in the government looked in your heart of hearts, you'd realize that by putting the for-profit day care people out of business without creating an equal number of not-for-profits to cover the shortfall results in two things. First of all, it takes away the right of choice of a parent, and secondarily, it takes away the possibility of there being ample spaces to provide for these young children.

Similarly, and perhaps even an equal, if not a greater, matter of concern, you could potentially have seniors who would have no place to go. Already in my riding I find this one of the most difficult things to deal with. Because of the high cost of housing, people have moved from the inner cities to the outer areas. They're moving out into the countryside. The net result is, they want to bring their parents, who maybe are living in the city, out to where they are. So a community such as mine, which was, I guess, at the outset quite a young community, is now growing to have a large demand by seniors, and that's happening as a result of seniors moving out on their own and seniors moving out to be with their grandchildren and with their children.

Trying to get them accommodations in a retirement home or a nursing home is very difficult, particularly since in most nursing homes and retirement homes, if the person is not ambulatory, he has to leave. They don't have the facilities to deal with that.

If I'm correct that the net result of this legislation will be to remove from the province of Ontario, either totally or to a large degree, those services that are now being provided for profit, I have grave concerns, because what we're doing is creating a scenario for self-destruction of our seniors.

Who's going to pick up the shortfall? Who's going to pick up the gap? You as government can't, and if we or the Conservatives were the government we couldn't, and because of the tremendous downturn in the economy it's going to be even more difficult. I urge you to look at that, because I think that's a very significant fact.

What kind of guarantees, if this happens, are you going to give to the some 20,000 employees who perhaps will be laid off? What alternatives will be available for them? Are you going to retrain them? Are you going to provide some sort of bureaucratic board to do that, to retrain them? I suggest you won't be able to do that. I'd really want to look at that.

I want to go into a second part, and it was something that I raised last night which gave me serious concern. I've looked at this bill and it does not say an awful lot. Most of the provisions in this act are done by regulation, and I keep saying that the people of this province should be aware of the fact that a regulation -- I think in Ottawa they called it "the silent law" because it never comes before this Legislature -- is made by the cabinet. That's the 20 or 25 people in the cabinet. They're the people who say what that regulation will be. It never sees the light of day. It never comes before this House; it's never tested by anyone; it's simply made by the people in cabinet.

I'm not suggesting the people in cabinet are not honest and honourable people; they are. But when you limit the decision-making process on a regulation to just a select number of people, you in fact cheat the electors of this province. The electors of this province elected 130 of us to represent them. They elected us in a democratic process for us to be able to appear in the House and speak to these matters and to perhaps address some piece of legislation that we didn't consider appropriate or introduce some innovative measure that perhaps had escaped the view of those 10 or 20 or 30 people in cabinet. That never happens, and I think the people of Ontario have to know that; they have to understand that it really is legislation by edict, and I don't mean that in a pejorative way, because that's the way this Parliament works. So in fact what happens is you have a very narrow, concentrated approach.

Just to give the people who are viewing some idea as to what some of these items are that will be done by regulation -- and this is for all three areas; this is charitable institutions, nursing homes and retirement homes. I have to say that in the eight years I've been in this Legislature, this act contains more lawmaking by regulation than any one I've ever seen before. Usually, you have what is called a basket clause, where the Lieutenant Governor in Council, ie, the cabinet -- it sounds very highfalutin. The Honourable Mr Jackman doesn't come down from his office and declare these; it's done by cabinet. That's what "order in council" means: regulation made on order in council.

But what does it cover? Eligibility criteria for entry to these places will be determined by regulation. What does that mean? Does that mean that as the economy shifts and as the pressures become greater on the Treasurer of this province, which no doubt they will, he's going to say to his cabinet colleagues, "Well, the eligibility criteria up to this point was for people of this category, but because we're short on bucks, we're now going to change the category"? I think the seniors deserve better than that; I think people who are disabled deserve better than that. They deserve the right, as every citizen of this province does, to have definitive measures made that they can pursue in terms of whether they're in the right or in the wrong or whether they are entitled to the service or not entitled to the service.

Regulation also provides for definitions of nursing care. So if you had a nice definition of nursing care that was very comfortable and warm and cosy and a person thought he could live with, and some things happened -- and I have to speak to the question of economics, because that seems to be the most pressing issue we have in this province these days -- then perhaps the definition of nursing care will be changed, and it could be changed like that. It doesn't take a long time, just a cabinet decision, just like that. So you could be in a nursing home, under a definition of nursing care that had certain criteria to it which you were comfortable with, and like that, down in the cabinet room, that could be changed.

Accommodation is also done by regulation. So again, accommodation could be changed like that. Basic accommodation changed like that; preferred accommodation like that; short-stay accommodation like that; required types of accommodation, care, services, programs and goods to be offered to residents changed like that. Required bed capacities can be changed like that, and it goes on and on. If anybody wanted to read through it, he would find that they are constantly talking about the question of regulation.

I recommend to all members of the House a very interesting article on regulations that was done by a former colleague of mine, David Fleet, who was the member for High Park-Swansea. He made it as the Chairman of the standing committee on regulations and private bills. It's absolutely superb, and it's one that you might want to pick up and run by the cabinet members of your government, because I think it's something that's coming. People are tired of what worked in parliamentary systems before, where you could slide something through by regulation. So I recommend that to you for reading.

The other concern I have about this bill is the question of the impacts it may have on the services that are provided at the present time by a whole host of organizations: Meals On Wheels, Victorian Order of Nurses, St Elizabeth nurses and so on. The numbers go on in great quantities.

1610

This bill really reflects what we were doing. We were going to consult with these groups, but this bill gives a whole new name to it. It's called "service coordinators agency." The government of the day has clearly stated that this will be a new board, a new institution, a new bureaucracy.

With the limited amount of dollars we have in this society, I would want to be sure that the totality of those dollars was going to the quality of these programs as opposed to having to create another bureaucracy that's going to take some of that money away and not allow that service to be provided in a class fashion.

In fact, I think that's what's going to happen here. These people provide over nine million hours of health and homemaking services to almost 100,000 people in this province. Approximately 45.5% of homemaking services funded by the government are provided by these agencies. Commercial services are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and supplement the 9-to-5, Monday-to-Friday schedule which is provided by not-for-profit agencies. So if you eliminate those or you dissuade them, who's going to cover that gap?

About one half of the workforce works part-time, taking advantage of flexible schedules. I think this is important because this government has espoused being very much concerned about the working conditions, as was our government, of women. The workforce is almost 100% female, with a high proportion of visible minorities, again another concern of this government, yet here is a possibility of them being out.

Management is almost all female. Many owners are entrepreneurial women. That was similar to the situation in day care. I met with a lot of for-profit day care operators and they were, in the main, women. The reason the commercial sector has grown is because the not-for-profit sector has not met, and still is not able to meet, the demand -- a clear situation.

The government will kill these operators by simply not giving the private sector any new business. This has already been stated in writing to the Ottawa-Carleton region, and by funding pay equity costs for the not-for-profit sector but not to commercial agencies.

This won't meet the government policy calling for more, not less, home care. This is the attempt of the government, and was the attempt of our government, to ensure that people could stay in their homes for a longer period of time with dignity. If I'm correct that this bill is going to sway the playing field in favour of the not-for-profit, then all of these things will come true. Rather than having more home care, we will have less, and we may very well find ourselves forced back to an institutional setting just as before.

Manitoba took a course of action, similar to what this government has taken, about a decade ago. Having modelled all home care services into the not-for-profit sector, they're now asking the private sector to re-enter the field. A senior adviser has said that it is because of the extreme inefficiency and rigidity which has developed due to bureaucracy and unionization. That's Manitoba. Manitoba's going back. They're trying to bring back the entrepreneurs to supplement the not-for-profit providers.

Surely, we should learn something from mistakes made in the past. The mistake I started out with was about the deinstitutionalization of people who are disabled in terms of mental disabilities. We let them out and they're still wandering the streets and there's no service for them. We went one step further during the accord. The present government of the day and the Conservative Party voted for amendments to the Mental Health Act which literally denied the parents of schizophrenics any possibility of ever being able to have their loved one take his or her medication and be well, as opposed to wandering the streets of Canada.

That is one thing I will never forgive those two governments for. There aren't a lot of things I wouldn't forgive you for, but I'll never forgive you for that. If that's not rectified by the Minister of Health before this government goes to the next election, then you people should not be able to sleep very soundly, having these young people out there.

Those are the people you're seeing wandering the streets of Toronto and wandering the streets of other communities, usually being ignored by other people because they may look a little different: They've got a beard or their clothes are scruffy or whatever. Those are the young people who perhaps have gone to university. Those are the young people who parents love and can't get back to.

If you've gotten nothing at all out of what I'm saying about long-term care, I would ask you to urge the Minister of Health and her cabinet colleagues to take these steps. If they're concerned about David Reville who -- David was a very strong supporter of this amendment that took place that I was referring to. I remember bringing a private member's bill into this House, and after I spoke to David about the repercussions of those changes to the Mental Health Act, David voted for my private member's bill. I think David recognized that his efforts to eliminate what was absolutely horrendous treatment of mentally ill people, with shock treatments and all the rest of it, had no bearing whatsoever on a situation where a person can take medication and through that medication can stabilize his or her condition and live a reasonably normal life.

