Journal des débats 1987-févr-11 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Guindon: More and more it appears to me that there are two classes of citizens in Ontario. Do not be mistaken, Mr. Speaker. I am not referring to rich and poor; I am referring to a sort of discrimination based on place of residence. If you are fortunate enough to live in Toronto or Hamilton, you have nothing to complain about. You have jobs, roads, services, recreation and many other advantages which are not common in rural Ontario -- especially in eastern Ontario and, more particularly, in my riding of Cornwall.

The problem I am referring to had been brought to my attention even before this government came to power. Residents of Cornwall township have been and are still complaining to me about the lack of safe drinking water. I always thought drinking water was a basic commodity which every citizen should be able to enjoy. After all, St. Andrews West is located in Ontario, not in Africa, and as far as I know, Ontario is not part of the Third World.

When the health of my constituents is at risk, when the progress of their community is restricted by a lack of safe drinking water, I feel I have to intervene. I have to request that this situation be taken care of with a high degree of urgency.

When will the government see fit to work out solutions to problems plaguing eastern Ontario? Are we so far away that we do not count? Sure, we count when it comes to taxing. When can we look forward to a solution to this problem? When can the people of Cornwall and Cornwall township start feeling that they too are part of Ontario? I want solutions now, because they are needed now.

NATIVE-LANGUAGE TELEVISION SERVICE

Mr. Pouliot: I would like to draw to the attention of all members a historic and unique arrangement that has taken place between Wawatay and TVOntario. Starting on January 18, native-language television programs produced by Wawatay are being distributed, using the facilities of TVOntario, to reach 27 native communities in northwestern Ontario.

This co-operation between Wawatay and TVOntario, using satellite technology, will help to nourish and sustain the language and culture of our native Canadians. It is an outstanding example of community effort, of people pooling their talents and resources for the betterment of their community.

Having been honoured, with other distinguished members from all over Ontario, with an invitation to attend the official opening of the Wawatay television facility and subsequent feast on January 29, I was able to witness the enormous sense of pride that the people of Nishnawbe-Aski feel about this historic undertaking. They are also justifiably proud of what has been accomplished between TVOntario and the people of Wawatay.

TAX REVENUES

Mr. Callahan: Over the last little while, the official opposition -- the Conservatives -- and the third party have accused the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) of storing up nuts for the winter. I suggest to members that this $900 million that he is constantly accused of is not even sufficient to cover the ills of the past that have been neglected.

I refer members to the fact that, on the current data I have, $60 million are to be spent over the next two years improving deteriorating roads; $209 million to upgrade existing facilities in cancer care and research; $13 million to establish northern medical travel; $103 million in provincial loans and grants to stimulate auto investment; $100 million over a five-year plan for northern development; a 300 per cent increase to $2 million per year to support municipal recycling programs; an initial 200 per cent increase to $11 million per year, in January 1986, subsequently raised to $36 million, with reference to community and home care for seniors.

There are many more I could relate, but in closing, I would like to refer to the $850 million the Treasurer has allocated for capital construction of hospitals over the next five years. That, to me and the citizens of Brampton, is probably one of the most significant of all of those expenditures.

NURSING HOME BEDS

Mr. McLean: This statement refers to the Ministry of Health, with particular reference to the riding of Simcoe East, which includes Orillia and the Midland area.

Over the past few years, there have been few approvals for additional nursing beds. The district health council completed a study of the area and concluded that, with the population expanding as it has, nursing home bed capacity is not keeping up with that expansion, particularly in this area.

I think the minister should be giving serious consideration to expanding nursing home bed approvals. We have approximately 115 in need at this time in Orillia alone, and 35 of our hospital beds are being taken up by patients who could and should be in nursing homes. It is a similar situation in the Midland area, where many people are taking up hospital beds who should be in nursing home facilities.

It seems that if the minister's colleague the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) can arrange for additional housing units for what he has termed the hard-to-house, then the minister could arrange 100 or so nursing home beds for the riding of Simcoe East. The need is at least as great and the cost would be less. Perhaps the seniors should even have some priority in this matter.

Will the minister approve additional nursing home beds for the riding of Simcoe East and thereby cut his health care costs substantially by freeing up those hospital beds? With the allotments that have been made elsewhere in the province, will he now include some for Simcoe East, where the need is great?

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

Ms. Bryden: Yesterday my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) drew to the attention of the Legislature the situation in Niagara region, where the police chief has been suspended for alleged corrupt practices in giving preferential treatment to two applicants for police jobs who were related to senior officers. While I commend the new chairman of the Niagara Regional Police Commission, Denise Taylor, for her prompt action in ordering a suspension until the allegations are investigated, I am shocked that nepotism still appears to be continuing in the Niagara police force.

In view of the fact that an investigative journalist revealed last year that 27 per cent of all members of the police force were related, I want to ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) what he has done since that newspaper story came out to draw to the attention of the Niagara police chief and all other police chiefs in Ontario that such hiring practices are corrupt and will not be tolerated. Has he issued any written guidelines on this matter? If so, will he table them in this House tomorrow? When will he bring in his long-promised revision of the Police Act to spell out a code of conduct for the police forces of Ontario?

1340

ANIMAL RIGHTS

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last you inadvertently cut me off by 14 seconds, so I wish to repeat.

I believe it is time members spoke out on the subject of animal rights. I want to make it clear, whether one is an animal lover or not, that the mistreatment of animals is something any sensitive individual cannot tolerate. One has to wonder, however, about the value system of animal activists who place their obsession with humanity towards animals above the wellbeing of human beings.

These animal worshippers, if they had their way, would wreak genocide on northern peoples, whose very existence depends on animals to provide them with food, shelter and a way of life. In the land of the midnight sun, the climate eliminates vegetation on which man can live, but not vegetation on which animals can feed. The six-month period with little or no sun deprives mankind of the ability to synthesize the sunshine vitamin. These people would die of scurvy were it not for the vitamins stored in fish and animal fats and oils.

These people reject the scientific theory that man evolved on the planet as a meat-eater. The theory is that man ate raw meat before fire was discovered and mastered, whereas he found it impossible to eat raw grain. Raw grain creates a raging brewery of the human digestive system. Further proof is that there are few, if any, cases of man being allergic to meat, while cases of allergic reactions and even fatal reactions to plant foods are fairly common --

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. McGuigan: You got me again.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Gordon: l would like to ask the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) how much longer people living in Sudbury and northeastern Ontario are going to have to pay those high gasoline prices. He knows it is a disincentive to secondary industry; he knows people in the north face higher costs than people living in southern Ontario. As a matter of fact, a recent survey showed that people in northern Ontario are being paid less in comparison to those who live in the south. He is taxing people who can little afford to pay the money they are charged for gasoline at present. When is he going to keep his promise?

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JOB TRAINING

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am pleased to report to the House on the results of our review of the Ontario training trust fund program and the Ontario help centres program. Both initiatives were established in the spring of 1985 with a requirement for a review prior to the end of this fiscal year.

The Ontario training trust fund program was introduced to encourage greater co-operation between employers and employees in undertaking job-related training.

Les fonds de fiducie sont alimentés par des contributions provenant des employeurs et des employés. La province verse une subvention non renouvelable équivalente à la moitié de ces contributions, jusqu'à concurrence de $100,000.

Our review has indicated that the program has met its objectives. I am pleased to tell the House we have decided to continue the program to stimulate new trust funds. I believe there is a continued need to encourage labour management co-operation in the training process. As well, the trust fund approach means people are getting training that would not otherwise be available.

The Ontario training trust fund program will continue to support the establishment of new training trust funds by employer-employee groups, with particular emphasis on the industry and service sectors which are currently underrepresented in training activity. The $100,000 limit on provincial contributions to individual trusts will remain in place.

Once established, these and existing trust funds will have access to training consulting services and funding support under the province's incentive programs for training, namely, Ontario Skills and Trades Updating. They will deal with local Ontario skills development offices, established across the province under Ontario's Training Strategy.

We will also continue our commitment to broadening community-based, employment-related services by supporting Ontario help centres. Help centres offer services consistent with the commitment of the Ministry of Skills Development to a range of employability and training-related services, especially for the unemployed. Over the next six months, we will work with the 17 help centres and associated community organizations to focus the objective of our program and the services which the Ministry of Skills Development can support. This consultation will explore the appropriateness of adding greater stability through multi-year financing.

Both of these ministry programs are important to our multilevel approach to employability and training. We are happy to be able to continue to support them.

CAPITAL TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Nixon: My statement concerns changes to the capital tax payable by Ontario's farm equipment dealers. Rather than wait for the upcoming budget, I am today announcing a temporary two-year capital tax reduction program for these dealers. The farm equipment industry has generally not participated in the economic upturn being experienced by most sectors of the Ontario economy. It is dependent on the farm sector which, as we all know, currently faces economic difficulties.

While I do not believe the problem is a long-term one, the hardship these dealers are experiencing is, none the less, very real. Many dealers and many members of this House have written to me about the situation and have pointed out how Ontario's capital tax aggravates it. I want to mention specifically the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) and the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), who have taken the time to sit down and discuss the matter as it relates in their own communities.

As a result, the proposal I am announcing today will reduce to a maximum $200 the capital tax otherwise payable by farm implement dealers on their first $3 million in taxable capital, regardless of the total amount of their taxable capital. This will mean capital tax savings of as much as $17,600 to individual farm equipment dealers over the next two years. It is expected that the all-in cost of the program will be less than $500,000.

The legislation to introduce this measure will be introduced following my 1987 spring budget, God willing. The change will be effective for taxation years beginning after December 31, 1986.

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am tabling today the first volume of statistical information for each of the new provincial electoral districts, using the most recent census data available. A second volume with information on labour force, income, education and mobility will be released in the spring. Both volumes are published in English and French. We hope they may assist the honourable members in any special action they may be undertaking in support of the democratic process.

Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We have been informed that legal proceedings have been commenced or are about to commence with respect to the Wyda Systems (Canada) Inc. matter. We have been trying to get answers from this government for six months. Where is the statement from the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) about this?

RESPONSES

JOB TRAINING

Mr. Grossman: I listened with some interest to the announcements made by the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) and I quickly reached back for the 1984 Ontario budget. I was pleased to see there on page 5 the following words: "We will create, for the first time in Canada, an incentive to establish training trust funds which will encourage workers and firms to undertake continuous training efforts." Unfortunately, in that year we indicated that the maximum we could make available was $100,000 per firm.

I am disappointed about two things: first, that the minister has failed to acknowledge that the pioneer effort in training trust funds came from the previous government three years ago; and second, that the minister could not get a piece of the $919 million extra to increase -- perhaps modestly, should we say -- his support for this very worthwhile program introduced by his predecessor, perhaps to increase the maximum from $100,000 to $200,000 per firm. His friend the Treasurer has $919 million extra.

1350

I also thought it might have been good if the minister had looked back on page 6 of the 1984 budget where it says, "The government will provide financial assistance to unemployed help centres run by trade unions." Again, the minister today is announcing continuation of the support for a program that was started in 1984. I know the minister, who is so fond of talking about the past 42 years, would have wanted to point out those two highlights of one of the many budgets introduced in those 42 years -- two programs which he is now trying to claim ownership for, and we are not going to make it easy for him.

CAPITAL TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Grossman: Finally, I want to turn to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). We are delighted to see he has been reading some of our literature suggesting that finally he give some money back to the people of this province. I find it more than passing strange that it is now February 1987 when he is beginning to follow through on his one promise in the budget to reduce the tax burden. His gasoline tax increase, his personal income tax increase, his corporate income tax increase and his land transfer tax increase, those he put on right away and collected extra money from the day his budget came in. For a reduction of taxes, the one minor item in there to reduce taxes, something we have been calling for for a long time, he did not quite get around to that until February 1987, let the record note, several weeks after the Progressive Conservative Party said it was time to give some of his $919-million tax increase back to the people of this province.

Mr. Stevenson: I also want to respond to the capital tax reduction program that the Treasurer has announced. This was mentioned to me by Arnold Kerry, who is from Utica Farm Equipment and first vice-president of the Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealers' Association, over a year ago.

The inventory tax is something that I think is going to be a problem for the farm machinery dealers for much more than two years. Certainly the hardship is associated with the doldrums that the agricultural industry is now in, and of course that tax is passed on to farmers who cannot afford to pay it right now; but there have been changes in the industry that I think are not going to go away in two years.

First of all, the nature of the billings by many of the farm machinery manufacturers is such that much of the inventory is now being carried by the dealers and not by the companies. Many of those companies are billing immediately; that equipment shows up as inventory on the dealers' lots, and they are being forced to show that as inventory and pay tax on it. I suspect that is not going to change in two years. It is likely going to be with us indefinitely. I feel this particular move should be made permanent whenever the minister brings forward legislation to deal with the problem.

JOB TRAINING

Mr. Warner: I would like to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara). Reading one of his statements is like rereading Through the Looking-Glass. It is really quite incredible. He professes support for the help centres, yet the badgering these help centres have undergone confirms that the real intent of the government is to allow the centres to close. Politically, the government knows that is unacceptable in what is likely to be an election year; instead, it is quite prepared to allow them to die.

How does the government do that? By ensuring those centres, which are struggling a bit in trying to raise money locally, do not get the kind of support and help they desperately need, and in some cases simply by making sure the cheques do not come through as in the case of Brantford and they end up having to lay off staff. It has been a totally disorganized approach. In the process, the government has made it quite clear that it does not want the involvement of the Ontario Federation of Labour. It is a shameful way to run any kind of program.

With respect to the Ontario skills development offices, the government professes support, and yet the reality is that in the case of the north, for example, there is no attempt to make sure they meet local needs. When the Sault College attempts to establish an office in Blind River and Elliot Lake, the ministry does not seem to understand that a course needs to be mounted which is tailored to meet a small number of people to help establish local businesses in the hospitality industry or light industry that is related to recreation or to help with some of the health care community service sector which requires training.

In the case of the Sault, they were looking for in the neighbourhood of $300,000 to establish the two centres, one at Blind River and one at Elliot Lake. They got half that amount of money. The lame excuse given by the ministry was: "We do not have enough money. It is an extra $150,000. We do not have enough money."

These folks have probably spilled that much on their plane trips.

The needs of the north are well documented. There is a high rate of unemployment. There is a crying need to develop the kinds of skills that are needed to tackle the high-tech world and supply long-term, stable jobs. This government has failed once again and failed miserably.

CAPITAL TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Hayes: I would like to respond to the statement by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). This will be welcome news to the farm equipment dealers today. We know they have been affected because of the downturn in the agricultural industry and naturally that affects the farmers. They have been stuck with large inventories, and reducing the maximum of $200 on the capital tax would be --

Interjection.

Mr. Hayes: I see. It is very timely for the minister to do this. The retail farm equipment dealers' annual meeting is next week and I am sure the minister will be glad to announce it. Good timing.

Mr. Foulds: I too would like to respond to the Treasurer's statement and indicate that there is a particular and severe problem in this area. However, I am pleased that the Treasurer has introduced it as a temporary measure, and I hope the Treasury officials and the Revenue officials would, during the course of this tax reduction, monitor the loss of revenue to the Treasury and to Ontario and the subsequent benefits to the dealers, so that we can have a tracking of its value in terms of both parties to this agreement.

I notice and applaud that the Treasurer is announcing it now because he plans to make it effective at the beginning of this calendar year. Making the announcement now, even though the legislation will not be brought forward until after the budget, makes some sense. This may be the first dribble from a good news budget, and I suspect we may very well have a hint here that we will be hitting the hustings some time this year.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME SYSTEM

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier. Last week, we were discussing his government's refusal to help the disabled people of Ontario with the money being sent along by the federal government. We have checked with the federal department and found that both British Columbia and Alberta are exercising their option to provide $175 additional assistance to the disabled. Ontario has not.

As Premier, how can he explain the circumstance where Ontario is not doing what British Columbia and Alberta have done for their disabled?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer that matter to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There are 83,000 disabled people in Ontario who get a Gains-D pension from the provincial government, and 13,000 of them also get a Canada pension. It is only those 13,000 people who got the increase, not the other 70,000. It was the understanding between the province and the federal government that the increase would be offset at the provincial level, and that is what we did.

1400

Mr. Grossman: I want to send over to the minister a copy of the federal legislation, which is the legislation governing this transaction in the flow of funds. I wonder if the minister, in answering the supplementary, might be kind enough to point out to me what section of that legislation prohibits him from doing what British Columbia and Alberta have done, which is to increase assistance for the disabled by $150 to $175 a month. What section in the act prohibits him from doing that?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There is nothing in the act that would prevent me from increasing assistance to the disabled, if I did it for all 83,000, but I cannot do it just for the 13,000 who come under the jurisdiction of the Canada pension plan. That is the problem.

Mr. McClellan: You are wrong. You can designate that income.

Mr. Grossman: My colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) is absolutely right. The minister can. I sent the copy of that legislation over to him precisely because he is unable to indicate what it is in the legislation that prohibits him from doing what the other provinces have done and flowing that money through to the disabled people in this province.

The Premier was asked by me last week whether he thought $7,200 a year for the disabled was an adequate amount of money. He ducked answering, but the bottom line was that he was embarrassed by the question. That is why he keeps referring the supplementaries to the minister.

Does the minister believe that $7,200 a year is enough money for the disabled people of this province? Does he or does he not? If he does not think it is enough money, why does he not take some of the extra $919 million the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has and give it to the disabled people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the honourable leader well knows, the Treasurer has already directed $92 million to my ministry. Some of those dollars have gone to the disabled, some to the elderly and some to children.

