Journal des débats 1989-févr-21 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, who transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1989, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GRAY COACH LINES LTD.

Ms. Bryden: I am gravely disturbed by the news that Gray Coach Lines is planning to abandon the Owen Sound to Barrie and the Kitchener to London bus routes on March 5, 1989. I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) if he has approved this plan.

Gray Coach, which is wholly owned by the Toronto Transit Commission, was given exclusive rights over profitable routes many years ago, with an obligation to provide quality service for less-profitable and even money-losing routes. Is the minister prepared to let them abandon this responsibility? Is it in the public interest to return to the chaotic situation of unco-ordinated private bus line operators which preceded the establishment of Gray Coach Lines and produced a variety of standards of service?

The March 5 closedown of the Gray Coach routes will leave a substantial number of residents in the areas served by these routes with no reliable alternative public transportation. It will also result in the loss of jobs for a large number of Gray Coach employees located in these communities.

I urge the minister to refuse approval of the line abandonment until he has listened to the residents and the employees affected and is prepared to guarantee that the ministry will see that quality service is provided to these areas. I also urge him to give us a policy statement on the privatization of the bus transportation service in this province.

POLICE OFFICERS

Mr. Runciman: In the absence of a statement yesterday from the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), I would like to express the Progressive Conservative Party’s wishes for a speedy recovery to the two police officers wounded this past weekend.

The assaults once again draw attention to the dangers inherent in police work and should give us all pause for thought with respect to the barrage of criticism, much of it unproven and unwarranted, that has been directed at police officers and officials over the past few months.

Throughout all of the recent verbal assaults on police, the Solicitor General has been consistent -- consistent in her lack of support for police. This weekend she once again quickly jerked her knee and joined in the chorus of those criticizing a police officer for revealing statistics that were requested of him by the North York race relations committee; statistics that, by the way, just told it like it is.

The message to police across this province is clear: Beware of this Solicitor General. She is no friend of the men and women putting their lives on the line for all of us, every day of the week, right across this province.

BRIAN STEMMLE

Mr. Beer: As honourable members will recall, on Saturday, January 14, 1989, Brian Stemmle, one of Canada’s finest competitive skiers, was badly injured at a downhill event in Europe. Since his accident, Brian, a resident of Aurora in my riding, has been confined to hospital and he is now at Sunnybrook Medical Centre in Toronto slowly recovering from the severe injuries he received.

Brian Stemmle is the kind of young man with a great deal of drive and focus on the job at hand. I am sure we can all understand the frustration he must feel at the present time, confined as he is to a hospital bed.

We all recall how Brian injured his knee shortly before the Olympics in Calgary last year yet he still tried to compete. This year he was making his mark on the world circuit when he had his accident.

Brian is the kind of young athlete we Canadians are now producing in many key sports areas. He is dedicated to showing that with excellent coaching, solid facilities and strong personal drive and determination, Canadians can compete with the best in the world.

I believe that I speak for all of us in this Legislature in wishing Brian Stemmle a complete recovery from his injuries and a full and productive life ahead.

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr. Farnan: Young couples must ask themselves why a government would sit idly by as speculation continues to drive up the cost of housing. All members of this assembly already have or are in a position to purchase a piece of the real estate pie. We have our homes, and the increased value of properties caused by speculation is in fact increasing the value of our properties.

When young couples examine the makeup of the present Liberal cabinet, they find that a significant number of the key cabinet members are extremely comfortable financially. Is this why the government is so complacent?

In 1988 the cost of the average home in Cambridge rose 30 per cent, from $105,000 in January 1988 to $140,000 in January 1989. The costs continue to spiral and the major factor in this increasing cost is speculation. If we were in the position where we did not yet own our own homes and could see costs increasing across the province, I can guarantee we, as members of this assembly, would not be so complacent.

Is the time not long overdue for the government to take the heat out of the housing market by immediately imposing a speculation tax on the purchase of all homes that are not a primary residence?

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) and concerns his government’s new parks policy.

I have to wonder if the Minister of Tourism and Recreation had any input into this new policy. I wonder if he was even consulted when the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) dreamed up his new parks policy that bans so-called nonconforming uses, including hunting and fishing, in Ontario’s parks.

Does the Minister of Tourism and Recreation not realize that these uses are major drawing cards for attracting visitors to our parks from throughout Ontario, the rest of Canada and even the United States? Hunting and fishing have been carried out in our parks for years without damaging the environment or interfering with people who visit our parks for other purposes.

As well, the minister should have stepped in and pointed to a report commissioned by the Ministry of Natural Resources that indicates the people of Ontario do not really want more provincial parks. The Laventhol and Horwath report also goes on to suggest that people are not driving more than one or two hours to use a park and that the tourist marketplace for the use of provincial parks is flat. The government chose to ignore this report and went ahead, establishing 53 new parks. It forgot about the hunters and fishermen.

Since this government took office, the roads are continuously going downhill.

1340

GEORGE LESLIE SMITH

Mr. D. W. Smith: It is with sympathy that I inform the House of the passing of George Leslie Smith on February 15. He was from Brights Grove, Ontario, which is in my riding of Lambton. He was 66 years of age.

George Smith was one who possessed a wealth of historical knowledge about Lambton county. His love of history and his collection of artefacts was recognized and utilized by the citizens of both the county of Lambton and the city of Sarnia.

He was an active community volunteer and contributed to many worthwhile projects such as the founding of the Clearwater Public Library and the founding of a children’s art class sponsored by the Sarnia Public Library.

An accomplished speaker, Mr. Smith spoke to numerous audiences on historic subjects. His talents were also published in his first book, entitled The Bluewater Highway, along with his latest publication, entitled The Street Names of Sarnia.

George Smith will be greatly missed in Lambton county. I would like to extend my sincere sympathy to his wife, Maxine, and their children.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston). It concerns increases to ministry staff.

The Ontario public service staffing increased by 6,884 employees between March 31, 1985, and March 31, 1988. During that time, there were 335 ministry staff added to the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation; 371 to the Ministry of Labour; 457 to the Ministry of the Environment; 592 to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines; and a whopping 1,595 staff added to the Ministry of Correctional Services.

I would not be so concerned if these public service staff were actually those men and women who are out in the field doing the work, but they are not; they are in the ministries, drawing large salaries which this government increased when it came to power.

The Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet is supposed to have proper control of ministry budgets and staffing. It appears he does not. He and his government have embarked on a program of empire-building. He and his government should he ashamed of the extra staff they have hired and the increased amount of money that is being spent for administration.

MINING ACCIDENT / MORT ACCIDENTELLE DANS LES MINES

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short statement on the mine fatality in South Porcupine yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Very briefly, I would like to express, on behalf of the government, our condolences to the families and the colleagues of those three miners who were fatally injured at the Placer Dome mine in South Porcupine in the Timmins area.

I can inform the House that the mine health and safety branch of the Ministry of Labour was contacted at approximately 1:30 yesterday afternoon. The branch immediately responded by providing nonfire emergency rescue equipment and other technical advice. The recovery operation was completed, I believe, at 8:15 last evening.

The Ministry of Labour is actively involved in the investigation of the circumstances that caused this tragic loss of life at that particular mine, and I can assure the House that we will keep members abreast of the findings of that examination.

Again, on behalf of the government, I want to express our condolences to the families of those who were killed yesterday.

Mr. Mackenzie: Just as a very brief response to the minister’s comments, we join with him in sending our condolences to the families of those involved. We think, however, it is important to raise at least a couple of issues as a result of this unfortunate fatality in the mine.

There are all too many mine deaths in Ontario. It is a situation that has not really improved and it probably underlines as much as anything else the need for the continuing extension of health and safety services in Ontario, as well as training programs, particularly for miners in underground operations.

We wonder why this unfortunate accident would have a piece in the paper which indicated that the men were in a section of the mine known as the widow-maker. Obviously, there had been previous accidents and fatalities in that particular section of the mine. This raises some questions in our minds, as I am sure it will in those of the workers involved, as to just what kind of planning and what kind of precautions are taken to protect the workers in a situation like this. We hope that this will help to underline the need for some of the safety and health legislation that we are now thinking of in Ontario.

Mr. McCague: I rise to endorse the comments made by the government House leader and by the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). This tragic passing of three people is something we hope will never happen but it seems to continue to do so. The wise counsel of those much more familiar than I with the circumstances should be heeded on all occasions. We in our party send condolences to all those close to those who have passed on.

M. Pouliot : Je suis convaincu que tous les membres de l’Assemblée législative voudront se joindre aux familles, à la ville de Timmins, ainsi qu’à la communauté minière de l’Ontario, pour offrir leurs condoléances.

Hier, à la mine Placer Dome, des équipes de secours ont lutté et oeuvré durant sept heures afin de sauver la vie des trois mineurs ensevelis quelque 1200 pieds sous terre. Hélas, leurs efforts furent en vain...

On nous a communiqué qu’il semble que la mort de ces trois mineurs ait été instantanée. Les députés se souviendront qu’en 1982, un jeune mineur de 18 ans a perdu la vie dans le même secteur de cette mine et que, l’an dernier, un autre mineur a succombé à une chute dans un puits au même endroit. Ironiquement, la zone la plus profitable d’une mine est souvent la plus dangereuse. Le travail de mineur est difficile et parfois dangereux. À cause des maladies industrielles et des accidents, cette carrière est hélas souvent très courte. Il faudra donc continuer à oeuvrer pour s’assurer que ces gens, qui contribuent tellement aux bénéfices économiques de l’Ontario, seront protégés à l’avenir.

Mr. Speaker: When the official record of the House, Hansard, is printed, I will, on behalf of all members, make certain that the families of the miners receive the members’ words of sympathy.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr. B. Rae: My question is for the Minister of Housing. Last week the minister said, “This government has made a commitment that on our land we are going to make sure that people get homes they can afford to buy and homes they can afford to live in.”

I want to draw the minister’s attention to a proposal from Centennial College in Metropolitan Toronto to sell off three acres of land at the corner of Pape and Mortimer avenues for $10 million to a company called H and R Developments in co-operation with Drachma Enterprises. It is the intention of this developer to build a 13-storey, 295-unit condominium building. None of the units in that proposal will be of a nonmarket kind; they will all be sold at whatever price the market will bear.

Does this kind of development on land that is indirectly owned by the taxpayers of this province conform with her statement last week, that on government land people are going to get homes they can afford to buy and homes they can afford to live in?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: My statement the other day referred to our Housing First policy, as the member very well knows. Our Housing First policy says that on lands which are declared surplus by the government and are designated surplus, we will either use that land for the purpose of developing communities of mixed income in which at least 35 per cent of the housing will be affordable, or if a piece of land is not suitable for that purpose and will be sold, then the money that comes into the Treasury as a result of that is given to the housing development fund.

That is the way the Housing First policy works. It deals with land that is declared surplus to the usage of various ministries. The member has already seen that there are eight pieces of land we have announced are going to be dealt with in that way. He will be seeing more.

1350

Mr. B. Rae: As to this land in question, I am sure the minister will know where Pape and Mortimer is. It is not too far from where she herself lives. She knows exactly the corner I am referring to.

I want to ask the minister this simple question: Centennial College has obviously declared this land surplus. Other universities and colleges are sitting on vast tracks of public land, much of which is now about to be developed or is being proposed for development. I want to ask the minister very specifically, is she saying land that is sold off by these universities and community colleges is not subject to the policy statement that at least 35 per cent of housing built on the land will in fact be affordable housing?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: We have been working with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and we are going to consider all proposals for affordable housing on our lands. Those lands must be declared surplus by the ministry in question and then go to the Ministry of Government Services for the purpose of development of the land. We are in the middle of conversations, of course, with all ministries about this and we are working with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities on any lands that are declared surplus by that ministry.

Mr. B. Rae: I do not think I heard an answer to the question. I asked a question, first of all, about a particular project and I did not get an answer. I then asked a question about universities and colleges and I have not had an answer. I want to ask the minister to come back, then; since she was not able to answer the first question and she was not able to answer the second question, I will give her one more chance.

She set out her policy in this House on Thursday when she said -- I am quoting from her on Thursday -- “We have made our commitment to make sure at least 35 per cent of the units built on our land are affordable.” In the words of the old song, “This land is my land, this land is your land,” I want to know whose land is this land when it comes to Centennial College, when it comes to other universities and colleges and bodies whose land is in fact paid for indirectly by the taxpayers of this province. What is her policy? Is that the land that is covered under the 35 per cent policy or is it not?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The land that is owned by the various colleges comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. If any land is declared surplus by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, it then becomes part of our land, which can be used and will be used for meeting the housing needs of the people of the province. I think that is clear. We are working with all the ministries to increase that supply of land. I know the member will be very, very interested in those pieces of land that are already in the development process and I welcome his questions on the development that is going to follow.

TEACHERS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Education. On January 12, in response to a question, he indicated that he did not think there was going to be a great teacher shortage this year, that there were going to be 4,000 potential new teachers and only 3,000 needed within the system. Today in the Globe and Mail, the projections on enrolment and teacher shortages indicate that across the country there will be 30,000 teachers short in the next little while and that Ontario is going to follow a trend of much higher shortages than the other areas.

Does the Minister of Education stick by what he said on January 12; and if he does, how does he explain that my information is that the 20 boards in and around Metropolitan Toronto alone are going to need over 3,000 new teachers this year?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I appreciate the member’s question on this very important issue. There is no question that in the short term there will be difficult times for school boards in terms of the availability of qualified teachers. I believe I have indicated in responses in this House on previous occasions our concern over that particular issue. I think I have also outlined for the benefit of the member and others the steps the government is prepared to take to address the issue in the long term.

It is important to note that after 19 years of declining enrolment, we have entered a period of increased enrolment province-wide. That is expected to last until the middle 1990s as a result of baby-boomers having children who are now accessing the system. We have taken steps to increase the supply, the numbers of teachers in this province, without lowering standards and will continue to do so to address both the short-term pressures and the long-term need for qualified teachers in this province.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister knows there has been a colossal poverty of planning in this whole process. We have known this boom was coming. I wonder what he says to the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board which itself is expecting to hire for 500 new positions and expects to be 150 short this fall. It is interviewing in the west of Canada and is interviewing in Newfoundland to try to find teachers for this fall. What does he say to that board which may itself face a 150-person shortage this fall?

Hon. Mr. Ward: Let me begin by suggesting to the member that the very last thing we want to do is abandon any sort of long-range planning process. There is no question that the early retirement window that is being taken advantage of this year by many experienced teachers in this province will in fact create immediate short-term pressure. There is no question that government initiatives, such as our efforts to reduce class sizes in grades 1 and 2, create pressure. It was for that reason that we put into place a three-year implementation program, but I think --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What wonderful hindsight that is.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I said that at the time. The member accuses me of having hindsight. He will recall I made that statement at the time of the announcement. It is clear, in looking at the picture in the long term, that in terms of the analysis as to the future year-in requirements for additional permanent qualified teachers, it is expected we will require an additional 1,000 teachers per year above and beyond the levels in 1987.

The member will know that through the generosity of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), utilizing the program adjustment fund through the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, we created 562 additional teaching positions in the faculties this September and I believe we will --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. B. Rae: Our children don’t go to school in the long term.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As my leader was just saying, our children do not go to primary school in the long term, they are there this year. The government is essentially condemning kids to a school lifetime in portables, and now to real uncertainty whether or not they are going to have an adequate number of teachers. I do not believe he knows what he is dealing with out there.

Can he tell me specifically today what the deficits will be this fall in the areas he has already identified, math, sciences, kindergarten, primary and French? Does he know that? Does he even know how many women are coming out of the faculties? Does he have any of the statistical information he really needs to plan at all?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am quite satisfied that indeed we do have that statistical information. In fact, the ministry had undertaken a supply study of the teaching profession in this province. The member talks at length about very serious deficiencies that exist out there in the primary division, for example. He will know that we are in the second year of the 20-to-one implementation. What he may not know is that we have been able not only to meet the target in the first year of that implementation, but have exceeded it, obviously with the utilization of qualified primary teachers in this province.

I will acknowledge that for the short term, for the next two years, there is going to be a very difficult situation for boards. We are doing what we can to attract back into the teaching profession those thousands of qualified teachers who graduated from the faculties and chose not to pursue the profession. Many of them are coming back. Many occasional teachers are now seeking permanent positions.

We have increased by over 500 the positions at the faculty. I am quite convinced that without sacrificing the quality of teaching, without lowering our standards, we can address both the short-term and long-term needs of the school system.

1400

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. It is an issue I drew to her attention last week, but she carefully avoided answering it. It deals with her response to media questions related to the impact of auto insurance increases on seniors.

The minister will recall that she indicated she felt the impact would be marginal. Press reports today indicate seniors in various regions of the province are facing increases of 21 per cent, 29 per cent, 48 per cent, 59 per cent and so on, increases that I suspect most reasonable people would not consider marginal.

The minister has had a week to reflect on her words, and hopefully, on her responsibilities as the seniors’ advocate in government. Will she tell the House if she still stands by her view that increases such as 58 per cent will have a marginal impact on seniors; and if not, what is she doing to help the more than 500,000 drivers for whom she is supposed to advocate?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: The insurance companies are now calculating their new rates. Those rates will be made public in March. Until such time as they do so, any rates that may be discussed are purely speculative and those that are appearing in newspapers today are just that, possible rates that may or may not be the rates that are actually published in March.

