Journal des débats 1989-févr-13 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

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

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PRESTON BRANCH 126, ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

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

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

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

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

BEEKEEPING INDUSTRY

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

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

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

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

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr. Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker and members of the House, an anniversary is being celebrated today and I know you would like to join with me in offering congratulations to the celebrants. They are the former high school dropouts who will be taking part in the first anniversary of the part-time, part-time Futures program at Notre Dame High School in Ottawa.

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

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

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: Today the standing committee on resources development begins its hearings on Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act. Members of this House will clearly recall the difficulty we in the New Democratic Party had in convincing the government to hold public hearings on this bill. The response from those wishing to participate has been overwhelming, and clearly the committee will have no problem obtaining comments on the proposed legislation.

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

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

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

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

COURT SYSTEM

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

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

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

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

1340

ROAD SAFETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

“5. Policy on road construction.

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

“Yours truly, J. G. Silverthorn.”

PREPAID SERVICES

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

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

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

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

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESPONSES

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1350

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

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

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

An hon. member: Again?

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

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

Mr. Reville: You could do worse.

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

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

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

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

Interjections.

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

The question I have for the minister is, does he agree with the statement by the insurance board that it is bound, in its view, to quote its phrase, that the rates or range of rates must give insurers “an opportunity to earn” the return on equity selected by the board? Is it the view of the minister that this is what the act does, that it is an act to ensure profits, to ensure rates of profitability and not an act to protect the interests of consumers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order. Thank you.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. New question.

1400

Mr. Chiarelli: Show and tell, Bob?

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Question?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

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

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

1410

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

1420

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1430

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

MEDIA REPORT

Mr. Leone: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, responsible for racial relations and human rights. Last week a columnist for one of the Toronto daily newspapers wrote an article which openly defies our Constitution and the international covenants on human rights to which Canada is a signatory. The suggestion was made that no Canadian citizen born outside Canada should participate in the democratic process and be able to vote and be elected.

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

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I appreciate the question. Those of us who have read the article would agree that the thoughts contained in that article are appalling and contrary to some fundamental beliefs that I think all of us in this House share. Perhaps the best way to speak out against it is to let the House know my thoughts on some of the thoughts contained in that article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VISITOR

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

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

1440

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

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Hamilton East has put a rather colourful interpretation on the facts in this question. I think it is appropriate for me just to set the record straight somewhat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ROUGE VALLEY

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The question would be?

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

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

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

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

ENERGY CONSERVATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

HAMILTON-WENTWORTH DETENTION CENTRE

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

I am informed that the study focused simply on carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and oxygen levels in the building, whereas anyone who has done anything with sealed-air buildings and their problems knows that you have to look at solvents, cleaning fluids, plastic emissions, perfumes, bacteria, moulds, particulate matter in the air and so on.

1450

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

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

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

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

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

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

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

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

PETITION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shall the Speaker’s ruling be sustained?

1530

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

Ayes

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

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

Nays

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

Ayes 70; nays 16.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 147, An Act respecting Independent Health Facilities.

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

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

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

Some of these concerns are as follows: that there are too many excessive powers being proposed to the minister and cabinet under the act; that the act severely limits the creation of new and lower-cost alternatives to physician and hospital services; that it possibly leaves the door open for extra billing of patients in the future; that it permits the creation of health facilities on a for-profit basis, which in turn could lead to further privatization in health care services; that the act continues to leave the door open for foreign ownership of health facilities; that it permits funding of facilities on a fee-for-service basis; that there is a danger that standards of operation, including registered nursing staffing ratios, will not be adequate; that the act does not provide for resolution of disputes concerning terms and conditions of employment, especially for nurses; that the act does not provide for a mechanism to deal with issues concerning excessive workload and impact on provision of care, and that it does not deal with unanticipated events of an emergency nature.

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

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

Some time ago, I pointed out to the minister during question period that section 26 of the Independent Health Facilities Act gives the Ministry of Health inspectors authority to enter any health facility, and that includes a private doctor’s office. “Health facility” and “independent health facility” are both defined under the act.

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

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

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

1540

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Bureaucrats will be totally in control.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1550

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

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

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

“In its present form, the proposed new law is more than an act of trespass; it’s the tactical plan for an armed invasion of Ontarians’ privacy. The arbitrary powers, which the government hasn’t renounced since the act was introduced in June, throw a sinister shadow over the regime that conceived it.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1600

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

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

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

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

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

But what should take place, to the wondering eyes of the chairman of the select committee on education and the members of other committees who had their business ordered, who had learned they were going to be able to sit and who had learned that this strange world we get into at the end of the session was not going to get in the way, that the macho gamesmanship this House is celebrated for was going to dissipate and we would all be able to get about the real business of the House -- that is, to have our committees meet -- what should occur but that the Premier himself should walk into the Liberal caucus meeting and basically say: “Forget the work of the committees, folks. We’re going in with Elinor’s Bill 147 even though it can’t” -- sorry, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health’s bill. I was just trying to get the ambience that must have been there, although, of course, I was not there. But I have heard from enough other people who are disgruntled about the lack of initiative by committees that is going to be the result of this decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Molson.

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

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

Mr. Fleet: You’re wrong.

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

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

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

The good ship Liberal was in some difficulty and on rocky seas. Traditionally, the wise thing at that point -- I do not mean to speak as a parliamentary traditionalist here; I would not want to put myself in that kind of guise. In the old days, William Grenville Davis, once Premier, would have looked at matters, seen things on a slippery slope and said, “The best thing to do now is to take our break, regroup and stop those darn question periods that highlight certain kinds of problems we may be having these days,” whether it was with health care in its enormity, whether it was housing, whether it was the problem of Sunday shopping, which the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) will know --

Mr. Breaugh: Or where is Bob Callahan.

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

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

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

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

1610

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1620

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

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

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

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

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

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

I say to the minister, knowing how she feels about this issue, that on the question of how independent health facilities would affect access to abortion, she needed to write a bill which could not be subverted by any Minister of Health who felt opposite to her. To make this personal, because I remember the comments about this bill when it was brought forward and how different the comments were between the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), I suggest this bill needed to be written, from my perspective as somebody who is pro choice, as if the Minister of Community and Social Services were going to become Minister of Health some day; so that in no way could a minister, who had a different approach than pro choice and equal access on abortion, subvert this legislation.

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

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

Look at it in terms of what it does. This act, it is true, will allow the Scott Clinic and the Morgentaler Clinic to have a year’s grace in which to apply to be approved as independent health facilities. As such, they will have to prove themselves to meet a number of criteria, any of which could easily be used by a minister hostile to their facilities to deny them their right to operate.

For instance, if I might read just some of the things that are necessary contents in a request for operation. Some of the things which could be included are whether or not the services are appropriate and whether they are needed in that particular area. There is large, large room for power under regulation by the ministry to make that easy or hard for any particular group. I will come back to regulations later on. One would have hoped we would have seen them by now.

So what we can have is that even the two clinics which were existing before the announcement of this bill in June 1989 are going to have to prove themselves, even though the Supreme Court of Canada has said that they have the right to operate. What if they do not meet the criteria of a perhaps hostile minister? Who can tell where ministers will be in the future, in the next year or two? That minister can stop those clinics from operating, even though the challenge before the Supreme Court of Canada taken by the Morgentaler Clinic was, in fact, upheld.