I was really surprised to see in the bills we dealt with the other night, the consent to treatment and the alternative decision-making, that the Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics signed off before they got that commitment from the minister. I'm really concerned about that. I don't know why they did it, whether somebody twisted their arm or what, but I was really concerned to see that happen. It shouldn't have. I guess they figured they got as much as they could get, really.

As to the effects of some of the things that are being suggested -- I'm predicting and I think it's probably a fair prediction -- home care will be provided by unionized public servants. The quality and quantity of home care will be seriously reduced, leaving the redirected long-term care system unable to meet the demand and leaving consumers without the availability of service. The efficiency of the system will be reduced by a public service, bureaucratic administration. Consumers will lose their right to choose what kind of service they want and who they want to deliver it for them. Although some of these workers who would be laid off from the for-profit operations may be hired by the not-for-profit sector, there'll be large-scale job dislocation and job loss.

Finally, as I wind down to the end of my time -- by the way, which time I find goes very quickly. I suppose it's one of those things that results from the change of the rules in this House that limited the democratic rights of the people who elected me to allow me to represent them adequately.

In any event, there are seniors who are having financial difficulties. We have to look after them. Also, I would suggest, because of the real estate market and, I have to say, the outrageous increases in the value of homes and so on, many of these seniors, when they sold their homes --

Mr Tilson: No more.

Mr Callahan: No, no more, but many of these seniors who sold their homes, the seniors today, made a few dollars and they chose to live in accommodations where perhaps they were paying $100 a week. Now you tell me what's going to happen when senior citizen X, who up to this point has been very comfortable where he or she is, is told, "Well, sorry, we're closing the doors and you are now going to go to some other place," or let's say -- I hope this isn't the case, but I'm sure it is the case in some instances -- the family, the children, decide: "Well, mum and dad have got a bit of money. We don't want to have to spend $100 a week at this place, so we'll move them into the other category, just so we save the money and it'll be passed on to us," or perhaps mum and dad believe that they want to pass this money on to their children so they decide to go into the less costly accommodation.

My advice, and I've had real scenarios like that, to these young people who come in and say that to me has been: "Look, your mother and father earned that money. It's their money to spend. They should spend it and not leave it to you, and they should be able to live in the dignity to which their assets make it available for them to live."

1620

I think in a sense what we're doing is we're taking away that choice. I don't think many of the people on the back bench necessarily believe that, but I think if you talk to the people in cabinet, you'll find that the discussions kind of went along that line. They went along the line analogous to day care, that government does it best and we don't want people out there who are going to do it for profit because they're the people who do it badly, that they're the people who perhaps were the ones who in the past were the scoundrels.

That's not the case at all. We've got some marvellous facilities in my community of Brampton South. We have at least three nursing homes. I referred one to the minister which is absolutely superb and I've recommended that she go out and take a look at it. I know Murray Elston, the member for Bruce, when he was the Minister of Health, saw it, and had he continued to be the minister I think that may very well have become the model for accommodations, particularly for seniors.

It had three buildings. The senior moved from the apartment of independent living. They just had to walk through a hallway and they were into a place where they could get a little more help, perhaps a meal here and there, and when they became chronically ill they went into the final wing. It was less traumatic for a senior than to be moved perhaps across the city. It's particularly significant in the case of people who are from other ethnic backgrounds. The traumatic situation of being a senior and being in a facility and then being moved to an entirely different one has to be absolutely catastrophic.

I'm really pleased that I've had an opportunity to share a few comments on this legislation. I look forward to it in committee, and although I don't think I'm on that committee, I will certainly make every effort to sit in on it, because I think we're looking at the most fragile and the most deserving group of people society has, and that's our elderly. We're also looking at those people who perhaps aren't elderly but they're disabled, people who need our protection.

I hope that the bill that comes out of this will be one that's sensitive to meet those needs and that we will not look back one day, as I suggested perhaps we do now with the deinstitutionalization of those who had mental disabilities, and say --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you.

Mr Callahan: -- we did it, but we didn't provide any alternatives.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired. Are there any questions or comments?

Mr Tilson: I'd like to congratulate the member for Brampton South on his comments on a topic I know all of us are concerned about, and that is the care, particularly, of our elderly and our seniors.

I think that obviously the philosophy of this government that seems to be coming forward is that if you can afford it, you should be paying for it. I noticed, for example, the Minister of Housing in the House, and I look at some of her philosophies, specifically in housing, whether it be rent controls or non-profit housing. The contradiction is rather unusual, because when you look at the philosophies that are going through in that particular ministry as opposed to the cutbacks for the elderly, the people who need it, the people who have gone through the Depression, who have seen untold experiences that most of us, if not all of us, in this House have never experienced -- I certainly listen to stories of what people experienced during the Depression and it certainly was sad, and now those people are in their senior years and are being asked to pay more.

The member for Brampton South is quite right. Do they have the funds to do it? I congratulate him for raising that issue, because that is the real issue for seniors today: Where are they going to find the dollars to live under the philosophy of this government?

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I listened with interest to the comments of the member for Brampton South, and certainly there appear to be some comments he made that are not in line with my understanding of the long-term care policy, and in particular his comments indicating that our government had a policy of deinstitutionalization or closing beds in the institutional sector with respect to long-term care.

That is not the case. Certainly, we do feel we have a sufficient number of beds overall. However, it's clearly recognized that we have a maldistribution of beds within the province of Ontario. In fact, even within my own constituency we have a maldistribution of beds, with a lack of beds in two urban communities, my own urban community and the one to the north, and then to the west they have a surplus. There certainly needs to be a rationalization of the system within Ontario.

Secondly, I'd like to say that, really, creating the support within the community to allow people to give that consumer choice to stay within the community I think is very important and a policy which even his government was very supportive of, this aspect of supporting individuals in the community.

The member also made a comment critical of the service coordination agency. That was a proposal in the discussion paper, but after the consultation it was discarded, for the simple reason it was felt to be too bureaucratic, was creating another level of bureaucracy. Our government, in moving to the multiservice agencies model, which involves both provider and placement service functions all in one, I think has a much more efficient model.

As far as the level of services is concerned, I'm certainly very pleased to see integrated homemaking services provided to communities, such as my own, which don't have it now.

Mrs Sullivan: I want to commend the member for Brampton South for bringing some issues forward that link in from our past experience with the deinstitutionalization of psychiatric patients, which I know Mr Callahan cares a great deal about, and looking at the issues associated with a balance of facility-based care and home care.

We know demographically that with in-home care, the primary care giver tends to be a member of the family. In many cases now we're moving to a situation where that primary care giver is herself, if I may say so, approaching, if she has not already reached, senior citizen status. Frequently, we see in a private home the 70-year-old daughter or daughter-in-law caring for the 90-year-old mother. I think that as we move from the psychiatric deinstitutionalization experience into home care situations, we have to look at some of those very personal sociological issues that surround home care delivery.

Although Mr Callahan referred to the service coordination agencies, clearly the new words are multiservice agencies and the concept has changed a bit. But he did raise questions about the place of those agencies which are now established in a community involving care givers, along with very heavy, intense, volunteer activity. I think some of the concepts we're going to have to explore as we're looking in the public hearing process are what kind of a change this will mean to the social fabric in our communities, not only in our small towns but in our large cities as well. The Red Cross, the VON, by example, have separate identities, separate volunteer organizations, separate support links, and seeing them all merged together may become problematical.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I appreciate the comments that have been made by the speaker from Brampton South and I think he raises issues, like other members have, that require clarification during the public hearings process. I look forward to his monitoring that and encourage him to take part in discussions where we can exchange ideas around this, because quite frankly I think there are answers to most of the concerns he has raised.

On the last point that was picked up on by the Health critic from the Liberal Party with respect to comprehensive multiservice agencies, I think issues around identity and volunteerism and all of those need to be addressed as we are doing the community development work in each community, and it will look something different, but again I stress to the people who are involved in the debate here that it actually has nothing to do with this piece of legislation and the public hearings that will be held on this legislation.

On the issue with respect to the continuum of care and the concerns about how many places we have in our facilities for people who need these services, the frail elderly, for example, I think the kind of funding mechanism we're putting in place and some of the guarantees around service contracts for client care will improve the situation in terms of ensuring those people are getting that care. At the other end, out in the community, we are building services to help people who might not require going into a facility but would have no other choice if those community services weren't there.

The thing that has always been missing, however, in terms of the spectrum of care, is the piece in the middle -- you talked about it in terms of your example from Brampton -- the progressive housing, supportive housing models. Our overall long-term care plan proposes to have supportive housing as part of the continuum of care.

1630

Mr Callahan: I'd like to thank all members for in many cases, I think, overly kind words about what I said. I just wanted to refer to a comment that was made by the member for Simcoe Centre about the fact that there was no elimination of beds. They are frozen. That's not a criticism. I can understand that with the economy being the way it is.

But you recognize that people over the age of 65 make up almost 11% of Ontario's population and account for roughly 40% of hospital admissions, and the number of people over the age of 65 is expected to double in the next thirty years. By the year 2030 seniors will make up 23% of Ontario's population. The number of people over the age of 85, the most intensive users of health care resources, is growing even faster. The Canadian Medical Association found that in 1987 seniors made up only 10% of the population but accounted for 40% of health expenditures. I hope that this will be the next shoe that drops, that there will be a provision for caring for those people who are chronically ill.