I think it appropriate that we see what those rates will be. In the meantime, I am working very closely with my colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Elston) to bring to him the concerns that are brought forward to me by seniors as individuals and by seniors’ groups across the province, so we can have an opportunity to discuss those actual rates.

Mr. Runciman: That is typical, an after-the-fact response, a crisis-to-crisis kind of response. As the spokesperson around the cabinet table for senior citizens --

Mr. Harris: Supposedly.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, supposedly -- will the minister advise us of the role she and her officials played in the government’s consideration of Bill 2, and specifically, the provision removing insurance companies’ right to classify risk on age, thereby removing seniors’ discounts and ignoring the safe driving habits of seniors? Did the minister voice any concerns at all? Did she stand up for seniors or did she just sit on the sidelines, not wishing to rock the Attorney General’s (Mr. Scott) boat?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: As the member opposite well knows, the new classification for insurance is no longer based on age, sex or marital status. Instead, it is based on classification of risk. Some of the figures that have been bandied about by the honourable member opposite, and by others, would indicate there are scenarios that may be possibilities, but which are highly unlikely to occur, given that companies at the low end of the market would wish to preserve their market share. I suggest the sorts of fears this member is attempting to sow within our older community are not appropriate and are in fact quite damaging.

Mr. Runciman: That is laughable. During the Bill 2 hearings back in 1987, throughout which I sat on the standing committee on administration of justice, witness after witness warned of the impact risk classification changes would have on seniors. Now, almost a year and a half after the fact, the minister is talking about consulting seniors and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is talking about helping seniors.

Give us a break. There was obviously no concern 18 months ago, and now they are flying by the seat of their pants, ad hocking it from crisis to crisis. I regret to say the minister’s performance in regard to seniors’ auto insurance rates has been, to be polite, embarrassing. The minister has suggested that rate increases are marginal and that seniors are pretty flush anyway and can handle the increases. She has turned a blind eye to the thousands on fixed incomes. She has ignored the --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a question?

Mr. Runciman: Is the minister finally prepared to stand up for seniors and demand the reinstitution of discounts across this province for senior citizens, the people she is supposed to be representing?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: Seniors are a very diverse group. They cannot all be classified as sick, nor can they all be classified as poor. There are seniors who are not well off. There are seniors who depend very clearly on an automobile to get around. Issues of mobility are clearly very important to seniors.

It is for that reason that I am working very closely with the groups that represent seniors across this province, meeting with them, talking with them and advocating with my colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions so that we can bring forth their very real concerns and have them discussed, but at the same time making certain they know that the actual figures will come out a few weeks from now. It is not appropriate to frighten people at this point. It is appropriate to wait and determine what the actual figures will be.

GOVERNMENT PLANNING

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer and Deputy Premier about the conflicting signals and interests being sent out by his government. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) said last week that he has given up on affordable housing in Metro. He told people to leave town if they want to buy homes. Yesterday, the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) told the Ontario Good Roads Association convention that community life is breaking down because people spend too much time fighting traffic on congested roads, a situation that will only worsen thanks to the lack of priority being given to roads.

Can the Treasurer tell us how the Premier’s advice that home buyers leave town jibes with the Treasurer’s refusal to give priority to transportation, traffic congestion and roads?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: To begin with, I agree with both those gentlemen. I want to point out to the member something he already knows; that is, that our commitment to the transportation budget is high, generous and I think quite progressive, and that under the leadership of this minister we have already had commitments made for the expansion of the highway system, including Highway 403 and Highway 407. There are actually substantial commitments made in all parts of the province, including the north.

It is my job, of course, to see that it is funded in a reasonable way over a period of time. The member will notice that last year we were able to raise the amount available to the ministry to over $2 billion. I wish more of that money could be spent at the municipal level, but the honourable member will know that even in that connection, in the three budgets I have already had the honour to present to the House, the increases for municipal roads have always been substantially above the rate of inflation. Even this year, the commitments to the municipalities are about 5.2 to 5.4 per cent.

I would be the last to say that is sufficient, but certainly when our priority is to provide adequate health services and improve the education system, then these are simply decisions that have to be taken, which I think are fair and effective.

Mr. Harris: I think the Treasurer has to realize that if he is not part of the solution, then he is part of the problem and he must accept that responsibility.

This government is fond of talking about spending levels and ignoring problems. This government likes to measure success in dollars spent, not results. The Minister of Transportation says the stress of commuting and traffic jams are hurting both workplace productivity and family life. The Premier’s “Go west, young man” housing policies are going to make that situation worse. So we have a serious problem and it is getting worse.

We get conflicting signals from the Premier, from the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), from the Minister of Transportation and from the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), all going to solve these problems on the back of somebody else. We want to know what the government is doing about it.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We are all concerned about housing. Under the leadership of the Minister of Housing, we have come forward with programs that are productive. I am sure the honourable member will be aware of, and might even want reiterated the fact that in the last three years we have had the following housing starts -- 105,000; 99,900; 86,000 -- which we feel have been an indication that more of our residents have been adequately housed than at any other time in our history. We have accomplished great things.

The Minister of Transportation has to drive in from Scarborough. I have to drive in from South Dumfries. We have the assistance of drivers while we are working diligently to extend our working days from the ordinary 15 hours to 18 hours, but we are glad to do that so that the government programs are going to be co-ordinated and efficient. In this connection, we feel that any reasonable observer would have to agree.

1410

Mr. Harris: If it keeps some of the ministers away from their offices for three or four hours a day, it is probably beneficial.

The Minister of Transportation said, “One cannot participate in the life of the community if one is spending three to four hours a day commuting in traffic.” That was his quote. He said, “Our service clubs, PTAs, local recreation groups are suffering.” The minister knows there is a roads crisis. Our mayors and reeves know there is an infrastructure crisis. Home buyers and renters know there is a housing crisis. Everyone knows these problems are getting worse, not better, through the lack of overall planning by this government.

I believe people are tired of slogan-type programs or simplistic solutions to these complex problems. Surely someone must co-ordinate all these conflicting demands to generate an overall solution.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Harris: My question is this: Is there anybody over there who is co-ordinating the difficult and conflicting interests of the Premier, the Minister of Housing, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), the Minister of Transportation and others? If there is, who is it and when are we going to see some results?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I would say to the honourable member that if he has any fairness left in him, he would know that we have one of the best transportation systems in North America.

Mr. Harris: We used to have.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I would be the last to deny the fact that under the leadership of the Honour-able Leslie M. Frost we had a highways program that I wish we could duplicate as far as the commitment of money is concerned. But that was before the time of a concern for our environment. It was before the time of a huge increase in the cost of providing medical and hospital services. It was before the importance of seeing that our young people had adequate technical education to compete in a competitive world was fully realized. Under the leadership of the member for Scarborough East (Mr. Fulton). We have developed far beyond that -- the commitment to GO Transit, which the honourable member is aware of, and the expansion of our highway system -- so that in a very effective way we have kept in step with the challenges as they came forward.

I wish we could spend more on highways. The honourable member would know that the minimal increases in gasoline taxes that have occurred since we have taken office have been applied almost exclusively to the improvement of our road system. The honourable member may feel that we should expand that tax base in order that the construction program could be expedited. I for one am not giving that serious consideration at this particular time.

I feel that the Minister of Transportation has done a good job in co-ordinating this and deserves the thanks and credit of all honourable members.

Mr. Jackson: Come on; the last time you slammed the door on Ed Fulton he had to go to hospital to have his foot operated on.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Kormos: I have a question of the Minister of Financial Institutions. First perhaps I have a concern about the constant reference to an apparent outlawing of discounting for years of good driving experience. Certainly that is not the case; section 33 of the act does not prohibit discounting for years of good driving experience. That is the last reason in the world why seniors are being or will be charged such exorbitant rates.

I have a question for the minister in reference to the most recent report from Mercer to the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board. Whereas hikes of about 15 per cent are suggested for owner-operators of taxicabs, an examination of the case studies shows hikes really in the range of 30 per cent to 40 per cent at the same time that the same report speaks about the serious and gross unreliability of the data. The hikes that are suggested by Mercer are going to force owner-operators of taxicabs off the road.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Kormos: Why will the government not use its jurisdiction under section 27 to require the board to consider affordability in this instance, when the board embarks on this latest round of hikes?

Hon. Mr. Elston: First of all, to reply to the honourable gentleman’s assertion about other rates, let me advise him and advise the people that the insurance companies are now looking into setting the rates about which he spoke earlier, for seniors and otherwise. I can tell the honourable gentleman that the overall impact, as established in the rate increases announced by the board for private passenger automobiles, indicates that in fact there is an adjustment required but that overall across the province there will be some areas, because of territorial rating, where seniors will see some declines in their actual cost of insurance. I want to be absolutely sure that the public and the population are fully aware of all the facts that surround the seniors issue.

To deal with the request of the honourable member as it relates to owner-operated taxis, for instance, the hearings will take place in front of the board. As before, he along with other people will be quite able to go forward with their suggestions with respect to what changes they think would be appropriate, and members of the public will again be welcome to attend those hearings so that they can put forward their case with respect to the way they see these rates and premiums being structured.

The board is sitting to understand the rates that will be set. The report from Mercer is the first part of that hearing. As the member knows and as he has underlined, they have found that the data which are the backdrop for their recommendation are inadequate to the extent that they are unwilling to --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Pouliot: Stop weaseling. Four times the rate of inflation is what you’re looking at.

Hon. Mr. Elston: That’s not true, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am certain the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) would want to let the member --

Mr. Pouliot: This guy is robbing you blind, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member for Lake Nipigon would control himself.

Mr. Kormos: It is precisely because the board, in its last ruling, rejected affordability and chose 12.5 per cent return on equity for insurers as the paramount, overriding consideration in determining rates that I asked the minister to use section 27 to direct that affordability be considered. Mercer, the very same company that provides the expertise to the board, suggests in its most recent newsletter that this is a major opportunity for insurers, among others, because insurers will have the opportunity to earn 12.5 per cent return on equity.

What about cab drivers? What about taxi owner-operators? Will the government ensure that they will have the same opportunity to earn 12.5 per cent of return on equity as is being assured the insurers?

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

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman rightly indicates that there was one component which the board used to determine the rate for private passenger automobiles, and that was of course a return on the capital investment, a return on equity of 12.5 per cent. It was not a guarantee of return of that extent. It was not in fact, as he indicated, the major criterion. That is not correct. You know, Mr. Speaker, as that member probably does not, that other major criteria included the end of discrimination on the basis of age, sex, marital status, family status and handicap. It looked at setting up realistic territorial assessments, so that people were being assigned premiums that were associated with risk. He is wrong when he says that 12.5 per cent was the paramount issue. He is absolutely wrong on that score.

When we take a look at what the board finds with respect to its hearings, I am sure that it will take a look at the cost associated with the product and will deal with the market forces that are influencing the costs of insurance for private owner-operators of taxicabs. That hearing is to come, and I will be watching it very carefully indeed, as I watched the hearings that were associated with the private passenger automobile. There is a series of factors which the board will take into account and it will be sitting on those sorts of factors as the hearing progresses.

1420

OUTBREAK OF MENINGITIS

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the government House leader, who I understand is handling health care questions for the government this week. Two weeks ago in this House, on February 6, my colleague the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) raised a question regarding the outbreak of meningitis in Peterborough. At the time the minister responded to his question and indicated that in his opinion the outbreak had been handled appropriately. There have now been 13 cases of meningitis and one death in Peterborough, and there have been 53 cases and six deaths, in total, across this province. That is twice as many as last year. Is it the minister’s position and that of the government that the situation is being handled adequately?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The honourable member is correct that some days ago his colleague the member for Parry Sound raised with me concerns about an outbreak of meningitis in the Peter-borough area. At that time, I indicated what I will now repeat, that it is the view of the Ontario Ministry of Health that the action taken at that time was prudent and appropriate.

Mr. Jackson: The fact was that our Health critic called the Ministry of Health and asked, and perhaps assumed, that the Ministry of Health would be making an announcement. That was over two weeks ago. We still have not received any clear announcement from the government.

This is a serious issue. Some people are referring to it in epidemic terms. I would like to suggest to the minister that medical textbooks are saying that any relative of a person who has been in close contact with an individual who is infected by schoolmates or child care contacts should receive the antibody to prevent infection as soon as a single case of meningitis is confirmed. That same textbook that has been reported in the Toronto media says that the disease occurs in epidemics among closed groups, such as are found in our schools.

My question is, in light of the seriousness of this disease and the increase in occurrences this year, will the government please announce today or tomorrow what specifically its strategy is in terms of dealing with this epidemic outbreak, who will apply, when --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Two quick points: First, after the discussion that I had in the House with the member for Parry Sound, I did take the matter up with my colleague the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), who assured me that she had been in contact with the appropriate authorities and had been doublechecking the matter with experts in the area of disease control. Upon her investigation, the minister indicated that the action had in fact been appropriate and had been taken after consultation with experts in the area of disease control.

Furthermore, I will say to my friend the member for Burlington South, it is my understanding that the medical officer of health is expected to make an announcement today.

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Treasurer. The federal government requested Jean de Grandpré to find and recommend the best ways to help workers hurt by the free trade deal.

Apparently, Mr. de Grandpré has indicated that it would not always be possible to determine if jobs were lost because of the trade deal and that possibly the best way to help the workers would be to give corporations a new tax break.

Has the provincial government received any communications with regard to the direction the federal government might take to assist workers in industries detrimentally affected by the trade deal?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I thank the honourable member for notice of the question. The honourable members would be aware that early in the free trade debate the Prime Minister of Canada announced there would be massive programs to assist in the adjustment. This was followed by a comment made by the Minister of Finance saying that the programs that were presently in place would be sufficient. So there really has not been any more constructive information than that.

The government of Ontario has forwarded a presentation to the de Grandpré advisory council indicating our views as to what the dislocations may very well be here, now and in the future, and what the government might do to pay for those dislocations. We naturally feel that this is primarily a federal responsibility and are very anxious to co-operate with them in seeing that the federal money is administered in the province to assist in the depredations of the free trade agreement, at the same time recognizing that there will be some advantages.

Mr. Owen: Industry seems to have been telling all governments of this country that efforts should be made to substantially reduce deficits. Surely a new tax break for business does not contribute to a reduction in the deficit facing the federal government. Since such a new tax break for business would add to the federal deficit rather than counter it, has the federal government given any indication as to what it might do by way of tough action to reduce its annual shortfall of $28 billion?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No, we have not heard from the Minister of Finance about what he intends to do about his deficit problems. On the other hand, we have of course kept the rate of growth of our expenditures well within the expansion of the provincial economy and therefore we have not added additional burdens to the province by way of the strengthening of our programs.

I think the member should also be aware that during our tenure, the actual deficit has been reduced by about 38 per cent. It is running now, according to the third-quarter report, at about $1.5 billion. That is still a substantial amount of money, but only about half of our capital commitment. In other words, we are funding half of our capital expenditures this year from the cash flow from our ordinary tax revenues.

Finally, I think it would be worth saying that our per capita budgetary deficit is $171. It is the second lowest in Canada, the lowest being in British Columbia. I am not sure what conclusion the honourable members may want to take from that. That $171 per capita should be contrasted with the deficit per capita of the federal government in 1988-89, which is $1,117.

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Farnan: My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. Correctional centres have been closing units: 100 beds in Guelph, 50 beds in Maplehurst, 20 to 30 beds in Millbrook. This backup is causing an increasing population in the detention centres. At the same time, inmates from Toronto detention centres are being moved as far away as Sudbury, Quinte and Niagara Falls.

Would the minister agree that all sentenced inmates should go to a correctional centre and not to another detention centre, that it is cheaper to keep an inmate at a detention centre -- this perhaps is the reason for the policy -- and that the result of the ministry’s policy is to create additional overcrowding and increased stress on our correctional officers?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would like to thank my honourable critic for the question.

I would like to say to the member that historically the admissions and discharges are very low at the beginning of the fiscal year and they tend to build up at the end of the fiscal year. That starts to taper off near the end of winter.

We have a system of 53 institutions; some are detention centres and some are correctional facilities. We have to manage that system. It is not a perfect world. We manage the best we can within that system, and sometimes we have to juggle back and forth between the two different types of centres.

Mr. Farnan: As the minister juggles, he is losing very rapidly the confidence of the correctional officers of Ontario. It is one thing not to pamper prisoners; it is quite another thing to subject them to inhumane conditions. The minister’s policy is resulting in double-bunking and triple-bunking. It is resulting in a population that is far in excess of what our centres were designed to hold.

It is a genuine concern of correctional officers that their work is becoming more and more dangerous. They are quoted as saying that they are unable to convince their bosses that this is the case. What is the minister going to do to address the concerns of the correctional officers who have resorted to protesting outside of the detention centres because they cannot dialogue with him? Is he going to dialogue with the correctional officers? Is he going to introduce --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the third question.

1430

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I think the point of the member’s question is that there is dialogue going on right now between the correctional officers and the public service because it is negotiation time. That is why I welcome all these questions at this time.