Not only that, but even with that supposed protection that is there in terms of a grand-fathering clause for a year for those clinics that are operating, there is a problem for those that have come in since. Members may know that a women’s clinic was established by Dr. Nikki Colodny and some others to operate in this city after June 2, 1988, when this bill was brought in.

Under this bill, they will have to get a district health council for this region to give them priority to the minister. Then, again, hopefully there will be a friendly minister and not a hostile minister who can make the determination as to whether this program should go forward. A director, as appointed under this bill, will be able to make a determination as to whether or not that clinic which is operating because of a need felt by women in Metropolitan Toronto and outlying districts -- because many women come to Metro for these services -- should be able to continue to do what it has been doing.

I think that is totally unacceptable. Let’s look at it. Does anybody in this House -- and some members have been more active on health councils than I have been -- know of a health council in Ontario which has given priority to the establishment of a women’s clinic to provide abortion services? I would be very interested to hear that because I do not believe that one district health council in Ontario has done that. Why not? Because this is a difficult political issue. This is a scary kind of local issue for a district health council.

With the huge range of needs that are out there for services in the community, what health council is going to put itself on the line and place an abortion clinic above a community mental health centre, above even a new community health centre itself in a poorer district of town, above a fancy high-technology office operated for profit by some very well known and prestigious doctors in that community. My answer is that no health council in its right mind will do that, because all it will be doing is courting public hostility, from its vantage point, unnecessarily. Its argument will be that the hospital committee system or whatever is operating in its own community or in a neighbouring community will be sufficient, thank you very much.

1630

Let’s look just at Metro, progressive Metro, where we actually have three clinics operating. What is the likelihood here of all three of those clinics getting that kind of endorsement? I would suggest very little indeed.

One says to oneself: “Where is the Liberal government on this issue?” This minister has taken flak on this issue, as I and other activists have taken flak on it. We have our scars. Are we not going to gain something from all of this? Are we not going to ensure that there is access and that we not set up a different system, one which will make it excruciatingly difficult for any group of women such as the Colodny clinic, the Women’s Choice Health Clinic, which is a co-operative, to establish itself for these purposes against the wishes of the medical hierarchy, which will show itself, vested in the district health council?

I would suggest that with this bill we have taken a giant step backwards in terms of access to abortion services and other kinds of assistance that would be available to women who are trying to make the terribly difficult decision about whether to have an abortion.

I have not heard this minister speak about that issue, or why she thinks the process she has established in this act is appropriate in this circumstance. I have no idea why the grand-fathering section of this act, for instance, did not make it more implicitly obvious that any facility which is out there now doing a good job and meeting a need, especially a nonprofit one, would be looked upon extremely favourably.

We have the ironic situation here where it would be quite possible for a district health council to recommend that an American-based, multinational, for-profit organization should establish a facility in its area to deal with some sort of high-technology service like neonatal care and give it higher priority than a community-based, nonprofit organization which wanted to provide access to abortion. Under this act, that would be the facility that would go forward under the limited money the government has, as it continually tells us, and the other would not be the one to proceed.

I want to hear from this minister why it is that she has come back to us on February 13, 1988, several months after this was last brought in for second reading, and is telling this House, and the women members of this House, if I might be particular about this, that it is so important to have second reading on this act now, even though we cannot have public hearings on it or any of the problems in it until this summer.

She has not made one statement in this House about major drafting changes she would propose to make sure access to abortion was not negatively affected by this bill. She has not done it; she has not said a thing about it, yet here we are debating this legislation which is going to set that incredibly emotional issue back years and is going to cause a great deal of grief for a lot of people.

I would like to deal next with the issue inherent in this bill around privatization and commercialization. Again, this act pulls its punches. It does not assert how nonprofit facilities are going to get priority. It does not say what kind of advantages they will be given in order to make sure that they have a better chance than others that are of a profit-making basis.

Let’s just remember that, as I said earlier, the health care system is rife with for-profit organizations. In my view, it is one of the serious difficulties that needs to be confronted by a government. In that context, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker -- although you were not a member of the last House -- that under a minority situation and as part of the accord, back when Liberals seemed to be progressive, the government of the day established a select committee on privatization and commercialization.

During the brief time that we sat as a select committee, the Liberals on that committee slithered away from any strong protection of the nonprofit sector in either health or social services, not understanding the inherent dangers to the system if we moved further and further into for-profit health care, especially given the context of free trade, which was already hanging over our heads at that time.

This blue, conservative Liberal government has decided not to reappoint that select committee. It has had ministers up in this House, whether it is the Minister of Community and Social Services or this Minister of Health, who have spoken unconvincingly about the role of for-profit agencies in their two areas of responsibility.

I wonder if I can read some of the expenditures to you, Mr. Speaker, that have been made by the government of Ontario into for-profit care in Ontario. The year is 1987-88, money transferred to commercial providers: nursing homes, $322 million of taxpayers’ money; laboratories, $318 million; drug companies, pharmacists and oxygen vendors, $589 million; homes for special care, $85 million; ambulance services, $44.8 million; contracted-out services in hospitals, $153 million. That is $1,511,000,000 spent on the commercial sector.

One would have hoped, therefore, as has been much vaunted by Liberals, that this bill would have made it very clear that the growth we want in the community health facilities would be entirely in the nonprofit sector; that we would no longer see an expansion of programs that made money for people who were trying to provide health care services for our vulnerable citizens. This bill does not do that.

I have to look at where we are now in local independent facilities. I think the minister will agree with me that the vast majority of services which are provided out there, which may get themselves termed to be “independent facilities” under this act, are commercial enterprises at this time. There is a parallel, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, between the nursing home situation and this government’s supposed endorsement of more nonprofit nursing home care and the way this act is laid out in terms of supposedly assisting the nonprofit sector to take advantage of this new Independent Health Facilities Act.

The government led us to think that its funding of nursing homes was going to change dramatically and that the beds that would be approved would be hugely in the nonprofit system and almost not at all in the commercial system and that we would start to see a change from what had taken place over the last 15 years or so. I guess it is even longer than that since the Conservatives brought in the Nursing Homes Act originally; that was in 1973, if my memory serves me correctly.

1640

We had in those days a preponderance of nonprofit organizations, a fairly large number of beds that were community-run and municipally run. We then moved almost entirely to a for-profit base; and not just a for-profit base, it must be understood, but a multinational corporation base. Just a handful of giant corporations control virtually all the major nursing homes in Ontario, and in some communities it is like 85 per cent under the control of these American multinationals.

The government supposedly was going to change all this with its legislation. We warned them that in point of fact it would be very difficult for nonprofit organizations to compete on an equal footing with the for-profit organizations.

Why? As anybody who has tried to get a nonprofit organization established knows, it is much easier to get capital if you are already listed on the stock exchange than if you are a group of interested people, whether coming together because of a bond of, say, a religious grouping or a particular interest around an age group, like seniors, for instance, in your community and you then want to provide a nursing home.

It is virtually impossible for a volunteer group to get money for the capital involved. It is incredibly easy for a corporation to use its own equity and collateral to be able to access the same kind of dollars that are needed and at a much lower rate of interest than a nonprofit group would be able to get.

It is interesting that this minister has not responded as yet to a question in Orders and Notices put by the critic from our party to try to discover how many of the nursing home beds which have been created, since they came to power as a Liberal government, were nonprofit and how many of those were commercial.

That is an easy statistic to gather in these days of freedom of information, I say somewhat sarcastically. We have been unable to get that straightforward statistic from the government, but I can tell members anecdotally, from my experience of seeing new nursing home beds go up in this area, the large percentage goes to for-profit organizations and it is still the big corporations that are providing them.