If you've ever had the experience of trying to get someone into a chronic care facility, more often than not, because of the overcrowdedness, a chronic care facility that's often suggested by the social worker at the hospital is one which is really inappropriate for that person's needs.

I know that personally because I had a constituent whom they suggested be sent to, I think, St John's chronic hospital, which was a place where you had to get out of bed so they could make it in the morning. This person was dying of cancer. She was terminal and she was not able to get out of the bed at all. Having sent that person to that particular chronic facility would have been an absolute travesty.

I'm looking forward to the finalization or the further carrying out of this in terms of chronic care, because I think that's the next step in terms of the aging process.

Mr Tilson: I wish to make a few comments today on the second reading of this bill, which is to amend certain acts concerning long-term care. I think that long-term care, as I indicated in my response to the member for Brampton South, is certainly an issue that concerns all of us. We've been waiting for this government to introduce legislation since first it came into power.

The minister has just made some comments to the member for Brampton South on some of the comments that have been raised by the members of the opposition, in particular that those comments really have nothing to do with this particular piece of legislation. She's right, she's absolutely right that some of the comments that are being raised on this side of the House don't have anything to do with this piece of legislation. But it's for that very reason that they're being raised, that these are issues of very grave concern to the people of Ontario. I guess the question we're asking is, why aren't they being dealt with in this legislation?

The minister shrugs her shoulders and says, "I suppose they'll be dealt with in the public hearings," and we'll be looking forward to further development on that. But with respect to some of the concerns that we on this side have, of course one of them has been that we really don't know the details of the new funding arrangements. Perhaps that will be revealed as time goes on in the public hearings, but at this stage we don't know what that means.

Long-term care applies to a whole slew of things. It deals with rehabilitation hospitals, chronic care and some of the issues that have been raised in social services recently. I realize the issue of sheltered workshops isn't within this minister's portfolio, but it is an issue of grave concern to the people of Ontario and people on this side. The chronic care role study is due now and we're waiting for the minister to deal with that issue as time progress, because at this stage she hasn't done that.

With respect to the slashing of the social services budget -- and again I know the minister will say that has nothing to do with this bill, but it does; it has to do with long-term care. I would like to comment very briefly on a subject that has to do with that, and that is with respect to the cutting of the social services budget. Most of the cuts recently from the social services budget will affect people who receive assistance as part of the ministry's commitment to keeping the elderly and the handicapped out of institutions and in the community. That is a concern.

The support, particularly for the mentally retarded and the post-21-age mentally retarded, has always been a need, and it appears that with this government's philosophy, that is not going to continue; hence the fear of the phasing out of the sheltered workshop issue.

There has been some reference to that, particularly with the rally that went on in Queen's Park several weeks ago, back in the latter part of November. There was a rally that the Ontario Association for Community Living conducted. They held a media conference, they had a rally dealing with some of the concerns with the policies of the Minister of Community and Social Services and specifically the cutbacks that are being undertaken by that particular ministry.

This lobby was planned in response to a number of cuts in programs for persons with developmental disabilities, and they continue to remain concerned. They believe that the cuts will have a devastating impact on the provisions of supports to people with developmental disabilities.

One of the issues that surfaced in my riding and is surfacing all around this province is the Ontario government phasing out of sheltered workshops. I have been contacted by at least one constituent in this regard, and I understand that the workshop in Collingwood has already been eliminated.

I have a constituent who is very concerned. She has a 21-year-old son who at present works in The Joinery in Orangeville. This workshop provides shelter workers with a sense of self-worth and purpose in their lives, and there don't appear, with the phasing out of these workshops, to be any alternatives in place with respect to the future of these disabled adults.

I guess the government has spoken. They're bringing in another plan, but we have yet to hear what that is. So again, we don't hear in this bill, Bill 101, any reference to where the rehabilitation hospitals and chronic care facilities are fitting into the long-term care strategy.

One of the specific areas that gives me concern when you're talking about long-term care -- and I think the subject of long-term care we generally speak of is the concern with the elderly -- but there is one subject this bill does not deal with, and that is people who have certain diseases. I really question what we're going to do, because there seems to be a philosophy that they should be cared for more at home. In other words, get them out of the hospitals because they simply don't have the funding. It's a change of philosophy that probably started with the Liberals and is continuing with this government.

One of the topics that I can speak about with some authority and that I don't believe this government is addressing specifically with its long-term care philosophy is the subject of the disease ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. That is a disease that hits people of all ages. It generally happens to people of middle age.

1640

My father sustained that disease recently and passed away a year ago. I can tell you, I can see at first hand that he was lucky. Because he was at the age of 88 he was able to be put in a nursing home and cared for. But if you're middle-aged or if you're young or if you're a teenager -- and there are situations where people have sustained that disease at that early age -- where are you going to go? Who's going to look after you?

If they're looked after at home, I can tell you that the hardships, not only of that individual who has that disease but the hardships on the family, are rather devastating. This bill does not address that subject, nor does there appear to be any legislation in the foreground that this government is dealing with to deal with that specific disease.

This disease, which is also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, which is named after the baseball player Lou Gehrig, did kill Lou Gehrig. He was of course one of the greatest baseball players of all time, and he died at the height of his career. It also killed a number of other well-known individuals: David Niven, the actor, and several others.

If some of you don't know what that disease is, it's a disease of the motor neurons and the spinal cord and lower brain which control the voluntary muscles throughout the body. When these motor neurons die as a result of ALS, the ability of the brain to control muscle movement is lost.

The groups of muscles affected and the order in which they are affected vary from one person to another. For some people with ALS, symptoms begin with the muscles for swallowing and the tongue. For many others, muscles in the hands, wrists, shoulders and ankles tend to weaken first. In other words, the patients lose complete control of the muscles of their body at the end of the disease, and it starts in various degrees. They have trouble swallowing; they have trouble moving their hands; they have trouble speaking. I can tell you, in the latter stages of my father's disease I could barely understand what he was saying. Inside they are perfectly competent, but this disease is devastating.

I had a call several weeks ago from someone in my riding of Dufferin-Peel, where a woman -- I think it was a woman in her 60s -- had received this disease, and they didn't know what to do. They didn't know what to do with her. Her daughter had multiple sclerosis. I can tell you the effect on the family. If you're keeping people at home with these types of diseases, it's devastating to them. There's the strain on their own health and there's the strain on the family's finances. This legislation does not deal with this subject.

This disease of ALS does not affect the mind, as indicated. A person with ALS certainly remains sharp and in full possession of the senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. Bladder and bowel muscles are generally not affected by ALS, although I can tell you, it certainly affected my father. When he was in the nursing home he needed two nurses to assist him to get from the bed to a wheelchair to the bathroom. The dignity that's taken away from someone who receives this disease is rather shattering.

If you're not old and you're not in a nursing home, the members of the family are going to have to look after you. I can tell you, they don't know where to turn next. So it's a concern that this legislation has not dealt with that.

ALS seldom causes pain, although some people do have secondary discomfort from lengthy sitting or lying down, and certainly, my father did sustain that difficulty.

The cause of ALS is not known, although there are certainly several theories that are being researched, nor is there a cure for this disease. There is not a cure or a means of prevention. Once you sustain this disease, gradually you lose more and more control of your body, and ultimately you have to rely on members of your family and friends to care for you, because there are no long-term care services available to help these people unless you're in certain categories such as old age, in which case you can be put in a nursing home to receive full nursing care.

The early symptoms of ALS can be rather vague. They include tripping, dropping things, slurred or thick speech and muscle cramping or twitching. Some people with these early symptoms may assume they are normal changes of aging. I know my father in his 80s started to trip and he said, "I'm getting old." Well, he wasn't getting old. He had this disease and he was falling, and it gradually got worse, so that he was finally confined to a wheelchair and a bed. If it had happened to him at any earlier age, with the long-term care policies that we have in the province of Ontario, probably he would not be cared for properly and members of his family and their resources would be relied on to assist in the rather monumental task of his care.

Weakness of the breathing muscles develops slowly over months or years and is experienced as a decrease in energy. Death is almost due to a severe weakness of breathing muscles and a resulting subtle loss of consciousness. Eventually, and I'm speaking from a personal experience, which is difficult for me to do, the next stage for my father was to have a tube inserted in his mouth to be fed. Again, if he had been in his home, the long-term care simply would not have been available.

This disease is not a rare disease. It affects about six to seven people out of every 100,000. Most people who get ALS, as indicated, are between the ages of 50 and 75, although there have been cases of teenagers receiving this disease. Of course my father, who was in his later years, in his 80s, sustained it at that time, although I suspect that he had it for a period of five to 10 years.

ALS seems to attack men slightly more than women. In approximately 5% of cases of ALS there is a hereditary pattern, although that can't be proven as well, and about 95% of cases are sporadic ALS. Anyone, anywhere, can be affected.

Some of the words that I'm referring to are in a pamphlet that's put out by the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Society of Ontario and is called An Overview for People with ALS, and I'd recommend anyone who is interested in this disease to obtain this booklet, which can be obtained through the ALS Society of Ontario or I'd be pleased to arrange for copies through my office, because I think it's something that more of us need to learn more about.