I would like to say to the member that we are in our third year of a 15-year corporate plan that includes new capital expenditures for new cells and refurbishing old cells. We are on course on building facilities that we need. We are in a tremendous growth period in this particular Golden Horseshoe area of the province and we have to balance the system and keep up with that growth, but I think we are managing the system very well.

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Jackson: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. On February 14, exactly one week ago, I raised the case of 10-year-old Wally Elgersma, who is suffering from spina bifida and leads a life from his wheelchair. I also raised in the House the fact that while Wally was enrolled in a public school, he was receiving the Victorian Order of Nurses’ services through the Ministry of Health.

At the time I quoted from a document known as the Ontario Government Programs and Services for Disabled Persons. I quoted the health support services in the school setting. It has a wonderful picture of the minister, who when I asked him the question said, “I am sorry, but I am not aware of the program, I will refer it to another minister,” when it was inappropriate that he refer it to that minister since I had already told him it was a Ministry of Health program.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Jackson: I do. My question is simply this: Now, after a week and the minister’s failure to report to Wally or to me or to any member in this House regarding this case, can the minister explain why his government has cut off Wally’s VON support services because he has changed his enrolment to a Christian school?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: First of all, I guess I should thank the member opposite for his colourful recounting of what happened a week ago. I am not sure how that advances his particular case as compared with the member from Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and the member from Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) and others, but I will try to answer the member directly.

I thought the member last week wanted a direct answer and I thought maybe another minister could help him, but I want to tell the member opposite that following the matter -- which I believe to be a very serious matter -- being raised. I did consult with a number of my colleagues. The matter does come under the Education Act. The Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) and I have discussed this matter. We are going to discuss it again, I hope, in the very near future to see how we can resolve the problem.

As the principal advocate in the government for persons with disabilities, I have to state that people with disabilities should receive these services when they are needed. I am going to be working with my colleagues to see if in fact that is possible and if we could make it happen. I thank the member for bringing the matter to my attention.

Mr. Jackson: The reason I raised it again one week later is that we received no indication from the minister of his interest or concern with respect to this case. I wanted to make the point to the minister, had he wanted to call and pursue the matter, that this is not, in our opinion, an educational program aimed at schools. In fact, this is a health program that is put in place for school-aged handicapped children.

It should not matter where Wally studies for his education in this province. For that reason, I would ask that the minister make public his position, as the chief advocate for disabled persons in this province, with respect to this policy position and report to this House any progress he can make with respect to overcoming the fact that Wally Elgersma should not be discriminated against, not only because of his handicap but because of his Christian convictions.

Hon. Mr. Mancini: I did send the honourable member a short note after he asked the question to let him know that I was concerned and I believe that he wanted an answer immediately at that time. I think I should bring to the attention of the House that a staff person from the Ministry of Community and Social Services did contact the honourable member’s office and did try to obtain the address of the person involved and that his office did not have that address.

Mr. Jackson: Oh, now come on. Right here in my file along with the note that you just referred to --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Mancini: I should say to the member that, as the principal advocate in government for persons with disabilities, it goes without saying that I wish persons in these particular situations to receive the services as described by the honourable member. I have already told the honourable member that I have met with appropriate ministers, and I will continue to meet with appropriate ministers. It is my hope that the matter can be resolved. I think the member brings forward a very good situation that needs to be redressed, and I say to the House that we are going to try to look after it.

GRAIN STABILIZATION PROGRAM

Mr. Tatham: I have a short question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. What actions are the Ontario and federal governments taking in establishing stabilization for on-farm feed grains?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This was a central topic of the agricultural ministers’ conference held in Toronto this past summer and at that conference there was unanimous support by all ministers that farm-fed grains be included in a national stabilization program. However, it is unclear at this time what kind of a grain program is in the offing. I understand the federal government has proposed about five different stabilization options at a meeting in Winnipeg on January 26 and 27. My ministry was represented at that meeting. Until these options have been analysed and put into effect, farm-fed grains will not be paid.

When we do arrive at some solution to the problem, I expect that farm-fed grains will be included in whatever grain stabilization program is accepted by the producers. I have told our producers to keep up the pressure and continue to ask that farm-fed grains be included.

Mr. Tatham: What can the minister report on the status of bringing corn and soya beans into a national tripartite program?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The honourable member is aware that the Ontario Corn Producers’ Association has developed a corn tripartite stabilization program. It presented it to the federal government over one year ago. The soya bean growers have been looking at a tripartite program, but to this point in time I do not think they have agreed to go forth with tripartite stabilization.

In my response to the initial question, I did indicate that the federal government is looking at a number of options for grain stabilization, including corn and soya beans, and it appears that the federal government will not act on the corn producers’ tripartite stabilization proposal until such time as they come to some agreement as to what kind of a stabilization program they are going to have for grains.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Education. I am sure the minister is aware that the Windsor Roman Catholic Separate School Board is going to be cutting back in education in Windsor because of his government’s refusal to fund education properly across the province. It is going to be a $4 million cutback, which is going to result in a cutback in the number of teachers, in French-immersion programs in five schools, in outdoor education and in special education, just to mention a few.

I would like to ask the minister, what is he prepared to do to guarantee the quality of education for Catholic students in the city of Windsor and to make sure that these cutbacks in essential education do not occur?

Hon. Mr. Ward: The member for Windsor-Riverside, I am sure, should know by now that over the course of the past two years, the amount of provincial funding for publicly funded boards of education, both in the public system and in the separate system, have benefited from very substantial increases in the amount of support dollars. This year alone, the amount of funds provided to all boards of education increased somewhere in the neighbourhood of $250 million, an average increase of about 6.1 per cent. Last year again the increases in funds that flowed to boards of education was in the neighbourhood of seven per cent, all of this at a time of roughly four to 4.5 per cent inflation. I say to the honourable member, at the outset, that the support that we provide to all boards of education has, in fact, substantially increased.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I do not agree with the minister, because what the minister and his government promised to do in the last election and in the election before that was to move toward 60 per cent funding. Instead the grant ceilings do not reflect at all the cost of education in our communities. That is why there are going to be cutbacks to Catholic students in the city of Windsor.

What I am going to ask the minister is, when is the provincial government going to fulfil its commitment of moving towards funding 60 per cent of the cost of education in this province, and does the minister not realize that when he does that and if he fulfilled that promise, Catholic students in the city of Windsor would not be facing cutbacks in the quality of education?

1440

Hon. Mr. Ward: I suggest that the member look at many of the studies that have been undertaken over the course of the past five to 10 years on the funding of elementary and secondary education in this province. The member knows full well that there is, in fact, a two-tier system of governance for education. The province has an overall responsibility, which it shares with locally elected boards of education.

It is true that boards do have the discretionary authority to undertake expenditures above and beyond the grant ceilings should they wish to provide optional programs or programs that are not mandated. I think the member will recognize that the province indeed does have an obligation to ensure that approved, mandated programs as set forth by the province are adequately funded.

If the member will look at the increases in the general legislative grants to assist boards in the delivery of those programs, he will note the $250-million increase. The member will know that local boards, not the province under the Education Act, have a responsibility for capital. We have increased that funding by 400 per cent.

He will know that for the purposes of pensions, the province --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

TRAINING FOR FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Villeneuve: To the Solicitor General: On January 12, or more than five weeks ago, I asked the minister about funding for the training of volunteer fire departments, particularly the one in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. The course is now half over, and we have heard nothing from her or her ministry.

I quote her answer of January 12, when she said as follows: “We are addressing it and looking for new and creative solutions for training. However, I know that the member has spoken to the Minister of Skills Development and they have run into some difficulties over the use of that ministry for this kind of training. This is being looked at and will continue to be looked at.” Is the minister finished looking? Could she provide us with an answer, please?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry will be very glad to know that indeed we are still working on this program and intend to continue to address it in co-operation with the people throughout this province.

It is obvious that programs of these sorts are particularly looked at during estimates time, and we will continue to look for more creative ways of assisting in a program that is fundamentally the responsibility of municipalities.

Mr. Villeneuve: I cannot believe, again, a sloughing off to the municipalities. I quote from a letter signed by the chief, and it reads as follows: “The majority of firefighters in SD and G do not have basic fire training skills,” i.e., no formal training. The majority of firefighters in SD and G lack CPR training, basic first aid, training in auto extrication, etc.

The majority of firefighters in SD and G lack the time, and in addition cannot afford the monetary loss to attend the Ontario Fire College in Gravenhurst. Why do the Solicitor General and the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) continue to discriminate against rural Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: It is for the reasons just mentioned that we are looking for more creative solutions. We recognize that for many volunteers it is difficult to travel to Gravenhurst for training. We look to find a more flexible way, as we have done in many cases.

We have sent people out to train and provide courses within the location where the people live. We intend to continue doing this. There are some courses available through community colleges. We intend to look at those, with co-operation; but the particular problems addressed in one region cannot be addressed in isolation to the problems throughout the whole province. It is a major examination that we are involved in so that solutions that we come up with can be helpful not only to the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry but indeed to people throughout the province.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr. Offer: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I have recently been questioned as to whether his ministry is undergoing a change of policy on the issue of contract services for home support.

The couple who have contacted me have a child who is both autistic and epileptic. In order for them to obtain their parent relief, they have, in the past, personally contracted with his ministry for home support and have, in this case, been aided by the Reena Foundation.

The process for such home support by this application is one to which they are accustomed and one to which they agree. However, they have recently been informed there may be a change in policy, so that parents requiring such support would make application -- again in this instance to Reena -- and Reena would then make application to the ministry. Has there been such a change or is such change being contemplated?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The program being referred to is the special services at home program for families with disabled children that is directly delivered in the communities by my ministry. It is one of the few, if not the only program left, directly delivered by my ministry at the community level.

As such, we are exploring whether it could be delivered more effectively and more efficiently by a nonprofit community agency than by my ministry. That decision has not been made. It is being explored and I cannot tell the honourable member what the final decision will be. It is under review at the present time.

Mr. Offer: With respect to this review of policy there has also been concern voiced that if indeed such change did take place, this would necessarily result in a reduction of service. I am wondering if the minister could comment.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I can certainly say that the transfer of responsibility from my ministry to a nonprofit agency would not result per se in a reduction of service. I can tell the honourable member that the number of families being served by this program has increased from approximately 3,000 in 1984 to almost 8,000 in 1988-89.

Therefore, the service is increasing at a very significant rate. We review with families every six months whether their needs remain the same or whether those needs have changed, and service can either go up or down as a result of that. But it would not change just as a result of the transfer of responsibility for the program.

NATIVE PEOPLE AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. Pouliot: My question is to the Solicitor General. Last week in Thunder Bay, Ontario’s Race Relations and Policing Task Force heard the rather appalling and shocking tale of beatings, racial slurs, abuse, despair and suicide that left members of the panel indeed numb.

A member of the panel, James Harding, who has spent some 33 years with the police force, and he incidentally heads the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, makes a recommendation to the Solicitor General, saying, “Yes, the responsibility for policing on reserves should be left with the native people,” which is a normal reaction; and yet every time I have asked the minister to fund a native constable program we were informed that responsibility rests with Ottawa. We are talking about the wellbeing of a people and the wellbeing of a culture. Will the minister tell the House why there was not a native Canadian on the panel and will she make the commitment, the fulfilment of a promise in treaties, that first Canadians will indeed be the recipients of funding, in terms of the justice system, in terms of enforcement, and yes even in the courts and in the jails?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am very happy to report to the member for Lake Nipigon that indeed not only do I have a high priority for this subject of native policing and justice systems, and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) shares this, but there is another group that is, in fact, meeting particularly on this subject and it will be making recommendations to us on that.

As well, James Harding, to whom the member has alluded, is one of the people on the group that is examining the new Police Act. All of these matters are being taken into very serious consideration. Work is presently under way to do some creative pilot projects in this direction, with which I know that native people themselves are most anxious to co-operate.

1450

PETITIONS

SENIOR CITIZENS’ APARTMENTS

Mr. Harris: I do have a petition:

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas in 1973 the Ontario Housing Corp. constructed a senior citizen complex, consisting of a senior citizen apartment building situated at 135 Worthington Street West, in the city of North Bay, and whereas it has come to our attention that senior citizen apartments have been rented to nonseniors; be it resolved that we, the undersigned, support the establishment of a regulation whereby senior citizen apartments be made available to seniors only.”

This is similar to a previous petition that I presented to His Honour on January 30, 1989. This one contains close to 1,000 signatures, in addition to those that I have tabled before, and I have signed it.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

“We care about injured workers. We protest the Minister of Labour’s proposal to change the law that would take away injured workers’ rights to permanent disability pensions when they are permanently disabled; that would do almost nothing about the miserable compensation to existing injured workers and their widows, and that would leave the injured workers of the future worse off. Workers who are killed or injured in their work deserve much better treatment than this.”

I agree with them and I have signed my name.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Laughren: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We urge Premier Peterson not to proceed according to the legislation he has announced, but instead strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue, and to maintain a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

It is not too late.

SMALL CLAIMS COURT

Mr. Reycraft: I have a petition signed by about 50 people from the Ottawa-Carleton area. It is addressed to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, and it calls for an increase from the present $1,000 in the amount of the maximum claim allowable to the provincial court, civil division to $3,000.

I have affixed my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved second reading of Bill 192, An Act to amend the Municipal Act and certain other Acts related to Municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This legislation will make a number of minor amendments to the Municipal Act. The Municipal Act is the most important legislation that governs municipal operations; thus, in order to reflect contemporary practices, the Municipal Act requires periodic amendment.

I will not take the time of the House to describe all the proposed amendments. Many are of a housekeeping nature and are self-explanatory.

There are four provisions, however, which are particularly significant that I would like to draw to the attention of the members. The proposed legislation will clarify that municipalities can make loans, as well as give grants to nonprofit corporations, encouraging small business. For example, it will permit the city of Toronto to loan funds to Toronto Artscape Inc., which plans to operate an incubator serving professional artists.

The commission of inquiry provision will be expanded to allow all electors, not just property owners, to request the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the affairs of their municipality.

From time to time, the various ministries introduce new programs and wish to encourage municipal participation. At present, a specific legislative amendment is needed for each new program initiative to permit a municipality to enter into an agreement with the specific ministry. A new section is proposed which provides general authority for municipalities, including upper-tier municipalities, to participate in new programs established by the province.

Finally, the fairness of the property tax system has been the subject of considerable discussion for many years. In 1987, the Municipal Act was amended to permit a county-wide reassessment that updates all properties throughout the county to a uniform proportion of market value. A further refinement is now proposed which, as an alternative, would permit the reassessment of all properties throughout the county to full market value. In other words, the assessment of each individual property for purposes of taxation would correspond precisely to the most recent value of the property.

Mr. Breaugh: We have a number of bills in Orders and Notices this afternoon which are essentially of the same nature. They are bills that have been requested at various times by municipalities. Members will know that the normal process is that when a municipality has identified a particularly vexing legislative problem, it will notify the ministry and in due course, some time that century, there will he a legislative response. That is what we have this afternoon. We have been contacting the various municipalities involved in these bills.

I will make this speech once and forgo it the other four times. We are supportive of both the process which makes these necessary amendments and the concept that municipalities, in some small sense, do have some control over the legislation which governs them and that when they discover a legislative change which should be made, whether that is because a piece of legislation is redundant or there is a problem in legislative terms with the legislation which governs their municipal actions, they can seek some recourse to that by, in a sense, petitioning the minister to make responses such as we see in the five bills before us this afternoon.

We agree with that process and with the way it has happened. In my view, none of these bills is particularly controversial. I have notes to say a few things on some of the others, but essentially they are bills that are brought forward at the request of municipalities. We agree that this is a reasonable way to proceed. We support this particular bill and we have no amendments to put forward.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments on the member’s statement? If not, do other members wish to participate?

Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I was out. Were they called in order? Is this Bill 192?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr. McCague: I have a couple of comments, basically endorsing the comments made by the critic from the New Democratic Party.

The signing of cheques seems to make sense.

With regard to the municipal loans to small-business incubators, in discussion of this bill in our caucus it was suggested that maybe there should he an upside limit on the amount that municipalities can give in loans, charge in interest on loans and guarantee on loans. Did the minister give that any thought?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Section 112a of the Municipal Act provides a specific exception, in case some are wondering, about the bonusing prohibition. Such incubators may be established through the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology or, under section 112a of the Municipal Act, by an order of council. Regulations pursuant to the Municipal Act set a cap on municipal funding, currently $5 per capita.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind the members that we are not in committee right now, so the standard rules of debate should be adhered to and followed. We will make an exception in this one case. You may proceed.

Mr. McCague: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to pose too many questions, in case the answers were not forthcoming.

The other section that I have a question on is the one in connection with longbows and crossbows. I understand the amendment and that the legislation gives the power to the municipality to prohibit and regulate the discharge of weapons for the purpose of public safety by including longbows and crossbows.

Is there anything in the legislation which prohibits the carrying of firearms’? We would be prepared to let the bill proceed in a normal fashion if that question were answered.

1500

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions or comments on the member’s statement? If not, do other members wish to participate in the debate? If not, would the minister like to wind up?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The question of providing municipalities with the authority to regulate longbows and crossbows has come at their request because of particular problems within the various municipalities. Many people have been injured. They have asked for that and, of course, we are pleased to give them that authority.