Mr. Grossman: How much has gone to the disabled? How much more are the disabled going to get this year? Tell us.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The total increase in expenditures for the disabled in the past year has been $41 million. The increase in this particular program is $18 million and the net gain to the disabled is very clear.

Mr. Grossman: The net gain is to the Treasurer of Ontario, who hijacked that money on the way from the federal government to the disabled.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question and to which minister?

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Grossman: I have a question to the Premier, if he will agree to accept it. Will the Premier answer this question for us as directly as possible? Will he tell us whether the Ontario government submitted a proposal to the federal government agreeing to a proposal that a 10 per cent voluntary tariff be placed on Canadian softwood lumber? Did his government participate in a proposal to accept the 10 per cent voluntary surcharge?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I believe we went through this discussion in some detail some time ago. I recounted to the honourable member the progression of events at that time and how the situation developed. I gather there were discussions at the time. Ontario reluctantly agreed to go along when the announcement was made, but it is something we were not very comfortable with. The member knows what happened subsequent to that event.

Mr. Grossman: I want to talk about the Premier's changed story. Earlier he was saying he had nothing to do with it. Now, under questioning, he must admit that indeed he did have something to do with it. I want to put it to him this afternoon in a very serious allegation that he not only had something to do with it but also Ontario was one of the major players in suggesting that a 10 per cent voluntary tariff was the appropriate way to go.

I want to put this question to the Premier: will he acknowledge this afternoon that the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, Mary Mogford, joined her colleagues the deputies from British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec in putting in writing a proposal in late September for the acceptance of a 10 per cent surcharge on Canadian softwood?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Again, I think we have gone through this in some considerable amount of detail. I am not sure what my honourable friend's federal colleagues are telling him. They may not be telling it to him completely squarely, I say to my honourable friend.

He knows how that 10 per cent offer came about. Ontario reluctantly went along with it at the time, as was discussed in this House; there is nothing new about that. We thought it was wrong, but in the interests of a national consensus, we tried to be co-operative. But once that offer was turned down, as the member will recall, Miss Carney said that was the final offer, and subsequent to that, there were many other final offers.

I think my honourable friend's information that is coming from his federal colleagues is inaccurate.

Mr. Grossman: This is a very important issue, because it speaks very much to the veracity of the information that is coming forward from the Premier's government to this House and the people of Ontario with regard to the 1,000 jobs in the softwood lumber industry in this province.

The information we have does not come from the source the Premier suggests. It comes, in fact, from David Redgrave of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, who said in estimates on February 5 to my colleague, simply put:

"I was not there to bind; Mary Mogford was there to bind us. She had the offer, which was then brought back for ratification and a letter went off to them." My colleague said, "Was it ratified?" and Mr. Redgrave, the Premier's employee, said, "Yes, a letter went." "A letter went from who?" "It went from Mary Mogford to Gerry Shannon," of the federal government.

My question finally to the Premier is a simple one, in an attempt to have him clarify the record and state honestly what the position of his government was at that crucial time. Will the Premier acknowledge today that in late September, before the federal announcement was made, his Deputy Minister of Natural Resources wrote the federal government agreeing -- she did not say reluctantly -- to a proposal put forward by her and her three provincial counterparts to put a 10 per cent tariff on softwood lumber?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This question was raised by the member's colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) yesterday, l believe. I say to my honourable friend, with respect, that he is flogging a dead horse. As he knows, I shared the information with him of how it happened, what happened, our views on the situation and what happened at that particular event. It had nothing to do with what ultimately transpired.

I do not know why my honourable friend is so exercised about this, except that he is on instructions from someone in Ottawa in this regard. But I tell him, Ottawa knows our position. They knew it then and they know it now, and the member knows our position as well.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions and Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I am sure the minister has seen a copy of the latest publication of the Insurance Bureau of Canada called Facts of the General Insurance Industry in Canada. It is a very well laid-out document. It has a picture of a hand holding a pencil, and one of the notations says "3×2=5," which perhaps aptly summarizes some of the problems we face with the insurance industry these days.

1410

Is the minister aware of one of the statistics the Insurance Bureau of Canada highlights in the document entitled Facts, which is that the amount of money paid out in claims in 1985 was a full 21 per cent higher than in 1984 and yet it took in only a mere 12 per cent more in premiums? Is this the kind of statistic the minister has been referring to when he defends the insurance industry in the House?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have seen the publication. I do not know all the figures in it from memory. The statistic I was using was the statistic reported by the industry, that in 1985, for every dollar of premium received, $1.31 was paid out in claims.

Mr. Rae: That figure is not contained in this document. Although we do have, as I say, the news that, according to the industry, three times two equals five, we do not have that other statistic to which the minister refers. Can the minister explain why, if they talk about those figures and the minister indeed does the same, we do not have a comparison for the last five years?

For example, we would learn, and I wonder whether the minister is aware of this fact, that if you look at the amount of money that is taken in in premiums, you see a 45 per cent increase in terms of total premiums written, from $3 billion in 1981 to $4.4 billion in 1985, but when you look at the total claim amounts there is only a 35 per cent increase -- in other words, an increase of some $900 million less. Why would the minister not be making that kind of statement in the House to indicate just how much more money has been taken in in premiums than has been paid out in claims?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The reason I have not been making that kind of relationship is that the member is talking about a global figure, total amounts. I am talking on a per capita basis, so we can take a look at the situation that is being dealt with in this instance. We are saying that because of the claims record in Ontario, which is almost twice that of any other jurisdiction in Canada, we cannot compare different jurisdictions with Ontario.

Let me give the leader of the third party an example. There was a letter in the Vancouver Province from a person from Manitoba who moved to Vancouver and got insurance. They were complaining that when they were in Manitoba they paid some $500 to insure a Jeep vehicle. They went to Vancouver, which also has government insurance, and for the same insurance paid over $1,000. They were complaining about having to pay this amount of money. It has nothing to do with the fact that government is running it. It has to do with the fact that there are different claim experiences in different jurisdictions.

Mr. Rae: I am asking the minister -- who is responsible for consumer and commercial relations in the province; who is supposed to be responsible for protecting consumers -- to tell the House why the insurance industry is spending $7,000 a day to provide the people of Canada with misleading information in very provocative ads that are being shown on prime-time television right across this province.

They are not telling people how much money they are making. They are not telling people what their administrative costs are, which are twice as high as they are in public plans. They are not telling people that they are taking in more money than they are paying out -- far more in terms of the last five years. They are not providing the people of Canada with that information. They are giving them a very partial picture.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Rae: Why is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations tolerating and condoning advertisements and policies of the insurance industry in this country that provide misleading information and a misleading side of what is going on in the lives of drivers in Ontario and right across Canada?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: One of the things that is a fact of life is that at present the insurance industry in Ontario is a private-sector, free-enterprise entity, something the New Democratic Party is not happy with. They have the right to advertise. They have the right to tell their story to the public and the public has the right to accept their story or not. That is called doing business. That is a process we encourage and support.

Mr. Rae: I can see the minister agrees with the insurance industry that three times two equals five.

COAL TAR

Mr. Rae: In the absence of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), I have a question of the Premier about the Port Stanley blob. With the amount of time he spends near his constituency, I know he will be aware of the issues involving the discovery of a coal-tar blob near Port Stanley. He will be aware that the excess in terms of levels of benzo-a-pyrene was found to be five million to 200 parts per million, when levels of one part per billion are considered hazardous in sediment.

Can the Premier explain why, up until now, there has still been no clear decision taken on how the sediment is to be completely cleared and who is going to pay for it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I apologize to the honourable member, but I am not in a position to elucidate on that matter. I can assure him I will immediately take his questions under advisement, get in touch with the appropriate people and get back to him as quickly as possible.

Mr. Rae: It is difficult to ask the minister questions. He frequently is not in a position to answer, because he has been taken off the case. I wanted to ask the Premier this question today and I am sorry he is not aware of it.

Because it involves a country with which he has done business, South Korea, the Premier may be aware that a South Korean oil and solvent refinery called Can-Lube Oil Co. has proposed a $7-million project for this site. There are very extreme objections to this proposal from a number of people living in the Port Stanley area. Can the Premier tell us why the Minister of the Environment has not designated this site as a private project worthy of a hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I apologize to the honourable member, but I will take all his questions to the minister -- I am sure he is on top of the situation -- and report back very shortly.

Mr. Rae: I thought perhaps Mr. Carmen had briefed the Premier on this question, but since he has not, let me ask a general question. Since he is not able to answer any of the specifics, I will ask the Premier about the so-called superfund.

We now know of the existence of several coal-tar sites around the province. The costs of cleanup in Ottawa alone are going to be equal to the size of the so-called fund he has set up in the province to deal with this question.

I wonder why the government has so far failed to do what New York state and a number of others in the United States have done, that is, set up and fund a proper superfund, so we can clean up these blobs, which we now know are going to be discovered all over the province, without causing local municipalities to bankrupt themselves and without continually having to put these questions off when they involve fundamental matters of the health of these communities.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Like the member opposite, I take these matters very seriously.

With respect to the progress of the superfund, there was recently a meeting -- and I cannot tell the member the exact date -- of the environment ministers across this country. Under the leadership of our minister, all the environment ministers agreed to pursue his proposals with respect to a national superfund. That is our preference as a way to approach the problem. We think it is in the national interest to proceed on the same basis.

I am told there is agreement in that regard, in principle at least, and that they are pursuing the proposals put forward by our Minister of the Environment. That does not preclude us from moving on our own, in addition to or instead of that, if it does not come about. This is something that has been under the active review and leadership of this ministry, as the honourable member knows.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Gillies: I have a question of the Premier. One of the many things he is trying to sweep under the rug before the end of this session is his government's handling of the IDEA Corp. portfolio. I would like to ask him specifically about the Graham Software company, which I first raised in this House last June.

The government invested $5 million in this company between September 1985 and March 1986. During that same period, the gross sales of the company were $200,000 and its gross expenses were close to $3 million. I wonder if the Premier would enlighten me and the House as to why this ludicrous investment was ever made and why there was a complete lack of monitoring capacity on behalf of the Premier's government during that period, to ensure that any of the taxpayers' money in this investment could be recovered.

1420

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer that to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: If the member wants to know why things happen like that, it is because the previous government set up the IDEA Corp. without proper rules and regulations to run it. That is why.

Mr. Pope: That is what you said with Wyda too.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rowe: Do you ever remember handing out the money, or is this a bad dream we have over here?

Mr. Stevenson: This is called "loans to Liberals." That is a good idea: IDEA Corp. loans to Liberals.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait.

Mr. Gillies: This minister is either completely unable or unwilling to take responsibility for his ministry. The $5 million of the taxpayers' money has been lost in this matter, and the fault is nobody's but the minister's.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Ms. Gillies: By way of supplementary, as we watch this $5 million go down the tubes, I would like to ask the minister about the exorbitant fees that were being paid by the shareholders to themselves in this company: salaries, fees, and exorbitant administrative costs.

I would like to quote to the minister from the Supreme Court affidavit that the Ontario Development Corp. filed: "Continuing payments to shareholders at the rates...is totally unjustified and can only be explained as an attempt to fully consume all the resources available to the company."

When this minister knew about the concerns of the opposition about this company last June, I want to know why he did nothing for a period of eight months to try to recover $5 million of the public's money?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As the member will recall, we had to take over the whole operation of IDEA Corp. through the ODC to correct a lot of the problems his government caused by not having proper guidelines for IDEA Corp. to operate under.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Mr. McClellan: I have sent the Minister of Labour a copy of a brief on the Workers' Compensation Board vocational rehabilitation service which our caucus is providing to the task force this afternoon. I would like to ask the minister in charge of the WCB the following question.

When the minister assumed office in 1985, the WCB was spending $24 million out of a $1.2 billion budget, or less than two per cent of its total budget, on vocational rehabilitation services for injured workers. Can the minister explain to the House why he has failed so completely to upgrade the level of support given by the WCB to injured workers to aid them in getting back to work and why the rehabilitation service is still the poor cousin of the WCB?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member will know the budget of the WCB is now struck after discussions by the board of directors of that board. I share the concern of the member, a concern shared by a number of members in the House, about ensuring that the work of the vocational rehabilitation service of the WCB be enhanced.

One of the reasons we have set up the task force is to find proper ways and means by which the spending of extra money will allow us to deliver a service which is a whole lot better than the service we have been able to deliver in the past. I remain hopeful that at the end of its work the task force will deliver to us recommendations that can be swiftly implemented which will provide for a much better system of vocational rehabilitation in the province, administered by the WCB.

Mr. McClellan: This is the first Minister of Labour since I have served in this House who systematically and consistently absolves himself of responsibility for the operation of the Workers' Compensation Board, the first one in my 12 years here who just washes his hands of responsibility.

By way of supplementary, because he is responsible despite his attempts to pass the buck each and every time, will he give us the assurance that when we come back in April he will bring in a package of legislation for injured workers which (1) gives them the legal right to a job, set out in law; (2) applies a quota system in Ontario requiring business, industry and government to hire their fair share of the physically handicapped; and (3) establishes crown agencies to provide decent, well-paying jobs for injured workers and their families and for other disabled people as well?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will not give the gentleman that commitment today. I will give him a commitment that we will continue to proceed on the process of reform that this government has established, a process which I remind the member has led to the opening of two new regional offices in the past year and a half and which will lead to the opening of a third.

Mr. Rae: If you cannot take responsibility for the problems, do not take credit for what gets done. Do not have it both ways.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We will also continue the process of beginning to decentralize some of the medical rehabilitation. The member indicated he had some concern that I was the first minister not to take responsibility for the WCB. Indeed, I answer for the WCB in the House, but I point out that I am the first Minister of Labour who has had under his jurisdiction a WCB with an independent board of directors. I hope the member does not wish that, on any and every occasion, I simply walk in and say to the independent board of directors, "I know you have set your budget, but here is how we really want the money spent."

AMATEUR ATHLETES

Mr. Callahan: My question is addressed to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Yesterday we had the pleasure of welcoming to the House an outstanding athlete, Ben Johnson. The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), in responding to a statement reported in Instant Hansard, said the Liberal government has reduced the travelling expense from $16 a kilometre to $4 and has put a radius requirement of 200 kilometres on athletes.

I cannot believe our government would do that; I can believe the Tories might have. I would like to ask the minister whether that is what happened or whether this member is giving us bad goods, just as his friend the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) did on the day the Ukrainians arrived.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I was disappointed, of course, in yesterday's proceedings, in that the member for Cochrane South had to inject a negative and partisan comment at a time when we were honouring Ontario's outstanding athletes. Unlike our outstanding athletes, the member was completely off the track.

He stated we had reduced travel subsidies and that we had put in a radius requirement of 200 kilometres to attend events. In fact, the rules governing the travel subsidy program have been in place for the past five years; they were placed by the member's government when it was in power. There has been no change in the program; there has been no reduction; there has been no cutback; and there is no such thing as a 200-kilometre radius requirement. The member's statement yesterday, as with most of his statements, has absolutely no basis in fact.

1430

Mr. Callahan: In the light of the significant damage that I am sure occurred as a result of other sports groups getting that misinformation from the member for Cochrane South, I would like to inquire of the minister whether he will undertake in his communication with other sports groups to emphasize the fact that the information the member for Cochrane South gave us was incorrect.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am quite sure the various recreation associations across this province are very much aware of the requirements. On Friday, I will be speaking to the Ontario Recreation Society in Ottawa. I will reinforce our programs. Also, I point out to the honourable member that from his constituency and others I receive weekly letters of thanks and appreciation for the work our ministry is doing in helping young people in schools to attend these conferences.

Mr. Gillies: I wish I had the same writers as member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan). That was not a question.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: I have another question for the Premier about Exploracom, the second instalment of the loans-for-Liberals program. The Premier has consistently refused to table the Coopers and Lybrand report in this House, on which he has hung his hat as the reason for killing Exploracom. Do not bother to send it over; we have a copy right here.

I would like to quote back to the Premier his rationale for killing the program based on this report. He cited a complete lack of private sector financing and said the project was out of control financially and managerially. The only problem is that neither of those conclusions is drawn in this report.

I wonder if the Premier could enlighten us on two things. First, what is the real reason he killed the project? Second, why would he -- I am sure inadvertently -- misinform this House and this province as to the contents of this report? Because he expected we would never see it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have gone through this discussion on many occasions in this House and I am happy to repeat it to my honourable friend.

As a matter of fact, some time ago my honourable friend stood up in this House and cited the lack of private sector participation. As I recall, he used companies such as IBM, Northern Telecom and others that were not participating. That was information he brought to this House. He may remember what he said on that particular occasion.

There were essentially two reasons we did not carry on. Number one was the lack of private sector participation in the exhibits and other areas. Number two -- and the member will be aware of this -- was that the operating funds were not there and it would constitute an ongoing drain on the Treasury. That is the reason the decision was made.

Mr. Gillies: Inasmuch as the Premier's rationale does not quite accord with the advice given him by Coopers and Lybrand, will he now admit that he prematurely and improperly made the commitment to this project in the first place and that he reneged on the commitment for reasons other than those contained in this report? Will the Premier do us the courtesy of admitting that this was a gross error, and can he enlighten us as to how much this mistake will end up costing the people of Ontario before we are through with the whole mess?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend, the commitment was made pending certain things happening. They did not happen, unfortunately, and that is the reality of the situation. Perhaps the member has changed his mind and thinks the thing should carry on. I am not sure. My honourable friend keeps changing his mind in that regard.