I could go on considerably with this disease, because, as I say, it is not being properly dealt with in the long-term care policies of this government.

People with ALS are generally cheerful, and it's amazing what they put up with, considering what they're going through. This has a devastating effect, nevertheless, on members of their families, and, as I indicated, it consumes their financial and emotional resources while they attempt to deal with advancing disability and the prospect of death.

So I hope that someone over there in the Ministry of Health and someone over there in the government will listen to some of the concerns that I've said and I know others in the ALS society have put forward, because this is a special group of people who need assistance in long-term care, and not only the people who have sustained the disease but members of their family.

I guess the other issue that was raised by the member for Brampton South on this subject was the increasing cost and where the seniors of this province are going to find the funds to do that when they're on restricted budgets. The facts have now come out that over 33,000 seniors will face higher nursing home fees of up to $330 a month under a plan to overhaul Ontario's long-term health care policy.

1650

Obviously, the private care people, the public care people are concerned with how they're going to continue to operate their institutions. The government's plans call for an $11-a-day fee hike for most residents of nursing homes and homes for the aged. This, we are told, will generate $150 million a year for the province, notwithstanding, of course, as I indicated, the wild spending that's going on in the Ministry of Housing and other areas of this government. So it's rather contradictory.

This bill was introduced November 26 and we assume, and I believe, it's going out to hearings. That will be fine, but it's very difficult, of course, for groups to really realize what this legislation is doing and what isn't in this legislation. I think once they realize that, there are going to be a lot of grave concerns on this subject.

This government, as I indicated, applied an able-to-afford-it principle to other provincial services in legislation such as rent control, licences, hydro, those types of things. Hopefully, they would reverse this policy of a lack of emphasis in assisting our senior citizens. This government knows it won't be able to come near to helping the increasing costs of seniors on fixed incomes with this able-to-afford-it policy.

There have been several letters that were put forward in the Toronto Star just recently on this subject of long-term care -- most of you have read them -- by such people as the Senior Care of North York, Friends of the Family Ltd in Toronto and the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors in Woodbridge. Some of those letters expressed a real concern as to where this government is going on the policy of long-term care.

Specifically, Mr Scheinert of Senior Care in North York states, "What this province must have is a system of long-term care rationally organized, responsibly controlled, equitably funded and accountable, fairly standardized, and equally accessible." I question, with due respect, whether this legislation or the other lack of long-term care philosophies that have not been put in this legislation meet that requirement.

Gayle Arthur, who is the president of Friends of the Family Ltd, put another letter in this Toronto Star article of December 5 and said:

"As an active member and director of the board of the Ontario Home Health Care Providers' Association, I can say that Health Minister Frances Lankin's decommercialization of our industry will result in my agency laying off approximately 150 staff.

"As well, over 250 clients will lose their home support worker, many of whom have established long-term relationships.

"What is incomprehensible to me is that approximately 6,500 of the 20,000 jobs in our industry, mostly filled by women, could be sacrificed to an ideology that is most inappropriate to our times."

Ms Culshaw of Barrie indicated as well, commenting on the report that came out, that "roughly 46,000 Ontario seniors will pay $11 more a day for care in nursing homes and homes for the aged. This is $4,015 more per year." Muriel Culshaw asks, "Where, may I ask, does Bob Rae think that the majority of seniors in these homes are going to find this kind of money?" It's a legitimate question: $4,015 more per year, where are they going to find that kind of money?

Here's an interesting comment. I don't know whether I necessarily support it, but it's an interesting comment that she does make: "I suggest creation of a seniors' union. It seems to me that unions are the one thing that Rae respects and pays attention to." Of course, with what we've seen with Bill 80, we question whether he even respects that. But she says, "If there are any seniors out there with union experience who would be willing to set one up, I would be first in line with my union dues, and I'm sure there would be many more behind me."

Obviously these people are being frustrated when they resort to tactics such as that, but it does show a genuine frustration of particularly the seniors in our province as to where they're going to find the funds to simply survive.

Finally, a non-profit organization called the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors commented that:

"The NDP government expects to generate $150 million in additional funds through a plan calling for a flat rate fee of $37 per day for residents in long-term care facilities. This threatens care levels, programs, building standards, staff positions and the ability of seniors to access the care that they need and desire. The government also says that it plans to 'freeze' the number of long-term care beds throughout Ontario. The number of beds in non-profit homes for the aged has been reduced by 2,500 since 1987."

There's a concern out there as to where long-term care is going, not only in the senior age bracket but in other age brackets, specifically with some of the mentally retarded organizations. I know this gets into another ministry, but it does deal with the subject of long-term care and of course the subject of some of these diseases that, to use this expression, fall through the cracks in the floor, and those who are not being properly dealt with and properly assisted by the policies of this government. I have indicated the specific example of ALS.

It's been a pleasure to address the House on the very important topic of long-term care, and I look forward to hearing some of the presentations that will be made in the public hearings.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

Mrs Sullivan: The member for Dufferin-Peel has spoken with some personal experience and poignancy about the situation in his family when his father was a patient with ALS. I think that experience points out that disability may arise in two ways: One, the disability that accompanies age, which may be a cognitive disability, or other disabilities accompanying age, including such diseases as Alzheimer's, and then there are other disabilities that result from a disease or illness or from congenital circumstances.

I think one of the things that Mr Tilson underlined was that with a disease such as ALS, while the patient may be older, the patient may be younger as well. We've seen recommendations from organizations such as PUSH, that is, Persons United for Self-Help in Ontario, as well as other advocacy organizations for the disabled which have really emphasized that the needs of disabled who are not senior citizens are significantly different, the needs for long-term care service provision, from those who are seniors. Their sociological needs, the needs for differences in the kind of stimulation in the social circumstances, the availability of independence in choice about service providers and so on are matters that must be considered in the implementation of a full program.

If I have sprung from the member for Dufferin-Peel's reference to one particular disease into what is a broader policy concern, I think that was the intention of the member in raising that particular circumstance.

The Deputy Speaker: Any other questions or comments? If not, the member for Dufferin-Peel, you have two minutes. No? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

1700

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): It's certainly a pleasure this afternoon to participate in this debate on such an important topic. I know in my duties in my riding in particular when I attend various town hall meetings and other community functions, people sometimes ask why so much attention is being paid to long-term care, to a variety of seniors' issues. I'm asked particularly, which I think is intriguing, why somebody of my age, a middle-aged person, is so keenly interested in these issues.

The answer I give, and the answer is very simple, is that we all have had or have parents, and we all have children we care for who we know are growing old, and of course we ourselves are growing older every day. As we have a society that has established itself as a caring society with the collective responsibility of caring for one another, and we're doing that through our contributions, through the taxes we pay, we understand that if we want to preserve a system that cares for our elderly people, we'd better make sure that it's reformed, that it works, that it's effective, that it's efficient and that above all it's a caring system.

That's why we all care about it. We're all very much interested in it. Because it is a tremendous cost and is going to be in the future such a greater proportion of our health care expenses, now we have the opportunity to get it right. I think that's what this legislation is about and why there's so much interest in it.

My mother is still alive and last year had a severe illness that made it necessary that she be hospitalized. After that, on the road to recovery, it was necessary that she receive home care and also have a homemaker come into her place so that she could manage. We are really starting to see the benefits of such a system where before, after suffering severe illness, if there wasn't family right around or friends who were able to take care of that, elderly people basically had to stay in a chronic care bed in a hospital.

We've really understood over the years that that's an inappropriate use of the health care system. That's not only inappropriate for the patients who, if ambulatory and able to take care of themselves, really should be in their own home, but it's an inappropriate expense. We've understood that now because we're entering an era where a government can no longer afford any inappropriate expenses. We have to do better with what we have.

We really must address this issue now, as I alluded to before, because the people of my age, the so-called baby-boomers who right now make up the majority of our population, are of course, as I've mentioned, growing older every day. As we start to hit those senior years we will become, if we do not have a sustainable system, a tremendous burden on the generation or two after us.

It's very important that right now, particularly the people of my generation, we basically get our act in order to make sure that we have programs in place and a system in place to make sure we can carry ourselves through a system that is viable, that is efficient, that is cost-effective and above all that is caring.

In my riding of Timiskaming, we are already starting to see the demographics that will be in the rest of Ontario in the next few years. In fact, by the year 2009 we will have over 25% of our population over the age of 65 years. Areas such as mine, Timiskaming, would be ideal areas, I would say to the minister, to conduct pilot studies. As I said, we have the sort of demographic percentages right now. They'd be ideal areas to do pilot projects in, and in the past some pilots have been done there.

Over the last five years, we have been able to bring in and accentuate programs that basically try to keep people independent. Both home care and the integrated homemaker program really are tools to free people and to empower people to be in their homes, to be independent.

I guess if you look back at the culture of this province over the last 100 years, basically what we wanted to do when we ran into any sort of class of human problem was that our answer was to institutionalize such people. We institutionalized our seniors, we institutionalized our disabled and we institutionalized our mentally challenged. That really was the answer in our culture. We basically shut away our problem. We felt it was easier to deal with those particular challenges in institutions, but that day is now over. We've recognized the error of those ways.