With regard to the question of firearms, municipalities have the power to regulate the discharge of firearms in their municipality. As for the ownership and carrying of firearms, this is under federal government legislation, I understand, which has also given the authority to municipal and provincial police forces to authorize the carrying of firearms. These are pretty straightforward amendments. I appreciate the comments of the honourable members.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved second reading of Bill 197, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: In 1986, the first region-wide assessment update was implemented in the region of Sudbury. At the time of passing the enabling legislation, a mandatory provision was included to undertake a follow-up reassessment in 1987 or 1988. The council of the regional municipality and several of the area municipalities have since indicated that they would prefer the next reassessment to occur in 1989, for the purpose of taxation in 1990. This one-year deferral will permit the assessment updates to be determined on the basis of more up-to-date 1988 market values as opposed to the 1984 market values.

Two minor amendments proposed by this bill will permit the one-year reassessment deferral, as requested by the region of Sudbury municipalities.

Mr. Breaugh: We do not agree with market value assessment, but we do agree that this bill should carry.

Mr. McCague: Just one point, Mr. Speaker: I understand that this amendment will also standardize the timing among regions. Is that correct, Minister?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I believe it is correct that this has happened in other regions also.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there questions and comments on the member’s statement? If not, do other members wish to participate in the debate? If not, would the minister like to wind down?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: No comment.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

MUNICIPAL PRIVATE ACTS REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved second reading of Bill 134, An Act to repeal certain Private Acts related to Municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This bill is part of a project which has been undertaken by the ministry in co-operation with legislative counsel. The goal of the project is to eventually repeal all municipal private acts that are obsolete and to work towards a consolidation of the remaining private legislation.

As a first step, the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing wrote in October 1982 to all of the approximately 500 municipalities that had obtained private acts since 1867. Each council was asked to review its acts and to advise the ministry whether some or all of these acts could be repealed.

More than 200 municipalities submitted council resolutions requesting the repeal of some or all of their private acts. The ministry and legislative counsel analysed the responses and subsequently prepared a bill proposing to repeal approximately 500 municipal private acts.

This bill was enacted by the Legislature on December 16, 1983. The ministry wrote a second letter in August 1983 to the remaining municipalities to follow up on the earlier request. As a result of the response to the second letter, I am pleased to be sponsoring a bill to repeal a further 300 municipal private acts.

It should be emphasized that this bill includes only those private acts whose repeal has been requested by the affected municipal councils.

1510

I want to assure members that each of these private acts has been carefully reviewed by my ministry and by legislative counsel to ensure that its repeal will not create unforeseen difficulties either for the municipality or for the affected individuals.

I would also like to draw to the attention of the members the compendium to this bill, which provides a chart indicating which private acts are to be repealed and summarizing their subject matter.

This is not a major piece of legislation but it will be useful in helping to update the legislation that affects Ontario’s municipalities and their residents.

Mr. Breaugh: We agree.

Mr. McCague: I just have a couple of questions to the minister about the general thrust of this legislation. I wonder if the minister has any idea how many private bills are now on the record after we pass this bill. Second, does he envisage going through this exercise every five years or has he really through the two bills that have been introduced cleaned the matter up for the time being?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I think there have been well over 1,000, and it is my understanding that we are dealing with these as quickly as the municipalities will identify them. We have written to them asking them to review their records and to advise us, in co-operation with legislative counsel, which ones can be dealt with in this manner. I can only say that we are dealing with them as quickly as possible and as quickly as the municipalities will provide the information to us.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

ROAD ACCESS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved second reading of Bill 135, An Act to amend the Road Access Act.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The Road Access Act was enacted in 1978 to resolve an awkward problem involving two types of roads. The first type of common road is a municipally maintained road used for public travel which does not appear in the registry office as being owned by the municipality. The second, an access road, is a private road over someone’s property that is used by another owner as the sole means of road access to his or her property. Access roads are usually found in areas of summer cottages and camps.

Problems frequently arise with these roads when new owners purchase a property and find that the people using the road over their property appear to have no legal right to do so. This often results in a barricade being erected by the new owners to prevent the continued use of the road.

The Road Access Act has successfully addressed this situation by prohibiting anyone from placing a barricade over a common or access road unless the person has been granted a judge’s order to close the road. This cooling-off period allows the road to remain open while the legal issues are settled in court. In practice, the act has given police officers an effective means of persuading individuals to remove barricades before charges have to be laid.

A recent Ontario Court of Appeal judgement undermined the effectiveness of the act by ruling that the legislation does not make it a continuing offence to maintain a barricade. The decision means that unless the barricade is discovered and legal proceedings are commenced within six months, the provisions of the Road Access Act cannot be used. Chief Justice Howland made it clear in his judgement that if the prohibition in the act had included maintaining a barrier, he would have been satisfied that the intent of the act was to create a continuing offence.

The proposed amendment will make it clear that this is the intent of the act by prohibiting both the placing and the maintaining of a barricade over a common or access road unless a judge’s order has been obtained. This legislation will therefore resolve the difficulty that was created by the Court of Appeal judgement.

Mr. Breaugh: We will support the bill if only to make the Chief Justice happy. I know of at least one other family in Oshawa that has run into exactly this problem. It will probably make them happy too, so we are pleased to support it.

Mr. McCague: This is a problem that I have run into in my constituency from time to time. I think the minister did provide excellent briefing notes, but I may have been daydreaming a bit here. I do not think the minister read what I consider to be the most relevant comment that was in his excellent briefing notes.

The minister will correct me if I am wrong. I do not think the minister explained to us the problem of people being away from properties like this for a period of six months, should it be from Thanksgiving to May 24. I think it is probably appropriate that it be put on the record.

The notes do say that this creates real difficulty for cottagers because frequently the existence of a barricade may not come to the attention of the affected owner before the six-month limitation period has expired. “This would be the case where a barrier was constructed shortly after Thanksgiving Day” -- which, although it is not in the notes, used to be the custom if you wanted to try to prohibit access -- “and the affected cottager did not return to reopen the cottage until the May 24 holiday weekend of the next year.”

I think it is important that we acknowledge that this bill does cover that particular case.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I just want to say that in my statement I did mention that the proposed amendment will make clear the intent of the act by prohibiting both the placing and the maintaining of a barricade over a common or access road unless a judge’s order has been obtained. I believe the legislation does cover what the honourable member is asking. As the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has mentioned, these problems are quite common in cottage country, as I am very much aware. I think the legislation does satisfy the problem that the member mentioned.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved second reading of Bill 169, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This amendment to the District Municipality of Muskoka Act has been unanimously requested by the municipal council of Muskoka and by the six area municipal councils.

Currently, the district council is the only body responsible for passing official plans and area municipalities are precluded from having their own official plans. This amendment will allow local councils to pass their own official plans.

In most regional municipalities, both regional and local councils play an important legislative role as far as the official plan function is concerned. The upper-tier council first prepares and adopts an official plan for its jurisdiction and each local council subsequently prepares and adopts a more detailed plan to guide development at the local level. The Planning Act stipulates that the official plan conform to the regional official plan.

When the district municipality of Muskoka was established in 1971, the original legislation followed the regional model. It gave both district and local councils an official role in the planning function.

Due to the importance attached to the planning function by the district council in the early years. the government was asked to amend the district act, giving sole responsibility for planning to the district council. In 1974 the act was amended to satisfy this request.

Now that a district official plan is in place, there is a strong desire to return to the model that was established in the original legislation. This plan contains specific amendments providing secondary plan coverage to all municipalities, with the exception of the town of Bracebridge. As a result, the district council and all six area municipalities have requested that the act be amended to give regional and local councils a shared planning responsibility.

By sharing the responsibilities, district council will be better able to concentrate on planning issues and policies that are of district-wide significance. At the same time, this approach will enable area councils to pursue issues of local significance with input from the area residents.

In light of this unanimous local support, I am pleased to be sponsoring this amendment to the Muskoka act. Subsequent to the introduction of the bill in June 1988, amendments to the district plan were approved. Several redundant references can now be deleted from this bill, and for this reason I am moving four motions.

Mr. Black: I want, first of all, to commend the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) for bringing forth this legislation in response to a request from Muskoka district council. I want to confirm for all members that indeed this proposed change does have unanimous support throughout Muskoka. They are amendments that are very badly needed, in the view of the people who work and live in Muskoka, and they look forward with great anticipation to the third and final reading of this legislation when it should happen.

Mr. Breaugh: This particular argument has gone on for some time now, with this bill being the culmination of all of the discussions on how planning should be carried on in the district of Muskoka. We concur that it is logical now to accept the recommendations from the local municipalities and the district to proceed with this bill.

I cannot help but note that after all of this, we still have one more amendment on the part of the government minister. It would have been nice if we had been able to print the bill last June as it should have been printed and not have to bother with amendments, but that is the way of the world.

1520

Mr. McCague: I have the pleasure of sharing parts of the county of Simcoe with the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black), and I would not dare oppose him on this. He says that everybody in Muskoka agrees with this. I might just point out to him, though, that one day he will get a complaint. I am sure he will come back and tell me that he was just a little wrong, that there were one or two people who did not agree with it, and he will apologize to me.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I have four amendments.

The Deputy Speaker: I think there was an entente to now proceed with order 18 and then go to committee of the whole House. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Conway: That entente would be very much agreeable to me.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Just to be clear, the member for Burlington and I both have to be in estimates of the Ministry of Education. Our preference would be if we could move to the next order and, after the committee of the whole House of that next order, then revert to this committee of the whole. That would be our preference so that we can come back and hear the opening statement of the minister.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I think we can certainly accommodate that. So that we understand what the member for Scarborough West has suggested, we would call the next order, which would be the adjourned debate for the motion on second reading of Bill 128, which I believe will then require committee of the whole. We will do the committee of the whole there, and then take committee of the whole on Bill 169. Is that agreeable? If that is agreeable, I call the 18th order.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 128, An Act to amend the Planning Act.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) had finished the debate last time. That being the case, do other members wish to participate in the debate’?

Mr. Breaugh: If other members want to participate in second reading, I do not want to preclude that, but it is my understanding that we have concluded second reading, and if it would facilitate matters for other members who have committee work to do, perhaps we could simply go into committee now. I believe two amendments, at least, had been brought forward, and there may be some others. We could proceed through in committee of the whole House, but we have not voted on second reading yet.

The Deputy Speaker: We have not voted on second reading yet. Would it be agreeable to have the minister wind up and then take the vote on second reading? The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I want to make a few brief remarks before we move to that, if it is all right. It will be only four or five minutes. Procedurally, there may be some question about one or two amendments I would like to initiate and I would like to get my remarks in now.

I have just sent to the critic and the minister some amendments to the Planning Act which I would like to put forward at this time. They should not be a surprise to the members, in that there has been a private member’s bill before this House now for several years, since the passage of the resolution on the nuclear-weapons-free zone overwhelmingly by the Legislature in 1986.

I want to take this opportunity, at the first time the Planning Act is reopened for discussion, to introduce the concept that the Planning Act was, in fact, a totally provincially operated vehicle, one which could not be said to be in the jurisdiction of the federal government or any other jurisdiction which might question whether we had the right to move on the whole question of Ontario as a nuclear-weapons-free zone, finding ways to implement the resolutions that have been passed in this House.

What my motions do is, first, define what is nuclear weapons material, and then they move to add to the responsibilities of the minister involved. Under section 2 of the act would be the following responsibility, and that is “the protection of the public from the possible threat to its health, social fabric and environment inherent in the production of nuclear weapons material.”

This power, given to the minister to add to some of the other health and safety kinds of powers that he has listed just above that, in that section which is being reopened during this review of the Planning Act, is something which I think was a very important thing for us to pass as a House. It would allow the government to do such things -- dare I say it, and I know this might make the government tremble -- as stopping the development of tritium sales by stopping the development of any kind of manufacturing plant which would be involved in this because the material processed there might be detrimental to the health of our own citizens as well as of the citizens of the rest of the world.

This kind of power would, I hope, allow us the right as a government to say to municipalities, before they say to Litton Industries that it is all right for it to move into the area of developing new guidance instruments, for instance for new nuclear weaponry, that they should understand that the minister under this amendment would have the right to protect the people of the province from such an action.

I think it is a very important consideration. I do not expect it to be adopted by the Liberal government, which has moved as quickly as possible away from any kind of implementation of the resolution which so many of its members supported just these few years ago, but I want to get the Liberals on record, on a vote in committee of the whole House, as to whether or not they still stand by their adherence to the nuclear-weapons-free zone or whether they in fact are no different from past governments.

Another section I would have added to the Planning Act would state under section 16 of the act, “Every official plan shall be deemed to include a provision that no new facilities shall be established for and no facilities shall be converted to the production of nuclear weapons material.” I think this is also a vital thing to bring into play. It may be that the chair will rule this out of order and I would be willing to accept that kind of a judgement if he or she feels that this section is not open at this time, but it falls from the right that I have just been speaking to.

Another section would be brought forward which would say, “Unless otherwise approved by the minister, and in the case of land in a local municipality also authorized by a bylaw in force under section 34, no person shall establish or convert a facility for or to the production of nuclear weapons material on any parcel of land in Ontario.”

This would finally stop the proliferation of nuclear-weapons-related industries in the province by making it deemed to be the case that all official plans in the province would now require that this sort of conversion or construction not take place.

I put this forward, as I say, with no great hope of it passing, as is often the case for those of us who take these battles on. But I do want to put it forward to the government that it missed an opportunity to make these changes to the Planning Act, to show good faith in terms of the passage of that private member’s resolution in 1986. I now want to see how they are going to vote on this matter as I bring it forward now to amend the Planning Act.

Mr. Jackson: It was my understanding that the debate on second reading had not concluded. Given that my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) has commented on one of his amendments, I, too, would just like to briefly state that it is my intention today, as it was last year when Bill 128, the Planning Amendment Act, was before this House, to present an amendment which would have the effect of striking down the municipal bylaw practice of limiting the number of unrelated persons who live in single-family dwellings.

I would like to present my arguments when we proceed to clause-by-clause on this matter, but I wish to serve notice to the minister, to all parties in this House and to the many groups and individuals in this province who have helped me come to the realization that while the Planning Act is open and before us, it would be appropriate to amend and eliminate these discriminatory zoning practices.

For that reason, I also would like to thank my colleague the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens), who spoke eloquently and at length on this bill when he adjourned the debate many months ago.

1530

Hon. Mr. Eakins: In speaking on the resumption of the debate on this bill, I would like to remind members that the bill generally deals with a range of matters designed to improve the effectiveness of the Planning Act. It represents the first amendments to the new Planning Act, 1983.

The bill in its present form is supported by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and includes some significant items. First, the matters of provincial interest have been expanded to include the provision of a range of housing types. We have also clarified that the Minister of Municipal Affairs may declare a matter to be of provincial interest whether or not a formal policy statement has been issued under section 3.

The other amendment I draw to the attention of members is the reduction of the overall minimum time for zoning bylaws to be effective from 65 to 41 days. The opposition has proposed two amendments related to affordable housing and requires specific legislative reference to be made to this term. The government cannot support these proposed amendments because we have concluded it is virtually impossible to define affordable housing in meaningful legislative terms, even though it can be done through guidelines.

As the Legislature is aware, the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and myself have jointly issued for public comment a draft policy statement under the Planning Act dealing with affordable housing. The government view is that it is more appropriate to allow municipalities some flexibility in achieving our housing objectives by means of a policy statement rather than through legislation.

I add that even though the policy statement is still in draft form, it is already being successfully used by government and municipal staff in order to secure appropriate policies in municipal official plans.

Finally, it is my understanding that the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) intends to move an amendment that would prohibit municipalities from distinguishing between related and unrelated persons in zoning bylaws. My ministry has recently consulted with many municipalities across the province on this issue. We have sought legal opinions on whether the types of bylaws that are often passed are indeed discriminatory. Many municipalities clearly view bylaws using a family definition as reasonable. However, the government has concluded that these bylaws based on a relationship between individuals rather than use are contrary to public interest and are possibly illegal.

They could very well have the greatest effect on the human rights of students and those individuals in society who are most disadvantaged: single mothers, recipients of public assistance and disabled persons. Indeed, I understand that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is in the process of investigating several complaints involving such bylaws. The government therefore supports the proposed amendment to this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House,

The Deputy Speaker: Therefore, we are doing committee of the whole right now for both bills simultaneously. Correct?

House in committee of the whole.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 128, An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Morin): Are there any comments, questions or amendments to this bill, and if so to which section?

Mr. Breaugh: Are you doing Bill 128 first, Mr. Chairman?

The Acting Chairman: Bill 128, correct.

Mr. Breaugh: I have given notice of two amendments, one to section 2 and one to section 6.

I have a question that perhaps can be easily answered in committee. When I was a young boy and we started to deal with this bill, the government tabled an amendment to add section 14a, which is actually quite similar to an amendment that was also tabled at that time by the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson).