I say very frankly the money was not there. We were prepared to make a tough decision. It was not a decision I enjoyed making at all, but we felt it was in the best interests of the taxpayers. Occasionally, people have to do that on this side of the House. We are prepared to do it. The decision stands on its own merits.

HOSPICE FUNDING

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health about the funding of the AIDS hospice. The minister is aware that the group of volunteers who are committed to funding the AIDS hospice have put in an offer on a property. It does not require any renovation; it is ideally suited. They have raised $500,000 and they are in need of $1 million in capital funding from Ontario.

There have been numerous meetings with the Minister of Health, the Ministry of Health, officials in the minister's department and other officials on the government side. Can they get a firm commitment from the minister today that this house and this hospice, this project, will be funded so they do not lose the property? As I say, they will lose it if they do not get the funding by February 28.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman knows that we are aware of this particular program. He knows I would be unable to make such an announcement today in this House about the funding of that program. He gave some indication that no renovations are required for the particular facility. That is something we do not know absolutely for sure. We must make sure that the facility, if it were to be considered, would be in compliance with fire and other regulations.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that the ministry met yesterday, I believe even late last evening, with the volunteer leadership of that proposal. We are interested in examining the aspects of the proposal, which have been thoroughly discussed as a result of last night's meeting. I can tell the gentleman as well that one of the items I am further interested in is the manner in which services can be delivered in the community, as well as under the circumstances as put forward by the particular project. My officials are in fact working on that item, as well as the proposal in detail. From the report or the briefing I received this morning from my assistant deputy minister, I thought the meeting indeed was constructive, and they are pursuing the avenues of study with respect to the details of the proposal.

Mr. Rae: There is an enormous sense of frustration in this group, which, as the minister will know, has had this project in mind for several weeks. Indeed, the offer was made several weeks ago. They have been basically moved from pillar to post, from the Ministry of Housing to the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Housing and back and forth, and as yet they have no clear indication.

I wonder if the minister can tell us, is it true that one of the concerns expressed by his officials was that there did not appear to be any legislation under which a capital grant could be made? If that is true, I wonder if the minister can explain why the government has not made that kind of legislation a priority in this House so that the hospice can be funded, people can be cared for in a humane way that is close to the community and based in the community and that allows people to be cared for in their last days in a way they feel is most appropriate rather than in another institution.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think the sentiment expressed by the honourable leader is important to all of us, and that is that there be a caring and humane atmosphere in which people are cared for.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that the question about the allocation of capital funds was a concern in that the hospice itself and the manner in which it was expressed to us was not a program within which we had a mandate to transfer capital funds. I think the honourable gentleman would also know, perhaps from speaking with the people who were in attendance at last night's meeting, that there are avenues that have been explored that I think might deal with that particular difficulty. The detailed analysis and proposals, which I was briefed on this morning, are being worked up into some detail for me to take a look at and decide upon what avenue we might very well proceed.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that they understand very well that the Ministry of Health is the appropriate place to be under the circumstance, and it is only my requirement that we build in adequate safeguards to ensure good --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR NATIVE PEOPLE

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier. We have already dealt today with the accuracy of the statements that are being made in this House. We have established that where he said he could not flow money on to the disabled, he could. We have established that where he denied he was part of the softwood tariff agreement, he was. We have established that the Coopers and Lybrand report did not say the things he alleged it did.

I want to give the Premier an opportunity to deal with the same question of veracity of information. I wonder if the Premier agrees with this statement made by his Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on the matter of aboriginal rights in this province. The Attorney General said, "The one direction we are not going to follow is the direction that was followed by the previous government of Ontario." Does that reflect the policy of the present government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer that matter to the Attorney General.

1440

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to this question because the other day in the House, the member from High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) indicated that the policy of the Conservative Party was different from the policy of the Liberal Party and that the policy of the previous Premier, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), was different. Of course, that is not true.

Our policy on the question of entrenchment of constitutional rights is precisely the policy that the previous government adopted. I hope it is going to be more effectively pursued, but it is the same policy. In his statement, the member for Muskoka said: "This approach" -- the approach the Conservative government was taking -- "would see us recognize an aboriginal right to self-government within the Canadian federation and then make the right operative only through negotiated agreements among the federal government, the provinces or territories and the various aboriginal peoples."

That was the policy of the previous government, and that is the policy of this government as we move towards a negotiated constitutional amendment. The member was wrong when he said the member for Muskoka had adopted some other policy. I am glad to have the opportunity to correct for him, regrettably in his absence, the record that he has abused.

Mr. Grossman: If the Attorney General wishes to take this opportunity to correct the record, (a) we will be appreciative and (b) it will set a new precedent for the minister in showing some humility in trying to correct the record in terms of his record.

The Attorney General has just recited at length his plea that he is taking the same position as the previous government. I want to read to the minister his own words from page 2904 of Hansard. In responding to my colleague the member for High Park-Swansea, he said, and I quote directly his words, "The one direction we are not going to follow is the direction that was followed by the previous government of Ontario."

My supplementary question to the Attorney General is this. Would he now disavow what he said to my colleague last fall and would he confirm that his position has now changed from the day when he said that the one position he was not going to follow was the position of the former government, to today when he is saying it is precisely that position? Will he correct the record and say he was wrong last fall?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member is confusing apples with oranges. The policy that the member for High Park-Swansea referred to is the policy supported by our government, by the government led by the member for Muskoka and, I believe, by the third party. The issue he is now referring to is a different one.

Mr. Grossman: It is not.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is precisely a different one and it is this issue, just so the member will understand: will the government of the day --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to respond. The second issue that the honourable leader refers to is raised by the following question, which was presented to the previous government and to our government and has nothing to do with entrenchment. It has to do with this: "Will you, the government of Ontario, support a resolution inconsistent with your policy, if the aboriginal people tell you to oppose it?" That was the issue; and on that issue, which is not an issue of entrenchment, we disagree with the previous government and perhaps with the third party.

Just one other matter: if we are going to have a choice between accuracy and humility, unlike the honourable leader, I prefer accuracy. It is going to be quite a day when I take humility lessons --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member take his seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Again, we will just wait.

DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION INFORMATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I hope he will be both humble and accurate.

The other day, the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) approached me about a case of an adopted person who was waiting an inordinate length of time for nonidentifying information about herself from the local children's aid society in Toronto. I phoned and discovered that with the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, one has to wait a year and a half to get nonidentifying information because it has no workers, it just has volunteers dealing with it. Is the minister aware that around Ontario there are no full-time post-adoption workers in any children's aid society? In Ottawa, one has to wait one year and a half to get nonidentifying information; some large institutions such as the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto do not even provide nonidentifying information; and in other places, such as Hamilton, one has to wait up to six months.

Does the minister accept that as an appropriate state of affairs and what is he going to do with the new act that is coming in that will create a great deal more work when there is no infrastructure out there to provide information to people?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I do not agree that is an appropriate situation. The new act is being implemented in conjunction primarily with the children's aid societies that are going to have to be mostly responsible for the nonidentifying information, although the ministry will be responsible for the disclosure registry. I will certainly commit to the member, and to all the adopted people in the province who need the information, that what he describes will have to change.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Will the minister give us a commitment today on the amount of money he is going to provide and the number of workers this will mean? The act states that there will be six-month limits to the search and that the CASs shall promptly make that information available from the registrar with counselling to adopted people.

Can the minister guarantee us today that adequate funds and adequate staffing will be made available to be put into place as soon as this act is proclaimed?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The cabinet submission that requested approval to proceed with the legislation contained a cost element for both the children's aid society staff and the counselling staff, and for setting up the new provisions in the registry. That was approved by cabinet; that is a part of the submission and a part of the approval of the legislation. So the answer is yes, they will both go forward simultaneously. I am sorry I cannot quote a figure; I just cannot remember what it was.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope).

Mr. Callahan: The member for Cochrane South had better be accurate this time.

Hon. Mr. Scott: No; he is going to be humble today.

Mr. Pope: Pretty soon the government is going to have to apologize for the mess that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has made out of the IDEA fund; that is what it is going to have to do.

WYDA SYSTEMS (CANADA) INC.

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. Can the minister confirm that an injunction has been issued against the officials of Wyda corporation in the Supreme Court of Ontario this morning? If so, why have the minister and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) refused to tell the people of the province and the House what is going on in this matter?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I would be very pleased to let the member know what is going on. I apologize that no word went to the public accounts committee. A couple of days ago, we got word in our ministry that Mr. Dobzinski was trying to remove certain personal assets and other assets from Canada. We therefore went before the court to petition the court to put a hold on those items, which has been done.

Mr. Pope: Throughout this matter, we have had to raise the questions. There has never been a statement out of the minister that has been helpful in providing information to members of this Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Grossman: I wonder why.

Mr. Pope: I wonder why; because red ties are drawn all the way through it. It has involved members of the Liberal Party.

I want to know what is going on with the OPP investigation. Is it completed? Is it sitting on the desk of the Attorney General? Why is it not being proceeded with?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I beg to differ with the member. My ministry, through the Ontario Development Corp., has been very co-operative with the public accounts system. We have kept members up to date on what is happening. I apologize for not letting the members know on this particular issue. I think the Premier (Mr. Peterson) dealt yesterday with his accusations about the Attorney General.

1450

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. As the minister knows, there is a crying need for speech pathologists in northern Ontario. There are patient waiting lists of up to nine months.

After being fully briefed yesterday in estimates, will the minister make the commitment, first, that the program of bursaries for students, administered through the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, will be improved so that there will be more than 10 measly bursaries each year; and second, that the program will be expanded so that those Ontario students who are forced to study outside Canada and want to return to northern Ontario will be eligible for the bursaries?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am delighted the honourable member has brought this matter up again today. We discussed it at great length yesterday in estimates. I must say he has taught me a great deal about a situation that, frankly, I was not personally aware of.

We are working on the situation. There is a real problem with a shortage of professionals in northwestern Ontario, and in northeastern Ontario for that matter. It is not only in this area. I know of the member's personal knowledge and commitment on this issue. I can assure him the matter is under very active review, as he was told yesterday, and that we are expecting and hoping to have an announcement in the not-too-distant future. The suggestions he made yesterday and in this House today are constructive and helpful and we will try to get back to him as soon as we can when we have some successful resolution to the problem.

Mr. Foulds: I point out to the Premier that he is the minister and he is responsible. What I want from him is a commitment today. There are 14 vacancies in the health facilities in northwestern Ontario alone. There is a need in every other facility, such as the regional children's centre under the jurisdiction of Community and Social Services, which has had vacancies for three speech pathologists for three years; the ministry has threatened to withdraw the funds for the positions if they are not filled. There are needs in school boards and in hospitals. Ontario can train only 25 students annually.

Will the Premier make a commitment that those Ontario students, such as my two constituents whom I brought to his attention yesterday, who want to return to northern Ontario, will get the bursaries and training so people can get speech pathology in Ontario by Ontarians?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member makes today the identical point he made yesterday, albeit with a little more eloquence and persuasion in his voice. I appreciate there is a point. There is merit in being repetitive. I told the member yesterday we expect an announcement in the not-too-distant future. As I recall, he said then that if we did not he would "raise hell." I did not realize he was giving me only 24 hours. I thought he was giving me a little more time than that.

I know the honourable member is deeply interested. I promise to convey the information to him. The point he raises is legitimate, even if the way in which he raises it is sometimes tiresome.

RIDING OF PARRY SOUND

Mr. Eves: My question is for the Premier, who doubles as the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. On December 5, 1986, he sent me a letter in response to a request of mine that he include the riding of Parry Sound in northern Ontario for the purposes of all ministries in the Ontario government. In his letter he states: "I will review the matter with my colleagues, the honourable ministers Conway, Elston and Kerrio, to determine if there is some opportunity to adopt a more consistent approach in our treatment of the Parry Sound area."

I would like to know whether, more than two months later, this review has taken place and what the outcome of it was.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member will be aware there is a rather confused situation with respect to the designation of northern Ontario. I recall, for example, and the member may not, when there was some difficulty with respect to the electoral prospects in Parry Sound. The member will recall that it was at that point the then government designated Parry Sound a northern area for purposes of cheaper licence plates. In the eyes of the former government, northern Ontario was wherever its electoral prospects were dim. In their opinion, the entire province could be categorized as northern Ontario today.

I say to the member that the matter is under review. I am glad he raised it in the House today. I am sorry he has not been in the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines estimates. I have not seen him there. A lot of his colleagues were there discussing these issues, and I know he cares about them passionately.

I invite the member to come to my estimates as we discuss these issues of the day and get in his suggestions, because it has been a very worthwhile and constructive conversation. I think the member will notice that the new minister has defended those estimates with great alacrity.

Mr. Eves: The Premier will know, as he is so knowledgeable about the riding of Parry Sound becoming part of northern Ontario, that in 1977 the former administration was requested by the District of Parry Sound Municipal Association to bring the riding of Parry Sound into northern Ontario for the purposes of the then Ministry of Northern Affairs only. That request was acceded to by the former administration.

He will also know that over the course of some years various ministries were brought on stream from time to time. He will recall that in 1985, when my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) was Minister of Natural Resources, he made a commitment to bring Parry Sound riding into northern Ontario. He will also recall that his Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), when he announced northern travel grants to northern Ontario, chose not to include Parry Sound in northern Ontario.

The Premier will also recall that he is the same minister of northern development who decided he did not have the time to devote to the ministry of northern development estimates. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) was in Parry Sound two weeks ago and said he would look into this matter, as did the former Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine).

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member take his seat.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I may be wrong, but when the member mentions an election, I feel there is terror in his voice. Maybe I am misinterpreting that. He is fearful, obviously, that we will do something such as his government did when it designated Parry Sound a northern constituency for the purpose of licence plates. We do not fool around the same way the former government did and we do not regard our responsibilities the same way.

If my honourable friend considers himself to be a northern member, why has he not shown up at the northern affairs estimates? Why has he not been there fighting for the people of northern Ontario? I have been there fighting. His colleagues have been there fighting. I am there fighting for the people of Parry Sound, and he is nowhere to be seen.

ALCOHOL TREATMENT CENTRE

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, you have already allowed the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) to prevent me from asking a supplementary, but I will proceed with my question to the Minister of Health.

The Minister of Health should know that in northeastern Ontario there is a detox centre for men, there is a recovery home for men and there is a treatment program for men, where men can actually stay in as they are recovering. Why is there only one recovery home for women and why will this minister not provide them with a penny of funding?

Despite the fact that the district health council has set it as a number one priority, this minister has refused to offer one penny of assistance to that recovery home for women in Sudbury. Why is that?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We received recommendations on new programs from a number of areas in the province. There has not been a great deal of activity with respect to alcohol and drug abuse programs around the province, and we are doing the best we can to meet an increasing need. The member's area has needs, and so does northwestern Ontario. There are all kinds of areas that did not receive assistance on the basis that we had funds of a limited nature. We applied them to the several projects we were able to rank in terms of priority in some of the areas that were not already covered.

I can tell the honourable gentleman I am not satisfied with our efforts yet in regard to funding very worthwhile and progressive programs. We will again look at our opportunities when the funding is available. We will look at the newly submitted or resubmitted programs with a mind to looking at distribution of alcohol treatment facilities around the province.

1500

VISITORS

Mrs. Marland: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I know both you and the members of the Legislature would want to welcome the guests we have in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon from the Peel Association of Handicapped Adults. We thank you for the privilege of using your gallery and the access to it for the disabled guests who are visiting us today.

PETITIONS

NURSING HOME

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a petition signed by 40 residents of Williamsburg and area, which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"On behalf of the executive and members of the Park Drive Villa Tenants' Association, Township of Williamsburg Nonprofit Housing Development for Seniors, we would like to submit this petition with attached signatures in support of the board's application for a nursing care facility here. At the moment, elderly residents of the township who can no longer care for themselves must be moved miles from their friends and relatives."

I support this petition.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Cousens: I present a petition by commuters using GO Transit from Richmond Hill and Langstaff to Toronto who are concerned with the lack of service for commuters from north of Metropolitan Toronto into Toronto. They want to have the service upgraded and improved so that transit riders from outside Metro can get into the city. Inasmuch as the service now provided is incomplete and inadequate, they are asking that more trains be provided later on in the day.

"The following people request that later trains in the evening be added to the schedule of GO Transit on the Union Station-Richmond Hill line. This is an urgent concern to the people of north Metro asking that the service be increased so that we are treated the same as the east-west commuters."

Mr. Speaker: I know all members are aware of the rules for petitions. They can present the information that is contained directly within the petition. I believe the member might have been straying a little bit.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: There are a number of private conversations that really are not private at all. We can hear all of them.

SHORELINE PROTECTION

Mr. Wildman: This is an important petition, even if members do not believe so.

"To the honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular the Honourable Bernard Grandmaître, Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the Honourable Vincent Kerrio, Minister of Natural Resources:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"We petition the Ontario government to provide emergency grants to shoreline property owners to pay for remedial works to repair and prevent further damage. In addition, we petition the provincial government to press the federal government to implement an overall joint program of grant assistance for shoreline property owners to address the long-term need for protection of the shoreline resulting from the high water levels in the Great Lakes."