What we want to do now is make sure people are as independent as possible. But to do that we have to make sure the services are there. Ironically, well-produced and delivered services such as that can become very cost-effective. Not only is it the most beneficial way to service people in society, but it can be the most cost-effective way of providing services and spending the taxpayers' money. It's very important.

I've seen in my area of Timiskaming, where we have midsized towns and a lot of rural areas, a home care system that is really starting to keep people independent. People who live in the countryside, who don't live in towns or big cities, find it particularly difficult if they happen to still be in a home -- maybe a larger type of farmhouse -- and just maybe with a bit of help clearing snow on the walks or some of the ice on the roof that poses a danger, and some heavy house cleaning in the home itself, can really manage a life of independence. That is very important.

What we're talking about today, though, is caring in a more intense way for elderly people. I think what's very important is that the choice is there, that as we make sure that we keep people as independent as possible, we also should make sure that from independence there are many steps along the way to, say, people going to a nursing home. It's very important that we provide those steps along the way, and through providing those steps we are providing choice for our elderly.

I've seen so many examples in my travels, I think some very good examples, of some of the choices that I think we need to be concentrating on more. Many times seniors will find that after the duties of keeping a home are becoming maybe just a bit much, even with the help and intervention of homemakers, there's an incremental step of residential care that can be very effective. I've seen many residential care apartments throughout Ontario where seniors who are perfectly ambulatory and can take care of themselves move into an apartment in a building.

In this building you have nursing care. You're moving into a new community. You have a community of seniors who care for each other. They are there for each other. As I said before, there's nursing care there. One of the highlights of the day is that usually there's a communal noon meal that takes place in a dining room on the ground floor of the building, but for other meals, breakfast and supper, people take care of themselves in their own apartments. They're going out to the grocery stores. They're taking care of their own needs for the rest of the day.

There's a great sense of community there. There's a great sense of support. People are there for them, and not necessarily just people who are care givers, but also their peers, because they can come together from their homes throughout the different towns and throughout the countryside to form a new community, a community of common interest, of people who share the same concerns and have the same needs. With nursing services on staff to help with medications and other therapeutic needs, this can become a community to live in, in a very viable way, for many years.

I think we have to ensure that all these incremental steps are there for our elderly to be able to make those choices, because if we can allow the elderly to make those choices, then we will empower these people to live the most fulfilling lives they can. I think that's the most important thing we can do.

One of the issues we have in my riding and throughout Ontario -- and primarily this is what this bill speaks of -- is really the different types of nursing home care, once seniors are ready for that, available in Ontario. Historically, we have had homes for the aged that have evolved from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. These have been charity-based and charity-run or run by the municipalities throughout Ontario. They have been funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

1710

The other stream of nursing home care is the private nursing homes that are funded by the Ministry of Health. Over the years there has been a great disparity in how those operations are funded, and this has been one of the biggest complaints of privately owned nursing homes in Ontario, that the per diem fees that are sent to these institutions from the various ministries are so different that it really puts them on uneven ground. Private nursing homes especially, which have on average much lower per diems than the homes for the aged, have been crying foul for years. I hope that in this legislation we will be able to redress some of these inequities. I think that's important.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the existing act, where it sits today and what some of the changes will bring. Part of the problem with this is that we have various acts that regulate this whole area. I think through this act we could start to bring some fairness and some equity to the whole system.

There are basically five major policy goals in this legislation. The first one really is to establish, as I've just said, a fair funding scheme for nursing homes and the charitable homes for the aged and municipal homes for the aged, based on levels of care required by residents and guaranteeing non-profit delivery of the nursing care and program components that are funded by the province. In this bill, these changes will take effect in the spring of 1993.

The second area is to improve the accountability to residents, their families, workers and the government in terms of financial management, quality assurance and service provision.

The third area is to establish a consistent resident payment policy as described in the NDP October 1991 Redirection document, which has been widely circulated. Currently, some residents pay for their nursing and personal care, and their assets and income are used to calculate the fees they pay. Under the new policy, residents will be asked to contribute to their accommodation costs only, room and board. The residents will no longer pay for nursing and personal care, and assets will no longer be considered in the calculations of residents' fees. I believe this is a good thing.

I know when I visit the seniors' homes in my area one of the complaints that many of the seniors bring to my attention is the unfairness, as they see it, that their assets are accounted for when their contribution to their care is calculated. People who have worked very hard in life and have saved their money and have got it in the bank and other investments to take care of their retirement and find themselves in need of more intensive care feel that they are penalized because now that they have to be institutionalized, the fact that they were frugal and worked hard and have those savings in a sense costs them, and they certainly have to pay a lot more. They will say that maybe people who spent their money as they went and hadn't planned for the future will possibly get a free ride from government. There's really been a sense of unfairness there, that depending on how you decided to live and your lifestyle and how frugal you were, they penalized you when the need for institutionalization came on the scene. So I think this is a good thing.

Another important point in this legislation is that no one will be refused care because of the inability to pay. Those who have unlimited ability to pay, based on an income test, will pay an affordable, reduced rate. Again this speaks to fairness.

Four, the principle will be to allow eligibility and admission decisions to be made by a placement coordinator, who will simplify and streamline access to these facilities.

The fifth main principle and policy goal of this legislation is to make direct payments to adults with disabilities so that they can purchase and manage their own services. This goal addresses the central importance to consumers of maximizing dignity, independence and control over their lives. I fully agree with that. I think this is one of the areas that seniors fear the most as we grow older: that somehow we lose our independence; that now, because of infirmities or other challenges that we have to our physical or mental being, we no longer have the ability to manage for ourselves and that somebody else is starting to take over our life and that we don't have that decision-making power. I think this idea of directing payments to those people with disabilities basically empowers those people to make their own decisions, and I think that's very important and something that needs to be supported by all members of this House.

Right now I'd like to talk a little bit about resident payment policy. Currently, 46,000 Ontario seniors pay $26 per day; 13,000 pay up to $100 per day. That's the current situation, and I think it speaks very well to the inequities I have described. Under the new system, 13,000 people now paying that $100 per day will pay $37. Of the 46,000 currently paying the $26 per day, roughly half will now pay $37 per day; one quarter, 11,500, will pay between $26 and $37 per day; and a quarter, another 11,500, will pay between zero and $26 a day due to low income. This sort of graduated scale, if you will, of fees really brings a sense of fairness to the system.

The plan calls for an $11-a-day hike for most residents of nursing homes and homes for the aged. The fee hike is going to generate $150 million a year for the province, and we can only hope that money is going to be turned back into health care provision for seniors. The proposal will apply to both private and publicly run nursing homes in the province. Residents paying $37 per day will be paying $13,505 per year.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the Nursing Homes Act, one of the acts that is in force at the moment and where this legislation is going to start to streamline the whole system. In the Nursing Homes Act today, "nursing home" is a home of residents and must be operated to reflect that. The patients' rights are spelled out in the act -- we made some amendments to that act a few years ago -- and residents' councils may be formed. A written contract is required for every admission, including a statement of rights, complaints information, any agreement made for extra services and costs, name of resident's representative and provision for an annual review.

The Ministry of Health licenses nursing homes in Ontario and fixes a total bed capacity per institution. The minister must announce the desired balance between non-profit and for-profit homes. The licence is for 12 months and it's not transferable, and the licence is renewable only after a public notice. The licence may be revoked by the minister for cause.

The Nursing Homes Review Board can receive appeals re licences, appealable to the Divisional Court. If a licence is revoked, residents can be transferred or the minister may occupy it and operate it on behalf of the ministry. Homes are required to have an extended care unit as described in the regulations, and the ministry may have a service agreement with the home.

The regulations prescribe the maximum amount the home can charge for services to residents, and residents must receive quarterly statements of residents' money held by the home and all charges for services. Homes are required to submit annual financial statements to the ministry, and regulations are in effect today that specify mechanisms for provincial payments, services for which charges can be made and the maximum amount of the charge.

Staff duties, in-service training, financial records, inspectors' duties, copayment amounts under the Health Insurance Act, percentage of bed capacity for extended care, standard private and semi-private and the percentage capacity for intermediate nursing care: All these are specified, as are assessment and classification of residents, services, care, facilities and amenities the home must provide in the nursing homes.

In the new provisions, the appeal board becomes the Health Services Appeal Board and all nursing homes must have a service agreement with the Ministry of Health to operate. Residents can only enter the home through a designated placement coordinator who will authorize admissions. The coordinator will be determined by the minister. The eligibility criteria for entry are determined by regulation. A proposed resident may appeal the placement coordinator's assessment of eligibility to the appeal board. This follows with right of appeal to Divisional Court.

1720

Homes cannot charge under this new legislation under designated limits for various services set out in the regulations. Certain charges will be prohibited. Homes must provide ongoing assessment of the residents' requirements, a plan of care and plan-of-care revisions, a quality assurance plan, notification to residents of access to the plan of care, a complaints procedure and any other matter prescribed by regulation, and must post notices in the home showing all financial statements prescribed by regulations.

I've heard many of my colleagues speak on this, and one of the concerns they do have is that much of the meat, if you will, of this legislation is reserved for regulations, and that is, regulations are basically subsets of legislation that come afterwards, after the bill is passed, after the bill leaves the chamber, and regulations are basically made behind closed doors by cabinet, after recommendations by ministry officials.