I seek some clarification. The government has tabled an amendment that would in effect eliminate what are known as exclusionary bylaws, as has the member for Burlington South. I would like some indication from the minister as to what he is doing this afternoon. Is he in favour of this amendment or not, and which of the amendments does he intend to either support or put forward? Is it the government’s intention to proceed with an amendment of its own or has the minister decided to support the amendment that is being put forward -- notice has been given of an amendment -- by the member for Burlington South? If we could clarify that, then I think we could proceed fairly quickly through the committee stage of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: In fact, we did not table an amendment to this bill.

Mr. Breaugh: Excuse me, but I got from the Clerk’s office an amendment for section 14a that is labelled a government amendment. I had assumed that when it was labelled a government amendment it was put forward by the government. It does parallel very closely the amendment that had already been tabled by the member for Burlington South.

All I need to know is, does the minister have any clue which direction he is flying in this afternoon? If he can tell us whether he is up or down, we can then proceed with either his amendment or the amendment that would accomplish the same thing which has been put forward by the member for Burlington South. If he will tell us whether he is up or down, we can proceed.

Mr. Reycraft: I might ask for the consent of the opposition parties to have the minister move down to the front row and bring his assistants in to work at the table before him.

Agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: The minister may move to the front and the staff may enter the chamber.

May I first solicit from the opposition party whether there are any amendments to be proposed.

Mr. Breaugh: I have two and I think the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) has one.

The Deputy Chairman: May I ask to which sections.

Mr. Breaugh: As I just said, I have an amendment to section 2 which was tabled, I think, last May; and I also have an amendment to put forward to section 6, which again was tabled when we were on second reading debate last May.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have an amendment to section 2 that if carried would also require an amendment to definition section 1 and two subsequent amendments that would follow as well on section 16 and section 19a.

The Deputy Chairman: And the third party, the member for Burlington South?

Mr. Jackson: You did not have to quite put it that way, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Breaugh: Also singing this afternoon is --

Mr. Jackson: My backup team.

I too would like to present an amended amendment, which I tabled last May and which is an amendment to section 14a. I have given a copy to the Clerk, to the minister and to the members of the second party.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. Now, are there any government amendments?

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed, the minister now has two assistants in front of him. Maybe he could confirm for us whether or not the government intends to move the amendment on section 14a. It is labelled as a government amendment and it was tabled with us, I believe, last May. Is it the minister’s intention to proceed with that amendment or will we go with the amendment of a similar nature that was put forward by the member for Burlington South?

1540

Hon. Mr. Eakins: If an amendment was received, it was not through the government. We will support the amendment of the honourable member, as I mentioned in my remarks.

Mr. Breaugh: I am confused. I have been given from the Clerk’s office, from the table officers in fact, an amendment on section 14a that is labelled “Government Amendment.” That is where I got it. Normally, I get it through the Toronto Star, but this time I got it right from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. All I need to hear the minister say is that they do not intend to proceed with that amendment, which they tabled. If that is what it is going to do, fine.

The Deputy Chairman: That seems to be what the minister has indicated. Can we then proceed to the first amendment, to section 2.

Section 2:

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This would require, if it passed, reverting to amending section 1 in its definitions, as I have indicated. Since I am not presuming this will pass, I am not worried about it.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. R. F. Johnston moves that section 2 of the said act be amended by striking out “and” at the end of clause 2(j) and by adding thereto the following clause:

“(k) the protection of the public from the possible threat to its health, social fabric and environment inherent in the production of nuclear weapons material.”

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I hope the wording is correct, in that Bill 128 proposes a clause (j), and that is why I have worded this to follow clause (j), although the old act just ended at clause (h).

This is the section of powers provided to the minister. As I have said before, there are certain powers within the act -- I could read some of the others to members if they would like -- in terms of “the protection of the natural environment”; “the protection of features of significant natural, architectural, historical or archaeological interest”: “the provision of major communication, servicing and transportation facilities,” and a range of other responsibilities the minister must take into account when he deals with planning matters under the Planning Act.

What I am suggesting flows very naturally from this House’s overwhelming support of the resolution to make Ontario a nuclear-weapons-free zone, in that the minister responsible for the Planning Act should have added to his responsibilities “the protection of the public from the possible threat to its health, social fabric and environment inherent in the production of nuclear weapons material.” Nuclear weapons material should be seen to be part of his responsibilities.

If members of the government feel today as they did as private members in the past -- I remember the voting support of the member, now minister, for that resolution. If he feels now as he did then, this is a meaningful way for him, as a minister, to finally say, “Yes, there is a provincial role in the whole question of nuclear weapons production.” We, as a province, can take that initiative and he, as a minister, can take this position, that he should have to take this into account while looking at these matters that flow from his powers under the act.

If he so agrees, then it would be incumbent upon us, I presume, to change the definition section, to add a section that would define what is nuclear weapons material. I have that amendment ready to be presented if he were to decide he wanted these powers added to that list he has presently.

If he does not wish them added, then I can only presume he is speaking for the Liberal Party of Ontario and for the government of this province and no longer believes in a nuclear-weapons-free zone or that the government has any responsibilities thereto, in that the Planning Act is the one provincial jurisdiction that cannot be challenged from any quarter, it seems to me, that we have sole responsibility for. The minister already has certain responsibilities around health and safety -- to take them into account -- as listed earlier in section 2.

If he truly believes those things must be taken into account, and if we believe we have a positive role to play, as that resolution said, in terms of stopping the development of nuclear weapons material in this province and taking a stand that will be of leadership to other parts of the world and to our own country, then this is an area where we can take some action.

It seems highly ironic to me, since I expect to hear the minister say that this is not possible and that he is unwilling to move on it, that at the very time when finally the world leaders, the United States and Russia, seem to be making steps towards active disarmament, this supposed Liberal reform government is unwilling to take any initiatives of its own to declare this province nuclear-weapons-free and to take specific action, as I am suggesting, to make sure this happens in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I want to point out that I cannot support the amendment. I can appreciate the good intention of the honourable member, but do not believe this is an appropriate piece of legislation to deal with this particular amendment. As the member has pointed out, the minister’s role is referred to in part I of the Planning Act, clause 2(h), in which, “The minister, in carrying out his responsibilities under this act, will have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, such as,…the health and safety of the population.” It goes on from there. So I believe this is not an appropriate place to deal with this amendment that has been presented.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I must respond, with the member for Burlington South who was very instrumental in helping his colleagues and other members of the Legislature come to an understanding of why we should support that resolution back in 1986, that the logic of what the minister is saying is absolutely preposterous.

If the minister is admitting that he has a responsibility for “the health and safety of the population,” and if he has in other parts of his mandate things that clearly reinforce other elements already listed -- I might suggest that such things as “the protection of the natural environment” are very much tied in with “the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy” -- these concepts do flow one from the other.

But if the minister believes, for instance, that he can talk specifically about “the equitable distribution of educational, health and other social facilities” and then list underneath that there are other kinds of facilities that also need to be looked at, then he can also add a particular instrument for himself, which is the power around the specific problem around the production of nuclear weapons.

What I am suggesting is that there is a new concept here; that is, under existing legislation no minister in his position has ever used his or her powers under clause 2(h), “the health and safety of the population,” to do anything around the development of manufacturing of nuclear weapons parts in Ontario. Therefore, he has not as yet accepted the concept, I presume, since he accepts the resolution that we should be nuclear-weapons-free, that he has had the power under this act to do anything.

I am now saying to the minister that if he wishes, he can take that power, he can add that power. He has the constitutional power to do so if he wishes to. He is saying he wishes to duck it because he presently has the power, although he has never used it in the history of Ontario. I would suggest that the concept of health and safety is not one which is naturally accepted at this point as applying to the production of nuclear weapons parts.

1550

For instance, if we look at that recent cabinet document that came out, I do not think this government yet understands that the production and export of tritium might actually have some sort of health and safety implications for Ontario. There was nothing in that paper to cabinet that said anything about that.

I therefore think it is incumbent upon the minister, if he believes in the resolution as he is sort of indicating he does, and is saying he has the power here, that he should clarify that by this kind of an amendment to add clause (k), which would make it specific. We can then put some teeth into it.

If the minister does not, then let’s not play games about the fact that he already has the power. The minister is basically saying that he does not want the power. He does not want to take on that responsibility in this jurisdiction.

Mr. Jackson: I would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague the member for Scarborough West. He has most eloquently identified the issue and put in perspective the power and responsibility of the minister and what appears to be his reluctance to assume same.

I merely wish to suggest that, having participated in the debate almost three years ago in this House with respect to this general issue, we still anxiously await a comment from the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who indicated at the time that he supported the principles that were alluded to in terms of the resolution to be nuclear-weapons-free.

More important, it underlines the fact that the government perhaps utilizes private members’ time in a way that lacks a degree of commitment and to a point lacks even a degree of integrity in so far as resolutions which have the support of the full House seem to evaporate into thin air, whether an election has occurred in the interim or not.

I think it is very important that we put back into perspective that not only is the challenge to the use of tritium confined to how safe it is in a given municipality; technology is changing and science is utilizing tritium in more varied and exciting and different ways.

For the minister not to plan for the future of this province -- not just for workers’ safety and for the safety of our communities, but also for the fact that these products could be extended in greater peacetime use -- and for the minister not to even express in this House his interest in and sensitivity to this issue should cause great concern for people concerned with the general nuclear issue, but also with the broader issue of the health, long-term safety and security of municipal planning in this province.

The Vice-Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Johnston’s amendment will please say “aye.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Mr. Reycraft: There has been an agreement between the three House leaders that any divisions resulting from the clause-by-clause debate on this bill and the other that is going to be considered in committee of the whole would be stacked until tomorrow afternoon at 5:45 p.m.

Vote stacked.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I wonder if I could just help with my amendments by saying that I will not move my other amendments, which were dependent upon this, presuming that the majority will defeat this. If the government changes its mind, then I can always reintroduce amendments to fit the change of heart.

The Vice-Chairman: Mr. Breaugh moves that clause 2(j) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(j) the provision of a range of housing types including the requirement that a minimum of 25 per cent of housing be designated as affordable.”

Mr. Breaugh: I must confess that the people of Ontario are really going to be confused after the end of this exercise.

I went to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario last August and I watched two ministers of the crown say precisely this, that they thought it was an appropriate time in our history to establish, through the Planning Act, changes that would in fact define affordable housing, make each of our municipalities turn its mind to the provision of affordable housing and begin the process of sorting out exactly what we mean by affordable housing, providing a reasonable definition of what that is in each municipality.

Absolutely no one I know thinks this is a simple thing to do, but the question is, if we are serious about doing it, we must begin that process and we must begin it in a way that is meaningful. Most of the municipal people I talked to are not thrilled by this notion at all. In fact, most municipalities would rather have complete freedom to do what they want in their own areas. Yet at the same time, most of them would acknowledge that in almost all of our municipalities we have a severe housing problem -- some would identify it as a housing crisis -- and that there is a need for each of our municipalities, through its planning process locally, to address this problem.

The consensus of opinion I hear from municipal people is that they do not like this kind of imposition of provincial policy on municipal planning processes, but they do understand that if it applies to all of the municipalities -- in other words, if there is a legislative requirement for each municipality in Ontario to address what it means by affordable housing and to provide a local definition through its planning process which will do just that -- they may not like it, but at least it is fair because all municipalities have to do it.

That, of course, is the problem I see emerging this afternoon. Although the government gave a great speech on this matter last August, although it has been discussed extensively throughout the fall and although one minister of the crown, the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), continues to make very fine speeches about how everybody has to accept part of the responsibility for the provision of affordable housing, this afternoon when we ask the government through this amendment -- and the Liberals can hardly claim the amendment is a surprise because it has been before them for about 10 months -- this afternoon when there is an opportunity for the government of Ontario to put its money where its mouth is, it chooses not to.

It is going to be difficult for the Minister of Housing to go around Ontario after this afternoon and argue that municipalities ought to take affordable housing projects in their jurisdictions when today the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) who is responsible for that says no. He is prepared to write guidelines, he is prepared to give speeches, he is prepared to put out pamphlets and brochures and probably some kind of advertising campaign later on, but when it comes to where it counts, in the Planning Act, he is not prepared to accept it there.

I know I cannot say this is hypocritical, but it is as close to that as you can get and stay parliamentary. If the minister really sincerely believes that every municipality in Ontario has an obligation to take a substantial proportion of affordable housing, he ought at least to have the decency to say so, and say so in a way that the municipalities understand is binding on each of them.

If the minister does not like the number of 25 per cent, he should pick his own number. If he wants to provide a range, he should pick that. If he does not like the definition of “affordable” as proposed in the two amendments I am putting forward, he should give us his own. He has certainly had ample time to consider the matter. He certainly put on the record in a number of places all across Ontario that this government wants each of our municipalities to join in the provision of affordable housing.

The response after this afternoon really ought to be to this minister, to the Minister of Housing and anybody else who poke their noses up, “Why will we bother when you had an opportunity to make the same rules for everybody?” I think that even those who think this is not a good thing to do would have a hard time arguing that as long as the same rules apply to each municipality in Ontario, we may not like it, but it is fair.

1600

I do not know how the minister will go to Richmond Hill now and argue that its council ought to take a nonprofit housing project. They will say that the minister had an opportunity to make that a legal obligation for municipalities; not to actually do it because it certainly is not that definitive in the Planning Act, but to accept the responsibility. That is really what we are talking about this afternoon.

If the government disregards that opportunity, if the government chooses not to put it in the Planning Act, I remind members that it is not exactly like saying that there is a very specific limit. We are talking about the planning process. We are talking about objectives. We are talking about what should go into local official plans. That is what we are talking about this afternoon. We are not putting an obligation on a given municipality to establish 3,000 housing units that are affordable in its municipality this week, not by a long shot. All we are saying is that one of the objectives in the local official plan ought to be to accommodate affordable housing.

I have heard the speeches that have been given by this government, lecturing all of the elected people at the municipal level that they are not doing their fair share, that some of those people who are elected locally are not doing what they ought to be doing in terms of providing affordable housing. I want to hear them try to lecture those people after this afternoon.

I am acknowledging that this is not a simple matter. I am acknowledging that I perhaps have proposed -- the ironic thing, I suppose -- the exact words that were used by this minister to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. This is what the minister said he wanted to do, and this afternoon when there is an opportunity for him to do just that, he is not going to do it.

I sure would not want to be in the shoes of the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of Housing or the Premier the next time one of them goes and delivers a not-in-my-backyard lecture to any municipal council anywhere in Ontario,

If the minister did not have the guts this afternoon to be honest and straightforward and put in the Planning Act exactly what he said in his discussion paper, small wonder that municipalities look at him and say, “How phoney can you really get?”

If this is what he wanted municipalities in Ontario to do, he should say so. The Planning Act is surely an appropriate place to do it because we are not talking specifics here. We are talking about objectives that would go into local official plans. We are talking about everybody bearing a legal obligation to try to meet those objectives.

Surely that cannot be asking too much. If I made a mistake in this, it probably is simply that I believed two ministers of the crown when they addressed a large public gathering and said it was the stated intention of the government of Ontario that every municipality in its official plan should provide for affordable housing. They even said it should be about 25 per cent.

I guess I will listen to those speeches in a slightly different light the next time they are made as well.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Breaugh’s motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 2 agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: Just on a small point, Mr. Chairman: We are in committee and I think I have this latitude. I simply want to put on the record very briefly that we proposed an amendment. There was not even the courtesy of a response from the minister on the amendment. I think that the record should show that.

Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 6:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Breaugh moves that section 6 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(3) Section 17 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(22) Despite any other provisions of this act, every official plan shall include a provision defining the term ‘affordable’ as it relates to housing.”

Mr. Breaugh: It is my understanding that the government is not going to accept this amendment either. I will not be long, but I will be harsh. Surely the government of Ontario is not afraid to ask each municipality in Ontario at least to think about what is affordable in terms of housing for its community.

Surely that cannot be seen by the government of Ontario as too onerous a task. Surely that cannot be seen as something that is wrong. Surely it is the obligation of all of us here and every elected person in this province now, in the middle of a housing crisis, at least to think about the question, “What do we mean by affordable housing and shouldn’t we have some in our community?”

If it is the government members’ choice this afternoon to say that they cannot even bring themselves to say something about affordable housing, then I think from this day forward, every municipal council in this province, when it is looking at a proposal, can say:

“We turned for leadership to the government of Ontario, and when it was asked to look at an amendment to the Planning Act which would make each municipality take its fair share of affordable housing, the government members couldn’t even open their mouths on it. When the government of Ontario was asked to look at what you mean by ‘affordable’ in your community and put something in your official plan to talk about the price of housing, it did not have the time of day for that.”

It makes a mockery of the official plan process, because the official plan, for those of us who have worked on it, talks about everything under the sun. It talks about environment, industrial growth, park land, recreation, library services, fire services and police services. It talks about how many times the toilets can flush. Surely to God, it ought to be able to talk about affordable housing.

Now maybe, just maybe, they will give us the good courtesy of some kind of an answer this afternoon. At the very least, those who run around this province begging municipalities to take on housing projects ought to have the intestinal fortitude at least to state their position this afternoon. They should be ashamed of their performance so far this afternoon.

It is not too much to ask that they explain to us why they are not prepared to accept an amendment which would make each of our municipalities at least think about affordable housing. If they are not prepared to do that, it is surely going to be a hard sell for every nonprofit group and co-op group that goes before its council asking for the council’s permission to proceed with its nonprofit development.