I look at this act and I say, what is it in this act that should make me believe that the end result is going to be any different for the independent health facility than that which has been provided for nursing homes in Ontario?

I cannot see anything. There is nothing in this document which talks specifically about how the ministry will give preference to a nonprofit organization. There is nothing in here which directs the first decision-maker in all of this, which is the district health council, as to how it is going to be able to encourage that kind of development, rather than a group of well-financed specialists coming together to provide a very selective, perhaps even surgical facility in that community on a for-profit basis.

Perhaps I am to believe that this, like so many other things, is in the regulations and that within these regulations under section 33 we are going to see the way the government is going to assist.

I would suggest to the minister that she has had since June of last year to tell us how this will happen. This has been a major critical analysis of all the people who have looked at her bill at this point. We, as yet, have no idea as to how she is going to do this.

I wonder, for instance, if the minister will not agree that the major initiatives in nonprofit nursing homes seem to be initiatives that are undertaken by hospitals, not by small community groups. The minister and I had a brief discussion the other day about a much talked about and much-lauded concept which was around a while back, and that was the idea of more ethnic nursing homes which would be run by the communities themselves.

There are presently many facilities that provide housing to older people whose first language is not English, but very few nursing homes. We have that very sad situation where persons in their 70s or 80s are living in assisted housing with a lot of friends of, say, Yugoslavian descent. They are all able to talk, to remember life in the old country and also be able to talk about what is happening presently in Canada with their common bond of language and experience. Then they become ill and they require extended care. They have to go an institution where the major language is English. For those last years or months, whatever the ease maybe, they end up in an incredibly foreign milieu. At the time when they need all the nurturing assistance they can get, it is unavailable to them.

We have not seen a major expansion -- this is an example -- of those kinds of nursing homes, established by those organizations that are there, whether they are Estonians, Macedonians, Italians or people from Southeast Asia. They exist out there. They are hungering to be able to provide these kinds of homes and yet they have not been told that these extended care beds will be made available to them.

The minister may feel that I am unnecessarily jaundiced in my perception of this bill, but I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that you have seen even more legislation than I have in the years that you have been here. This is a bill which spends a huge amount of time talking about how to license and regulate after the facilities are established. We will come, in a minute, to the whole question of confidentiality.

The bill is incredibly loose and very badly formulated in terms of the establishment of services. If the government really has taken the analysis that it is time for us to shift ourselves from the fee-for-service structure that is out there, the high-technology concentration in the hospitals, and to throw our resources into community-based services -- a lot of which would be these independent health facilities -- then it has come up with the wrong piece of legislation by which to do that. It has set up a process which guarantees that the health hierarchy will get what it wants, that community-based initiatives will still flounder out there, and it has not dealt with that crucial issue.

I come to the fact that this legislation is so wrongheaded it should not be here. The government should be tackling its problems in health care rather than accentuating them. By having this kind of forum all it is doing is drawing more and more fire, it seems to me, in terms of its failures.

This is a government that cannot decide what it wants to do. It cannot decide what it wants to do about doctors’ salaries. It cannot decide what it wants to do about major capital expenditures. It now even wants us to discuss the lottery funding of health. I will come back to that in a few minutes, but the only bill it provides us to deal with here is this thing, which needed to be withdrawn and rethought. I regret that, especially since there is really no point in us having this discussion until much closer to our hearings and it would have been better to do that with a revised bill which would have been more suitable to take out for public hearings.

1650

Let’s look at the issue of community health centres, because for many of us those are concepts which need elaboration and some major changes which I will come to. But how will they do in the context of Bill 147?

Just this very day in the Legislature the minister got up to make a statement. Some days we will get five or six statements, a real hodgepodge of real issues and puffery. Today we got a statement by the Minister of Health, who, with the most enormous budget of any ministry in the government, said that two more community health centres were going to be established in Ontario: one in Barrie, as I recall, and one in Oshawa.

As the critic for our party, the member for Riverdale, said so articulately in his response to the statement, even if the government meets its target and doubles the number of centres that are out there by 1991 or 1992, by that year we will still only be dealing with four per cent of the patients of Ontario through health centres rather than through the regular private enterprise approach to doctoring and through hospitals. Four per cent.

So we ask ourselves what we are to think of a government whose best shot at health -- given the problems that are out there with the nursing shortage, the huge overexpenditure, the problems of service that I have elaborated on for heart patients, but applied just as strongly to people who are waiting for cancer treatment and other kinds of specialized service -- is to come into this House and say, “We are going to have two more community health centres.”

Well, Mr. Speaker, do you know why there are only two more? It is because the process for establishing a community health centre is the most arduous that one can imagine, and there is nothing in this act which is going to change that or even touch that at all. It takes a year and a half to two years for a determined little board of people to be able to convince the bureaucracy of this government that it needs a community health centre. To do it, the board needs to jump the most incredible hurdles.

The first is that it has to prove that it has a specific need; that there is a specific community that can be identified which has need of its services. I will just recount my own experience with trying to get a centre into the Warden Woods community. We had to limit it to the Warden Woods community because it had to be a special community.

The Warden Woods community is an assisted housing community. There is a fair amount of seniors’ housing and a fair amount of family housing. We had to be able to then draw together information which would prove to the government that the doctors of the area surrounding Warden Woods were not providing the kinds of services that were needed for that community and that this health centre could do so in a more appropriate fashion.

We were supposed to go out and survey those doctors and find out what they were doing and survey the people in the community and find out what kind of health care they were receiving. We were to do some kind of analysis of the appropriateness of the health care they were getting. Mr. Speaker, you will be pleased to know that the Ministry of Health would not provide one red cent to assist that burgeoning group to do that kind of work.

I know the minister understands what it is like to live in poverty in Ontario. I know she knows the kinds of burdens that are on people who are trying to get by in that milieu. The fact that they would actually come together and try to establish a centre was, in my view, enough reason to open the purse and give them some assistance.

But we were told by the two bureaucrats who were involved in this area at that time -- I do not know how many are there now, whether there has been an exponential expansion or not -- that there was not a penny available to them, that they could talk to other health centres that had already got theirs. Members should know that there are only a handful of these in the province. Before this government came into place there were 12 or so, I think, and we have added a handful more.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Eight.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Eight more now?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think so.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Is it approximately that? That is all there are. They were to go to these people; in fact we had them to some of our meetings.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: A very significant increase.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister says it is a significant increase. If we are looking at it in statistical terms and want to say it is a 50 per cent increase, then yes it is, that is wonderful.

What I am saying is we have a program that is designed for failure, that is designed to make too many hurdles for people to jump through. If the minister wanted to remove some of the restrictions, if she wanted to provide money for community development, I could guarantee her she would have a tripling or quadrupling of the numbers.

If the minister wanted to change the definition, as a member of a progressive, reform-minded government to be more permissive, to get across perhaps the notion that even a middle-classer like me should be able to have access to a community health centre, that I do not have to be part of some disadvantaged, self-selected group in society to be able to be given one, that this is not something for the poor or the indigent but something that would be a good thing for all Ontarians to have access to; if she chose, for philosophical reasons, for service reasons, to get away from the fee-for-service notions, whatever one might say, that would be different. But this government has not done that.