I know many of my colleagues are very concerned as to the number of regulations that will be attached to this particular legislation, regulations that, as I'm going to read here, are extremely important, that really will have a great influence as to the outcome and the delivery of these services and yet are really not debatable here because they will not be passed by this Legislature.

These regulations will be prescribing, for instance, definitions of nursing care; definitions for accommodation -- basic accommodation, preferred accommodation, short-stay accommodation; the required types of accommodation, care, services, programs and goods to be offered to residents; the required bed capacities to be set aside for residents requiring certain care and services and programs and goods; applications to placement coordinators re the eligibility for entry and the eligibility criteria -- all of these are not in the bill and will be decided at a later date; that short-stay accommodation may be required in requirements for that eligibility; the maximum amounts that may be charged for particular classes or levels of care, services, programs and goods; again, requirements for quality assurance plans and plans of care, including revision, implementation and monitoring; the filing requirements for financial reports to the ministry and for notices that must be posted; prescribing extraordinary events for which the ministry may make extraordinary payments.

All of these requirements will be set out in regulation. They will not be set out in this legislation and therefore we have the inability right now to have any effect on their outcome.

I'd like to talk for a minute on the Charitable Institutions Act. This is another act, again, that takes care of certain class of institutions that care for the elderly. Existing now we have a program funded by Comsoc for 80% of the operating expenses. They provide extended care services and provide them under OHIP. The books and records are open for inspection by the provincial supervisor, and capital programs require prior approval of the minister.

Under the new provisions, approval to operate as a home for the aged requires prior approval by the minister. It cannot operate as a home for the aged without a service agreement with the ministry. An 80% operating funding is going to be replaced with a new formula to be established, again, by regulation. There is no payment without a service agreement and payments can be reduced if the service agreement is breached. Extraordinary payments from the ministry are allowed for extraordinary events -- again, though, if prescribed by regulation.

Payments by residents are going to be controlled to a maximum amount established again in regulations for basic or preferred accommodation and for care, services, programs or goods and supplies. Residents can only enter the home through the designated placement coordinator, who authorizes admissions, and the eligibility criteria for entry are determined by regulation, again. The proposed resident may appeal the placement coordinator's assessment of that eligibility. This follows with the right to appeal, again, to the Divisional Court.

Homes must provide ongoing assessment of the residents' requirements, a plan of care and plan-of-care revisions, a quality assurance plan, notification to residents of service agreement requirements, notification to residents of access to the plan of care, a complaints procedure and any other matters prescribed, again, by regulation, and must post notices in the home showing all financial statements required by regulation.

Regulations will also prescribe required types of accommodation, care and services, programs and goods to be offered to their residents; requirements governing assessment and classification of residents; required bed capacities to be set aside for residents requiring certain care, services, programs, goods; maximum amounts that may be charged for particular classes or levels of care and, again, services, programs and goods; that short-stay accommodation may be required in a facility; the financial systems to reconcile funding mechanisms; methods of recovering excessive payments; provisions for service agreements; and filing requirements for the ministry financial statement reports. All this will be laid out in regulations.

Just before I close, I'd like to talk a little bit about the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act. Right now in the existing legislation this act applies to people over 60 years old or, if under 60, under special circumstances -- for instance, a disability -- where the person requires long-term maintenance and care.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services pays municipalities monthly grants determined by regulation for the operation and maintenance of these homes, and persons receiving residential services provided by the municipality may be transferred to the home at any time.

Books and records have to be open for inspection by director or provincial supervisor at any time. Residents, again, are responsible for costs of all or part of maintenance, as prescribed by regulation. The board may apportion operating costs among municipalities served, and may provide for working capital or reserve.

In this act, the board may borrow for operating purposes capital costs and municipal obligation, but the minister may defray by regulation. Capital expenditures require prior approval by the minister, and under this act Comsoc contributes a maximum of 50% of capital.

Extended care services are covered under OHIP, and eligibility for admission and discharge is determined by regulation. Service agreements are also required. There's a very similar sort of regulatory body to that, as it exists today.

Under the new provisions, residents can only enter a home through a designated placement coordinator, who will authorize admissions. The coordinator will be determined by the minister, the eligibility criteria for entry will be determined by regulation, and the proposed resident may appeal the placement coordinator's assessment of eligibility to the Appeal Board. This follows with the right, again, of appeal to Divisional Court.

A service agreement is required between municipalities and the ministry, and this is defined by regulation. Contraventions of the service agreement result in refusal of authorization for resident placement, and the minister has the discretion to lower grants.

The home must provide ongoing assessment of the residents' requirements, a plan of care and plan-of-care revisions, a quality assurance plan, notification to residents of service agreement requirements, notification to residents of access to the plan of care, a complaints procedure and any other matters prescribed by regulation, and must post notices in the home showing all financial statements required by regulation.

What we have in this act is a lot more information coming to the resident. Many times in my riding when I visit homes for the aged and nursing homes many residents basically feel they are left out in the dark as far as what the operation of the home is, and again, I think this part of the legislation, even though it's in regulation and we would rather have a little more direct say on that through debate in this Legislature, still sets forward that all this information must be posted so that the residents and the residents' families have a sense of how the home is operating and what the financial health and state of that operation is. In this legislation, this is set out. I think more information is going to alleviate many of the fears the seniors have when they're coming into what are for them strange places but further on down the road become homes where they develop friendships and live out their lives.

I'm pleased to have spoken on this very important piece of legislation, and I wish the minister well in its implementation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions or comments? Seeing none, further debate.

1730

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I'm very pleased to be given an opportunity to comment on the long-awaited announcement on long-term care. I've had occasion to listen to the debate in the House, but perhaps more importantly, in my nearly eight years in this Legislature I have had occasion to hear pronouncement after pronouncement, promise after promise, and through three elections have seen every political party try to involve itself with promises in this issue.

I guess I'm a little bit concerned when we hear about the concerns expressed by the official opposition with the structure and the infrastructure, when in fact in their five years they had an opportunity to merge the responsibilities for seniors' care between the two ministries of Community and Social Services and Health, and after promising -- I remember a conversation I had with Bob Nixon. All the time he was in opposition he swore that was the necessary thing; he was going to do it. After five years -- and him being the Treasurer, of all people -- he threw up his hands, saying, "There's really not much I could do to reconcile that."

At the outset I want to suggest that one of the things that's missing in this whole approach is very much the need to reconcile the fact that we have two ministries still dealing with the chronic care needs, generally, of Ontario residents. Nowhere do we see this being simplified as a line item with direct responsibility to one minister. This will become inequitable and it will also become very expensive. I must say that for the government to fail to tackle that bureaucratic monster before it proceeds with implementation is, I think, putting the cart before the horse.

I want to put a couple of things in perspective here. First of all, let's talk about long-term care for a moment. Long-term care was a concept that was developed in the early 1960s and grew with the planning of social planners in the 1970s and 1980s to develop a vision of deinstitutionalization. In that more prosperous period of several decades, it was a properly ordered, logical and appropriate way of planning for future care for our seniors. We could afford it in those days.

What I'm concerned about is the fact that we are still marketing or selling the concept of deinstitutionalization and long-term care to the public, but exactly how we're going to do it has dramatically changed in this province. We as legislators have an obligation to be honest and straightforward with the public about just how this new gift from government is actually going to work, how it's going to impact on their lives and what it is going to mean for them in terms of changes in their tax base.

I believe that, not a surprise to anyone, we have a government today in Ontario which, by its previous policy pronouncements affecting seniors over the last two years, clearly would indicate that a lot of questions have to be answered before the public can buy, from this government, that it is actually helping them with this model for long-term care. This is the government that, as we know, instituted huge increases for ambulance services for level 1 transfers of seniors -- not emergency transfers, just normal transfers; huge increases that seniors have had to pay.

We've seen the largest single cuts to chronic care hospitals, in terms of their beds and their funding, in this province's history, all under the guise and justification that we're going to put that money into long-term care. In fact, we haven't really seen the true transfer of those dollars to long-term care. We've seen a seniors' property tax grant gutted and changed. Tonight or tomorrow we'll be debating this tax, and I intend to comment on behalf of my constituents on just how bad a deal seniors are getting by this government's changes to the seniors' property tax grant. In fact, it's very clear, on the basis of the numbers, that a couple can have welfare kick in and have more income than a senior who will have his or her property tax grant reduced and removed.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): And replaced with a credit.

Mr Jackson: The member talks about replacement with a credit. You must be reading my speech, because I was getting to the other seniors' credits that have been reduced by your government. The member himself who spoke out, the Minister of Natural Resources, has with one fell swoop of the pen removed seniors' park passes in this province and some of the privileges that our seniors had in terms of enjoying this province's natural parks. That minister did it and he's justifying it and he will be held accountable for his ministry's contribution to reducing access to services.

Market value assessment: clearly an issue where seniors are going to feel a devastating impact. Hydro rates increased; the Ontario drug benefits reductions, massive reductions. Drugs like Persantine with no known replacement or alternative drug: It's going to cost the senior $180 to $200. One application for a drug for a senior can be greater than the rent geared to income in a seniors' residence. Where's the equity in that? Of course, for any seniors who wish to travel abroad, that is severely curtailed by virtue of the government removing, in the large, the benefits they've enjoyed in this province ever since our health system was developed and devised.