This petition is signed by 260 residents of Saint Ste. Marie and Algoma district communities. I am in support of the petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills, without amendment:

Bill Pr61, An Act to revive the Migraine Foundation;

Bill Pr66, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Your committee begs to report the following bills, as amended:

Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the High Street Recreation Complex of St. Thomas and Elgin; Bill Pr53, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Your committee will recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the High Street Recreation Complex of St. Thomas and Elgin, and Bill Pr61, An Act to revive the Migraine Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Brandt from the standing committee on the administration of justice reported the following resolutions:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Attorney General be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Law officer of the crown program, $4,675,000; administrative services program, $69,157,000; guardian and trustee services program, $9,492,000; crown legal services program, $28,658,000; legislative counsel services program, $2,007,000; courts administration program, $119,971,000; administrative tribunals program, $12,377,000; and

That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Attorney General be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Administrative services program, $2,007,900.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolutions:

That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Labour be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Ministry administration program, $10,060,600, industrial relations program, $6,915,100; labour relations board program, $6,470,300; occupational health and safety program, $33,824,500; employment standards program, $6,890,200; human rights commission program, $5,677,500; workers' compensation advisory program, $3,300,100; and

That supply in the following supplementary amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Labour be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Ministry administration program, $1,824,900; workers' compensation advisory program, $1,034,000.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC LANDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved first reading of Bill 203, An Act to amend the Public Lands Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Today I am introducing a number of amendments to the Public Lands Act. These amendments, which are long overdue, will bring the act up to date and improve my ministry's ability to manage crown lands effectively, efficiently and economically.

Some 87 per cent of all Ontario is crown land administered under the Public Lands Act. It is a responsibility that neither I nor my ministry takes lightly. The amendments I am proposing to the act will give the Ministry of Natural Resources the power and authority to manage these lands in a manner consistent with the new approach taken by this government, and will allow us to use our crown lands as a development tool.

For example, one amendment will increase fines for infractions of the act to a more realistic level and thus seek to deter them. As well, people who illegally dump or build on crown lands will be made liable for the cleanup and rehabilitation of these lands. Another amendment will see a variety of work permits replaced by one multipurpose work permit. This commonsense approach will not only reduce the red tape, but will also have the added benefit of making it easier to control harmful operations being conducted without authorization.

The general purpose of these amendments is to correct weaknesses and shortcomings in the existing act as identified to us by the people of Ontario. I believe the amendments will result in improving the quality and product capacity of our crown lands and waters, which will be to the obvious benefit of all.

1510

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 204, An Act to amend the Municipal Act and the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This legislation provides the authority to implement a uniform county-wide assessment where the council of a county and the majority of the local municipalities within the county request this type of assessment update.

Under a uniform county-wide assessment, the assessments pertaining to all properties within a county are adjusted to a common base by property class. It provides that where uniform county-wide assessment has occurred, regularized assessment updates utilizing current market values will be made at least every four years.

Cette mesure apporte également des modifications au mode d'imposition pour permettre aux municipalités locales, au comté et aux conseils scolaires intéressés à percevoir le même taux d'imposition pour les propriétés résidentielles, ainsi qu'un taux uniforme pour les propriétés commerciales de chacune de leurs juridictions.

This change will provide a significant improvement to the property tax system that now exists for the 26 county areas in this province.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT

Ms. Bryden moved first reading of Bill 205, An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Ms. Bryden: The purpose of the bill is to amend the exemption provision in clause 4(3)(a) of the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986. In order to eliminate the exemption for buildings operated or administered but not owned by the government of Canada or any agency thereof, this bill will bring under provincial rent review an apartment complex in my riding named Main Square, which was built by a private builder with mortgage money from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. but which is not owned by CMHC. Limited dividend apartments also built with CMHC mortgage money are already under provincial rent review, and this bill simply puts the two classes of buildings on an equal footing with regard to rent review.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 206, An Act to amend certain Acts Respecting Regional Municipalities.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am pleased to introduce for first reading today the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act.

Ce projet de loi apportera plusieurs amendements aux règlements établis pour les municipalités régionales. Il permettra, par exemple, à chaque conseil régional de disposer de pouvoirs bien définis pour fluoriser son eau potable. Il aura également pour effet d'assujettir chaque conseil régional à l'article 112 de la Loi sur les municipalités, qui interdit aux conseils municipaux d'accorder des primes à des entreprises commerciales.

This legislation will also make several amendments to individual regional statutes. For example, it will permit the Ottawa-Carleton regional council to establish a day care service area and set up a 911 emergency response system for the benefit of the residents of the entire region.

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 207, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Motion agreed to.

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: J'ai l'honneur de présenter aujourd'hui, pour la première lecture, un projet de loi visant à amender la Loi sur la municipalité du district de Muskoka.

This legislation, unanimously requested by the councils of the district and local municipalities, changes the allocation of the planning authority to create a full two-tier system. At present, the authority to adopt official plans and amendments is assigned only to the district level. With the proposed amendment, all local municipalities will be able to prepare and adopt their own official plans and amendments, as is the case in most other regional-type municipalities.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 208, An Act to amend the Planning Act 1983.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am pleased to introduce for first reading today the Planning Amendment Act.

Les modifications envisagées dans ce texte de loi auront pour effet d'augmenter l'efficacité de la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire, tout en respectant ses principes fondamentaux.

The contents of this bill have been discussed with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Urban Development Institute, the Ontario Municipal Board and affected provincial agencies. All are in support of the intent of this bill.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 209, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am pleased to introduce for first reading a bill to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. This legislation will make several amendments to the act. For example, it will set out the functions, powers and duties of the Metropolitan Toronto Library Board.

Il aura également pour effet d'assujettir le conseil de la communauté urbaine à l'article 112 de la Loi sur les municipalités, qui interdit aux conseils municipaux d'accorder des primes à des entreprises commerciales. Il apportera aussi un léger ajustement aux limites de la communauté urbaine de Toronto avec les régions de Peel et de York pour tenir compte d'une modification du tracé d'une route.

This legislation will also make a number of housekeeping amendments to the act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 127, An Act to revise the Surveyors Act;

Bill 156, An Act to amend the Securities Act;

Bill 159, An Act to amend the Insurance Act;

Bill 189, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act;

Bill 192, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Act and the Municipal Elections Act.

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Scott, moved third reading of Bill 199, An Act to amend the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Charlton moved second reading of Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

Mrs. Marland moved second reading of Bill Pr59, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

WILLIAMS CREEK GOLD QUARTZ MINING CO. LIMITED ACT

Mr. McFadden moved second reading of Bill Pr60, An Act to revive Williams Creek Gold Quartz Mining Co. Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWN OF WASAGA BEACH ACT

Mr. McCague moved second reading of Bill Pr64, An Act respecting the Town of Wasaga Beach.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Elston, moved second reading of Bill 190, An Act to amend the Mental Health Act.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The minister on the move has returned and I thank my colleague the Treasurer for moving second reading of this bill.

I was busy discussing the bill with my colleagues in the opposition parties with respect to what might follow in terms of our committee deliberations on this very important amendment that is being proposed.

On January 28, I introduced the amendment to the Mental Health Act to replace an amendment that was passed by this House last December during the third reading of omnibus Bill 7, which was entitled the Equality Rights Statute Law Amendment Act. The December amendment removed authority from a psychiatric review board to order treatment for involuntary psychiatric patients when they have refused consent or, in the case of incompetent involuntary patients, when the patient's representatives have refused.

Today, I am moving second reading of an amendment to restore the review board's authority to order treatment, but with new safeguards, terms and conditions to protect a patient's rights; and of course electroconvulsive therapy will be excluded from the review board's mandate. For ECT to be administered, the consent of an involuntary patient or his representative will be required.

I have introduced this amendment because I am strongly convinced that the legislative change made in December will hinder, not benefit, the provision of necessary mental health services in Ontario. I believe my conviction is shared by most members of the House, as evidenced by the decision to delay implementation of the December amendment until later this year.

I know my conviction is shared by a great number of professionals in the mental health field and by many families of psychiatrically disabled people. I would like to quote from letters for a moment, as is the wont of people dealing with health bills in this House, but I do not intend to speak about or quote at length from those letters I have received as a small sampling of public opinion in the community.

I received a letter from the Psychiatric Nursing Interest Group and I will quote just a small portion from that letter:

"Because we work with such situations every day, we feel that legislators in the name of human rights have ignored a basic right of the mentally ill, the right to receive appropriate care and treatment in the least restrictive environment."

I received the following from the head of psychiatry at the Queensway General Hospital: "The removal of the review board process to ensure the effective treatment of certain psychiatric patients could be detrimental to both the patient and the public at large. We at the Queensway General Hospital strongly feel that the review board section of Bill 7 should be revoked."

From the chairman of the Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics, I understand a letter was sent to all party leaders saying the following:

"Let us not deprive the individual of the opportunity to get well which is the most important objective of the family. We feel that the present system of review boards should be retained and empowered to make treatment decisions."

From the president of the Canadian Friends of Schizophrenics, there is the following:

"We urge you to press for a reopening of this issue. There is still time to act before the amendment to clause 35(4)(a) becomes effective on April 1, 1987."

Of course, Bill 199, which I believe has received or will receive third reading shortly, will extend the April 1 deadline to June 1, which gives us adequate time to deal in committee in a very open fashion with the important issues which have been brought to a head by the amendment to Bill 7.

1530

From the executive director of the Royal Ottawa Hospital, there is the following excerpt: "The very purpose of a mental health hospital would be compromised. The hospital would begin to accumulate individuals who are not, in fact, patients but are put in the custodial care of the hospital. A rapid deterioration of service would be experienced, entailing a most regressive development for modern psychiatric practice."

From a citizen whose wife is undergoing severe mental instability, the following is an excerpt:

"I agree that human rights must be extended to all. This right must surely be extended to those who wish to prevent potential violence or danger and to those who wish that someone near and dear to them can be helped."

Finally, a letter from the parents of a psychiatrically disabled son:

"We love our son very much and want him to obtain the help that he desperately needs without hindrance, or does society want this young life to be thrown away?"

Members can see the emotion that is built into the correspondence I have received. It is obviously clear that we must, in a very open and full fashion, discuss the ramifications of how the proposed amendments that I have introduced for discussion might be explored to improve upon the care in the situation we are now faced with. I think the evidence is clear. We must move with dispatch towards the passage of the amendments as suggested, so that we can again adopt good practice in the care of our psychiatrically disabled in Ontario.

Mr. Andrewes: I rise to indicate that we will be supporting Bill 190. The bill goes some way to answering a number of concerns that were raised during the debate on Bill 7 with respect to treatment orders that are secured or issued by review boards for incompetent patients.

I also want to indicate that the amendments place certain safeguards on the process. For instance, the amendments require doctors now to give reasons why they believe a patient should improve. The amendments require the board to give reasons why it is issuing its orders. The amendments, as well, prescribe terms and conditions by which the treatment prescribed by the review board should be carried out.

It is not our desire to impede sick people from getting well. The minister read from a number of letters he had received. I think all of us have received similar types of letters expressing similar concern on both sides of this issue. It is not our desire to see the process grind to a halt and to prevent sick people from receiving the appropriate treatment.

I think the important thing in supporting this bill is that we have begun a review of the process by which treatment orders prescribed by a review board are issued and carried out, and that is the most significant and important aspect of this amendment that is before us.

What we want to achieve in this process is to provide the appropriate and necessary treatment that will help people get well and to protect the patient's interests, the rights of that patient and the interests and rights of the patient's family members, if they exist, when medical practitioners seek these kinds of review orders from a review board.

I am a little hesitant to read from samplings of letters I have received because, as I said, they are similar to letters the minister has received. However, perhaps it is in order for me to read briefly from one letter I doubt the minister received. It says:

"It is my belief that this amendment strikes an appropriate balance between individual rights and collective responsibility. I urge you to assist in moving the bill quickly to committee, where an important public discussion can occur concerning these important issues. It is my hope that all points of view can be examined to assist us to deal with this extremely important matter." This letter was signed by "Murray J. Elston, MPP for Huron-Bruce, Minister of Health."

I did not expect the minister had received a copy of that, but I thought it might be appropriate to put his views on the record if he is hesitant -- and he usually is not -- to do so himself.

We look forward to the discussion we will have in committee. It is an important process of consultation, as the minister points out in his letter to a number of individuals, I am sure -- although I cannot verify that -- including myself. There is no indication that letter has had wide circulation; I just assume it has.

A number of groups are very anxious to come to the committee and tell us of their experience with respect to the orders issued by review boards. As a member of that committee and as one who speaks in this Legislature as a critic for our party, but one who has not had the formal experience or training of many of these concerned individuals who will be able to offer us their experience and background, I am looking forward to that process of consultation and discussion.

Mr. Reville: It is with some chagrin that I take part in the debate. It is not that the debate should not be occurring, but I was delighted in December when the amendments to Bill 7 proposed by my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) were supported by the Conservatives and, therefore, passed into law. Those were amendments I had been working towards for about 20 years, so my view of this matter is clear and firm. There is no question that the matter we are debating is a difficult one; there is also no question that feelings are very deep and views are very firmly and deeply held about the matter.

No one would want to deprive an individual of the right to get well. Regrettably, there are a large number of factors that conspire to prolong illness or perhaps to cause a recurrence of illness. One of the factors is that the government has failed to provide adequate community mental health services and programming. When a person is discharged from hospital after having suffered an acute bout of illness, he has an inadequate level of support to allow him to stabilize his life and very often ends up back in the hospital.

The record of readmission to psychiatric hospitals in Ontario is a particularly dismal one. It is my view -- and it is a view that is shared by many of my colleagues who are active in the delivery of mental health services -- that one of the primary reasons for recidivism of mental illness is the inadequacy of community mental health programming, which this bill does not address in any way.

1540

The issues that surround the bill are difficult issues and are difficult for society to cope with. They are particularly difficult when a loved one is involved. Over the years, I have had many opportunities, perhaps even more than the Minister of Health has had, to discuss these matters with members of the various chapters of the Friends of Schizophrenics. Recently, I was delighted to accept an invitation to speak to them at their annual general meeting. This was the Ontario chapter of the Friends of Schizophrenics. We discussed issues that for them, for me and I am sure for other members of this House, are of the utmost importance.

As we go into the debate, it is important to realize that we should not confuse the contents of Bill 190 with questions of the circumstances under which a person may be committed. That is not being dealt with by this legislation, although it is a part of the climate in which we must deal with the legislation. Many of the letters that have been received by members of the Legislature, and certainly by me, relate to concerns people have about the circumstances under which our society thinks it is appropriate to deprive someone of his liberty. In fact, those circumstances are that they must be seen to be a danger to themselves or to others.

Many of the Friends of Schizophrenics are concerned about the difficulty they have in convincing psychiatrists that a relative is a danger to himself or to society and therefore is a person who may be held against his will. That certainly is one of the problems.

The other issue that gets confused when we are talking about the right to consent is the issue of competence which, like the issue of commitment, is also a legal question and also is not dealt with by this legislation, and which the psychiatric profession has been loath to deal with particularly well, saying, and perhaps quite rightly, that its competence does not go particularly well to the legal question of competence.

Again, the question of competence is not dealt with except peripherally by this legislation, but it is one of the issues that is central to the debate. It is and has been my contention for many years that if a person is competent, then his competency should extend to the right of absolute consent; that is to say, because he is competent, he has a right to be involved in his treatment to the extent that he may refuse to accept a particular course of treatment, the length of a course of treatment or all treatment, if that is what he wants to do.

The incidence of a patient refusing all treatment is quite rare. In spite of the vagueness of the statistical information, it is my understanding that the number of treatment orders issued each year under the legislation that was amended by Bill 7 and that would be further amended, if Bill 190 were to carry, is very few, perhaps in the order of 50 to 70. That is a speculative number because the review boards do not keep statistics in that way; but in conversations with review board chairmen, one of whom told me that in the past year he had issued only three treatment orders, it appears that the bulk of their work does not deal with the question of treatment and consent to treatment. It deals, in the main, with the questions of committal and competency.

We are not talking about a huge problem, nor do I believe there is much credibility to the concern that our psychiatric wards and psychiatric hospitals will become jails or become clogged with people who refuse treatment. I find that kind of rhetorical sally somewhat irresponsible. I am aware that the existence of a difficult patient in a ward of 22 people can disrupt that ward and that there may have to be ways to prevent the refusal of one patient to accept treatment from having an impact on the rest of the patients who have not refused treatment.

Clearly, society does not want to throw away any lives. We must strive to set in place programs, policies and legislative protections that will minimize the loss of life. I do not believe, nor do a considerable number of other people and groups, that protecting the civil rights of a psychiatric patient will in any way contribute to the throwing away of life. I sympathize deeply with those who have lost a family member through suicide. I sympathize particularly because I too have lost a member of my family through suicide and so I have an understanding of what an unbearable pain and anguish that can be to a family.

We do not always know whether a timely intervention is going to deliver the effect we hope it will deliver, but we do know and we must insist on the right of the individual to be autonomous and to be a partner in whatever treatment that individual and the medical profession and the parts thereof jointly decide on. There is some evidence, regrettably not enough, to suggest that treatment that is administered against the will of a person is not very effective treatment. That is the logical conclusion one might arrive at.

Of course, some will say, "What if a person is in no position to make appropriate decisions about his life?" That kind of question gets handled under the competency heading. If it is the view of the attending physicians that someone is not competent to make decisions about his treatment and is unable to understand the nature of his illness or the prognosis which would attach to the illness under specific types of conditions, then we must rely on a process, and it must be a due process, to decide the question of competency.