If this government --

Interjection.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I say to the member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty), who has been here a long time and knows how hard it was getting this government’s predecessor, the Conservative government, to move on this issue and who has heard me say the same kind of things to a Conservative government as I am saying today, so he will know there is no change in my tune here, if we had in fact got those kinds of changes we would see an enormous growth in these community health centres.

It is a tremendous irony that there are more community health centres per population in the United States than there are here in Ontario. Even in their for-profit system, there are more and more of them. That seems to me to be a great irony.

Mr. Haggerty: They are going to be cutting back.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I ask the minister and I ask the member for Niagara South to look at Bill 147 and say why it is that this bill does not have in it the tools to change the way we fund community health centres and how we look at them. Why is there not something specific in here that says we want to see this growth? It is because -- and the minister almost admitted it the other day in response to a question, or perhaps it was a statement in the House, when she said health care professionals are able to identify the needs but nobody is willing to say which has the highest priority.

This government has exactly the same problem. It has been unable to determine where its action should go either and so it has come forward with this little piece of patchwork legislation to make it look like it is doing something at the end of a session, thereby giving me the opportunity to run through what it is not doing in so many areas. It has not even placed in this something to show it to be different from prior Conservative governments.

I have asked this minister and I have asked her predecessor as Minister of Health for the Liberal government, as I have asked past Tory government ministers, to change the way we deal with community health centres, to give them financial priority. We have had no assurance that that will take place. In fact, all we have seen are these one or two new ones, a total of perhaps eight in the whole province. Rather than saying the government is committed to a change of philosophy, of a major new direction in how we deliver health care, the minister says she is willing to go along the line of the Conservative past governments and just increase the numbers under the old methodology.

I presume it is a fear of the doctors’ lobby. I presume it is a fear of the notion of the independent health practitioners who came before our committee on Bill 94, the extra billing hearings, and said to us that they were small businessmen. I presume it is not wanting to get in their way too much.

Maybe that is why this government has pulled its punches on commercialization and privatization in this bill. Maybe that is why it still makes it very clear that although certain other kinds of groups are going to have to define what they are as independent health facilities, doctors’ offices are sure not going to have to do so. They are going to have an awful lot of leeway in terms of what they can do in their offices and bill to OHIP on the old fee basis rather than developing a real community service.

1700

I think it is a major failure in the government’s philosophical approach. They cannot decide whether this element of reform is going to be a crucial way of reducing costs and humanizing services over the years. They are afraid to take on that concept of the right of the individual doctor to be the private businessman. Because of that, they have really limited the effectiveness of what Bill 147 could be. And therefor I wonder why all the foofaraw? Why do we have to deal with this so quickly when they cannot get it out to committee anyhow to hear everybody else jump all over it like I am today?

I have here a file from our critic, the member for Riverdale, about the Toronto birth centre. Members who have been here for some time will know that this issue has been around for a long time as well. I may be wrong in my reading of Bill 147, and I am sure I will be corrected if that is the case, but it strikes me that the old proposal for a birthing centre in the city of Toronto would fit under Bill 147. It would be the kind of thing that could find its way now as an independent health facility.

I am wondering what the reality is, whether it has any better chance of getting funding now than it has had in the past with existing legislation. It is going to have to prove itself to the district health council. It is going to have to prove its need to a ministry which clearly has not felt there was very much need there in the past or it would have found money for it. One wonders, therefore, whether we are going to see any major changes of that sort in the province.

It seems to me that this legislation makes health service organizations a little easier than they are presently. It is an awful lot easier for a doctor or a couple of doctors to establish a health service organization than it is to establish a community health centre.

This was an understandable difference coming from a Conservative philosophy, again in terms of allowing the doctor, the professional, the leeway of determining the need. Of course, an HSO can be established by a doctor declaring a need, putting down his patient registry with a companion physician’s patient registry. If they have enough names for which they are already billing OHIP they will be able to establish an HSO. They do not have to establish need at all. They do not have to jump through the hoops a community group has to jump through if it wants to establish a community health centre.

It is a very interesting dichotomy that was established by the past Conservative government, and there is no indication in this legislation at all that there is going to be any change. Therefore, that kind of quasi-profit-based organization is one that will be quite easy to continue.

It would be interesting for members to know that if they studied HSOs, saw what has happened to a number of them, the number that have collapsed, which have been used for purposes, I would suggest, other than just straight health services -- more for establishing some doctors in the community and then allowing them to go off in their own private practice afterwards -- they would really wonder whether we should be giving that kind of priority to HSOs over the community health centres.

I look at this government and say it has an Ontario drug plan that is in terrible shape. The only initiative we have heard about that is what was alleged by my leader to the Minister of Health the other day, that is that a lot of people are going to lose their services, that things that are now on the formulary are not going to be on the formulary in the next little while. For the next few months people may be living in jeopardy, between March and when the formulary comes out in July, about whether the particular drugs they are purchasing are going to be paid for, and may find that in point of fact they are not.

It is an interesting fact that the problem of overprescription and incorrect prescription, and there is lots of evidence on this, should be dealt with in that fashion by the ministry. I have been involved with monitoring a couple of collections of drugs that have been done on a voluntary basis with seniors in buildings. I remember one case in North York where one senior had 26 different prescribed drugs in the medicine cabinet, a lot of which were counteractive and quite dangerous in combination. That senior had forgotten which was for what and was, therefore, put in some jeopardy on a regular basis.

I look at that kind of problem of incorrect prescription, the lack of checkup on the number of prescriptions that somebody has and the incorrect use of drugs in that fashion, and I say to myself that enormous numbers of dollars are going to the drug companies through the pharmacies. We pushed through some legislation, bills 54 and 55, to deal with that, but I do not see any notion of really coming to grips with the problem of the patterns of prescription that have been there in the past.

Instead we have Bill 147 before us. We have this little doily that is being proffered as a Liberal government solution required by the time we rise for no apparent logical reason at all, except perhaps for the vanity of the Minister of Health or the Premier. I am not sure which of them feels that this is so crucial to get through.

There is a problem, I suppose, of ministers and governments getting themselves too wrapped up in their own legislation and frustrated by what is seen as opposition belligerence and obstructionism. At some point or other, when they have a majority of 94 strong and barely awake, it is time to put their feet down and say: “We’ll show you. We’ll stay here and we’ll make you debate this piece of legislation. We’ll show you that we can force this kind of thing through. That will make the opposition members cower.” Then we will all feel so much worse for not being able to go to San Diego, Westminster or wherever the committees were going to be headed this week.

That is not the way it works. It can tend to get opposition members’ backs up, I suppose. Those of us who have such equanimity and are basically solid, stable citizens as myself, of course, have no reaction to this kind of thing at all, except that there is a little bit of bewilderment. But here we are dealing with the principle of a bill at a time when committees could be doing something useful and the ministry could be quietly reworking the bill to do something significant.

I want to talk a little bit again about priorities in terms of these facilities. My colleagues have just done the second part of a tour of northern Ontario in terms of these health care facilities. This has been said many times in the House and I do not mean it as something trite to say, but while the south has been blossoming in its economic boom, the north has not done so favourably. The people in the north, I believe, do not really think that the money that comes into the south from the natural resources of the north has been finding its way back into the north in terms of the quality of life they expect for themselves and their families. In this particular case, that is the situation.

Interjection.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I hear the Minister of Natural Resources mumbling about something. It must be about the quality --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I wasn’t mumbling. I said 1,600 jobs is a very good policy.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: -- probably the quality of water at the foot of the Humber is what he wants to talk about today. I never did find out, by the way, whether the minister wanted to export the sediment or whether it was just the water he did not want them to get across the way.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you can ask that question tomorrow in the question period.