The government is turning its back on the homeless in Ontario. It is causing each of those who will have the very difficult fight of trying to provide hostels, group homes and all of those things that are sometimes very controversial at the local level -- at the very least, this amendment ought to have a response from the government of Ontario.

If the one they have already given, that they do not have the time of day for either a designation of the number of units that ought to be included in an official plan or the mere thought that something about affordable housing ought to go into a local official plan, they should at least have the guts to say so.

1610

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I want to point out to the honourable member that I thought I had outlined in my opening statement my reasons for not supporting his amendments. I think they were very clear.

I would want to tell my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) that the policy statement is very serious; it is a genuine attempt to get the local official plans changed in a co-operative way, and I think it is more appropriate than demanding legislation.

I apologize if he felt I did not respond, but I think my response to his two amendments was in my opening comments. For that reason, I think it is very clear why we do not support the amendments.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 6 agreed to.

Sections 7 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Jackson moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“14a The said act is amended by adding thereto the following section:

“34(a)(1) The authority to pass bylaws under subsections 34(1) and 37(1) does not include the authority to pass bylaws that distinguish between persons who are related and persons who are unrelated in respect of the occupancy of a building or structure.

“(2) A provision in a bylaw that distinguishes between persons who are related and persons who are unrelated in respect to the occupancy of a building or structure ceases to have effect on the day this section comes into force.”

Mr. Jackson: I would like to thank all members of the House for giving me an opportunity to present this amendment, which I hope will make it clear that the power to pass bylaws does not include the power to discriminate on the basis of relationship.

I want to suggest that I am not trying to reduce the municipal authority, as has been suggested by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, but rather to clarify its limits as set out in the Planning Act. The Legislature never intended to allow bylaws that were discriminatory and that seem to have grown in custom and fashion in several councils in Ontario. This amendment will clarify that fact, I hope.

When AMO wrote to the minister on the subject of exclusionary bylaws on April 14, 1988, I had occasion to write the then president of AMO, Doris Brick, to put on record my concerns, as she was commenting to the minister about my amendment in the form of Bill 94, which I presented to the House last year. I would like to quote briefly, if I may, from that letter I wrote to the president of AMO.

“It must be stressed that this bill” -- in this instance, this amendment -- “if passed, will not remove from local councils the right to place occupancy limits on dwelling units. Rather Bill 94” -- again in this instance, the amendment “merely forces such restrictions to apply to related and unrelated persons equally.

“…municipalities will still be able to use the following means to deal with the concerns documented in your letter: regulation of density, lot coverage restrictions, zoning by dwelling type, limits on parking spaces per dwelling unit, maintenance and occupancy standards, the Fire Code, health and safety standards, noise bylaws. My proposal removes none of these options from a local council.” AMO should be aware of that.

“Finally, I cannot agree with you that the provisions of Bill 94” -- and, of course, this amendment -- “and statements made by the Honourable David Peterson are contrary to the thrust and spirit of the Planning Act, 1983.

“All municipal authority is, in one way or another, delegated to local councils by the provincial government. The Planning Act is one of many statutes which lay the ground rules for the exercise of these local powers, statutes full of provisions that clarify, define and limit municipal authority. Surely Bill 94” -- this amendment -- “does no violence to the spirit of the act by redefining the nature of the zoning authority being transferred by our province to the municipalities.”

Not only was AMO a hurdle to overcome with respect to removing these exclusionary bylaws, so also was the government. For that reason, I just wanted to recap briefly some of the points at which this amendment and the elimination of these exclusionary bylaws was brought to the attention of the government, to the minister and to the public in general.

In 1985 and again in August 1987, all three political parties responded to a questionnaire by the Ontario Federation of Students and they clearly set out that they objected and were opposed to exclusionary bylaws, at least in principle. In November 1987 I raised this issue with the current minister in the House. His answer to me, if I can paraphrase him, was, “If our government promised it, we’re prepared to look at it and bring it in.”

On January 7, 1988, I had been waiting for several months for some action from the government. I tabled my Bill 94, which is in essence the amendment I have before the committee of the whole House today, which was An Act to prohibit Discrimination by Municipalities against Unrelated Persons Occupying Residential Property.

1620

On February 29, almost a year ago, while campaigning in London North and attending a bearpit session at the University of Western Ontario, the Premier told students of that university that these bylaws are wrong and that his government would bring in legislation to eliminate them. We waited.

On March 10, there was still no word from the Premier. I delivered over 10,000 postcards from students all across Ontario -- post-secondary students at the universities that were affected -- to impress upon the government the commitment that students had to eliminating these exclusionary bylaws. On June 2, as has been referred to already by the Housing critic for the New Democratic Party, I tabled an amendment to Bill 128. We all know that bill was pulled from Orders and Notices, or our time in the House elapsed and we were unable to address it.

Here we are one year later, but I do want to publicly thank at least the following members: the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel); the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan); the member for Downsview (Mr. Leone); the member for Eglinton (Ms. Poole); the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr. Henderson); the member for Scarborough West, and the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), all of whom, in a nonpartisan way, sent expressions of support for this amendment and have stated so publicly, both to students and other groups adversely affected by exclusionary bylaws.

I would like to comment for the record that of the 10 cities in Ontario where these exclusionary bylaws are currently in place, it is not surprising that all but three of those municipalities are where major universities are located. It is clear -- some councils will admit it and others will not – that it is an exclusionary bylaw aimed at university students.

While I realize that this is a sensitive issue in several municipalities, the fact still remains that discrimination on the basis that we are trying to overcome is wrong. We should not be negotiating about it; we should not be trying to phase it out or grandfather it. That is why my amendment would specifically eliminate it.

Regardless of what one may think of the practice of Markham’s maybe considering it to be illegal to live common-law under its current exclusionary bylaw, the question is raised: Is it right for North York to say that no more than three students can share the same house? More important, the question should be raised: Is it right for this Legislature to ignore what is going on?

This amendment is important to the students. The attendance of members of the Ontario Federation of Students in the House today is testimonial to their commitment to this issue, and I thank them. That is why I introduced Bill 94 originally and why I have presented this amendment.

All three parties, I believe, have agreed in principle to this amendment, and I believe it is now time to put that principle into practice.

Mr. Breaugh: We support the amendment. It has been the subject of a fair amount of controversy around the province, as other people seem to read much more into this than I do. for example, I think it is fairly obvious -- at least it is to me -- that what is being practised by several municipal bylaws is not going to holdup in court: that the Constitution of this country does not allow a municipality to discriminate against anyone on this kind of basis. Whatever we do here this afternoon, that is going to be the ultimate decision.

I have no doubt in my mind that the court cases that are currently pending may take a long time, and there may be a large number of tax dollars spent on processing that through the courts. There is very little doubt in my mind that those bylaws are not going to stand up, and they should not.

If a municipality wants to address, through means of its local bylaws, how many people can live in a house, I suppose that is a reasonable thing to do; but it is also silly in some sense of the word. Are they saying that only small families are appropriate in their municipalities; that someone who has six kids should not live in their municipalities? Most people would look at that and say, “Well, that is pretty silly.” Even these days, in a modem society, if one tried to define who is allowed to live in a single-family residence and one made what many of us would have considered to be a traditional definition of a single family living in a single-family unit, one would probably say something like a husband and a wife, married, and they may have children.

In any of our municipalities now, if one tried to enforce that criterion -- and I do not quite know how one does this -- it would be impossible.

I think there are two or three things that weave their way through this argument. The first is that I think, no matter what we do, the Constitution of Canada is not going to allow any municipality to pass a bylaw that practises discrimination, in any sense of the word, against people who live in that municipality. I think that is inevitable.

The choice for us this afternoon is to move to change this law in Ontario by this means and bring us to that conclusion or to allow municipalities and their lawyers to go through the courts for a lengthy period of time, spend all of that money and come to the same conclusion. In the pragmatic way that I sometimes deal with things like this, that would seem to me to be not a very smart way to proceed.

I am a little perturbed. I will not go through all the history of who said what on this and where and when and to whom; but I do think it is nifty to note that this afternoon, once again, the government had a clear opportunity to take the initiative and chose not to.

I want to get this on the record, because I suspect I am going to hear this afterwards. This is a government that likes to have things both ways.

I would not be shocked at all to hear some members of this government say after the fact, “Well, it wasn’t our amendment; it was an amendment which came from an opposition member, the member for Burlington South,” and in the untoward way in which politics sometimes develop in this province try to get the best of both worlds.

Mr. Jackson: We were using our big, massive majority; that is what we were doing. We rammed it through.

Mr. Breaugh: I hope he did not bully the members too much.

I just want it on the record this afternoon that the government, the Premier, the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Municipal Affairs have said they do not approve of exclusionary bylaws. In the almost a year now since they have brought forward this Planning Act they have not really got around to moving their amendment on the matter yet. They have chosen in rather mysterious ways to choose an amendment brought forward by another member from the third party to support that. That is fine.

Mr. Reycraft: Anything we do all year they do not criticize.

Mr. Jackson: It’s the last time you are going to listen to me too, I know.

Mr. Breaugh: If the chief government whip would just calm down for a moment, all I want to say this afternoon is that is fine; if that is the way they want to proceed, that is certainly a legitimate way for us to proceed. But I do not want to hear any noise after the fact.

Mr. Smith: No, you won’t.

Mr. Breaugh: A member who does not have a great deal of influence over there assures me I will not. I would not want to put a whole lot of cash on it.

I want it on the record this afternoon that all three parties are supporting this particular amendment. The moment that I hear a member of the government do that little dance that they did not really want to but they had to, I am going to be really angry. I imagine the member for Burlington South, who has given them every opportunity in the world to take the initiative on this matter and they have chosen not to, will be angry as well.

We think this decision, however controversial it might be, is inevitable. This is what is going to happen one way or the other. The only real choice that we are making here this afternoon is to expedite that decision, save the taxpayers of Ontario a rather substantial amount of money in legal costs, and to save a number of citizens of this province the aggravation of having to live through these exclusionary bylaws for a longer time.

It is easy for many of us who are not off to university or in another situation to say: “That part of our life is behind us. We don’t have to worry about five or six of us living in accommodation that might not have been really perfect for all of that.” But at one time, I will bet that each and every member of this assembly spent at least part of his life, while he was going to school or when he was beginning his career, in accommodation that was not exactly ideal.

There are still lots of people in our society who have to do exactly that, and the exclusionary bylaws that are in operation in, I think, 10 of our municipalities are not really addressing what I would consider to be a reasonable way to proceed in dealing with planning matters. I think those bylaws will not hold up in court.

1630

I support this amendment this afternoon, as I did when it was introduced. I regret somewhat that the government has chosen not to do anything about it in all of that time, but the only proviso I put on what might be said in here this afternoon is that the government of Ontario also supports it. I suppose I might be speaking too quickly here, because the minister has not actually said so in the last five minutes, but at least at the beginning of the afternoon even the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who often treads very softly and very faintly, was courageous enough to say that he supports this amendment. I hope that by the end of the proceedings this afternoon he will still support this amendment, because he ought to.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I believe my opening statement addressed the specific issues very well. I want to say also that our ministry has consulted with municipalities; there is no thought of whether we consulted. We went around the province, along with staff of the Ministry of Housing to have input and to explain this to municipalities. As a result of that, I was very clear in my opening statement. I want to reiterate that we will be supporting the amendment as moved.

Mr. Jackson: In fairness, although I appreciated the tirade and support by the NDP Housing critic, I should put on the record that I do appreciate the fact that the minister has consulted. He did not consult for three and five years, which some ministers of the crown are doing. He did make a very candid statement to me in the House by stating that if his government had promised it, he would in fact look at it and they would probably do it. That kind of promise, when delivered, is rare from this government. Therefore, when it does occur, I think all members of the House also should be mindful that he has in fact honoured that commitment.

I wanted to thank the minister and to at least put it on the record. In fact, it is a rare circumstance in Ontario today when a Liberal promise can be kept. I want to thank the government for that.

Sections 15 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: We have some outstanding divisions with respect to earlier amendments.

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 169, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions, comments or amendments to some sections, and if so, to which sections?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I move that subsection 5 1(2) --

Mr. Chairman: Minister, we are listing right now. Which sections would you like to amend, just listing?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Section 51.

Mr. Chairman: In section 1; is that it?

Mr. Breaugh: Maybe I can help. I may be wrong in this, but the list I have indicates that the government intends to move motions to subsections 51(2), 51(4), 51(5) and 51(6). If they are still staying the course, that is probably where they intend to move their amendments.

Mr. MeCague: I have four or five amendments: subsection 51(2), 51(4), 51(5) and 51(8).

Mr. Chairman: Is it 5 1(8) or 5 1(6)?

Mr. McCague: That is the problem.

Mr. Chairman: Fair enough. Does anybody else want to amend anything else or is that it? Section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Eakins moves that subsection 51(2) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out “34” in the first line.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This relates to the town of Bracebridge official plan. Amendment 34 was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board, permitting Bracebridge theme park. The project was never built. The OMB therefore withdrew its approval and amendment 34 is simply being removed from the bill. It is simply a technicality.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Eakins moves that subsection 51(4) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out “10, 18, 22” and “53” in the second line.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: These amendments relate to the town of Gravenhurst. All of these amendments have already been incorporated in the town of Gravenhurst official plan. They are not needed in the bill and are being deleted.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Eakins moves that subsection 51(5) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“Official plan, town of Huntsville

“(5) Amendment numbered 58 as approved and amendments numbered 1, 14, 23, 26, 39, 45 and 66 to the district plan are hereby removed from the district plan and become the official plan of the town of Huntsville.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: These amendments relate to the town of Huntsville. All of the amendments mentioned are still required in the bill. Amendments 9, 21, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 39, 42, 44 ,27 and 47 are deleted because they have already been incorporated into the Huntsville official plan.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Eakins moves that subsection 51(8) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out “(7)” in the last line and inserting in lieu thereof “(3), (4), (6) and (7).”

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This amendment relates to the town of Huntsville. Amendments 27 and 47 will be retained in the district plan and all local plans except Huntsville. The amendments are already included in the Huntsville official plan.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Eakins, the committee of the whole House reported progress on one bill and reported one bill with certain amendments.

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES ACT

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

Mr. Reycraft: Mr. Speaker, I believe either the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) or her parliamentary assistant are on the way to the chamber at the moment. My understanding is that the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) was the last speaker on this bill and that he has completed his remarks. The member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) indicated to me that he was prepared to speak on the bill. I am not sure he is aware that we are at this stage in the proceedings this afternoon. Perhaps someone can get in touch with him. I suggest we might be able to pause for a few minutes until the minister or the parliamentary assistant gets here.

Mr. Breaugh: We are quite in agreement that we recess until somebody shows up so we can do something.

Is there a relapse standing order that I am not aware of or are we adjourned for 10 minutes? Is that agreeable’?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Is everybody agreeable to this?

Agreed to.

The House recessed at 4:44 p.m.

1655

Mr. Jackson: I am delighted to see the House leader in the House to monitor and measure my prepared text on Bill 147, An Act respecting Independent Health Facilities.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Leadership candidates are thought to be best when they are extemporaneous.

Mr. Jackson: Perhaps the House leader would let me gel on my mark before he starts his rabble and his rousing. The member will at least let me get into page 1.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: He is not always nice to our House leader.

Mr. Jackson: Anyway, I always appreciate his kind quips when they are directed at our House leader, and I would ask him to continue in that vein.

I am here today to participate in the debate on Bill 147, the Independent Health Facilities Act. I am pleased to put on record some of the concerns I have with this bill and its timing at this unique period in Ontario’s health care history, a bill that is about our beleaguered health care system.

It is with no small amount of apprehension that I speak on this proposed bill, given the Liberal government’s past record with respect to health care administration in our province.

This government’s infamous legacy with respect to health care began with the introduction and passage of Bill 94, not the same bill I was referring to when I spoke in this House about half an hour ago. That legislation, replete with its simplistic logic and its simplistic ideological overtones, has become a hallmark for this government and its treatment of health care issues. Members will recall that bill was supposed to ensure universality of access to health care services for all the citizens of Ontario.

To accomplish this, the Liberal government, together with its colleagues in the New Democratic Party at the time, in a minority government and armed with an accord, decided to remove from doctors the right to set their own fees as an independent profession, a freedom that misleadingly and inaccurately was being referred to as extra-billing. Instead, as we know today, doctors’ fees are in fact set by the state.

The undue emotionalism surrounding this legislation was purposely fanned by our politicians in this House and served to mask some of the real, serious issues affecting the whole issue of accessibility to health care. What we had was a debate that degenerated into an issue of salaries and the misinformation on overbilling. Therefore, it is my belief that the citizens of Ontario were given the wrong image and the wrong understanding of what constitutes accessibility to what we have come to appreciate as being a world-class health care system.

The fact was that those doctors who billed according to the Ontario health insurance plan fee schedule did so because of their personal choice, as did the large numbers of doctors in Ontario who had opted out. If there were any problems with universal accessibility to health care delivery, these surely could have been settled through rational discussion, through mediation and even through arbitration between the doctors and the government, if they so chose to do.