Once that question is decided, there are opportunities for treatment to be ordered, except in the case where the substitute decision-maker says that a particular treatment should be refused. I would also advance that very strongly as an appropriate response by a substitute decision-maker and one which should be not only understood but also supported.

1550

There are some sections in Bill 190 which deal progressively with the question of how we pick substitute decision-makers, but I would put it to the Legislature, and particularly to the Minister of Health, that assuming he were competent and wanted to direct his decision-maker to refuse a particular kind of treatment in the future, such as electroconvulsive therapy or a massive drug therapy of a particular kind, his wish, expressed at the time he was competent and then advanced to the attending physician through a substitute decision-maker at the time he becomes incompetent, if he should be so unfortunate, should also be respected and should not be overturned by any process or by any quasi-judicial tribunal.

Finally, let me say that appropriate treatment has some subjective qualities to it; it must have some subjective qualities to it. Who is it in society who we believe should be the one who decides what is appropriate treatment? Should it be the physician; should it be the patient; should it be the substitute decision-maker?

In the end, I feel very strongly that these amendments, in the main, are not about care and are not about treatment; they are about power. In terms of the doctor-patient relationship, we have to be particularly vigilant to ensure that the patient has access to the power the patient needs. I think that is what the absolute right to refuse is about, and that is why I feel strongly that the amendments suggested by the Minister of Health are inappropriate.

I do look forward to the hearings. The minister may be surprised to learn how many sectors of the health profession agree with my position, including the psychologists, the social workers and, indeed, some medical doctors. A large group of civil rights activists and mental health professionals will want to come to the committee and say just that.

I also would welcome, as I know he will, participation by people who feel otherwise, because we do need to sort out these issues so that we can create a circumstance, both a legislative framework and a care program, that will best meet the needs of the people of Ontario for good health in a context of strong civil liberty.

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to a couple of those comments, I want to indicate quite clearly that I do not expect unanimous presentations on the part of the people who are involved in the system. In fact, the committee stage is there so we can have a very thorough airing indeed of the issues. I agree with the honourable gentleman that it needs to be done. I do not think a thorough debate on these issues was done when the amendment to Bill 7 was passed. The gentleman might agree with me, appropriately, that this type of committee is very much required so that we can set our minds specifically to this item.

I want to indicate a couple of things. First, the legislation does provide an expanded definition of competency, and we may want to talk a little about the relevance or at least the extent of that definition in committee, but at least it is already provided in the amendment.

I might also indicate that we do not have a situation where involuntary patients refuse treatments as a rare item. There are many such deliberations being held. We understand that at our 12 boards we are doing at least one of these per week per board, so there are a number being considered in the 12 boards we currently have.

The other item is that it seems to me we have gone a little bit further as well in the sense that we have provided in the amendment, inadvertently, the ability of a relative of an involuntary incompetent patient to refuse absolutely, even in the situation where a patient, if competent, might very well choose to receive treatment.

There are a number of those items which we will be able to deal with during committee time in a very thorough manner. I am looking forward to those discussions so that the Legislative Assembly can turn its collective mind to precisely providing the good health care that the people of the province require.

Mr. Reville: In reply, I am interested to hear the minister say that each of the 12 boards does a treatment order each week. It was not information I was able to get, and I hope this information will be available to the committee so that in fact we can understand the scope of the problem.

I certainly think his remarks are totally credible. My problem was that I was unable to get any statistics from the review board, and what I got was anecdotal information from a couple of chairmen, who did indeed indicate that treatment orders were a very small portion of their business, between five and seven per cent, which was how I arrived at my numbers. I agree that in some jurisdictions the request for treatment orders may indeed be larger.

The other issue is that it is possible that in some institutions the psychiatrists decline to apply for treatment orders for some reason or another, and of course we will have to get evidence on that score to discover why that might be.

I appreciate the minister indicating he did not believe that the input to the committee would be totally unanimous; I am sure that is correct. I again look forward to this debate taking place, and I would like to point out that in fact in a large number of jurisdictions, and for many years in our jurisdiction, this debate has been going on, perhaps not at a recent committee, and many jurisdictions have mental health legislation that is very similar to that generated by Bill 7.

Mr. Henderson: I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill 190, the Mental Health Amendment Act, 1987. I have much to say and so very little time that I am therefore going to speak more quickly than I would otherwise wish to do.

I want to say that I am no stranger to these matters. I have a long-standing interest as a practitioner in mental health legislation, and during my time in public health I learned something of the practice of other jurisdictions as well. When I was in Barrie, I was in charge of the hospital's clinical unit and responsible for the hospital's interpretation of mental health legislation and for monitoring compliance with it hospital-wide.

As a member of the council of the Ontario Psychiatric Association, I participated in discussion, and sometimes debate, about mental health legislation. Over the years, I have frequently written to successive Ministers of Health setting forth what I feel to be a point of view on behalf of patients with psychological disorders.

A few months ago we passed an amendment in this House posed by the member for Ottawa Centre that would have made treating competent involuntary patients virtually impossible without their consent and incompetent involuntary patients without their next of kin's consent. There is a part of my nature, and I would call it the part that I identify with my humanist and civil libertarian side, that applauded that amendment. Personally, I have usually resorted to considerable mental and legalistic gymnastics to avoid certifying patients. Especially I have loathed having to treat patients who did not wish treatment. Like many physicians, I would die a little death whenever circumstances required that I do that.

It is foreign to my whole nature as a human being and to my ethic of compassion and caring as a physician to impose help on people who do not wish it. What mental health care is all about, in my view, is helping people grow. It is not easy to see how one can best help people grow if one begins by stripping them of liberties and inflicting treatment as though it were a punishment imposed for evildoing.

Good mental health care rests upon the idea of a therapeutic alliance wherein a clinician and a patient contract, work together and collaborate with each other to help an individual understand the nature and meaning of his or her symptoms, gain a greater sense of being in the driver's seat of his or her own life and gather insight about what makes him or her the kind of person he or she is.

1600

I am speaking of a collaborative attitude. Attitudes are not luxuries in mental health care; they are central ingredients of the treatment process. A therapeutic alliance is, above all, an alliance. An alliance is not something that can be imposed on one individual by another.

All of these points, which I have practised, written and taught young doctors about, presume a patient is able to appreciate at least in a general way the nature of his or her mental processes and able to make a realistic assessment of his or her state of mental health. A patient who cannot appreciate that a physician is there to be helpful to him or who is tormented by paranoid delusions or equally difficult naïve idealizations poses a serious dilemma in this process of striving for a therapeutic alliance.

I am assuming for purposes of this discussion that the physician is not colluding, presumably unconsciously, in the patient's need for such paranoid or idealizing attitudes. I assume, as presumably the legislation should assume, a competent and well-intended physician, just as we assume in drafting legislation a patient who is genuinely suffering and genuinely reaching to be helped by a professional in whom he is prepared to invest at least a certain trust and confidence.

These assumptions do not always apply, because physicians are not of equal excellence in what they bring to care-giving and patients are motivated by far more complicated things than simply a wish to be helped. We make those assumptions in the drafting of legislation because we want to assume good faith on both sides of the therapeutic contract.

I outline these points of mindset and attitude because they are critically important in mental health care and because we legislators and most citizens often take them for granted. We ought not to take them for granted, because mindset and attitude dovetail with various parts of the therapeutic process and therapeutic environment. We legislators sometimes tinker with that environment to the potential serious detriment, ultimately, of patients.

I mention these points also because I want to stress that I am much, though not entirely, in sympathy with the amendment we passed some months ago put forward by the member for Ottawa Centre.

I might say that I especially find, as a physician, the treatment known as electroconvulsive therapy or shock treatment to be repugnant. I have administered that treatment rarely and not for the past 15 years. I doubt I will ever administer it again, certainly not if I can help it. Aside from the way I feel about it, I am troubled by the lack of information about how it works. As a practitioner as well as a legislator, I am a pragmatist and I am quite prepared to reach when I have to for whatever succeeds. After half a century of use and thousands of excellent research and other studies, we are little, if any, closer to a definitive understanding of the mechanism of action of ECT.

However, as a medical practitioner, I have had to bend all these convictions, sentiments and reservations a little to the evidence I have seen. I have seen men and women whose lives have been wrecked for months, whose perceptions and experiences are smashed and maimed beyond recognition, and have been for months, return to a state of apparent normalcy and peace of mind in the course of a day or two as a result of three or four ECT treatments. I have seen patients in catatonic stupor, frozen and immobile, unresponsive, uncommunicative, totally neglecting their nutritional and other physical and emotional needs to a point of physical illness, and sometimes near death, restored to a state of relative normalcy in a day or two, after weeks or months of apparent total detachment from reality and, by all accounts, intense suffering.

I might add that what we all saw in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest bears no resemblance to how ECT is administered in a modern mental health facility. Movies are for entertainment; realities are something different. Whether or not the patient consented to treatment did not, in my experience, seem to influence its dramatic helpfulness. I believe certain treatments work as well regardless of whether consent is given. Incidentally, the treatment is always given under anaesthetic.

In examining this issue of the place of ECT, I speak as one reluctantly persuaded by the evidence, not as one who is disposed to like the nature of the treatment, because I definitely do not. Mental health professionals worry that they will have patients in their facilities who are certifiably involuntary and cannot be discharged but who refuse treatment and cannot be helped. The professionals worry about becoming custodians or even glorified jailers.

In rebuttal, it is often said that patients who are involuntary are therefore necessarily incompetent, so we need not worry about having a situation wherein competent involuntary patients need to be treated against their will. One of the suggestions I will make presently is that we redefine mental competence, as indeed this legislation attempts to do, to make that assumption more like reality. At the moment, in my opinion, it is not. Patients can easily be involuntary and competent both.

For example, a man or a woman who sinks into a psychotic depression on the anniversary of a parent's death and insists on spending every hour of every waking day kneeling at the parent's gravestone is neglecting himself or herself in a way that brings great anguish to those who love and care about that patient and works grievous injury to the patient's own mental health. Yet the patient may be in no threat of imminent or serious physical impairment, may not be hospitalizable as an involuntary patient or may be so only with great difficulty and with some considerable stretching of the criteria. That patient may be quite mentally competent by traditional criteria of what constitutes mental competence.

Such an individual can be very difficult to treat, and often enough patients in such categories have had to be allowed to continue to suffer and to inflict great suffering on their families because their caretakers could not feel, or could not feel with any confidence, authorized to offer simple, safe treatment almost certain to be effective.

I recall another example when I was involved personally in the hospitalization of an emaciated academic who had been living in reclusive filth and squalor and near total self-neglect since he developed a serious mental illness in his 30s. The criteria for certification had just been changed from threat of serious bodily harm to threat of imminent and serious physical impairment in the then revision of the Mental Health Act. This patient really did not meet those new criteria, but his doctors, of whom I was one, bent the law because to fail to do so would have been cruel.

Our mental health professionals should not be placed in that kind of situation, but it happens often. I speak from experience in saying these situations are not rare. They are familiar occurrences in the experience of every practising physician who deals with patients with psychological disorders in a hospital setting.

Some patients whose lives and families are wrecked by mental illness are less at risk of imminent and serious bodily harm than those of us who take Highway 401 or the Gardiner Expressway to work. Presumably they are less mentally healthy, but I suppose even that can sometimes be questioned. That is meant to be a joke, folks.

Be that as it may, it is true that society's criteria for involuntary hospitalization have little to do with the presence of evidence of mental illness and our criteria for involuntary treatment have only partly to do with the potential helpfulness of treatment -- that in the name of guarding civil liberties -- but surely compassion and caring about people have a place in this debate as well.

I want to make the following brief comments on some particular points of this bill. My first point, for the reasons I have outlined, is to wonder if there ought to be a mechanism, albeit a mechanism with many safeguards, for administering ECT to involuntary patients who are not incompetent and do not consent, when the evidence is overwhelming that it would be much in their best interests and an act of humanity and compassion to do so. Alternatively, we could arrange a tougher definition of mental competence so that these situations could arise less frequently or never.

Suffice it to say that it is a very difficult thing indeed for a caring clinician to see a patient continue to suffer and inflict great suffering on those who care about him or her, when the clinician knows full well that straightforward treatment methods are available which would end this untold, ongoing agony. Believe me, this is not a theoretical issue. I have watched it unfold time and time again as director of the clinical unit in Barrie, and I have agonized over it personally as a practising physician.

1610

A second point has to do with the requirement in this bill that when next of kin give consent on a patient's behalf, they do so, if possible, on the basis of what the patient's wishes would be when apparently mentally competent as a priority over what the consenter may deem to be the patient's best interests. Surely that begs the whole process.

For example, it would mean that when a patient whose condition was deteriorating, and who had as an involuntary but competent patient refused treatment, became incompetent in the course of deterioration, he could still not be treated on the authorization of the next of kin because the next of kin would know that while the patient was competent he refused treatment; that would have to govern whether treatment would be authorized after the patient had deteriorated.

That requirement pre-empts the whole aim of consent by next of kin or other appointees. The criterion ought to be that the agent or next of kin would give or refuse consent on the basis of the patient's best interest, or if that is not possible to determine, on the basis of some kind of determination of what the patient's wishes would be were the patient free of mental disorder.

Respecting the patient's wishes when competent, though it appears to be a gesture in the direction of the patient's civil liberties, in fact might condemn him to irreversible clinical deterioration, because while sick, involuntary yet still competent, he had once refused treatment. With humanity such as that around, who needs to be afraid of inhumanity?

I know this is not the minister's nor the government's intent. I urge that every consideration be given to correcting that anomaly in future, if not in this revision of the mental health legislation.

Treatment ought to be given or refused by the patient or his agent on the basis of the patient's best interests: what he or she would wish if of sound mind and able to appreciate the nature and effects of his or her disorder, the nature and effects of treatment and the consequences of withholding treatment. If the patient cannot make such a determination, then others must do so on the patient's behalf, and that surely ought to be the aim of this notion of consent by next of kin or proxy.

My third point pertains to the matter of obtaining an opinion from psychiatrists from outside facilities when review boards are to decide matters of treatment. The idea of requiring an outside psychiatrist seems a reasonable one, yet in practice it can be impossible to obtain if the nearest outside psychiatrist is in a small community hundreds of miles away and is not paid in such a way as to compensate him for the day or more of his time that may be required to travel to the facility where the patient is to offer his opinion.

To pay the doctor for the time he would have to spend would be a partial remedy, but there may still be occasions when to obtain that outside psychiatrist's opinion is simply not practical. Moreover, it may not be necessary. A reasonable compromise would be to allow the outside consultant to be not necessarily a psychiatrist but a family physician who is not a member of the medical staff of the psychiatric facility but who understands mental health issues.

I speak from personal experience on that as well, recalling times when we had great difficulty obtaining or even were unable to obtain such an outside psychiatrist to visit our unit in Barrie. Knowing that, it seems to me that communities even more remote than Barrie would pose situations where it would be virtually impossible or impossible to do so quickly enough to avoid clinical injury. I should not say "even more remote than Barrie," because Barrie is not remote; I mean remote communities.

In my opinion, it would be better to settle for an outside physician, not necessarily a psychiatrist. The review board can always decide if a greater level of expertise and specialization is required. If so, it can help make the necessary arrangements.

I have a final point on payments and costs. This legislation is complex. I know that, because I have experienced it and I have experienced that the time required of an attending physician to comply with these requirements can be enormous.

A hearing before a board requires that a doctor cancel other patients' appointments. Cancelling psychotherapy appointments can create enormous problems for the future course of therapy. It goes far beyond the simple act of the patient and the doctor having to rearrange their appointments; issues of accountability, loyalty, trust, alliance and mindset are cast in bold relief by such occurrences and can undermine months of difficult and painstaking therapeutic work, and even precipitate a brand-new set of psychiatric emergencies.

Add to these vexations the fact that the doctor is apt not to be compensated for the time he spends in such review processes and in preparation for them, and one finds a real deterrent to doctors taking on administrative responsibilities that will involve them in these kinds of hearings, and a real incentive to find some way to shuffle legally complex patients to one side and let someone else look after them.

Mental health legislation has become more and more complex in recent years in an attempt, I hope, to safeguard patients' interests. One result of that complexity has been that an increasing number of doctors find ways of sidestepping the patients who present such complex legalistic issues, and the patients may receive worse, not better care. Even just to learn the complicated legal requirements, which do not fall easily into a physician's mental set, requires a substantial amount of time for learning, ongoing upgrading and relearning every time the act is changed and amended.

I therefore urge that consideration be given in this or future revisions to this act to providing, through the Ontario health insurance plan or through some other mechanism, compensation for our physicians for the time required to attend to such essentially nonclinical, legalistic requirements and the attendant demands on their time. How else can we expect a doctor to be willing to book off half a day, a day or even more to consult with, let alone participate in, the kind of safeguarding process that this legislation prescribes.

Let us not delude ourselves about the cost of these reviews. I have heard estimates of the costs -- taking into account the value of the time of the participants, the bureaucratic requirements, the legal advisers and, incidentally, not counting the cost of the doctor's time, which is usually provided free -- at about $10,000 per hearing. That is not an argument against attending to our patient's civil liberties; it is a plea for sobriety and reason and some attention to cost in our efforts to be fair to the taxpayers as well as to our patients.