1710

Mr. R. F. Johnston: A good point, Mr. Speaker. I will try to get myself on the list at that time. I will go back to talking about the northern health tour and how it fits in with Bill 147, the Independent Health Facilities Act, which is before us now for discussion on second reading.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That’s not the only thing you don’t know much about.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is good to know that the Speaker at least is awake; I am never sure if the Minister of Natural Resources is awake when he interjects. It is very often hard to determine.

When I look at the north and health care and Bill 147, I wonder exactly how this is going to help in those communities. We had people come before our caucus committee up there who told us that in the francophone communities of Dubreuilville and a couple of others there was a huge problem in receiving services in French. I look back to my involvement in this House, going back some 10 years now, and I remember raising the issue of children from northeastern Ontario having to go to Quebec for mental health assistance, to Maison Rouyn in northern Quebec because there were no services in French for them.

While things have improved marginally, it was very disturbing for me to learn that the same kinds of problems face people in northern Ontario today, especially our francophone community, and I should say also our native communities. We take for granted in Metropolitan Toronto the idea that you can go for mental health counselling and probably be able to receive it in as many as 20-some languages, I would imagine, depending on your need, but a person from northern Ontario whose native language is Ojibway, for instance, would very possibly have to have an interpreter present in dealing with a psychotherapist, trying to explain the innermost problems that person has through an interpreter because of a lack of the kinds of basic health care system services we take for granted here in southern Ontario.

Those are exactly the kinds of things that would supposedly be covered by an aggressive elaboration of community health services under a bill like Bill 147. But again, if members look at it and look at the approach that is being taken, there is nothing here that is clear about how that will take place. There is nothing to indicate how we are to provide extra services to northern Ontario; how it would be determined, for instance, that its needs, as identified hopefully by a district health council, would be considered to be as important as those in another, maybe more populous area.

That concept is not in here. Perhaps it is again something in the regulations that the minister or the parliamentary assistant, whenever one of them wishes to be in the House, would like to refer to in replying to my comments today.

I think about the fact that there is not one adolescent service for kids with alcohol problems in all of northern Ontario, something I was shocked to learn. The chronic care facilities that were promised by this government for both Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury are not even started yet. They have not even started the building yet, let alone put in place those beds that were promised several years ago by this government. Members can look at the problems with northern health travel, and they are enormous. They can look at the terrible problems in the north of providing home care assistance, and I will come to how that works in southern Ontario and how it links to Bill 147 in a few minutes.

Mr. Haggerty: How do we get the doctors up there?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There is the huge problem, which the member for Niagara South, who has been here a long time as well -- too long some would say but I would never say something like that -- has heard spoken of many times, of how you get the doctors to go to northern Ontario and stay there. Is that not a pre-eminent issue that really needs to be addressed?

We have heard continually from the north that unless we place an infrastructure for health care education in the north, in terms of some kind of medical schools or adjuncts to medical schools and that kind of thing, and that if we do not have that infrastructure in place we will not be able to get people up there with just the kind of assistance that has been provided in the past. It is not something we should throw our hands up over; it is something that really needs to be addressed.

I look at Bill 147 and I say to myself, what is there under this act that is going to tell me that we are going to see a major proliferation of nonprofit health care facilities in northern Ontario? If I look at it and look through the requirements, I just do not see anything that tells me that is going to come about.

I wonder if we should perhaps, just for a moment, talk a little bit about competency. It is only appropriate, it seems to me, that we should deal with competency when dealing with this particular ministry, with some of the problems it has brought on itself and with this supposed answer that has been provided to us today. I had hoped the minister would be in her seat for this. No doubt what I am about to say may bring her back.

A number of years ago, those people who were elected before this last election will remember, we had a long and serious debate about the Mental Health Act in Ontario. We had this debate several times, as a matter of fact.

Let me bring members up to the present and my problems with this Minister of Health. The other day, a member from the Conservative Party raised the case of a young schizoid person who had died. The family felt this had taken place because there was less right now under the Mental Health Act to intervene and assist someone who did not wish to be helped than there used to be. It is a poignant case, one that I am sure has parallels, although we have not heard of many; the kind of situation we have worried about for a long time.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, although you were not in the chair at that time, that the Minister of Health infuriated me by essentially pointing fingers at those of us who had wanted changes in the old act, because of the civil libertarian constraints that were in it, in terms of the way we treated a person who might have had a mental health illness in the past, perhaps had it at that time, in a different way than we would treat somebody who had not had that history. She basically pointed at us and said we were responsible in some way for that death.

That made me extremely angry, not only because it was an unfair deflection of a question of ministerial responsibility that is totally justified under our system, but because it was such a distortion of what has been going on in mental health over the last number of years. For those members who were not elected at that time, I want them to know that this government came forward several times with mental health acts. Basically, what I am suggesting this Minister of Health should do too is withdraw Bill 147 and come back with a new one.

In its first attempt at an act, the government also changed the old law and did not put in a competency section. It was only under major lobbying from mental health professionals that the minority government changed its mind and came back with another form of the bill, which had to be withdrawn because it was inappropriately developed. It had the wrong dates in it, so the government brought forward another one.

In that minority situation, after incredibly long debate, hearing many, many people, it was basically decided by a majority, and it is true many Liberals voted against it, that it was very important we not set up a separate class of people in terms of civil rights, but that what we needed under the act was some kind of definition of competency -- that you should not be able to use the fact somebody had a mental health problem at some time against him so that he lost his civil rights and could be put into hospital, put into restraint, be given psychotropic drugs, perhaps even have himself zapped, because he happened to have a history at one time. He had to be given the same civil rights as the rest of us, and under the Charter of Rights that would be demanded.

What we really needed and what we did not have -- what we had at the time was an incredibly arbitrary decision-making process by psychiatrists, an arcane review system -- was some definition of when somebody is competent and when somebody is not competent. We need that whether it is for a mental health person in terms of his institutionalization or the kind of program they will put on, the kind of treatment they will get, as well as for somebody who needs trusteeship.

1720

Mr. Speaker, you may know we have now had several groups looking at this issue. Those of us at that time, because there was a group even sitting at that very time looking at this matter, said this must be done with the greatest dispatch because we had heard from, especially, the families of schizophrenics. They said: “You have to understand. It’s one of their symptoms that they’re going to want to deny the fact that there’s anything wrong and they’re going to want to deny treatment.” All the government is doing is creating for the families, who are already terribly burdened, another enormous problem and potential tragedies like the one that was referred to, I think, by the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves).

I have been up in this House several times over the last two years since that act was passed, asking the ministry: “When are we going to have that definition of competency? We are putting people at risk unnecessarily.” It was last November that the minister told me that she had a professor, David Weisstub, who was reviewing the matter and that he was going to report back in July 1989 with some options for a definition.

If fingers are to be pointed in individual cases of tragedies like the one the member for Parry Sound raised with us, they should not be pointed at people who knew what the issue was two years ago, who knew how dangerous it was going to be and suggested action had to be taken immediately. Fingers should be pointed at governments that have taken two years to do anything about it, governments that find it acceptable that a professor they have appointed will say he will report nine months later in July 1989, and jeopardize people’s lives in my view -- their health, if not so dramatically their lives -- up until that time, and however much longer it takes us to get that into the act, as we all want it to be.