We all know from history that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) decided against that move, that it was a responsible option for negotiation. It is still, it would appear, the methodology by which this government operates in dealing with health care professionals and their fees, and I might as well add, their relationship and negotiating stance with teachers in this province and members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.

However, as subsequent history to the Bill 94 debate has borne out, the Premier, we believe, had an additional goal in mind when he set the stage with Bill 94. The goal was the centralized exercise of government control over all of our professions, and especially the medical profession.

As we know, part of the function of a profession has always been its responsibility and right to govern itself as an autonomous unit within our society. Historically, professions have always established and maintained high standards of professional and ethical conduct which their members are obliged to uphold in their daily lives.

1700

The independence enjoyed by the professions allowed them to perform the important functions of providing a buffer between citizens and government, the two groups they serve. These were important checks on autocratic power, as well as preventing mass society from taking root and developing in terms of eliminating this relationship between the patient, the doctor and the state.

Bill 94 only pretended to address universal health care accessibility. It has only served to make health care less accessible to Ontarians who must now face the kinds of lineups and equipment shortages in hospitals that are more characteristic of health care delivery systems in other parts of this world.

It was the first in a series of concerted attacks on the profession that were intended to rob it of its historical role of keeping intact our society on the basis of its health and its comfort and the knowledge that its health services were protected. Somehow, we were told by this Liberal government, it was more qualified than the actual health care practitioners to decide on what was best for the patient and what was not best for the patient.

Mr. Fleet: What nonsense; no one ever said that.

Mr. Jackson: I am glad I have aroused at least some response from a member of the government party. It is obvious what the intention of Bill 147 is. It is not surreptitiously done; it is done in a very open fashion. We are going to change fundamentally those insured benefits and services that have been traditionally honoured and respected in this province and we are going to change that with bureaucratically determined and prescribed services.

If the Liberal members opposite do not wish to take seriously the significance of that fundamental adjustment in the government’s approach, whether it has to do with health care or any other regulation of government, then they can choose not to listen. But I can assure them I have been inundated, not only by patients, but also by health care professionals -- nurses, doctors and hospital administrators -- who have all expressed their concern about the implications of this bill, which seems to be an all-encompassing approach that lacks clarity and commitment on the part of the government to the stated principles of its bill.

As I have stated, somehow we were told that the government seemed better qualified than the very medical practitioners we had historically and traditionally relied upon to determine what is best in terms of society’s health needs. I think this point has been further underscored by what appears to be the government’s approach, not only on health care matters but by other approaches to negotiating with professionals, such as the ophthalmologists, the obstetricians and other groups that have not been dealt with fairly. What has now crept on to the bargaining table with these groups is access to insured services and capitation of insured services.

My point simply is that we are seeing more and more examples of the very concern I have raised about this bill creeping into the government’s approach to guaranteeing universal access to the full range of health care needs in this province.

However, to speak more specifically to this bill, I have analysed the bill. I have looked at Bill 147 very carefully. I get a sense, when I listen to the minister as well, that the purpose of this bill is to provide a vehicle for the Minister of Health to develop community-based health facilities, through which many medical services previously performed in hospitals may now be accomplished outside of hospitals. That is her stated purpose for the bill.

She further suggests the bill is intended to allow already existing community health centres and health service organizations to expand their existing roles. These independent facilities would function in a manner similar to hospitals with their outpatient clinics where patients are not required to stay overnight in a hospital.

I have no argument with the stated goals as set out by the minister. In fact, many members of this House will be aware that this is what the Evans report suggested to us was a goal to be moved towards by any government that wished to tackle the health care issue in the future.

But unfortunately, in the past 20 years we have seen an unprecedented shift of emphasis in the terms of delivery of health care and we have seen an unprecedented shift in the extent of health care services and their delivery in this province. This has really come to a head in the last two years, as has been emphasized with the questions raised on the floor of the Legislature by the two opposition parties with respect to access and a greater limit to access for certain medical procedures in this province.

We expect the minister believes very clearly that her bill will somehow encourage a greater sensitivity to community involvement, so for that reason we are most anxious to make sure the minister addresses the relationship between her bill, Bill 147, and the health planning councils that operate throughout this province and what role they will perform in terms of their relationship to the goals stated in Bill 147.

The effectiveness of the delivery of health care services is therefore seen to be a function of the way in which the total human context is allowed to form part of the system in which it delivers. We have to be assured that the doctors, the nurses, the advisory councils, all the players in the delivery of health care feel and are assured that they will have a meaningful role to play within that.

We are not satisfied on the basis of what we have seen in the bill as it now sits before us in the House. Elements of the proposed Bill 147 appear to be proceeding in a completely opposite direction to those goals I have addressed that the minister has stated.

It appears to want even greater bureaucratic control over our health care system, at the same time as it is supposed to provide more sensitive and more community-based health care delivery. It seems the government is trying to have it both ways, to speak out of both sides of its mouth, to have the best of both approaches, to have all the control but not have the responsibility if things will not work.

This situation, which is clear on the face of it, leads me to doubt seriously whether this bill is the appropriate legislative mechanism to achieve the stated goals set out by the government and the minister. In fact, Bill 147 is another instance of the desire of this government to expand its already considerable control over our health care delivery services.

It also constitutes another attack upon the integrity of the medical profession. It will, I believe, serve to disrupt the doctor-patient relationship by undermining the confidentiality which is so central to that relationship and which is so integral to the oath doctors take as a function of their humanitarian services.

The proposed bill gives quite excessive powers to ministry inspectors who will, if this bill is passed into law, have the right to enter a doctor’s office whether at an independent health facility location or not. At times, without even a warrant, they would be able to enter one of these premises and seize all the medical records they so choose.

I ask all members of this House if they are comfortable with this kind of power and if they do not themselves see this as a breach or violation of their rights of confidentiality. Is this not an unwarranted intrusion into yet another sphere of our private lives that we are seeing occurring with greater and greater incidence in society?

However, with the recent passing of my amendment on exclusionary bylaws, I can hardly chastise the government for having now seen the light, reversing itself and supporting the elimination of those exclusionary bylaws. At least, today we have had one sample of the government wanting to get out of the private lives of citizens based on the fact that they may or may not be related.

1710

Again, Mr. Speaker, you would caution me and tell me that I am not speaking to the bill. I am merely referencing the point that today we have at least got the government intruding with one bill and not intruding with an amendment to another bill.

It also appears that the government is further eroding the professional foundations and the practices of physicians in this province. This will have the effect of inhibiting part of the spontaneity which occurs in the relationship between a patient and a doctor, with its objectives of curing the patient, of getting to the source of the ills; and it raises serious questions about those matters which a doctor might record in a given patient record and the degree to which the doctor always feels somewhat reserved in making the appropriate notes.

I believe, quite frankly, that sufficient thought has not gone into that point, if the government is going to consider the sweeping powers it has with dragging out patient files and whether or not there is the kind of security and control over those files once they have been removed. I remember three years ago when a member of this House brought forward, in a green plastic bag, a whole series of confidential documents which had been stacked up at the Ministry of Housing. Members in the opposition, interestingly, read through these files, all very confidential, because with the size of the government bureaucracy it was obvious that the government was unable to warrant the confidentiality of those reports when it had them in its possession.

When we raise these matters in the House, we raise them for very specific reasons; for very specific concerns about the government’s ability to warrant what it says it will do. In this instance, it is that it will maintain the privacy and confidentiality of those records once it has seized them; but there is no guarantee of that.

By attempting to destroy the professional right of autonomy and of autonomous self-governance by the doctors’ profession, the Liberals will contribute significantly, in my view, to an accelerated rate of deterioration of our health care because of that intrusion and because of the breakdown of that relationship.

Ontario’s health care system was world-class long before the members opposite came to occupy those seats of responsibility. It is incumbent upon them to ensure that they take every opportunity to maintain the world-class status of our health care system. Without the responses to the questions that we have raised about this bill, we feel the members opposite are not administering their responsibility as a governing party.

Furthermore, the powers which this bill will give to the Minister of Health are quite excessive. Too much power is concentrated with the minister. The minister will now have the power to revoke, deny or grant a licence for an independent health facility without submitting the process to an appeal process.

That is pretty strong authority. We question its value, given the fact that the government can regulate, for example, a particular procedure in Ontario, and access to that procedure can be controlled by virtue of the power vested with the minister. Therefore, we would not even have a process of appeal -- not that the independent facility should be allowed to open but to debate the issue of whether or not Ontario’s citizens should have access to the procedures that would be performed in such a clinic.

Or does it mean, for example, that the minister could say: “In Metro Toronto we only need five walk-in eye clinics. We need more of them in some other part of the province, but as long as we capitate the number of health facilities that would open in a given city, we would then control the number of operations that would be done in a given year”?

If that is the minister’s interpretation of health care accessibility, then I seriously question whether this bill could be abused, if not by this government, then by any future government. It just gives far too much power to the minister to regulate access to procedures. As I have said in this House on many occasions, if a bill purports to do one thing but has the potential to do something entirely different, then it is a bill that should be considered and analysed very carefully.

That is why my support for this bill is rather tenuous and why I will be, as a member of the standing committee on social development, anxious to have the bill before us for review, so that we can listen to not only the minister and the ministry representatives but also to the clear and cogent concerns that have been expressed by health care providers and health care service operators in this province.

Back to the issue of licensing, which I feel the minister has far too much control over. I find it to be a particularly distressing aspect of this bill that the licensing process for independent health facilities could be solely at the whim of the minister and treated in the fashion I have suggested. Like any good government bureaucracy, it should be subjected to the same types of checks and balances we apply more evenly to other decisions made in this House. There is a role for the Legislature, there is a role for the professions to ensure there are those checks and balances in the system so the minister cannot arbitrarily remove certain procedures or control the access to those procedures through the use of these independent health facilities.

The licensing process itself appears to be very complex and very expensive, with a tremendous number of restrictions placed on it. The licence itself cannot be transferred and it can be taken away, as I said, without any chance of appeal. I feel that the notion of appeals in this province is a very important notion. We as legislators should remove that process of appeal on very rare occasions and I submit it is inappropriate to do so in this instance.

I have referred to but would like to address more directly the accompanying changes to the Health Insurance Act, which are spoken to in this bill, which will effectively change the definition of what can be covered by the Ontario health insurance plan from “any medically necessary procedure” to “procedures that are prescribed by government regulation.”

I need not remind members of this House of the debate, and I have referred to Bill 94, where all manner of examples were brought before a committee and this House with respect to procedures which have been limited by governments in England, in Quebec and several other jurisdictions around the world. They have used a clause similar to this in order, for example, to suggest that if you are 65 years of age, the state does not get an equitable return on, say, a retina transplant, that given that a finite number of them will be done in a given year in this province, they will only be performed for young adults and children.

I do not wish to invite a piece of legislation which provides that much power and control for a minister to exercise and, quite frankly, to do that without ever even having to come to this Legislature to discuss or debate it. I think it is inappropriate that we would support legislation that would allow for that.

For this reason, I am nervous about the government taking away from the medical profession the responsibility to help determine when a patient needs a service. The government’s role is to make sure that we have an environment in which a service can be provided. In this instance if I were to pass some of the elements of this bill, as a citizen, I would be in a sense saying that I would rather be diagnosed by the state than be diagnosed by my own physician.

1720

Mr. Fleet: That’s really ridiculous, really silly. It’s not what it says.

Mr. Jackson: As I said to the member for High Park-Swansea, he missed the major debate on Bill 94 and he would be aware that the very clause I am referring to is the clause that was used by a government not too unfriendly to his, in Quebec, to regulate access to certain procedures. It is the same philosophy and control which was utilized in the --

Mr. Fleet: You know that the physicians will still prescribe what is needed.

Mr. Jackson: Yes, and given that I suspect that comment from the member for High Park-Swansea is now on the record, he is absolutely right, but the state will arbitrate how many of those diagnoses will be allowed to be treated. That is the whole point of what I am suggesting.

Mr. Fleet: People will still get the medical care they require. You know that.

Mr. Jackson: I am just trying to determine whether the government has any speakers for the balance of the afternoon on this very important subject.

Mr. Keyes: We always want to listen.

Mr. Fleet: However silly your suggestions may be.

Mr. Jackson: The member has suggested that what I am providing in this debate are merely suggestions. I have raised questions, and I hope that the member will listen to those questions, because I am only reiterating the kinds of concerns that have come from health care providers, represented by a parent association, in his own riding. I am only raising legitimate questions which have been raised by patients in his riding and others who have not had access to medical treatment with the same speed and the same confidence they had enjoyed in previous years, whether it was a previous administration or not. So I would hope that the member would not prejudge the debate but rather would listen more to the fact that I am raising questions for his ears as well.

Again, on the issue of the fact that there are waiting lists for some major medical treatments in this province, instead of addressing the very real needs of hospitals, we now have a government which has suggested that this bill has some major significance in terms of providing a solution to Ontario’s health care dilemma. We know that this bill is going to be discussed and debated at public hearings and that the meat of this bill or the action agenda for this bill will really not occur until early summer or even early fall.

I also would like to put on the record and in context my concern that this government appears to try to suggest to the public at large that it is working on a solution. If the net effect of this bill is to suggest that the commitments that have been made for thousands of hospital beds all across this province are not going to be met, and therefore the government is left with the question “Well, how do we reduce the demand on hospitals beds, because we cannot provide more hospitals beds?” -- if that, in effect, is the real debate in Ontario today, then this bill is a poor substitute, because the bill does not give clear time lines and does not give clear direction that, in fact, is what it is doing.

It has a stated goal within it that it is the government’s hope that it can take some procedures that require overnight stays in hospital and convert those into outpatient clinic services for a variety of medical procedures in this province.

There are several members opposite who represent communities and who made outstanding, whopping big political announcements in the last provincial election. In fact, those are political promises, and we all know what kind of track record we have had on political promises since that fateful day a year ago September.

However, if the real issue here is that Ontario cannot honour its commitment to the hospital bed needs, then we should be moving very quickly, very openly and very forcefully in terms of resolving that dilemma. We should be honest and open if we are not able to provide those hospital beds as promised.

I, too, represent a community. Like many members opposite, I represent a community that had the Premier and the then-Minister of Health announce that we were eligible for 180 additional beds. I am now told we are not going to get those beds. I am told we have to take those beds which we might have gotten and convert them into some sort of community use.

What is interesting is that statement came from the government at the very time when the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) was stating that he was not sure if he would get the money from the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to provide the funding for the integrated homemaker program, which, as all members of this House are aware, is a program designed to help people stay out of institutions like hospitals, or at least to leave a hospital setting several days, if not weeks, early and to be able to function with support in that intermediate step.

So we have a government saying, “You are not going to get your additional hospital beds; but if you got the hospital beds, we would want you to apply them to a more community-based approach.” If that is what Bill 147 is all about, the fact that we will not get the hospital beds that were promised in the last election or the hospital beds from the previous election, then the government and the minister should state that and not try to mask it under a bill which in my opinion has a lot more to do with the fact that the government can now dramatically alter accessibility to certain prescribed procedures for medical treatment in this province, and which in my opinion gives dangerously excessive powers to the minister in terms of search and seizure of doctors’ offices and patients’ records.

I would invite the minister, in her comments, as I will invite her when I hope she appears before our committee, to make known her real intention with this legislation. If this is simply a bill whose purpose was to oil the waters, to provide a moment of lucid vision in a storm of health care controversy, then the public will not be pacified and members of this House will not be taken in.

Quite clearly, what we are talking about here is a bill that has wide-ranging significance if not administered properly. That is why the members of the opposition are most anxious that this matter be dealt with in committee where it will be given the full light of day and the full benefit of debate.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence. I would like to say more, but there are several members who have been moved to comment by the interjections from the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet), who seems to feel that this legislation is going to be a panacea for Ontario’s health care needs. I think that is at least one step in the right direction. At least he is admitting there are difficulties, and that is rare with many of the members opposite.

1730

Mr. Breaugh: We have opposed this bill. I think many of us who have been observers of how health care is provided in Ontario understand there are very real problems that have to be dealt with.

Perhaps the most important single thing that must be addressed is that they have to be dealt with in context. One of the first difficulties that I have with this bill is essentially the premise that some interjection of new and independent health facilities is the answer that is needed. I would argue quite the contrary, that traditionally that has been one of our problems.

In my view, the people who provide health care to the citizens in Ontario have no problem in terms of their qualifications, the kind of equipment, training and expertise that they have developed. They are some of the finest in the world, in terms of practitioners of health care at all levels operating here in Ontario.

We do have some structural problems. We have problems that allow independent health facilities, which we would most readily identify these days as hospitals, to operate in splendid isolation from one another. We have struggled with the notion that somehow they need to be co-ordinated.

We have all seen examples, in our own communities and elsewhere around the province, of places where very good ideas struggle simply because there is no need to integrate the system. In my own community, for example, we have a very good paramedic program that for years was probably one of the best in the province but was not acknowledged. It now is.

We have seen other communities with people who were functioning as paramedics, who were trained, skilled, had the equipment but did not have the co-operation of local physicians, where so often the whole concept faltered because there was not the integration that was necessary; there was not the co-operation that was necessary.