These are my comments and suggestions. I hope they will be seriously considered in this and future revisions to the mental health legislation of this province. If I speak as a physician -- and I am partly doing that today -- I can find many points to criticize in Bill 190, and yet I also speak as a politician and as a legislator. I know the kinds of political pressure brought to bear upon the process which has led to these revisions, because I have participated in those kinds of processes on many occasions.

I temper my therapeutic conscience with my conscience, sensitivities and sensibilities as a legislator and as a citizen. All of us in this chamber are deeply concerned about the civil liberties of patients with psychological disorders, yet none of the members, I venture to say, much more than I. These ideas of humanity and compassion, civil liberties, rights to treatment are no mere buzzwords for me. I care greatly about such matters, as I am sure do all of us in this chamber.

In the balance, I think this bill embodies many points of reasonable compromise between civil liberties and rights to treatment. I have heard from constituents expressing great concern about Bill 190, lest patients needing treatment be unable to obtain it. I know of fears of psychiatric patients and of their families that we err too much in the direction of attending too little to the rights of patients to have their symptoms treated. I have heard from organizations of discharged psychiatric patients and I have heard from organizations representing patients with specific kinds of psychological disorders. I share their concerns that we be courageous enough to ensure that Ontarians have assured access to the finest mental health care available and that right to treatment is prominently factored into the legislative process.

I know also about the concerns of civil libertarians, and I share those concerns as well. In the balance, I will therefore support this legislation and recommend that careful consideration be given in committee, and perhaps in future revisions, to some of the points I have put forward in these remarks.

1620

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Questions and comments?

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question and a comment combined, if I may. I appreciate the fact that the member for Humber has talked about his own experience with the use of electroconvulsive therapy, his personal feelings about using electroconvulsive therapy, and his statement that he is troubled personally that doctors lack knowledge about how ECT works. I would like to ask him whether he feels we have a greater degree of knowledge about the effects of some of the very powerful psychotherapeutic drugs that are in use in our psychiatric institutions. Do we know more about how they work?

Mr. Henderson: I would not want my remarks to be misunderstood. I think my words were, "We do not have definitive knowledge." There is a tremendous amount known about ECT. To say there are volumes and volumes and volumes would indeed be an understatement. There is a lot of good research and some excellent and well-tested theories. My comment about lack of definitive knowledge is simply a way of saying what I think many physicians understand well, and that is that when theories, data and research studies proliferate and continue to proliferate, it means they are not converging on a particular point of view, and I think that is the case.

I would not want to convey that ECT is a poorly understood modality of treatment. It is not. It is well understood, but there is no consensus on any one or two simple ways of understanding how and why it works.

Ms. Gigantes: The mechanism?

Mr. Henderson: The mechanism of action. The research on its outcome -- outcome studies and clinical effectiveness studies -- is clear. It works very well, and it works very well regardless of whether the patient consents. But the mechanism of action, I think, would engender some divergence of opinion.

On the matter of psychotropic medication, so-called psychodysleptic drugs, to some extent that is true, although I think it is safe to say there is quite a bit of consensus and quite a bit of agreement about that area, which is not, incidentally, an area I personally am expert in, in an academic sense. But there is a good deal of agreement about psychotropic medications and how and where they work; more agreement, I think, than exists about ECT.

Ms. Gigantes: Is the mechanism of drugs understood?

Mr. Henderson: Yes; mechanisms. It has to do with the depletion, and reversing the depletion, of certain chemicals and neurotransmitters in nerve endings which are important to the determination of mood states.

Mr. Runciman: I have a few brief comments in support of the bill. It is regrettable the minister had to take this course of action. I do not believe the original amendment should have passed, but unfortunately, I did not have any input into that decision.

From the start, I want it to go on record that I am in favour of reforms in the psychiatric facilities of this province. I also want to point out that one of the largest psychiatric facilities in Ontario is in my riding. I am reminded that not too many years ago there were 2,000 patients in the Brockville hospital. Today there are about 500. How did that come about? Not by patients refusing treatment, but by the use of medication that was unknown 50 years ago.

I have not studied the report of the electroconvulsive therapy committee, but apparently the amendment to Bill 7 made by the member for Ottawa Centre was based on the use of shock treatment to bring people out of deep depression when all other means failed. If that is the case, why does she not simply be specific, instead of making her amendment a sweeping generalization by using the term "treatment," which can mean many things?

She notes too that patient advocates have been placed in a difficult position, because review boards have the authority now to rule on treatment if a patient refuses. That same advocate program is headed by former NDP candidate Dr. Tyrone Turner, and at present I believe the government is still conducting a review of the effectiveness of the advocate program.

My point is that there are too many unanswered questions generated by the amendment of the member for Ottawa Centre. Her amendment negates the authority of the review board, which very democratically listened to all sides and where the patient is represented by a lawyer and family members in most cases. Such reviews are most thorough, and decisions, both for and against treatment, are open to appeal in the courts. The doctor too has a right to appeal a decision. Is this system to be negated?

Then there is the most elusive term, "mentally competent." Looking around the House I sometimes wonder how many of us would pass. Being mentally competent and being incompetent to administer one's affairs are, as I understand it, vastly different. One is certified mentally incompetent to administer financial matters, but that does not necessarily mean that one is not mentally competent to make judgements in other matters. I am told they are entirely different designations.

In other words, the present act provides that a mentally competent person, who may be certified incompetent to handle financial affairs, has the right to refuse treatment and testify before a review board. "Mentally incompetent" would mean the patient is not able to instruct counsel. Very few patients fall into this category and if they do, the present act provides for a substitute decision-maker, such as next of kin, etc.

Is this amendment aimed at destroying the patient-doctor trust even more than is already being done by the process? I would suggest that before the member's amendment could be considered for proclamation, much more input is essential, and the minister's bill will accomplish that.

Doctors, nurses and families of patients deserve to be heard, and what about the municipalities? Should they not be invited to provide input? Are we listening to only those who have had little or no experience in the wards of psychiatric hospitals?

In years past, the Progressive Conservative Party provided enlightened legislation to protect the rights of patients in psychiatric hospitals, legislation such as the new Mental Health Act of 1967 and the revisions and amendments of 1980, three in all, one of them dealing with authority to treat under specific conditions.

Review boards were also created in 1967-68. This safeguard of rights, the review board, assured that every patient had a day in court with his or her own lawyer, provided through legal aid, if necessary.

Thus, in the recent past, we have seen two major revolutions take place in psychiatric care in Ontario: (1) the new medications and (2) the review board process.

Perhaps the most important point I want to make is this: Will the amendment of the member for Ottawa Centre help the patient get well as soon as possible, will it result in patients refusing medication and being turned out into the streets, as is done in many states in the United States, or will it mean they will languish untreated in psychiatric facilities for years and years?

There is also a legal point of interpretation of the term "treatment." Does it also mean that certification will no longer be legally allowed unless the patient agrees or is committed by a court of law? If hospital staff is unable to treat patients, how are they supposed to get well? Treatment of mentally disoriented people has become a legal quagmire, one that is turning more and more good doctors away from psychiatry. They have become paper-pushers extraordinaire.

I wonder if the member for Ottawa Centre has had any experience with mentally ill people. Their treatment is more complex than what meets the eye and it takes 10 to 20 years' experience to really know what mental illness is all about. Yet we have lawyers and politicians acting as though they are more experienced than psychiatrists. It is a sad day for this much-maligned profession.

This amendment could make the role of the doctor ineffective. It is also a condemnation of medications that have revolutionized the treatment of mental disorders and made it possible for thousands of patients to return home.

The aim of treatment is to make the patient well as soon as possible. I do not believe the member's amendment will make that possible. It will simply aggravate an already complex situation. I think it would be a tragedy if people with mental illness have to suffer needlessly because of the member's amendment, all because they will have the right to refuse treatment.

I am one of those who feels that patients have the right to freedom as long as they are not an immediate danger to themselves or to others or their illness does not pose a potential for serious physical impairment. When such is the case, the certification is lifted and the patient is free to go. Often, though, this means the person remains ill but the illness is controlled by medication, and as long as it is taken, the patient can or should be able to function in society.

1630

Regardless of contrary views, I believe the medical profession is interested in the rights of patients; but it is also very interested in the best interests of patients, which means keeping them alive and well and not letting them commit suicide or harm another person because of uncontrolled mental illness. Mental illness, as anyone knows, has a habit of interfering with the ability of people to make safe judgements about their own lives or the lives of others.

It is a given that there are no cures for schizophrenia or some of the other major mental illnesses, but antipsychotic medications are effective in reducing the severity of, or sometimes suppressing entirely, most psychotic symptoms. Granted, this means that many patients must remain on medication indefinitely, but so too do many people with high blood pressure, diabetes, epilepsy, arthritis, etc. Should we also avoid symptomatic treatment such as insulin and antiarthritic and antihypertension medications?

All medical treatments bear some risk. The question to answer is, "Is the risk taken justified by the benefits that you expect to receive?" Antipsychotic drugs, I am told, have virtually no life-threatening risks. There is a risk that some patients may, and I stress "may," develop some abnormal muscular movement after a long time on some medications, but medications for hypertension, etc., also have side-effects. I ask the House: If a mentally ill patient is enabled to lead a more normal life by taking medication, should politicians deny him that right?

How many patients might be inclined to refuse treatment? As I understand it, most schizophrenics pass through early stages characterized by denial of all help; anger; attempts at a self-cure with diets, which are often fatal; exercise and fitness regimes to work the "evil" out of their systems, and religion. At this stage they refuse all help. Next they move to a state involving paranoid symptoms and violence, especially if they believe they are being poisoned or others are going to assault them.

There is no known cure for mental illness, I am told. There are treatments that will stabilize it; treatments that are many times refused out of hand by people who are mentally ill. What could happen to them under Ms. Gigantes's legislation? They are sufficiently ill to be certified, not too ill to refuse treatment. Should they then be kept as involuntary patients for years or turned out into the streets to harm themselves or others? The member's amendment is saying to the world, "We do not trust psychiatrists and mental health care staff." Where will the help come from for people who refuse treatment?

What about hospital staff? How many are injured every year? If Ms. Gigantes's amendment --

Mr. Speaker: You are referring to the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Runciman: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. If the amendment of the member for Ottawa Centre to Bill 7, which Bill 190 is trying to overcome, were to receive royal assent, how many hospital staff would be injured? I predict it will get much worse than it already is in terms of injuries to staff, and it is a significant problem now.

Over the years, we have built a great many safeguards into the system. Review boards and patient advocates are there to protect patients' rights. The amendment of the member for Ottawa Centre means, in my view, that this assembly no longer has any faith in review boards and advocates. I urge support of Bill 190.

Ms. Gigantes: As my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) indicated, we will be supporting this bill on second reading in principle. We are doing that not because we approve the bill, in particular sections 5 and 6, but because we approve the notion that when we move forward in the area of reform of our mental health legislation in this province, it is best to do that with as wide and firm a public consensus as possible on the way in which we are searching for progress.

The manner in which the amendment I have put forward on behalf of my party was dealt with during the course of discussion of Bill 7, which, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, went off and on in the standing committee on administration of justice of this Legislature and in committee of the whole House, was over a year. The manner in which the debate took place was sometimes fairly fractured. We were dealing with a bill, Bill 7, the equality rights legislation, that affected about 75 pieces of Ontario statute. Because we were dealing with many items of a great deal of interest to various groups in the province, we had significant debate around some of the amendments that came through Bill 7, affecting some of our statutes -- for example, the Human Rights Code -- and in other areas, the debate was really not perhaps as deep or as wide as it should have been.

What Bill 190 offers us is an orderly and, I hope, full discussion of the very important issue of a competent patient's right to refuse treatment, and here we speak of the psychiatric patient. We all know that other patients have the right to refuse treatment and we all know that other patients, like psychiatric patients, may take a doctor's advice and engage in what the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson) called a contractual agreement with a doctor about treatment or not. In fact, when the patient sees a doctor and the doctor prescribes treatment and that treatment is drug therapy, medical patients who are not psychiatric patients, as well as psychiatric patients, very often do not comply with treatment orders.

We do not worry about those kinds of patients very often, because very often they cause no significant disorder in our society; whereas with psychiatric patients, as we know, for families and indeed for communities, individuals can cause an enormous amount of disorder, pain, suffering, anxiety and worry. In fact, when we look at the question of treatment of psychiatric patients, in many cases what we are looking at is not the patient as a central figure but the suffering family or the distressed community.

In some ways I think we have to admit to ourselves that when we look at this question and the balance we attempt to achieve in considering the rights of the person who is a psychiatric patient and the professional therapeutic drive of the doctor who is involved in the case, there is another element that we very often take into account without readily acknowledging it -- and I think we should discuss it in the course of this debate -- and that is the family and the community.

I see that three elements go into our decision-making around this question. It is a philosophical as well as practical question. It is a question of health and it is a question of the inviolability of the person.

Some of the remarks that were made today have made me feel I would like to get up here and speak for two hours on the subject, because it is a very important subject. I will refrain from doing that now because I think it better that we should leave intense discussion until we have had further hearings on the subject. I look forward personally to those hearings, and I have a great deal of optimism that the Minister of Health may discover that a consensus he does not think exists will emerge from those hearings and the discussion of the very important issues that will be contained in those hearings.

I would like for one moment to touch on the items of the bill on which I have some concerns. I have indicated already that the question of consent to treatment, affected by sections 5 and 6, is elemental in terms of our concern about this legislation.

There are sections of the bill that we are very glad to see and would have welcomed a year ago had they been put forward then as government amendments through the Bill 7 process. Those are changes to the definitions of "nearest relative" in order to provide a better system of substitute consent-giving in a situation where a psychiatric patient is determined to be not competent; they are also changes to the way in which a competent patient may appoint someone while competent to be the substitute consent-giver. That seems to us to be a very progressive move. It was not welcomed when we suggested this kind of amendment for the government's consideration in the spring of last year. Through this whole process, month after month, as we have moved forward in one area, we have discovered that the government is willing to consider another area in which progress and reform can occur, and we are pleased about that.

1640

I have questions which I hope the minister and his staff will be able to answer about the way in which this legislation is designed to treat the question of competency. That, of course, is an elemental question when we are considering the matter of the right to refuse treatment and how this legislation is intended to rope in categories of patients not previously affected by the sections now being amended. I speak here of the outpatient, the former patient and the voluntary patient. I hope the minister will give us the benefit of some explanations of just how much extension is being made in the proposed legislation to the notion of competency review of ex-patients, former patients and outpatients. All these matters need to be looked at very carefully, in my view, and I have questions about how the bill approaches them.

I would like to close by reminding members of this Legislature that in spite of what the member for Humber suggested to us, we have not had many rounds of review of mental health legislation as it affects these questions in Ontario. The last round was in 1978. We began another round a year ago, and this is a long process of discussion we are into right now.

The doctors, psychiatrists, the people who run our psychiatric institutions as administrators and so on have not been forced through enormous re-education programs every month and a half to learn the ramifications of legislative consideration and decision on matters of mental health. It is just nonsense to suggest that. We have not been jarring them unnecessarily, and I think that even the member for Humber will have to understand that the discussion of the question of the right to refuse by a competent patient has been intimately involved in public considerations and government review over a process of many years. It led, finally, to the publication in December 1985 of the so-called Electro-convulsive Therapy Review Committee, which took for ever to come forward with its recommendations.

I remind members of the House that though the mandate of that review committee was limited to the consideration of whether patients who are competent have the right to refuse electroconvulsive therapy, its very deep consideration of this matter and of the question of what constituted competence and a proper system of substitute consent-giving led it to consider what should be the position of a competent psychiatric patient in regard to any kind of treatment.

I am going to read into the record, for the benefit of those who are involved in this discussion, what the ECT review committee said in December 1985. I quote from page 72 of the report:

"There must be established a process for the determination of competency in a judicial or quasi-judicial manner" -- not by a psychiatrist; there were lots of psychiatrists and psychiatric professionals represented on this committee -- "...and that unless an individual is determined by this process to be incompetent to make treatment decisions, such individual should have the absolute right to consent to or refuse treatment, and this decision should not be subject to review. The committee recommends that the Mental Health Act be amended accordingly."

They were talking here not just of the use of electroconvulsive therapy in Ontario but the use of any psychiatric treatment on a competent patient. We have built up a much better understanding of the issues involved in our mental health legislation over the past 10 years than had been understood for decades before. It is time we should, because the variety and strength of psychiatric therapy have greatly changed in the past decade. The power and effectiveness of drug therapy have bloomed in the past decade to the benefit of thousands of psychiatric patients. There is no doubt about that. Nobody denies that and nobody would take away from it. Nobody would want to see the situation reversed.

However, the very power of those new drugs leads us to the point where we have to ask ourselves why electroconvulsive therapy should be separated from other therapies in terms of the competent patient's right to refuse. The government is suggesting we can isolate electroconvulsive therapy and say that no competent patient shall be forced to have electroconvulsive therapy. On the other hand, this legislation, Bill 190, would say that all other therapy, excluding psychosurgery, can be forced on a patient by a review board decision if the doctor wishes to appeal the refusal of a competent patient.

If there is one area in which I think there is common agreement between what the member for Humber calls clinicians and the point of view for which I speak on this matter, it is that if you are going to allow a competent patient to refuse a specific treatment, it does not make sense to isolate out electroconvulsive therapy. There are drug therapies that are just as terrifying in terms of their physical implications. In spite of what the member for Humber suggested a few minutes ago, I think we would find very few knowledgeable in the field of psychotropic drugs who would suggest that we understand the mechanisms by which they work.