When I look at the issues of mental health care, which may or may not be covered by Bill 147, I ask myself, why does this government want to come forward now with this bill, which it cannot act on, which it knows will have to be revised enormously, just to give me a chance to point out to it what it has been doing around the whole competency question? It is an inane strategy on the government’s part. What it is giving us the opportunity to do here, in talking about the principle of this bill, is basically to lay out for the people of Ontario all the areas of failure in health care that Liberals have to their credit now.

Earlier on, I challenged members to come up with any district health council that had ever placed an abortion clinic high on its list of priorities for what was needed in the community. I suggest to the members that not far under that would be a listing of what community mental health facilities would be needed in the community. It is a very difficult issue that is a little frightening to all of us who, I think, understand our own frailties and do not really like to deal with the issues a great deal.

As a solution, as a panacea, as the government’s one initiative on health care that it wants us to deal with now so urgently before we leave, it is amazing to me that there is little in this act that you can see that would basically encourage the development of more community-based mental health organizations.

I can see the development of a few more for-profit special facilities perhaps getting some priority, but I look at my own community of Scarborough, which has just a dearth of community-based facilities now, and I ask, “What is there in this that is going to give my community and the local volunteers in my community the chance to make sure their project has priority at the District Health Council of Metropolitan Toronto over fancier kinds of projects that were put forward by independent doctors in the community?” I basically cannot see very much at all.

This bill begs a number of issues and answers none of the questions that are inherent. One wonders why the initiative. The initiative surely must be being taken, in theory, to increase the number of independent health facilities. One would expect that it would want to do this, as a government, in philosophical terms, in policy terms, because the government felt that perhaps there was too much being done in the big institutions and hospitals and that that this was too expensive a way to deal with it.

That certainly is a concern that the Ontario Hospital Association has highlighted, basically suggesting in its release of November 7 that it wants some assurance from the Ministry of Health that public hospitals will have an equal opportunity under the act to be licensed to establish community-based facilities where the need is demonstrated. They clearly have the sense that they are being shut out of this.

The other option one might expect might be behind this kind of initiative would be this whole question of the fee-for-service, assembly-line-medicine style where you get paid by the number of people you deal with and the kind of procedure it is rather than on the basis of providing a need in general and having that out of a global budget.

If the government were really interested in that prospect, I suggest it would have moved entirely in the nonprofit sector. Then it would have been clear that this was a modus operandi they were after. They would have stated very clearly in their announcements that this was not going to be the great underminer of free trade, as we now know it is not going to be, but that it would have been a development on the salary side of things for health care, rather than just this piecework kind of notion of health care that we have at the present time.

This government clearly does not have its mind made up about that. This is a government that has decided doctors are worth a one per cent increase, on what basis I have never really understood. It had somebody mediate the requests and come forward with a suggestion that was between the government’s position in bargaining and that of the Ontario Medical Association, and then it ignored that entirely and decided that, for some very arbitrary reason, the one per cent figure was correct for doctors. I have never really understood just what the basis for that was at all.

Mind you, it is a government that also feels members are worth less than Metro councillors, so how am I to explain the vagaries of the Peterson government in terms of what people are worth?

The other thing that might have been was some kind of notion that we needed to move more away from acute care and into preventive care. That would have been something we have all been looking forward to. But if we look at it, as Dorothy Pringle, dean of the faculty of nursing at the University of Toronto, said -- she raised rhetorically the question as to whether or not this would really do it, but she raised the problem -- will the nature of services that are going to be put up for proposal to be funded be nonprofit or, in fact, are they going to be high-tech entrepreneurial services? If that is the case, what is going to be the role for home care in all of this? What is going to be the role for some of the other facilities?

1730

I think it is important to understand that this bill is incredibly tight in terms of licensing and the enforcement side of things, but it is incredibly vague in terms of its purposes. Because of that, it is a very dangerous weapon, not just in the area of abortion, as I indicated earlier, but is, in fact, the kind of legislation which gives such a broad-ranging interpretation to any ministry or government that a very right-wing government could interpret it in such a way as to limit community-based organizations. A progressive government, one would hope, would be able to encourage district health councils, the director and others to come forward with more progressive plans.

Given the way this government is going, I suggest that we are not necessarily moving in the latter direction.

Mr. Jackson: It’s neither right-wing nor progressive.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is a good point from the wounded member for Burlington South, who has lately accessed the system.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I thought Progressive Conservative was an oxymoron.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There are a number of oxymorons in the House.

Mr. Campbell: Are you an oxy or a moron?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Pardon me, Oxy?

An hon. member: Are you about ready for us?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am more on than off, but today I am not absolutely sure about that.

I have a short number of other issues I would like to deal with. Perhaps I will go on to them. The question I have thematically, as members know, around this legislation is just why we are being presented with it now and what it is going to do in reality.

The member for Don Mills (Mr. Velshi) will no doubt know that head injuries are a major problem in Ontario. Our trauma care units are incredibly talented now and our investment in those trauma care units has meant that thousands of people who in the past would have died now survive. The estimates that I heard about a year ago, and I am sure they have not changed, were that there are in this province somewhere around 16,000 serious head injuries per year. Of those 16,000, 4,000 are so serious that those people need a great deal of aftercare and assistance.

Members will perhaps know cases -- I do not know if they come through their offices or not -- very tragic kinds of cases where the behaviour of the person changes overnight. A large proportion of these serious head injury people develop very violent, erratic behaviour and they become incredible burdens on their families.

We have in this province not bad facilities to deal with a person at the moment of trauma. We have a tiny number of services which are available to a person immediately following the trauma to try to do an assessment of just how serious the long-term damage is. We have virtually nothing in the province at all to help the family and that person through the long-term care assistance, whether it is in the Health area or the Community and Social Services area.

Whereas in the past one might talk about conflicts between these two ministries in terms of competing for the right to deal with various kinds of problems, in this kind of case it is almost as if both ministries do not want to have anything to do with it. The families, the police forces and the jails of the province are becoming the major long-term care givers for these individuals.

I ask the members to think about their own communities and district health councils and I ask them how many proposals they have seen for a follow-up or a rehabilitation program for head-injured, brain-injured people. Virtually none has made it through any health council’s priority list.

Given the nature of this bill and its reliance on these health councils -- an approach which I remember many Liberals were opposed to developmentally when they were first promoted because of their only quasi-democratic nature -- I really worry what happens in the future for those families of brain-injured children and adults, when they will get the community-based services that are required here, because the mechanism requires that the district health council make that a priority before it ever goes to the director, before it ever goes to a minister.

I really wonder whether we will ever see the kind of amplification of programs for those people that is necessary. Instead, we will probably hear the minister getting up, as she did on community health centres today, saying, “We’ve had a doubling. We have two aftercare homes now in Metro for people who have been brain-injured. Isn’t that spectacular?” rather than any kind of systemic development.

There are a number of other issues I would like to take on. I was not sure if the member for Burlington South wished to be here for his entertainment or to speak.

Mr. Jackson: I am here to applaud and am just waiting for the spot.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There is never a punch line with anything I do, as he will know. But I know he concurs with almost everything I say except for the attacks on past Tory governments which can be easily excised from the script and used for his own purposes at any point. It is true that when the member for Leeds-Grenville can skirt around to the left of the member for Burlington South, then things are really in turmoil over there at the moment. But I think that kind of ginger taking place is good for the party.