There was and still is, in every hospital and in almost every health care facility in Ontario, the continuing power struggle in the relationships between doctors and nurses, for example. That manifests itself probably more regularly in the newscasts these days around the question of the shortage of nurses.

There is and there is not a shortage of nurses. There is a shortage of people who want to work under the current kind of regime. But nurses, as anybody who has been in the hospital in the last little while knows, are the prime providers of care. If one goes into a hospital -- as I unfortunately have been able to do regularly, because my father has been ill this winter -- one will identify very quickly that there are not very many doctors around on the wards; they are hard to find. One has to kind of lie in the bushes and find them at certain times in the day when they do their rounds.

So the primary provider of care, on most wards most of the time, is the nurse. There is now a proliferation of nurses’ aides and orderlies and others who are providing health care, many of whom have taken courses at community colleges; some of whom have been to university; all of whom are involved in upgrading; all of whom are trying to survive in a world of providing health care that is constantly changing.

So we have some difficulties. I wish I could say that this bill was the focal point that will take us through a very difficult period, but I do not think it will. One of the key things which needs to be done before we stand much of a chance of providing a rational health care system is that we must try to get some form of consensus from those who traditionally have ruled the roost, one group of which is obviously the doctors.

Most of us were raised in a society which revered doctors, respected them a great deal, respected their knowledge, their ability to care for people. All of us, at some point in our lives, have an incident where a doctor did some wonderful thing that helped somebody in the family. So we see them in that perspective.

Sometimes, from a political point of view, we also look at them in a rather different way -- not quite so kindly -- as people who are in key positions in the provision of health care services all across Ontario. It is still true that if the chief of staff at the local hospital does not like somebody who is providing health care services in that community, it is going to be very difficult for that person to be accepted by the health care professionals in that area and to get on with the job.

That is still true: if the chief of staff at the local hospital does not like a paramedic program, it is going to have a tough time surviving there. If he does not like some new and developing role for nurses or nutritionists or a whole range of services, they are going to struggle.

Many of us have -- l think “challenged” would be the polite word -- the traditional role of doctors in our society and the traditional roles of those who would provide health care services in our society. We have looked at others who are equally well trained but have not received the status, so to speak, in Ontario yet.

We have seen people who practise different kinds of medicine who in many ways challenge the medical establishment, and the medical establishment is almost totally in authority positions. If they do not agree that someone who is trained in a slightly different way than they are should practise medicine in Ontario, they really do not. I think that is one of the problems that I have with this. That aspect has not been thought through.

I want to discuss too a couple of other phenomena that are emerging in the last little while, and this is one of the reasons that I have some reservations about this bill. I have always argued and still will that one of the best ways to provide for the very best health care services we can is to look at alternative ways of doing that. But I want to say as clearly as I can that I am pretty specific about what I mean by that.

What I mean is that this is not an invitation for the private sector to set up shop and put the local hospital out of business, though I have nothing against a phenomenon that exists now even in my riding of a local doctor setting up a practice. In most cases now it is not a local doctor; it is a physician who has kind of turned into an investor who has decided that there ought to be something like the neighbourhood doctor walk-in clinic.

I am an advocate of health service organizations. I am an advocate of community health organizations. I like the idea of looking for ways to compensate physicians and other medical practitioners in nontraditional ways, because it seems to me that there is a great and serious financial problem attached to health care services if we continue along the traditional roads. If everybody new who is plugged into the system gets plugged in on the same fee-for-service basis as we traditionally have done, there is no tax source in the world that can finance that. That is a little bald perhaps, but I believe it is true.

We have to look at different ways of doing that. It may turn out to be some kind of a roster system. I am confused some days as to why it is that it is good enough for the nurses in the hospital, it is good enough for the administrators in the hospital, it is good enough for everybody else in the hospital to be on salary, but it is not a real good idea for a physician to be. That is a little beyond me.

If we are talking about the actual income that the physician gets, I would be quite happy to discuss that. I do not understand why that blindly has to be on a fee-for-service basis, particularly when I know that there are really good, competent physicians operating on a salary basis in Ontario who are extremely well paid. It seems to me that the physicians themselves ought to take a look at that.

I know that they traditionally have responded to that kind of an idea by saying that in some way that is interfering with the practice of medicine. I grant that it is interfering with the way in which the doctor becomes compensated for his or her services, but I do not see how it is interfering with the practice of medicine, and that concerns me.

I am concerned that this bill, though it says, in kind of vague words, that it will give a preference to nonprofit medicine -- it seems to me that it does clearly open up the door for somebody who wants to come into a community and set up shop with what is known in the United States as a private hospital. It expands in great measure what that facility might look like, what kind of health care will be provided there and who would be providing it.

I do not see this as being an appropriate alternative. If you wanted to say that we want to bring on stream some new centres where people will go for health services, I am really on side with that. If you want to say that this will be done in the nonprofit sector, in the public sector, it seems to me that the rational argument for doing that is very simply this: that the financial resources which will pay for that facility come from the public sector. That means to my mind that you do not take public moneys raised through taxation techniques in general and funnel them into the private sector.

1740

I would caution people. I know that the minister, because we have discussed this on several occasions, is not really advocating that we pour all this public money into a private institution. But it seems to me that the bill that is before us is the first step down that road. I would venture that there are no members here who have seen private hospitals at work who would advocate that.

There are very few of those in Ontario. There are some, but not many. They tend to be around things which I might call marginal in terms of medical services, cosmetic surgery and things of that nature. But once that becomes an accepted way to provide health care in Ontario, we have begun the process down what I consider to be a very wrong road.

I would like to think that this kind of bill would be brought forward in a much more comprehensive way. I think the way to do that is to start from what we now have and to try to eliminate some of the difficulties that we have in our own structure for delivering health care.

One of the prime difficulties, of course, is that the public thinks of the hospital system in Ontario as being a public hospital system, and in many ways it is. In many ways it is funded almost exclusively by public moneys. They are, in fact, not public. You find that out when you have been Health critic for your party or when you have been involved in a local dispute around a hospital.

You find that they are in some ways public institutions, but in a legal sense, they are private institutions with their own boards, making their own decisions. They really do not have to do what the community wants them to do and they do not have to do what the provincial government wants them to do. They are in many respects pretty independent.

On some critical items, that independence becomes a bit of a problem because there is not a great deal in the way of accountability. One of the failures that we have in our own system here, in my opinion, is very simply that we have the theoretical notion that it is an independent, publicly elected board which administers the hospital. The problem is that in a real, practical way, it is not true that there are those who will attend the annual general meeting of anybody’s hospital and who will vote on who sits on the board of directors.

In one theoretical way, I suppose you could claim that anybody in the community could go to that meeting and participate in the election of the board of directors. But on any occasion that I have seen, when something like that happens, the community generally gets up in arms that some interest group in the community is trying to take over the local hospital. So there is an awkwardness about that, a real awkwardness,

We have a few examples around the province of health service organizations or community health organizations that have been quite successful in providing health care in a different way to a community. The most commonly mentioned one is in Sault Ste. Marie, but there are a number of them around Ontario. Just a little while ago, the minister announced the initial funding for an institution of that kind in the south end of my riding. We welcome that because I think that is one of the alternatives that has to be explored and developed.

Those kinds of things could happen under this bill, but they certainly are not guaranteed. There certainly is the very real prospect that they will be in competition for the provision of health care services in any of our communities with somebody who might come in from the United States, for example, with a very viable commercial option.

I do not believe that we hate Americans or anything like that, or that just because some idea comes in from the United States, it is a bad idea. I do not believe any of that but I do believe that over a long period of time, we have developed a distinctly Canadian form of medicare. It is done in different ways in different provinces, but it is different from what you will see anywhere else in the world.

It is not the British system at all, not by a long shot. It is not the American system. It is not the Scandinavian system. It is ours. It is one of the few things that you could point to that is typically Canadian, developed by us. If you talk to the population at large almost everyone would say, I think, that the biggest, smartest thing governments ever did in Canada was to introduce the concept of medicare. They are immensely proud that nobody in Canada, they think, will ever go bankrupt because somebody in the family got sick.

That is not really quite true, but in the main, it is. I say it is not really quite true because last week a guy in a flower shop in Oshawa showed me the bill he pays each month for the copayment for his wife who is sick in a chronic care bed in the Oshawa General Hospital. It is something like $464 a month. It is certainly nothing near what he would pay if that were in the United States of America, but on a pensioner’s income, that is a big chunk of money.

He is not complaining about the kind of care she is getting. He is not complaining about the fact that there is a good facility in his own community which can provide that care. He is simply stating that it is a big chunk of his pension cheque that every month goes to a hospital. The irony, of course, is that there are active treatment beds all across Ontario full of people who are not appropriately placed, and we know that. That has been true for some time.

In looking at how we distribute health care around Ontario, we have tried to develop a better way of allocating our resources, but it has been difficult. It has been difficult because we do not have a really integrated health care system. We have kind of independent places where people go. There is no reason why a general hospital has to deal with a community health organization, and they often do not.

For many of us who would argue that a health care system at its best would be community-based, we really have to acknowledge the reality that our community-based systems in Ontario are struggling to survive, whether it is the Red Cross, the Victorian Order of Nurses or any other kind of community health care group we have working in our constituencies.

When you talk to them, one of the first things that hits you is that they have no solid financial basis on which to operate. All of these agencies, doing what many of us think is really the thing that ought to be done, struggle for funding. They compete with the hospitals to run community-based programming. They compete with local teaching institutions to do that. Whether it is the Red Cross saying it cannot keep its homemaker program going or whether it is the VON saying, “We’d like to do more home visitations, but we have to hook into some program that is operated by the Ministry of Health out of one of our other facilities to do that,” they are all having difficulty.

The truth, and I have heard doctors say this a lot, is that we do not use our hospitals in the right way. The reason our people do not is that there is no other place to go. In your community, on a Saturday night, where else would you go to get medical care but your local hospital? There is no place else to go.

If our emergency wards are full of people who should not be there, one of the prime reasons is that there is no place else in the community where they can get medical care of any kind, other than at a hospital.

I suppose in some respects this bill would open up some of the treatment points where people could go. Some would argue that it would be appropriate under legislation such as this to have the general hospital emergency ward open, as it is now, and that there would be some community health service organization open and some private clinic elsewhere open. But the truth is, if that is the way it works out, they will probably all suffer immensely. If it is an independent health facilities group that is working there and they do not have to talk to one another, to integrate and plan together and co-ordinate the kind of services they provide, they are all going to suffer.

You run into this problem every day, in every way, no matter where you go in Ontario. If our hospitals, for example, have developed a good lab system of their own and somebody else wants to come into town and set up another private lab, and all the doctors in town decide: “That’s a real good financial investment. I’m going to invest in the private lab, and more than that, I’m going to send all my business to the private lab,” one of the first phenomena you discover is that the big lab you built at the general hospital out of tax dollars does not have any business any more because everybody is sending his stuff off to the private lab.

That is pretty hard to explain to the people who say: “What is this? We paid to set up the lab in the general hospital. We pay through our tax dollars, the OHIP money the doctor gets, but the doctor sends all his lab services off to a private lab somewhere else.”

1750

You see, the system misses. That, I think, is what is wrong with this bill. If the government took some of the ideas in here and integrated them, I think it would address itself to some of the major problems it has.

Part of the agony around Ontario these days is that those who are in key positions, who can make the decisions about how we spend the health care dollar, very often get themselves positioned so they can in fact exclude other options even though they might be more sensible.

For example, there is a clear, vested interest now among many people, not just doctors, to fund the hospitals. We have had throughout the fall session of the Legislature, which has spilled over into the winter and on into the spring now, discussions about all the problems our hospitals are having. They are for real. It is very difficult. I have sat in my constituency office, as many of the members have, and tried to explain to somebody this deal about how you get on a list for surgery at various hospitals, and why hospitals in Ontario cannot provide surgical procedures that patients clearly need.

That is an agonizing thing to do. I have had people in my riding die because they could not get on a surgical list somewhere. There are phone calls in my office now about people who have been booked into downtown Toronto hospitals such as St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto General Hospital, Sunnybrook Medical Centre -- all kinds of places here -- for surgery for many months now. They thought they were ready to go into the hospital and have the surgery done and were told by means of a phone call in the morning: “That procedure will not happen today. Sorry, you go back on the waiting list.” That is a very difficult thing to explain.

We have had to be truthful about it, too. Some physicians are doing things I find a little offensive around the edges. Physicians on occasion tell their patients: “The reason you can’t get your surgical procedure done today is that the government of Ontario is real mean and won’t fund us to the extent we’d like.” What they forget to mention is that there are some other places and some other ways in which that could be done, but the truth is that is not always there either. I wish it were. I wish there were a central registry.

There is some stuff that is really impossible to explain. I do not know how you explain to people in any community in Ontario that emergency wards are closed part of the time, because they think that an emergency ward is a place you go when there is an emergency, that they put you in the ambulance and take you to the nearest facility. People in Ontario do not understand why they ride around in an ambulance, past hospital after hospital, to get to the emergency ward that is open.

What is more, people understand the system better than the professionals sometimes. People know that emergency ward is not closed, that there are practitioners there, that what is put in place now is a system to better utilize the emergency wards in places where there is more than one hospital.

But it is a system that has some flaws in it. It is a system that has some dangers in it. Many of us await with sad anticipation the day when somebody dies in an ambulance, because then we are going to find out who is responsible for the patient who is in the back of that ambulance. Is it the doctor who said, “No, I’m closing the emergency ward today, because we’re in a different classification now”? Is it the Minister of Health, who approved this policy? Is it the ambulance driver, who has the patient most directly in his care? There is a very difficult legal question to be resolved here.

I have talked to some ambulance drivers and I know they are extremely apprehensive that this has not been resolved yet. They think it surely will not turn out to be the ambulance driver who gets nailed with that lawsuit, but they are not sure. If you analyse who is directly in charge of this patient at that moment, some will give you the legal argument that there probably is a physician somewhere who is directing that ambulance, and that may be the one.

But I am sure there will be some lawyers who will go to court and say: “Let’s put them all on the list. Let’s say the Minister of Health who approved the program. Let’ s say the chief of staff who said, ‘Let’s implement that program.’ Let’s say the physician in the emergency ward who said, ‘No, we are closed now; go somewhere else.’ Let’s finally say the ambulance driver, because he was there.” That is generally the way lawsuits go these days.

That is a difficult thing to do. It is a difficult way to proceed. That is basically the problem I have with this bill. I do not sense that two or three very necessary components are in place. First of all, I have no sense that the people who provide health care in Ontario feel this is the consensus way to go. I do not think that is there at all.

I have no sense we have resolved some of the very difficult existing problems in the health care system. I know many members here will have been involved in some dispute at their local hospital over who gets the funding. It is one of the pretty difficult things a member gets into. He understands part of it but not all of it. It is almost impossible, because we are not medical practitioners, to understand whether this new type of equipment is absolutely essential in our hospital. Certainly, there is some duplication. Certainly, it is difficult for lay people like all of us to make these kinds of decisions. Certainly, we depend a lot on the professionals in the system to advise us.

I think you would also have to ask, in a health care system the size of the one here in Metropolitan Toronto, is there not room somewhere in that system to generate a thing called a birthing centre? It is not a real expensive idea. It is one that has been discussed and analysed for five, 10, or 15 years. Is there not somewhere in this whole expensive health care system where that could be accommodated for those people who think that is what they need, that it is an appropriate thing to do?

When you get involved in the world of high-tech medicine, you soon get into very expensive medicine. It is not possible for us to understand what is the best machine to buy, what is the best kind of training to give to the staff, what is absolutely essential and what is not. It is tough for us to make that kind of decision, but what fails us here is that there really is not a good mechanism for making that decision either.

It would not be nearly as important for all of us to understand the workings of this equipment if we were confident that we did not have to, that the professionals had a place where they could advise us, that we could adjudicate the disputes involved in that and resolve some of these problems.

Let me conclude my remarks on this bill by pointing out some things that I think are absolutely vital before the government proceeds in this way. At the end of a long consultation process, perhaps they could do something like this, but while they are in the middle of fighting a pitched war involving the nurses in our hospitals in Ontario, this bill is not going to do much for anybody.

While we have unresolved funding problems with existing hospitals in Ontario, this bill is not going to do very much for us either. While we have health care facilities in alternative models -- the health service organizations and things of that nature -- that are still struggling to get identified let alone properly funded, this bill is not going to do much for us. While we still have what we would loosely call community-based services like the Red Cross or the Victorian Order of Nurses that do not have a secure financial basis for what they are trying to do in our communities, this bill is not going to do very much for us.

I am drawn back to the example in my own family that has happened over the winter. My dad is 90 years old and he had a little bit of surgery this winter. On that aspect of it, the surgery did not work the first time, so it has been repeated. He should have had home care in his own home and it was not available in his community. After struggling with that for a little while, it is kind of available, but not really. That is the reality in most communities in Ontario.

The basics have not been accomplished that would allow the government to proceed with this type of legislation at this time. That is essentially what is wrong with this bill. They have not resolved the existing problems and they have not made clear enough what their alternatives are. They have not developed the consensus around them that is really absolutely vital before they proceed with the bill.

On motion by Mrs. Marland, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

21 février 1989