I have said enough for now. I look forward to our discussion. I hope during the course of that discussion we will achieve within this Legislature and in the broad public a real consensus of opinion about this very important matter of providing that psychiatric patients who are competent have the right to refuse treatment.

Mr. Harris: I am very supportive of this piece of legislation. In one area, I agree with the member for Ottawa Centre. I think it is a disgrace this area was not aired previously; it should have been looked at in a far more serious vein at the time Bill 7 was being looked at. There were concerns expressed by our party on electroshock therapy. There is room for change. Some of the changes now being proposed make a lot more sense than what is there and what was there.

I am pleased to indicate my personal support for this. I too look forward to the hearings. I enjoyed the remarks of the member for Humber who indicated his concern and the balancing act that must be played by doctors in these situations. I do think it is very unfortunate that it appears the minister did not treat this problem seriously when the bill was brought in; that is why we now are going through this exercise.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on social development.

1650

ARCHITECTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Scott, second reading of Bill 197, An Act to amend the Architects Act, 1984.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am about to plead absence from the chamber. The parliamentary assistant will be speaking to the House on this bill.

Mr. Ward: The purpose of the bill is to provide for the Ontario Association of Architects to put in place a self insurance plan so that the professional architects of this province can carry on their business and meet the requirements of the act. A further amendment extends the indemnity coverage of the board to the nonarchitect members to be indemnified against possible actions as a result of the carrying on of their duties.

Mr. Partington: I am pleased to indicate my party's support for this bill. The need for this act arises out of the continuing insurance crisis, which has prohibited many architects from obtaining insurance at affordable costs and has prohibited some from obtaining insurance at any cost. A recent survey indicated 35 per cent of practising architects are currently uninsured.

Certainly, the decisions of private insurers should not dictate who practises architecture and who does not. At reasonable cost, this act will permit architects to self-insure, provide protection for the public and protection for the professionals against liability. Let us hope the government does some work to ensure all those in the public get similar help in the near future.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to indicate our support for the bill. I want to quote briefly from the compendium that has been so kindly provided to us by the Ministry of the Attorney General: "Because of the recent insurance crisis, many architects have been unable to obtain insurance sufficient to meet their needs at affordable costs. Some have not been able to obtain insurance at any cost. The Ontario Association of Architects believes that the decisions of private insurers should not prevent the practice of architecture by persons qualified to practise."

Amen to that. I anticipate with great fervour that having done this for the architects of Ontario, the government will next do it for every person in the province who drives an automobile.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 178, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The purpose of the legislation is to alter the boundary between the township of Norfolk and the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk and the town of Tillsonburg in the county of Oxford. This will implement an agreement that was adopted by the councils of all four affected municipalities in September 1985 after two years of negotiations and meetings.

The implementation of this boundary agreement will mean that the town of Tillsonburg obtains 345 acres of much-needed land for the expansion of its industrial park. Included in this acreage is a substantial area that will serve as a rural buffer between the agricultural activities of Norfolk township to the south and industrial activity in Tillsonburg to the north. The implementation of the boundary agreement will also mean that seven acres will be annexed from Tillsonburg to the township of Norfolk. This will consolidate the farm holdings of a single owner in one municipality.

The enactment of this legislation will resolve a dispute over land use planning in the urban fringe of Tillsonburg that has gone on for more than a decade. I am very pleased that the agreement will shortly be implemented and warmly congratulate all four municipalities on their patience, cooperation and hard work in having worked out a reasonable solution to this dispute.

Boundary agreements under the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, 1981 are normally implemented by means of order in council. This is not possible in this case because the change will alter the boundary between the county of Oxford and the regional municipality of Halidimand-Norfolk. As a result, legislation is necessary and I sincerely hope all members will join me in supporting it.

The legislation also contains minor amendments of a housekeeping nature. For example, these will repeal two redundant provisions in the act and remove the requirement that the selection of redeemable debentures be made at an open meeting of county council. Most of these amendments were enacted for the regional municipalities in Muskoka in December 1986.

Mr. Partington: I wish to indicate my party's support for this very important bill.

Mr. Breaugh: I express our support for the bill. The members will know that I love annexation bills; they are one of my favourite topics. It is unfortunate the local member is not present to participate in this debate but that is the way it is sometimes. In this instance, we will be happy to support a negotiated settlement that requires a little legislation to help it along.

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think it is only a courtesy to indicate that the member who represents this area now is sitting in the Speaker's chair and normally would have been in his seat had he not been fulfilling those other duties.

The Deputy Speaker: That is really not an appropriate point of order.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

1700

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 179, An Act to amend the Municipal Act and certain other Acts related to Municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This legislation will make a wide variety of useful amendments to the Municipal Act. It will also make a number of related and complementary amendments to other statutes, including the Local Improvement Act, the Municipal Elections Act and the Surveys Act.

I do not propose to take the time of the House to describe all these amendments. Indeed, many of them are of a housekeeping nature and do not require any explanation or elaboration. However, I do want to point out to the members some of the more important provisions of the bill. One such provision will authorize each city council to change the title of its members from alderman to councillor, if it wishes to do so. Another important provision will permit all municipal councils and local boards to provide supplementary benefits to their retired employees. This is a matter of real concern in many municipalities. The legislation will be very helpful to retired municipal public servants and their families.

The legislation will also enable municipalities right across the province to participate in gypsy moth control programs by establishing and operating aerial spraying programs. At present, only counties are authorized to work with private land owners in combating the infestation of forests by gypsy moths.

The legislation contains an important group of provisions that will enable county councils, with the consent of their local municipalities, to transfer responsibility for existing county bridges on local roads back to the local municipality. At present, there is no procedure for such a transfer. The key element in these provisions is that the transfer of a bridge will be able to take place only with the agreement of both the county council and the affected local municipality.

Finally, the legislation will allow municipalities to deal with unassumed municipal roads that have been closed by a judge's order in the same way as assumed municipal roads that have been closed by a municipal bylaw. This change will be beneficial to municipalities, while still ensuring that the interests of neighbouring land owners are carefully protected.

Mr. Partington: I am pleased to rise to indicate my party's support for Bill 179. I note with interest many sections of the act but particularly, as the minister indicated, section 2, which authorizes municipalities to designate council members as councillors rather than aldermen. This is in recognition of the very important role women in our society increasingly play at the municipal level, as at all levels of government.

I particularly want to refer to subsection 20(2) which authorizes municipalities and local boards to make payments on behalf of retired employees, their spouses and children, with respect to life and medical insurance and on behalf of retired employees with respect to insurance under the Health Insurance Act.

In many cases, this will help alleviate a gap where employees retire before the age of 65. Until now, in many cases those benefits have been in suspension and not paid. I indicated to the minister some months ago that this was a priority, having been contacted by employees of the St. Catharines Hydroelectric Commission who were caught in that gap. I am pleased that it is contained in this bill and that this bill is being passed today.

Mr. Breaugh: I concur in the remarks that have been made. We support this bill. By and large, it is a collection of requests that have been made by various municipalities over a lengthy period of time.

I want to pick out two sections and give credit where credit is due. The first is the section that makes reference to use of the word "councillor." There has been a little movement among municipalities, spearheaded by a woman who has served the council in London, Wilma Bolton. She has served that municipality well and has been trying for a number of years to have this small change made; it is not insignificant but is not exactly full force. This proposal would allow the municipalities, if they care to, to use the term "councillor." It does not seem like a big thing but it took quite a long time to get it into a legislative proposal. I am aware that Wilma and others have been working for two or three years to get this change made and there are others who have been working on it for longer than that.

The other section I want to mention is the section that allows municipalities and local boards to make benefit packages available to retirees. Again, on the surface this is such a simple, straightforward, practical proposal that one wonders why it took government, to my knowledge, at least seven years to get it into law. I am sure members may understand better than the general public that government works in a very slow process. It drags on and on. This is one that I am happy to support today and I regret that it took so long. The previous administration agreed to this change in the Municipal Act about five years ago -- it was that straightforward a matter -- and it has taken this long to get it to the floor of the Legislature.

There have been private members' bills on it. I have a little resolution in Orders and Notices again this year to do the same thing. At the same time, I want to praise the minister for getting this thing together and getting this act before the House so that we can support it. I want to kind of condemn the process without identifying any particular individual. There are a number of straightforward items such as these two proposals that have come from the municipalities over the years. It does seem to take an eternity to get them into legislative changes. I really do not know what the problem is.

I know that previous ministers, in private conversation, agreed to both of these changes. They agreed that they were sensible suggestions, that they were straightforward and that they would not cost a great deal of money. Changing the name to "councillor" might in some instances, but it is a matter of some concern to people who now are elected to municipal councils and who are doing a good job. The councils themselves agree that a slight name change was not going to be a great expense or a great inconvenience to anybody. It is something the councils have wanted to do. For the life of me, I do not understand why it takes so long to make these changes.

At any rate, we are grateful that they are here before us today and we are happy to support them.

Mr. Harris: Obviously, our party's support is being given to this bill. I want to follow up a little bit on the comments by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) about the amount of time it takes to bring these in. The bill was introduced in December. I know the member is particularly concerned about the amount of administrative time it appeared to take to get it into bill form. Let me tell him what else happens: This bill was of such low priority that it was not until yesterday that it was indicated we would even be ready to proceed.

I want to congratulate all my colleagues and the critics of the various ministries, who were not given very much time and who had intended to comment on the entire budgets of all the ministries of the government. We cut that back to about eight or 10 of the ministries and concurrences we had intended to do for the full order of business today. Quite frankly, had it not been for the critics in my party and in the third party, who agreed to forgo that time, this bill would not have been done today. It probably would have received the same priority and been shuffled to the end of the list. It probably would not have been done in the spring session either.

I would like, and I think it is fair, to say a few words on behalf of those who have given up very valuable time for looking at massive budgets and who have concerns for the way some of these budgets are being spent. Through this process, we now will spend approximately 50 minutes talking about the entire budgets of all ministries of the government.

1710

Mr. McLean: I have just a few comments to make about it. After moving second reading, the minister indicated with regard to the roads and bridges that they could be turned back with the agreement of both parties. I would like him to clarify for me: If the local municipality does not want to accept those roads, how is this bill going to make it accept them? I know that now, when some of the bridges over the Queen's highways in the province are turned back to the local municipalities, they do not always want to accept them, but they do so. Is this bill going to make those local municipalities accept those bridges?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The answer is yes. I do need the agreement of the local municipalities for this transfer. I can assure the member that the municipalities in Haldimand-Norfolk are very much aware of this and have all agreed to it.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there any other honourable member who wishes to participate in the debate? If not, this concludes the debate.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I would like to thank my critics, the member for Brock (Mr. Partington) and the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). The member for Oshawa has been bugging me for some time to bring this bill to second and third reading. He has been very interested and has helped me along. I want to thank them both for their co-operation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Mitchell: I would like to raise a few points with regard to concurrence in supply for the Ministry of the Environment, particularly in the light of many problems we have in the National Capital Region -- I am talking specifically about Ottawa-Carleton -- that demand a strong hand on the part of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to ensure that certain things are accomplished.

I have raised in this House the situation of getting rid of waste from a certain establishment in Ottawa-Carleton. It was proposed to dump the waste into the regional landfill site in Ottawa-Carleton. I raised the question but I have not had any direct reply from the minister himself, although members of his staff have informed me they are keeping on top of it and it will be handled properly.

I still feel we have to know precisely what testing is going to be done on the materials. I am not going to use the company name here, but the minister will be aware of it. I want to know what testing is to be done and I would like an assurance from the Minister of the Environment that he and the responsible persons in the local office will know exactly where that material will eventually be disposed of.

It is not sufficient to say that if the testing shows it to be nontoxic it could be dumped there, because I am afraid, by the way it was handled by the Ministry of the Environment offices, the people will always be suspicious. Let us face it, the Minister of the Environment also knows the Trail Road sanitary landfill site is itself suspect today.

He is also aware that during this period, there have been two studies done in the region on new locations for sanitary landfill sites. Quite frankly, I believe the minister should be prepared to acknowledge to this House the steps that are being taken with regard to soil that was contaminated because of an oil spill by the National Capital Commission at its site in Ottawa-Carleton, which was also dumped without prior approval, I believe -- but I stand to be corrected on that -- at the Trail Road site. That site is leaching. It is not a good situation, and I believe this House, but certainly the members from Ottawa-Carleton, need to be assured that all of the proper steps are being followed by the Ministry of the Environment and that the people of Ottawa-Carleton will be kept well informed as to what is happening.

Mr. Sterling: I am very disappointed that the Minister of the Environment is not in his seat, because I wanted to evoke from him a response in terms of his stand on a very important issue. He has talked at great length about different environmental issues across this province, but he has failed to meet or even talk about the most important one in terms of dealing with the possibility of saving thousands and thousands of jobs in this province each year.

Of course, I am talking about the problem of dealing with secondhand smoke in air space in buildings, both in the work place and in the public place. We have a Minister of the Environment who has said nothing with regard to this very significant problem, probably the greatest environmental problem as far as much of the Ontario public is concerned. I ask each and every member here --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Carleton-Grenville has the floor.

Mr. Sterling: I seem to be evoking some response from the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), who of course represents a number of tobacco farmers, and I understand his concern with regard to this whole matter. In fact, I think he speaks for the government on this particular issue, because they are ignoring the whole issue of tobacco smoke both in the public place and in the work place. But let me say this: If there were an environmental disaster and if 35 lives were lost today because of an environmental problem, a toxic spill of some sort, that would be on the front page of every newspaper; it would be the headline story on every television newscast and every radio newscast. Yet that is what is happening today. Today 35 to 40 people are going to lose their lives prematurely because of this addictive habit, on which this government will not take a stand.

Hon. Mr. Scott: What addictive habit?

Mr. Sterling: Nicotine is an addictive habit, and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) knows it.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have been converted to your cause. I have quit smoking.

Mr. Sterling: The Attorney General is trying to indicate to us that he has quit smoking since January l. Perhaps he can speak with more authority if he is re-elected after the unnecessary election of 1987, which the Liberals intend to call, and can make the same statement a year from now.

What I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment is, what is he going to do to protect the environment of thousands and thousands of people? Some 11,000 to 12,000 will die prematurely in Ontario this year because of tobacco smoke.

You know, when somebody famous in our province, in our country or in North America dies because of an addiction -- we have heard on a number of occasions very sad stories about someone dying of an addiction due to drugs, he has taken an overdose of drugs; we can think of a number of very significant and noteworthy people who have died because of that -- there normally is a great news story about that.

I want to tell the members of the Legislature that recently we had a very noteworthy Canadian, Margaret Laurence, die at the age of 50, prematurely, of lung cancer. Margaret Laurence was addicted to nicotine, yet there was no mention of the fact that she died prematurely and that all of the skills and talent of that woman could have been extended if she had not been addicted to tobacco, or we would presume that this was the case. I think if you look at it in that light -- that you would be saving the tremendous talent of a number of Ontarians who could contribute for a longer period of time, as Margaret Laurence has contributed and could have contributed -- then we would start to address this particular problem.

1720

I just hope the Minister of the Environment -- I know his personal feelings on this issue; he is a non-smoker -- will have some influence over the likes of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), who is responsible for calling bills on behalf of the government of Ontario. I hope he will encourage the Treasurer to call bills like Bill 71, the Non-Smokers' Protection Act. It is time he did something, and he is going to hear from me until he does something.

Mr. Stevenson: I want to make a few comments regarding the Ministry of the Environment in these concurrences. It is interesting that the previous speaker was talking about being subjected to secondhand smoke. We have been carrying on, of course, the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines over the last few days, and I noticed that throughout those estimates we have been subjected to the secondhand smoke of the Premier (Mr. Peterson).

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Oh, but he stopped smoking two weeks ago.

Mr. Stevenson: No, he did not; he was smoking, as a matter of fact, the last two days. He very clearly has not stopped smoking. He certainly makes sure that no cigarette is evident any time the cameras are in the hearings; but when the media leave, out come the cigarettes.

What I wish to dwell on is the situation with Lake Simcoe. Lake Simcoe, of course, is a lake that for many years has been recognized as one in which we must reduce the phosphorus loadings. It is in a situation right now where the weed and algae growth is sufficiently large that during the summer months, as these living plants die and go to the bottom of the lake, the oxygen involved in decomposing that material is used up and the whitefish and lake trout that like the deep cold water in the summertime -- that is their preferred habitat -- can no longer live in that habitat and must seek other habitats, warmer water at higher levels, in order to survive, there being no oxygen at all in many of those deeper holes by late summer. This has interfered with the reproduction of the cold water species, the whitefish and lake trout; and in fact, right now there is virtually no natural reproduction of whitefish or lake trout in Lake Simcoe.

In an attempt to resolve this situation, the previous government allocated a substantial amount of money -- close to $100 million -- to put in new or improved sewage treatment plants around Lake Simcoe. The last few contracts associated with that have been honoured by this government, and that work will in fact terminate this summer. The plants involved have been the extension of the York-Durham sewage trunk to pick up the effluents from Aurora and Newmarket that originally went into Lake Simcoe. Newmarket, I think, was hooked up just a year or so ago. We have a new sewage treatment plant in Keswick that was just completed; they laid the last pipe there just a matter of a couple of months ago. At the Barrie plant the low-phosphorus, add-on equipment has been completed. I believe the Orillia one is done. Right now they are working in Innisfil. That will be completed this summer, as I understand it.