It is in this context that we have seen a government, without any difficulty whatsoever, make it abundantly clear to seniors in this province where they stand in terms of this government's priorities for funding, priorities for protection and priorities for ensuring their quality of life in those twilight years when seniors deserve to be treated with respect.

They have made contributions to this society in Ontario, always paying taxes and not always having the benefit of OHIP and drug plans and dental plans that my generation has benefited from immensely. Our parents did not have those privileges. They built this province. So now that they are the vulnerable, they deserve some of that back.

Why I'm angry about the property tax grant cuts is because they were tied to excessively high school board taxes. Those are still running out of control and you have done nothing to protect seniors. So the genesis of the seniors' property tax grant was to insulate seniors and recognize their many years of paying school board taxes, not to punish them further by paying additional taxes in this area. Yet this government's going to remove it.

I want to move to the concerns that are being expressed about this long-term care model. It's been said that this model produces three outcomes. The first outcome is that it will be an expensive additional charge for extra-billing to seniors in Ontario, by the minister's own admission, the co-payment, which is the nice, palatable word that is used to confuse the public; a co-payment is nothing more than additional billing and additional charges which the government is now imposing. The second --

Hon Mr Wildman: It was the Tory government that came up with that.

Mr Jackson: Yes, but I remind the minister opposite that in two years his government has increased co-payments across the board in greater numbers than any other single government in its term of office in the history of this province. The minister knows that and the minister should be ashamed of it. Two years, we have two more years to put up with your government. Can seniors really afford you? I doubt that.

The second achievement around this legislation will be its clear attack on private sector support services which have built the infrastructure for chronic care support in this province. The NDP is entitled to be against the private sector. That is part of their lexicon and their ideology, and God knows they're never going to change that. But what is frustrating to people in this province is that if we are to improve access, we have to get people investing in this sector, and we're not going to be able to expand it unless we get people investing in it, and government is not investing in it. It is not investing in the long-term care of its people. It is reducing access and reducing its capital investment in this infrastructure.

You have a choice. Do you provide less service by spending more tax dollars, or do you harness the financial resources of the private sector in this province, as it helped to build a fine day care system, as it helped to build ambulance services in this province when the government wasn't prepared to come forward and produce them, when it's still providing young offenders secure facility supports in this province? The private sector has gone out and risked that to build that infrastructure and this government would, by its policies, develop a program that would eliminate private nursing support systems and eliminate nursing home care as an integral part of the access of seniors to these services in this province.

We are talking of thousands and thousands of citizens in this province who are currently utilizing private sector support services for long-term care. This government would unnecessarily and inappropriately tamper and interfere with that.

1740

The other aspect is, it won't necessarily be expensive for seniors, for what limited disposable cash they have to pay as a copayment. It is also going to be increasingly more expensive for seniors who are receiving care in their home if the rules according to long-term care are such that they receive fewer insured services while staying at home and staying out of an institution, or if seniors end up in a nursing home they have no access to additional revenues that come from the property tax base if, say, they go into a home for the aged.

Again, I go back to my original comment. The government hasn't resolved this issue of a nursing home and a home for the aged coming from two different ministries, and that the amounts of subsidy that go into one system or the other vary because municipalities can now proceed to raise money. To further illustrate this point, under the current system a resident in a nursing home will pay approximately $27 of the $77 received by the nursing home from the government. Under the new system the resident is going to have to pay $37, subject of course to a means test. The $37 issue is only one part of this reform; the $37 is only the third part of the funding model of long-term care. That is the accommodation portion. The government has brought in a whole series of new rules governing one portion of long-term care, that being accommodation.

The other two parts of the model are personal and nursing care, and specialized, approved programs, such as programs for wandering Alzheimer patients, for dementia, for severe, frail, non-ambulatory elderly who are in some of Ontario's chronic care hospitals today.

These are the three components to long-term care, and yet this government has proceeded with legislation in this House and told us about only the accommodation component. On the other two components, this government has made no pronouncements, no announcements, no clear indication of who would be eligible or what the funding levels will be. They've only indicated that they do not like the private sector, and we certainly see there's no role for the private sector in participating in these activities.

We are being asked to support this legislation on the basis of faith. Now, in fairness, and it's on the record, this bill will go to committee for public hearings. On the one hand, I'm pleased. On the other hand, this legislation is two years late, unnecessarily. Also, the minister has already announced that some of her funding model programs are going to be in place for January 1. It's beyond me how the minister can make those assertions when in fact this whole subject and the legislation have to go out to committee hearings for public debate.

As I said earlier, the residents are now going to pay an additional $164 million, approximately. Since the government, in its initial statement, announced the $207-million commitment to infuse into long-term care in January 1993, we now see that most of the money that's going to be infused into the system is going to come from these copayments.

Under the personal and nursing care, the government has not stated what the facilities will receive for their nursing care. This is the most important part of the program. Yet it is absent from the minister's statement. What will this amount of money be on a per diem basis? Will the dollars announced be based on actual assets needed or only on the dollars available?

The minister knows that the fastest-growing group in our society is the 80-plus-year-olds. It's rising by 137% in the next 10 years. What financial arrangements has the government made for facilities to deal with the changing care needs, the more complex care needs of these aging, elderly people? Will there be a continuance of this government's persistence at shortfalling dollar commitments?

While the government has announced the outline for long-term care reform, it still has not identified who will receive the benefits in these facilities. They have made no statement on who will be eligible for what levels of service. I understand that the Alberta classification model review is about to be completed and that we should hear about that early in the new year, but the minister is proceeding to make funding decisions, and we're basically getting back to the old story of funding institutions and buildings and not funding people.

Currently, the municipal homes for the aged spend $115 per resident-day. The rumours persisting around the ministry are that this number will be reduced to $92 to $95 per resident-day. I'm talking about municipal homes for the aged here. How will the municipal homes make up this difference? Actually, they're run by municipalities. Will they have to cut their staffing? I doubt it. Will they have to cut their programs, or is the government going to continue the practice of having the municipalities pick up a greater share of the cost, which is what we're seeing a pattern of? If that's the case, here again you will have a nursing home on one side of the street in Ontario that's funded at one rate, without access to municipal tax revenue, and on the other side of the street you'll have a municipal home for the aged run by the municipality, funded through Comsoc, and that facility having access to tax revenues on your municipal tax bill.

It's obvious to anyone that, funding levels being different, which has been the case in Ontario, levels of care will be different, access to services will be different, and therefore it will be an inequitable situation. The minister herself has promised that she will correct this situation. We do not see in this model, or she has not come forward with the announcements, that she in fact has done anything to solve that problem. In fact, our fears are that the system will have still too much inequity. So if you're a senior, where would you want to go? Obviously, to the location where those services are assured to you and will not be tampered with in any way.

It's interesting that a nursing home will pay business and property taxes to the municipality, which will then, in turn, spend the money on the municipal home for the aged and deprive the very people in the nursing home of those additional services which the person in the home for the aged across the street will now benefit from. I say to you, that's a rotten system and it's been rotten for years, and nowhere do I clearly see this government correcting it at all.

There's a very clever onus here that we really have to take a hard look at. The minister's statement and supporting document state what we will be expecting from the institutional care providers. They go to great pains to make everyone sign a service agreement and live by it, or they could forfeit their right to operate. Much of this legislation has to do with the new rules the government has to control the functioning of these buildings and to control access to them.

Besides, the government chose not to announce what funding levels for the care are. It has only added to this confusion. How do we know there will be enough funding, especially after the Treasurer's recent budget, to know that the facilities can in fact do what the government wants them to do without knowing whether the dollars will flow?

There are only two ways to fund personal and nursing care under a resident classification system that will be implemented in this province. The first way will be to cost out the actual service that must be provided if the facility is to effectively meet the resident's assessed needs. That way you know what the real costs will be from day to day, and this information can be shared with the resident and his or her family.

The other method of costing this process is the one that I believe this government will implement. They will use it, I'm sure. That is to say: "Here is a block of money we have available. You make it work, but don't come asking for more money based on assessed needs."

I want to take the members of the House back to about six years ago, in minority government, which was the last time we had an opportunity to open up the Nursing Homes Act. At that time we were moving into the nursing home sector and making substantive amendments, but nowhere was there a recognition of the complex and changing needs of Alzheimer's patients who were locked into beds in nursing homes, dementia cases, a whole series of complexities in care delivery which the government refused to acknowledge.

1750

When I tabled the motion stating that residents had a right to have their assessed needs met, both the NDP and the Liberals voted against that Conservative amendment. What frightens me is that the minister now is using that language in the bill, but at no time have I seen her political party or her government, whether today or in opposition, make a clear and unequivocal commitment to the notion of having the assessed needs of a chronic care patient, a senior, met by the programs.

Every member of this House has sat down with constituents and discussed the difficulties and the pressures that families endure when a member of the family is suffering from Alzheimer's and there is no institutional location for that family member to go to. It is absolutely devastating for some families. We see the complete breakdown and destruction of those families.

For the government to make the promise in legislation but not give it life and reality in its actual funding implementation only creates a cruel and unnecessary contradiction when families present themselves to any member of this House and say, "I've read the legislation. It says my mother's assessed needs will be met," and then the minister has to give the response I believe she'll give: "We don't care how many people need the service. We're only funding this amount of service this year."