An issue many members will have had some passing involvement with, I am sure, even newer members, is the issue of attendant care, and that falls definitively under this act. The needs are enormous, whether it is for Alzheimer’s victims at home, the brain-injured people I have been speaking about or just people at various levels of deterioration, of disability or whatever. At present our system for providing attendant care is a very bizarre mixture of inadequately funded programs and the order-in-council concept. For members of the public, the order in council is essentially getting the cabinet to say that this person is an exception and deserves X dollars because he or she does not fit a particular kind of program that is out there.

In the last seven or eight years I have taken four or five cases of attendant care need to the cabinet. I think one of those was approved. There are very seldom more than a dozen or so approved in a given year. I do not know what the numbers will be this year. But what we have is no real infrastructure for dealing with the questions of attendant care.

Again, on the same theme, I would come back to the minister and ask: Is it going to mean under this legislation that more attendant care programs, in any kind of co-ordinated fashion, will emerge across Ontario? What is there to guarantee that any of these will necessarily be nonprofit? What is the governmental policy role that will make sure that somewhere in this process health councils are instructed that this is to be a priority? Or is that not the role that will be taken; will it be a hands-off kind of role by government?

I have not heard from the minister at all in what she said about this in the past that there is any kind of notion of focusing on some of these issue problems. Instead what we have is this sort of mask being put forward that this is some sort of solution, that this somehow changes the world. It may not change it one jot; I think that is totally inappropriate.

I do not see anything here that says this government has come to grips with the ballooning number of senior citizens in the province and the huge number of services which will be required in services for the frail elderly, etc. If you look at the kind of failure in bringing in co-ordinated homecare services, you would just have to say this government is moving very slowly.

1740

We look at the kind of home care that is available and the kind of nursing care that is provided out there at the moment and we see the development of Para-Med and other multinational corporations based in the United States that are now providing nursing care.

The old tried-and-true nonprofit groups like the Victorian Order of Nurses and the Red Cross are losing battles with these kinds of organizations, which pay a pittance to the nurses as well as taking their own fee out of it and making a fairly sizeable profit which then finds its way south of the border.

I wonder, in looking at this act, which says nothing about how a nonprofit organization like the Red Cross would get priority, what would be the mechanism for giving it priority, that perhaps it is all left up to the enormous powers of regulation. I really worry about that.

The member for Parry Sound raised an incredibly serious issue, in my view one that we deal with every time we deal with health or social services issues. I remember in the Child and Family Services Act of a few years ago we talked about it a great deal; it is the question of confidentiality.

When I look at the hard-nosed wording of the second half of this bill, it seems to me that what we have here is an almost draconian approach to moving in on organizations and looking at their records.

Interjection.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: For purposes of Hansard, the minister says, “Read the Nursing Homes Act.” I have read the Nursing Homes Act and have some difficulties with some of the concepts of it, as well as understanding, from my perspective, the differences that we would hopefully have between certain kinds of organizations and others.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Read the Public Hospitals Act.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister again wishes to necessarily place her powers in the Public Hospitals Act and others as symbols of things that we should be wanting in society. Perhaps they are and perhaps they are not. All I am saying is that my reading of this legislation is that the minister has very strong powers for moving in and I --

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Quality insurance.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Pardon me? Quality insurance? Perhaps quality insurance, but let me put you again in the position of actually maybe getting the Morgentaler Clinic approved and having a change of minister so that the government has a minister in charge of it who does not think about access to abortion as this one does. Look at those powers in that light and see if the minister really wants that kind of invasion and that kind of potential harassment taking place that I see as possible under this act. I think it is something we really have to be concerned about.

The minister may think this is an area which is easily handled. I would just suggest to her that the kind of editorials that were alluded to by the member for Parry Sound are ones that she is going to see more of, and real concerns about that kind of activity.

If half the thought had gone into the first part of this bill as has gone into the second part, perhaps we would have a much tighter bill, maybe not one I would necessarily agree with, but I would understand where the minister was coming from. I have no concept, at this stage, of where she is going on anything but enforcement.

There is nothing in here, as I have been enumerating, which tells me the minister is dealing with the kinds of issues I think need to be dealt with. The minister and the government are afraid of dealing with the whole question of concentration of doctors and the numbers of doctors. We have seen that ducked any number of times in terms of trying to get some sort of balance over what the government’s role is in health care planning and what the role is of the professionals in the field.

I see nothing in this act which makes me feel any better about the enormous problem which was first pointed out in this province by the member for High Park in those days, Dr. Morton Shulman, to do with the private laboratories and the enormous profits which were being made in that sector in Ontario and what kind of controls there were going to be by this government in those areas.

I think what we have here is a government trying to recoup some ground in the last weeks of the Legislature; a government wrongly deciding, strategically, that it would be far better off to have us in session pointing out the problems that it has. Perhaps a few of the backbenchers -- who knows, maybe on this bill or a couple of others -- will actually be getting up and saying something instead of sitting back and not being able to participate. At the same time, they are being told they cannot participate in committees because they are now going to be able to stay here and listen to us debate the Minister of Health’s bill until we have all had our shot at it, because that is somehow important to her; it would be better for them to be here, unable to say anything except to heckle from time to time, rather than doing good, important legislative work on committees, because the Minister of Health feels it is important to her ego or whatever that we deal with this bill in second reading at this point.

I think it is a fundamental mistake for the Liberals to do that. I hear the Treasurer even wants to bring forward the lottery bill now and try to put us in our place and basically say, “Where do you stand on lottery money going to health care?” I say to the Treasurer and to the government, let’s have the debate. I welcome that debate, again on the same basis of, why is it being proffered? Why is the government and the party that once was very worried about lotteries all of a sudden turning to them as their salvation? Is it because of incompetence? Is it because, even under the general revenue powers the government has, it does not know how to control health care spending; where it really wants to put its emphasis; where it really wants to put its money? Is that what the Liberals really want to talk about? Is it the fact that somehow they have accumulated an $800-million surplus and have been unable to find out where to put the money? That is what I hear. I may be wrong.

That is where this government wants us to have the debate: in terms of its failure to plan the economics of the health care system. The government has not been able to work out what it wants to do in terms of the hospitals and the health care system. It still has no plan for dealing with the nursing shortage.

I just learned from a friend who is in having his bypass operation that two new nurses from Great Britain have just come on to his floor, attracted here recently because of our problems in getting nurses in this province. Is that where we are going again, to the importation of nurses? I hear that is what we are going to do with educators.

I welcome the debate, if that is what the government wants us to do by bringing forward this bill at this time. If that kind of inane strategy is what the Liberals think is appropriate for the House rather than having members do serious work, then there are members other than I who are willing to get up and speak, more coherently and for longer than I am able to, in terms of what is wrong with the Liberals’ health care planning system at the moment.

There are members here who have had a great deal of experience in terms of the home care issue. I think the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) will want to get up and talk about the failure of this government to deal with that issue and how Bill 147 is merely a mask for that.

It is a curious business we are in. Ego and policy somehow wrap themselves together and sometimes get so inextricably wrapped up that we end up doing things that make little sense. This House spends a lot of time on issues that could easily be debated at another time.

I encourage this government to rethink Bill 147. This party, the New Democratic Party, is very supportive of the notion of expansion of community health. We want the government to come back with a bill which explicitly does that; which explicitly comes forward and says it is supporting the development of the nonprofit sector; which explicitly will be saying that it is not going to leave it up to the political courage of local health councils as to whether or not community-based services for women wanting abortions should be funded in the province of Ontario, but that this government will make the decision that those kinds of services should be provided in all the communities of Ontario and that they are better provided in health centres than in hospitals, to have the courage to make that kind of policy statement.

