Journal des débats 1993-avril-26 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Today is Yom Ha-Atzmaut, Israel's independence day. Forty-five years ago, Jewish people around the world rejoiced as they received the benefits of a long-sought-after dream, a Jewish homeland.

For the past 45 years, Israel has provided a refuge for Jews from around the world. Since 1948, Israel's Jewish population has grown from 500,000 to over four million people. This growth occurred mainly from immigration. People from North America, Europe, eastern Europe, Russia, Ethiopia and Arab countries have moved to Israel to enjoy a life of Zionism and religious freedom.

As Jews around the world look back at the past 45 years of Israeli independence, people remember the obstacles that were overcome to make Israel the great nation it is. Flowers now grow where sand once stood; vegetables are harvested in land where nothing used to grow. The Israeli people have created a country out of a land where very little once stood.

On this happy occasion we cannot forget the many people who fought for Israel's independence in the many wars and battles in her short history. Furthermore, we cannot overlook the many problems still evident in Israel and her surrounding borders. Hopefully, in this, Israel's 45th year, peace will be found throughout the Middle East.

Jews throughout Canada play an important part in Israel's existence. Without the support of the Diaspora, Israel would have a difficult time supporting her existence. It is for this reason that we in Ontario can take pride in Israel's independence day. Congratulations, Israel, on your 45th independence day. May you continue to provide a safe and strong refuge for all Jews from around the world.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): If the government is sincerely looking at cost efficiency and providing quality services, then the NDP is contradicting its own objectives with its recent long-term care policy document. In this document the government has once again stated that it is "Giving a preference to a system that delivers services on a not-for-profit basis." Between the lines, what the NDP is really suggesting is that it intends to drive the private sector from the provision of home care services.

As I have mentioned on several occasions in this Legislature, private home care agencies employ 20,000 people and provide 45% of home care services. Driving the private sector from home care is an act of blatant discrimination carried out by the government against individuals who happen to work in the private sector.

The NDP preference will result in a shortfall in community-based services, services that are targeted for the disabled and the elderly. Taxpayers will suffer when government is forced to spend more money to close the gap in services that will occur once the NDP has forced the private sector out of business.

If the government's alleged social contract aims to provide services in a more cost-efficient manner, why then is the NDP declaring war on the private sector? Traditionally, when the not-for-profit sector runs deficits, the government bails it out, and currently several not-for-profit home care agencies are running deficits. At a time when the government is randomly slashing services, the NDP must restrain its ideological impulses and give the private sector the assurances it needs to continue to play a critical role in the delivery of health care services in this province.

GARRISON COMMON PLAN

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): This morning I attended the announcement of the implementation of the Garrison Common plan. As you may know, this is a proposal for the development of lands in the city of Toronto around the lakefront in the downtown area. The Premier spoke of the province's support for the proposal, and we also heard commitments from Metro and the city of Toronto to participate.

This is an exciting project and tribute must be paid to David Crombie and the waterfront regeneration trust, which has pulled together the diverse interests of the community, governments and the private sector to produce something which will generate jobs and stimulate the downtown economy of the future.

I'd like to quote some of the objectives of the implementation plan. They include: to protect and enhance the natural and environmental features of the area by reconnecting the city to the lake through linked parks and public open spaces, a waterfront trail network, habitat restoration and improved waste water treatment; to improve the attractiveness of the area as a tourist destination; also, to stimulate economic redevelopment and community rebuilding through the revitalization of private and public lands and to integrate into the local and regional fabric from a community, transportation and development point of view.

I was particularly interested to attend the event because I have an area in my riding of Scarborough East which has a number of similar characteristics and needs. Residents of the Port Union area have been meeting with local planners and politicians to look at the possibilities of similar regeneration of land, economic and community development as well as recreational lake access. The objectives that I quoted strike me as the same as I hear in Scarborough East. We have in fact already had some discussions with the always constructive Mr Crombie.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Saturday, April 24, marked the 78th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. On April 24, 1915, Armenian intellectuals were deported and mass killings began. The Armenian genocide has not left one Armenian family untouched, as over 1.5 million Armenian people died.

In 1980 the province of Ontario passed a resolution asking the government of Canada to mark April 24 as a day of remembrance for the Armenian community and to officially recognize the Armenian genocide as a historical event. To date the government of Canada has not recognized this event, even though during the 1984 federal election the Conservative Party promised, if elected, it would do so.