That money has been allocated since about 1980 through until this summer, and the total commitment there is very close to $100 million just for sewage treatment plants. That has substantially reduced the phosphorus loadings into Lake Simcoe, as of course we knew it would. It has been an absolute necessity.

The extra funds that are now required are related primarily to the needs of rural sources of phosphorus. Some of these are directly from farming, some are from stream bank erosion and some are from various other sources of phosphorus outside of agriculture. A Lake Simcoe strategy study has been going on for some years, and that strategy study reported to the Minister of the Environment and to this government in October 1985. Very little action has been taken since that time.

The request was for $1 million a year for 10 years to address the long-term needs of Lake Simcoe. From what we have heard coming from the ministries involved, the submission that the staff prepared to go to cabinet was for $1 million per year for five years. Even that would be a significant amount of money and something we would readily accept.

Unfortunately, from whatever information I have been able to obtain, that submission has yet to go to cabinet. With the Minister of the Environment being the vice-chairman of Management Board of Cabinet and with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) on Management Board, one can only assume that Lake Simcoe is not a terribly high priority on their list.

There has been a funding allocation of $1 million per year for four years, along with the Ontario soil conservation and environmental protection assistance program 11, which the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) announced a few weeks ago, but that money is allocated over several different watersheds across the province, and Lake Simcoe is only a small portion of that total allotment of $1 million for four years. If that is intended to be the response from this government to the Lake Simcoe strategy study, then that is totally unacceptable.

Clearly, this is a lake that needs continuing attention. If the oxygen levels at the bottom of the lake are at zero oxygen content for long enough, then the phosphorus will start being released from the sediment on the bottom of the lake. That becomes a secondary source, a very strong secondary source, that we must not allow to happen.

In the Holland River, at the south end of Cook Bay, there is such a low level of oxygen present for such a long time during the summer that phosphorus is now being released from the sediment in the bottom of that river. Not only are we getting the new allocations from all the various sources around there, but we are also getting significant secondary phosphorus added from the sediment. If that starts happening in the lake, then Lake Simcoe is in very serious trouble. This government will be held accountable for that because of its lack of action.

1730

It is significant that the municipalities in the watershed have become so upset with the lack of action by this government that they now are all sending resolutions of council to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). In fact, the chairman of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority has become so upset with the lack of action that he now is writing to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to try to get action on funding for continued work on Lake Simcoe. This is not a partisan political issue; it is a very real need for that lake and area.

Funding is definitely required to address the problems of the rural sources of phosphorus that exist there, which now are the major sources of phosphorus. Until recently, sewage treatment plants had been the major sources. That has been looked after or is about to be looked after because of the funding I talked about earlier. Now comes the tough stuff. Now comes the problem of looking for individual sources, largely along the tributaries. It will be a long, tedious job to reduce the phosphorus loading into that lake. It can only be done by significant allocations of funds by this government over a long period of years to seek out and correct these sources of phosphorus.

I have spoken in this House about this problem on many occasions. They have still not addressed the situation. I urge the Minister of the Environment and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) to get off their duffs and do something to assist the local people, the local authorities and the farmers in that area to do their share to reduce the phosphorus loadings of Lake Simcoe and ease the stresses on those troubled waters.

Lake Simcoe is a very valuable resource for swimming, boating, sport fishing, cottages and so on. It is a major factor in the economy of central Ontario. I hope this government will see the light and put up $1 million a year over five or 10 years to help that lake. That is a minimal commitment when one looks at the $100 million that has gone in there over the last six years.

The Deputy Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in this debate? If not, shall supply for the Ministry of the Environment be concurred in?

Mr. Harris: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. I do not see the Minister of the Environment here. I do not think it is appropriate that we concur with his ministry's supply until the minister is here: I am in favour of standing this order down and carrying on. When we have the minister here, today or tomorrow or next week, we will be glad to deal with it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We usually get around to talking about next week, so we might as well start it now. I understand the Minister of the Environment defended his estimates for 15 hours in committee. He indicated to me that he would not be able to be here later this afternoon. My own feeling was that listing him early would be a convenience and that since we would get to it fairly early in the afternoon, he would be able to respond to the comments made by the members. That was not the case because there was appropriate debate, as we all agree, on the previous bills. I hope that the House will carry the concurrence at this time and that we can pass on to the other concurrences as agreed.

Mr. Harris: May I suggest that it be stood down to the end? Maybe we can have the parliamentary assistant or something. It is the first I have heard of this. My critic did not know and I did not know the minister could not be here. He did not choose to tell us. Is there not a parliamentary assistant for that ministry? I do not know whether today is a holiday for all the cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants; it is not for me and it is not for my critics. I suggest standing it down and we will see whether we can get somebody here for the end of the day.

The Deputy Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to stand down the concurrence in supply of the Ministry of the Environment?

Agreed to.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Mr. McFadden: I have a couple of matters to raise with the minister today. The first relates to the current situation with the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. A couple of weeks ago, during question period, I raised with the minister the status OISE would have as of the end of June, if the current affiliation agreement with the University of Toronto expires and no long-term arrangement has been worked out with the university by that time.

As the minister knows, if the affiliation agreement is allowed to expire with no new agreement reached with either the University of Toronto or another university, there is the very real and present risk that effectively OISE could cease to operate since all the students who are attending the institute could find themselves in a position where they would have nowhere to graduate from. Obviously, other parts of their program could carry on in terms of continuing education for the teachers throughout Ontario, but the whole area of degree granting and the affiliation with the university is a matter of real urgent concern for OISE.

The indication I have from reading the documents filed by both OISE and the University of Toronto with the government is that the current negotiations between the two institutions have broken down. From what I understand, the negotiations have been relatively successful in a lot of areas, but there appears to have been a breakdown in the area of money. I know that is a common complaint of all kinds of organizations. We are faced with a situation where most institutions would like more money from the province in one way or another, be they health care institutions, universities or other organizations.

I do not think the institute is asking for more money from the province at this stage, because its current budget appears to be adequate to meet its current needs. Certainly, if it were to take on the additional responsibility that might be entailed with the integration of the faculty of education with OISE, as was envisaged when the negotiations started, there would appear to be the need for some additional money over and above that which OISE has in its budget and that which the University of Toronto appears to be prepared to transfer to the newly integrated institution at this stage.

I raise this at this time because time is rapidly running out on the current affiliation agreement. I would be interested to hear from the minister anything further he might be able to report to this House as to initiatives the province is going to take or has taken to try to push this along.

My communications with faculty, as well as students affiliated with the institute, inform me there is a great deal of anxiety building. They know the negotiations between U of T and OISE have broken down at this time. They would like to know what their future and the future of OISE is going to be. It is not just a question of the full-time faculty and full-time students going to the institute. Teachers and trustees throughout Ontario have spoken to me about what the future will be of the ongoing programs OISE offers through its field offices across the province.

I would ask the minister whether he is in a position now to clarify in some way the status of negotiations and what efforts the province is prepared to put forward over the couple of months between now and the time the House is proposing to resume to try to break through this impasse. There are enough pressures in the education system today without adding the uncertainty that the current impasse has created with regard to the future of OISE.

1740

The other matter I would like to raise relates to a letter that I know a lot of members of this House have received and that I have not had a chance to raise with the minister himself personally. That relates to the continued existence and status of the Canada Christian College and School of Graduate Studies.

I must admit that this is not an institution that I have an intimate familiarity with. I have received correspondence, as I assume other members of this House have, in relation to the continuance of this organization and the need for this organization to secure degree-granting status. According to the correspondence I have received, the Canada Christian College is in a position where, if it does not secure the passage of legislation through this House in the near future, the college runs the risk of having effectively to go out of existence.

I am not clear at this time as to what the reason is for the logjam. From what I understand, the various approvals that would be needed for this have not been received through the ministry, and I wonder if the minister would explain to the House what the current status of things is with the Canada Christian College, what the attitude of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities is on this particular matter and what steps might be taken to deal with this one way or the other.

I would say at this time I am not sufficiently knowledgeable with regard to the college to be able to comment one way or the other on their programs. It is just that it has been brought to my attention by a number of members that they have received letters on this particular subject, and I wondered if the minister could clarify where things are on this matter so that members could reply with some knowledge to the various letters that have been received.

Those are the comments I wanted to raise at this time, and I am wondering if the minister has comments on either or both of those matters.

Mr. Sterling: I wanted to ask --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Many people are smoking in the universities.

Mr. Sterling: That is exactly right, because I recently had a constituent of mine talk to me about a very significant problem with smoking in the community colleges. I am referring particularly to Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology. Evidently, there is no nonsmoking policy in that particular institution, and students who want to go to the cafeteria to have a bite or a coffee cannot do so in any kind of clean environment.

I would also like to indicate to the minister -- I do not know if he has heard any of my speeches on this before -- but to reinforce the point, I want to indicate to him that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of young smokers in this province. It has gone up by 20 per cent over the last year, and if there is any place where we should take some leadership in this particular matter, it is in our learning institutions, where our young people are located. The group that is attending community college is the group the tobacco industry is after. We had 175,000 new smokers last year, and a lot of them are in community colleges.

I want to know what the minister is doing to implement nonsmoking policies in community colleges across the province. I do not want him to duck out by saying that these are run by an autonomous body, etc. He is supplying the dough. He has the right to make some stipulations as to the environment in these particular institutions.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I will try to make my responses to the various issues as brief as possible in view of the number of items left on Orders and Notices.

I am surprised at my friend the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) raising in the same speech, virtually in the same breath, issues relating to the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education along with issues relating to the right of Canada Christian College to grant degrees, but he did that and I am going to answer that in my few remarks.

I want to go over the history in respect of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and to point out to my friend that the policy of the government and the ministry has not changed since the announcement in the budget of many months ago now. However, he is right that the negotiations between the two institutions have broken down. He expresses some fear that time is running out because an affiliation agreement expires in June.

I want to point out to my friend the member for Eglinton and to the House that the affiliation agreement is not something that is mandated, required, demanded or provided for by government or by my ministry. It is something that is voluntarily entered into between two autonomous institutions. Having failed to come to a voluntary agreement between themselves for an amalgamation of the two institutions, I suspect negotiations will proceed very quickly to renew the affiliation agreement for yet another year.

I see no reason that should not happen; that is, to carry on under the regime that has existed over many years, successfully in the minds of some. Certainly, in my own mind, that affiliation agreement has been successful.

I regret the fact that the negotiations between those two institutions did not result in a unified agreement to effect an amalgamation within the policy context that the government has provided. As we stated many months ago, our options remain to analyse the two submissions put in by the two institutions and to determine what course of action we might take. I, for one, am not concerned that the affiliation agreement will not be renewed. I have encouraged both institutions to proceed down that course while government studies further the submissions that have been made individually.

As far as Canada Christian College is concerned, the fact is that the board of directors of the college is seeking the support of the ministry in the context of a private member's bill that can be introduced in this House by any member who determines to sponsor such a bill. I have not seen any bill introduced into the House. I do not know of any bill, but I have advised Canada Christian College that at this point, having done a review of sorts, the ministry would not be in a position to support such a bill should it be introduced into the House and sent to the appropriate committee. That does not mean a member cannot introduce such a private member's bill. A committee of the Legislature could consider it and allow it to proceed on the normal course. I have advised the director of the college that he may want to take that avenue. I have also advised him that he can seek the political support necessary to have such a private member's bill passed in this House, but in the context of a committee hearing, I would not yet be in a position to support such a bill, given the analysis we have done.

Finally, to my friend the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling), on the issue of smoking in community colleges, in my view, the greatest smoke problem in Ottawa is not coming from Algonquin College but from the House of Commons. However, that is another issue altogether.

Each college has its own policy with respect to smoking and smoking areas within colleges. As I have gone around from college to college, I have noticed an increasing trend to restrict smoking to only certain areas within colleges, and it is a trend that I, frankly, am very much in favour of and have congratulated the colleges on doing. I do not know the particular situation he refers to in Algonquin, but I will send along his views on it to the administration and to the president.

He suggests to me the fact that colleges are the recipients of a large portion of provincial budgets means I should be able to mandate policies in this, that and the other area. He suggests a uniform policy for restricted smoking in colleges. I will take that into consideration, but I cannot tell him I am prepared to do that based on the simple fact that we provide a lot of public money to institutions.

We have had some eight hours of debates on estimates. My critics have contributed greatly to those, and I thank them for their added comments today.

Resolution concurred in.

1750

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Jackson: I wish to rise today to respond to what transpired through the estimates of the Ministry of Skills Development and to express some of the outstanding concerns that still exist with the management of this ministry.

Since last summer, there has been growing concern about older worker help centres throughout this province and there has been uncertainty, with good reason, about the extension of this program. The ministry indicated some four months ago that it was going to undertake a study. It is my understanding that during those four months, the ministry staff spoke to only four directors of older worker centres in Ontario, that no client groups were involved during that examination, that no front-line counsellors were examined and that they just talked to a selected few help centre directors. It is clear that the government was unwilling to get the appropriate information or the feedback. I am at a loss to understand why it took four months to make four or five phone calls.

These older worker centres have been underfunded. This was raised before the minister during estimates and he quite candidly admitted that he had "not heard of any problems at all" from our older worker centres -- that is a direct quote from the minister -- and yet we have been able to uncover incident after incident of cases where older worker centres have not received expected funding. We even had a case in Lindsay where two employees had been working without pay on the basis of ministerial promises for a period of six months. Now, today, in this Legislature, on the very day this minister seeks concurrence from this House, the minister makes an announcement that he is going to further extend the study and review of the older worker help centres by another six months.

If the minister had been able to attend more sessions of question period, he would have heard of the great numbers of difficult areas in this province where unique problems of unemployment increasingly are facing older workers. It is especially acute in northern Ontario. Yet the minister has been unable to provide a clear policy statement with respect to his ministerial plan for older worker help centres in Ontario.

During estimates, the minister asked for considerable funds to increase an ever-expanding bureaucracy. I believe he holds the record in Ontario for the fastest-growing ministry in the cabinet. The staff at his head office has tripled. The bulk of those individuals were for policy planning and co-ordination, yet he has come back consistently to this House, asking for extension upon extension.

I would like to talk as well about the concerns being expressed about the minister's seeming unwillingness to consult openly when groups in this province have made it abundantly clear to him that his programs may have an adverse effect, most notably his Futures program. As the minister knows, it was brought to his attention that Arnold Krever, the president of the Ontario Association of Education Administrative Officials, asked him in a letter 13 months ago if he would sit down and consult with the teachers' federation and the education officials in Ontario, because they had serious reservations about the impact of his Futures program on the enrolment status of senior secondary schools in Ontario.

The fact is that a year later a new president has come to that association, and they are writing him again. He still has not consented to a meeting with them to discuss their very real concerns. These concerns were born out of his own ministry's review of youth employment centres across this province, where it was identified that there was a need for stronger linkages with the secondary schools because there were potential problems with erosion of enrolment. So the minister now has his critics in this House telling him this, he has the media warning him, he has the people affected warning him and still he does not pay any heed, nor will he meet with these groups.

There are other problems that, unfortunately, the clock prevents me from advising the House of during this period of concurrence for the minister's estimates. I would close by saying only that because of a reasonably good economy, his ministry should not take it as a signal that it can abandon in any way the kinds of sensitive and responsible long-term programs and solutions required by unemployed young and particularly older workers in Ontario. I would ask the minister to focus on that, dwell upon it and use it during his coming year.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: In view of the time, let me make a very quick response.

My friend suggests a review of unemployed help centres was conducted by way of a few telephone calls from my ministry staff. If what he said in the rest of his rather tiring speech is as inaccurate as that, my friend has a problem. The fact is that the review of the help centres was conducted by an independent group, which consulted with all the help centres, did a very careful analysis and helped us to put into place a new program for unemployed help centres that will be a dramatic improvement over the program the previous government put into place some two years ago.

Resolution concurred in.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS

Mr. Gregory: In view of the lateness of the hour, and since I did have a couple of things I wanted to say -- I notice the minister is not absent -- I assume we are not going past six o'clock; so may I move the adjournment of the debate?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Just before the honourable member moves that, we are quite prepared to entertain the motion, but I think there is an agreement that we would use tomorrow for the more formal windup of the expenditure discussions; that if we could possibly approve these, representatives of the three parties might participate in a windup debate tomorrow. It would only be done, of course, with the consent of the House.

Resolution concurred in.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Resolutions for supply for the following ministries were concurred in by the House:

Ministry of Agriculture and Food;

Ministry of Agriculture and Food, supplementary;

Ministry of Education;

Ministry of Education, supplementary;

Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations;

Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, supplementary;

Ministry of Natural Resources;

Ministry of Natural Resources, supplementary;

Ministry of Health.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We stood down order 64. Our parliamentary assistant is available. Otherwise, we might reach concurrence in that one as well.

Resolution for supply for the following ministry was concurred in by the House:

Ministry of the Environment.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I may be pressing my luck a little, but I would like to get unanimous consent to revert to reports by committees.

Mr. Speaker: Unanimous consent has not been given.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is there further business or not?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I must ask the table to check to see if all concurrences have been entered into. Can we have concurrence on the two that came in today?

Resolutions for supply for the following ministries were concurred in by the House:

Ministry of the Attorney General;

Ministry of the Attorney General, supplementary;

Ministry of Labour;

Ministry of Labour, supplementary.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

11 février 1987