Will the minister be providing funding for personal and nursing care based on the first model as outlined or based on the second model? I hope during the committee hearings she'll make that abundantly clear or, as I find from her staff, as the Alberta classification model and other announcements come in January and February or earlier in the spring, that we will in fact get more clarity on that issue.

I think the minister has a responsibility to clarify the other elements of this model before she implements this legislation. Since she has refused to answer the question directly and since her staff in a recent briefing very clearly indicated they were unable to answer that question on behalf of the minister or the government, I'm hoping that the minister will consider that to many seniors, that is the worst uncertainty, and they need the matter resolved.

Part of that question flows from whether or not certain insured services will be dealt with equitably and fairly, whether a senior is receiving home care or care in a chronic care facility such as a home for the aged or a nursing home. I notice that six or seven different bills are up for amendments under this package of changes that are before the House.

What isn't in here is the Ontario health insurance plan. There are no amendments being discussed here. So what that tells us and tells care givers and seniors' advocates out there is that the government intends to continue to deal with the different levels of service under OHIP by regulation and fiat.

As I said earlier, seniors know where they stand with this government when they receive the news about the reductions in the Ontario drug benefit plan and reduction to access to OHIP services. The fact is that colostomy services, a wheelchair or something as basic as that will be funded by OHIP differently depending on your setting. Nowhere has the government made any statement that those levels of care and those personal costs -- that, again, citizens will be treated fairly and equitably.

You cannot say to people, "We will assist you to stay at home longer but, by the way, you have to pay for all of these additional services." You're encouraging people to fight each other to get into institutions so that these services will be paid for. Again, nowhere do we have any indication from this government. In the amendments that are before us, there has been a complete and absolute avoidance of the Ontario health insurance plan. I'm sure every member is aware of the differential treatment seniors get. Depending on where you're actually domiciled, where you actually live -- and I don't mean by geography; I mean which type of institution you're in -- you will be treated differently by OHIP.

Will the minister ensure through the proposed legislation as a matter of principle that all seniors will be treated equally? I want the minister to make that as a clear statement, and when she does her opening statements in the committee process, I would hope that she would review Hansard when she gets a moment and address that question.

I ask the minister to tell us if seniors who qualify for extended care but choose to stay in their home will receive those services equally. There's a real concern here that seniors who stay at home will continue to pay property taxes, which are going up, to pay for the home for the aged down the street which is getting an increased level of support from the local tax base.

If those seniors who stay at home are paying more taxes to only get a small increase in, say, home care, are they too going to have to pay for all these additional supports, whether it is a wheelchair ramp, whether it's the wheelchair itself, whether it's those other items that are covered by OHIP but may not be covered if you are resident in your home? This is a very big question and of concern to a lot of people, including members of the disabled community as well.

Since the government has now adopted the principle that seniors will pay more for their services in a facility and the cost they will pay is to go towards room and board, there's been no clear, unequivocal statement about the contribution and access to these other kinds of ancillary services for nursing and personal care services.

I have expressed concern about the impact this legislation is going to have on senior citizens in Ontario. I have expressed concern about how seniors have been treated over the last two years by this government, and we do not get a clear policy pronouncement. I recall in the two years we've had long-term care bounced from one minister who apparently couldn't handle the case load. It was transferred from Comsoc over to Health.

The minister responsible for seniors and the disabled and four other ministries is generally absent when it comes to dealing with this issue in matters in the House, in matters of debate, and is relegated basically to a cheerleader on the sidelines to give pep rallies to seniors that, "Don't feel badly, we're not really taking the services away from you that you think we are."

Seniors are not prepared to be patronized in this province. Seniors are saying in increasing numbers, "We have made our sacrifices in a lifetime," whether they fought in a war, whether they've raised a family and made the sacrifices to ensure their children were educated so that they could give back more to the society that gave them a home. These seniors are now saying, "It's time." It's time the government will listen to them and not create uncertainty about that future.

Seniors deserve at least the removal of that uncertainty, and on behalf of my colleagues in the Conservative Party, we have made sure we've addressed that most important point, that seniors deserve dignity and they should be treated with respect, and they will be if we're honest and straightforward and tell them how this legislation will impact them.

I apologize that my speech has raised more questions than answers, but that is clearly what one must do when one reads the legislation presented by the government to this House.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Did you mention the $10 a day?

Mr Jackson: Yes, I did, Leo. I want to thank my colleague Mr Jordan, who yielded the time to allow me to get these concerns on the record. Much of what I had to say today emanated from concerns that have come from his riding and from the seniors and I appreciate his yielding the time for me.

In conclusion, our party has serious concerns. The Progressive Conservatives believe you don't destroy the private sector. The Conservative Party believes you treat seniors with dignity and ensure that they are provided with the necessary services for dignity in their old age.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? Seeing none, further debate.

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): We have before us today a bill which has undergone some fairly dramatic changes in the last year, and certainly in the last two years since the idea of changes in long-term care were put forward by the former government.

During the last year there has been an enormous amount of work between the ministries of Citizenship, Health and Community and Social Services, and an enormous amount of consultation has occurred on this bill. Previous speakers before me have talked about the numbers of people who have come before them in all kinds of forums across every community. In total, some 70,000 people have had an opportunity to take a look at the package we have put out for consultation and have made recommendations on it.

I can tell you that in my own community a number of seniors' groups consulted with the long-term care facilitators. They were aided in that by a number of seniors' groups which acted as facilitators. All in all, there was a very broad and very thorough discussion of the changes we want to make and an idea of what people's needs really are.

I've sat here for a good part of the debate, in fact almost all of it, over the four days that it has occurred and I can tell you that for the most part I believe that opposition members raised some very legitimate and valid points about the bill, and demonstrated a concern that we all have for the care of seniors in Ontario and for the care of those who are challenged both developmentally and physically.

I can also tell you that there were some others who were strictly rhetorical and added very little in terms of contribution either as to good advice about how we could change the bill or good ideas about what else should be added. That was most unfortunate because I think second reading is the place where we can talk about the kinds of changes that we think would be helpful to the minister and try and see if we can get those incorporated both during public hearings and clause-by-clause.

Still others raised more questions than anything else, but I think that most of the people who raised those questions talked about technical matters versus the principle of the bill. I would argue that all members should be supporting the principles of the bill, because I think those principles are very sound and allow us a very good base to move forward in the future to ensure that we have community-based care and necessary levels of care for those who are in institutions in our province.

There has been a variety of opinions expressed during the second reading debate. In total, we have had some 18 speakers and we have debated this matter for more than 11.5 hours over four days. During that time, the minister has made it very clear to all of those who have spoken that we will indeed have public hearings on this debate. Those public hearings, I have no doubt, will be very well attended right across the province, and at that time people will make changes that can occur during clause-by-clause.

Given that I think a very full and complete debate has occurred on second reading of this bill over the last four days, and given that we will indeed have public hearings during the break, I would move that pursuant to standing order number 47, the question now be put.

The Acting Speaker: Miss Martel has moved that the question now be put.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think this is just another example of the government using the orders to achieve its own agenda and not giving the opposition an opportunity to speak on these bills. They're using this just to cut down debate.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Cousens: My rights as a member are being abrogated by this government once again.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Jordan: I think I have a point of privilege, Mr Speaker. I had promised the members of my riding that I would bring the concerns of the seniors in my riding, especially the seniors in private nursing homes, to the attention of the government.

Hon Mr Wildman: You gave up your time.

Mr Jordan: What do you mean, I gave up my time? Nobody told me that.

Hon Mr Wildman: Cam said you did.

Mr Jordan: No, I thought we sat until midnight.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I appreciate that members have concerns. We all have seniors in our families and seniors whom we know. We are on second reading. The table has provided me with the information, and upon reflection, I do agree that the question now be put.

Miss Martel has moved that the question now be put. Is it the pleasure of the House that Miss Martel's motion carry?

All those in favour of Miss Martel's motion, please say "aye."

All those opposed to Miss Martel's motion, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. A 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1805 to 1835.

The Acting Speaker: Would all members please take their seats.

Miss Martel has moved that the question now be put.

All those in favour of Miss Martel's motion please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Abel, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Rae, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward (Brantford), Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Miss Martel's motion please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Arnott, Bradley, Caplan, Carr, Conway, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Elston, Grandmaître, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Jordan, Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, McLean, Morin, O'Neil (Quinte), Poirier, Poole, Sorbara, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 55, the nays are 27. I declare Miss Martel's motion carried.

We shall now move to second reading. Ms Lankin has moved second reading of Bill 101, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long Term Care.

All those in favour of Ms Lankin's motion, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. A 30-minute bell.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): A five-minute bell.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Are you saying five?

The Acting Speaker: Order. Please silence the bells. Do we have unanimous consent for a five-minute bell? No. Call in the members.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Silence the bells, please. I have correspondence here from the office of the chief government whip to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. "Pursuant to standing order 28(g), I request that the vote on the motion by the Honourable Frances Lankin for second reading of Bill 101, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long Term Care, be deferred until immediately following routine proceedings on Wednesday, December 9, 1992." Signed by the Honourable Shirley Coppen, MPP.

The vote will therefore be deferred.

[Report continues in volume B]