It is only through official recognition that events such as the Armenian genocide are acknowledged. Events such as genocide, the Armenian or the Nazi Holocaust, are important to acknowledge and to discuss to ensure that they never happen again. We again today have examples around the world of genocide. Perhaps if more people were aware of horrible genocides of the past, future occurrences would not be tolerated.

On the anniversary of this tragedy in Armenian history, I rise in the House on behalf of my constituents to remember the Armenian people who lost their lives 78 years ago. All Armenian families and communities are touched eternally by this event. We must dedicate ourselves to ensure history does not repeat itself.

1340

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The NDP decision to cut the expansion of GO Transit services to Burlington has once again made the community of Burlington painfully aware of the Rae government's policies of economic mismanagement and insensitivity to the needs of people. Unable to understand the principle of a return on taxpayers' investments, the NDP has decided to proceed to cut $16.5 million from GO Transit services, including the full service to Burlington, even after having already spent, one year ago, $11.5 million for the Aldershot station as part of the full service implementation. The NDP give-and-take equation in fact gives nothing to Burlington, as it continues to take greater Toronto area taxes and commercial concentration levies in the millions of dollars every year in another example of the pathetic planning of NDP government.

The GO Transit expansion was badly needed for Hamilton-Wentworth and Halton regions, and for Burlingtonians this service was a symbol, at least partially, of the justification for the heavy GTA taxes they continue to pay for transportation and urban growth services in our community. Even the environmentalists are questioning the decision of this government, for obvious reasons.

What truly angers the people of Burlington is how the NDP government went ahead without consultation and will continue to spend more than $15 million to transform perfectly good highway signs into bilingual signs. The priorities of this government are wrong. The pathetic priorities of the government should be changed. Decisions with greater equity should be made.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): On April 6 I visited Northland Satellite Communications Inc in my riding. This is a small marine electronics company which has been able to grow because of the Jobs Ontario Training fund. It has provided the resources for three employees to be trained. These new employees will be trained to become qualified technicians to repair cellular telephones, satellite communications and marine communications.

Jobs Ontario made it possible for the company to sponsor the trainers, to bring people from two electronic companies, Marconi and Uniten, up to Georgina to train these employees.

Bob Schalkoort, the president of Northland Satellite Communications Inc, says that it wouldn't have been possible for this company to grow from six to nine employees without Jobs Ontario. In fact, this businessman has been going throughout the community and telling people just how great Jobs Ontario is. The company told me that before these employees were trained, the electronics equipment used to be sent to the United States for repairs.

It makes me feel proud that our government has been able to fulfil three goals: firstly, to train workers for a skilled trade; secondly, to help small businesses like this to grow; and finally, to provide opportunities for economic growth within Ontario.

I urge anybody watching today who could be an employer ready to hire somebody to contact their Jobs Ontario office. In my riding, if you're on the York side you call the York broker, and in Durham, the Durham broker.

LEADER OF THIRD PARTY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): The thunder of mutual backslapping by the Tories and the NDP in this Legislature has become even more pronounced than usual in recent weeks. It is clear that there is a new image being written upon the political landscape, and it isn't very pretty. There's a new political accord in Ontario between the NDP socialists and their Tory apologists, led by Mike Harris. Tory public pronouncements supporting the socialists can only lead one to believe that Bob Rae and Mike Harris have some sort of secret pact of blue suits in support of bad policies and worse ties.

After giving an interview to the Toronto Star last week voicing private concerns over looming cuts in government spending, Mike Harris went AWOL on Friday, sending his poor critic to wobble in his place and voice carte blanche approval for the NDP. This will not come as a surprise to members who hearken back to a year ago, when Mike Harris piously congratulated the NDP for tabling a $9.9-billion deficit and then spent several months backpedalling furiously upon realizing that Liberal warnings of a much higher deficit were coming true.

Instead of fulfilling the role ascribed to Her Majesty's loyal opposition, that of voicing the concerns of people not being heard by this government, the leader of the third party has rolled over and quietly snuggled up in bed with our socialist Premier. Tories around the province believe that their only hope is that while Mike Harris is in bed with Bob Rae, he keeps the lights on so that he can see the true colours of the socialist silk.

CONSERVATION AREA

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I direct this statement to the Minister of Natural Resources.

The proposed Madawaska highlands regional trust will serve to reduce our freedoms to use our land and will create permanent animosity between the people of Lanark-Renfrew and the government of Ontario. The economy of this area is heavily reliant upon logging, tourism, hunting and fishing. If the ministry proceeds with plans to establish this conservation area, our economy and way of life will suffer in Lanark-Renfrew.