We want to hear the government say that these kinds of centres are not designed to give doctors access to more government funding to undertake high-technology alternatives, but rather are designed to deal with some of the very serious problems we know are out there that are best dealt with under the control of community boards, whether they are attendant care programs, whether they are programs for the head injured, whether they are programs for senior citizens who are frail and in their homes and in need of nursing care or whether there are needs for chronic care in a community; it is the kind of thing which I think the minister can be clear about.

1750

Clearly, I want to see her withdraw this bill at this time. I think it is nonsensical to have it before us. In the fresh new session coming up, if she comes forward with a bill which has the clarity that we are asking for, then she will no doubt get the support of this party in terms of that legislation as she brings it forward.

But at this stage, to tell us a week ago that she thought the things we would be dealing with in committee are no longer important -- whether they were in the select committee on education or whether they were matters that might be looked at by other committees -- that somehow her priority is this flawed legislation, which can go nowhere for months and months, and that no committee has the power or the membership to take it on at this time, then I say that is a slap in the face not just to opposition members but to members of all those committees who are Liberals.

I have looked at the member for Northumberland (Mrs. Fawcett), who has recently spoken twice in the House, and I commend her for that. It was pleasant to see her up and at it. She has little opportunity to use this forum, not just because members of the Liberal Party are muzzled when it comes to second reading debate, but because there are a lot of them vying for question period and it is very difficult to get on. The most effective place for them to be, when they are not cutting ribbons in their own home constituency or my constituency, would be in committee doing some useful work.

I know there are members like the member for Kenora (Mr. Miclash), who wanted very much to be involved in the select committee. He has probably done a great deal of homework already to prepare himself for questions on the length of the schoolday and the length of the school year and perhaps the length of my speeches, which he needed before we went on.

Mr. Smith: We’d have more time if you’d quit, Richard.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Again, the member for Lambton raises a very good point; that is that if the committee, of course, had gone on its way and had studied this issue this week, there would have been more time for all members to be doing other things, rather than sitting here holding a quorum as I hold forth on my views about the failings of Bill 147.

But that was not my choice. That was the choice of the Minister of Health and the Premier, who walked into the caucus meeting and told the Liberal members that this was the way it was going to be and they were all going to love it and be loyal. I know the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) smiled at the time. It was a weak kind of sheepish smile because he is that kind of guy, unlike his mother, who never had that kind of sheepish smile in this House but always had one of glaring opposition. She allowed her real views to be known.

What we have been called on to deal with is Bill 147. In the six minutes I have left I want to remind members that in the last few minutes that I have been speaking, since I have been on my feet, they probably have had a chance now to read this bill seven or eight times and I hope they have done that. In looking at it, we have looked at certain matters such as the questions of the regulations. I ask all members to turn with me now to page 21 of the bill and to look at the powers that are vested in --

Miss Roberts: As in a hymnbook.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We could do these, as the member for -- oh my, what a challenge this is to get all these ridings correct.

Miss Roberts: Elgin.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As the member for Elgin has pointedly said, we could do this by recital. I could do the first, she could respond à la the church service with the second and then we could proceed along. There are 29 regulations or permissive subelements of subsection 33(1), which deal with the powers of regulation that the minister has. I suggest if members look at those powers, they are enormous and at this stage we have no idea what they are.

It is not unusual with an important piece of legislation -- this is the important piece of health legislation for this government because it is being brought forward so urgently at this time, having only been debated one other time in this House since it was first introduced last June -- that when that kind of legislation comes forward, sometimes an organized, competent government provides a compendium which includes the potential regulations so we have an idea, when huge powers are vested in regulation, what is being given there, just what that power really means.

Sometimes they are not available when a bill is tabled. I presume last June, given how hurriedly the first part of this bill obviously was brought in and how it was brought forward as an anti-free-trade bill, as we will all recall, they did not have time to think through the regulations.

At this stage, I would suggest to members, all those regulations should be available to us; we should be able to see them and know for ourselves whether the kinds of powers of regulation that are being placed here are appropriate or whether in fact they place too much power in the hands of both the minister and the director as outlined in this proposed law. I would suggest that they are too great and that we deserve to get that information before this debate takes place.

This government does not wish to go forward with this legislation, I am convinced. There is no great fondness for it, outside of the Minister of Health and perhaps her deputy, who is feeling a bit under fire these days. This is not a bill which speaks to a new philosophy, which talks about a new --

Mr. Offer: That’s not what the member said at the beginning.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Pardon me?

Mr. Offer: You said at the beginning, “Why are you going through with this legislation?” Send this man his Instant Hansard.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I know that the member from Mississauga with the hearing impairment will basically want to reread the Hansard himself and understand that what I have talked about is the government’s motivations in bringing this forward. He may remember the image of the doily on the cesspool. I commend it to him as appropriate for this particular piece of legislation.

Having now enumerated some of the problems in the health care system, I will go on, no doubt at the next sitting, with a few of the others that are extant at the moment and why the ministry would not want to come forward with this at this time. There is no love for this particular bill out there in the community. Did I hear a nodding from the minister?

Mr. Offer: You can’t hear a nodding.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: If you can hear nodding, you’re in good shape.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I hope the member got that. Did the member for Elgin get that? I would like to say to the member for Mississauga East that in certain cases you certainly can hear a nodding in this House, and the rattle has been one that I have noted in the past.

Mr. Offer: He’s missed the riding twice.

Mr. Carrothers: Which riding is it? North, south, east or west?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Well, let’s go for Mississauga North next time and hope we get it. All I know is that the member from Mississauga wherever --

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) is looking pained even as you speak.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The member for Hamilton Mountain is the ultimate loyalist, I want members to know.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The only loyalist.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: And the only loyalist. The minister notes that again today there is no one else in the caucus here to support me, but this is not something which has surprised me over the years. I am quite used to being the lone voice and will be happy to be the lone voice when next we meet to go back on to Bill 147 and talk about a few of the things I have missed in my lack of time today, to be able to enumerate the difficulties there.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: And as you conclude second reading debate and we move forward to committee.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I was going to say that my hope is that this minister will determine that when we come back, having left the Legislature at the end of this week, one hopes, we will instead come forward with a new bill which will be a little clearer and more precise in terms of what it is trying to do and not merely put forward vagaries which can be much misused by government, with too high an amount of power within the regulations section.

I am now going to turn to some of the comments about the bill which the Ontario Medical Association has made and will proceed on some of its comments when next we meet. I know the minister will want to assure the government House leader, since he has been trodden on again by the Premier in terms of the ordering of the business of this House, that we should be able to get together again on Bill 147 at the earliest opportunity.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Tomorrow.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Perhaps we can do it as we have been doing: wait another three months or four months to call it. After all, it was very important on November 7 and became surprisingly unimportant for the months that have passed until now, except in the mind of the Premier and, I gather, of the Minister of Health. But we will have our chance to discuss many more items under this act at this point.

Several members from the rump or two; it is always hard to tell, there is not as much noise as normal, and that is how I judge -- have suggested to me that the clock is indicating it is about six o’clock, so I think it probably would be appropriate for me to adjourn the debate before I get into the meat and substance of my remarks.

On motion by Mr. R. F. Johnston, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

13 février 1989