Your ministry has had several so-called information sessions pertaining to this issue, and the attendance has been phenomenal. The people who attended these meetings know that the government intends to take control of their land. Your ministry sessions did absolutely nothing to allay these fears.

Furthermore, this government seems to hear only one voice, the voice of the environmental leagues, and not the people it affects the most: the property owners.

I say to the minister that the people of Lanark-Renfrew are furious with the fact that this government proceeds by thinking that we do not know how to manage and use our resources. I've got news for this government. We have been excellent stewards of our land for over 100 years, and we demand the right to continue in this fashion.

I ask the government to listen to the people of Lanark-Renfrew and scrap this proposal.

ISRAELI INDEPENDENCE COMMEMORATION

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I rise today to speak on behalf of the government caucus members and to congratulate the state of Israel.

This is a historic day. We are marking the 45th anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel. Last week, my colleague Elaine Ziemba spoke about Yom Hashoah and the 50th anniversary of the uprising of the Warsaw ghetto. Six million Jews perished in the death camps of Nazi Europe.

Out of the Holocaust, the state of Israel was created to ensure that the Jewish people would have a homeland. The survivors of the Holocaust have created a modern dynamic state, and our government is pleased that the province of Ontario and the state of Israel have an effective working relationship. The Jewish community in Ontario has played a crucial role in making sure that Ontario is aware of the needs of Israel, and many of my constituents are involved in this process.

We have in the gallery today representatives from the Israeli consulate: consul general Dror Zeigerman and Mrs Zeigerman, vice-consul Haim Waxman and Mrs Waxman and consul Benjamin Noy and Mrs Noy.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I know the House would want to make a few comments with respect to Israeli Independence Day, and I just want to say that I want to join with the member from Mississauga and my colleague the member for St Andrew-St Patrick and I know my colleague the member for Willowdale and others who attended today a reception for the --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Premier. Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Rae: -- for the Jewish community in Canada and for the Israeli community to say how much our thoughts are with the people of Israel and with the Jewish community here in Canada on this occasion, as we celebrate the 45th anniversary of the state of Israel.

Tomorrow, talks will be resuming in Washington. I know that our thoughts are very much with those people who are at the table, just as they were with all those who attended the historic breakthroughs in Camp David.

The lives of literally millions have been transformed by the creation of the state of Israel. Canada's ties with the state go back to the earliest days. Our associations as a people are deep and profound. Our whole community has been transformed by the presence within Canada, for several decades and centuries, people who've come from around the world to make Canada their home, just as they've gone to Israel after the creation of the state of Israel.

1350

We welcome the consul general here on this occasion and pay tribute to him, and we look forward to even stronger ties between the people of Ontario and the people of Israel.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I too wish to say a few words in commemoration of this, the 45th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel, a state in the Middle East that, from its very inception, just because it was created, was immediately put under seige, and for the past 45 years the people in Israel have had this as a constant way of life.

The state of Israel is a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, a tiny country that has taken a desert and turned it into a garden, a country that is a world leader in technology, in education, in culture and is truly a model for those aspiring to see what people of goodwill can do.

As we enter into this latest round of peace talks, I think all of us can only hope that in fact peace will come to Israel so that the people of Israel can continue to do what they do best, and that is to provide a homeland for those in other countries who have been under terrible torment and torture. The state of Israel has been under current pressure, economic and social, because of its taking in of well over 400,000 refugees from the former Soviet Union. It has become the homeland of black Jews from Ethiopia. To everyone in the world, Israel continues to be exactly what it has been since its inception: a model state, a beacon of democracy and a hope for all of the oppressed in the world.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I too would like to say a few words about the 45th anniversary of the state of Israel. I too would like to acknowledge the presence of the Israeli consul general and the vice-consul and to say what an honour it is for me to be here and to have the Israeli consul general present. It means a great deal for me; it means a great deal for the Jewish people.

I might also tell you that when we stand on the floor of the Legislature and acknowledge a day such as Israeli Independence Day, such as Holocaust Memorial Day, it's something that the Jewish community in the city of Toronto 10 and 15 and 20 years ago could never have conceived of. It means a great deal to the people of this community for this Legislature to acknowledge the state of Israel, to acknowledge the fact that this state grew out of the very greatest adversity, to acknowledge the fact that Israel embodies for Jewish people all over the world the bitter and the sweet of life, the fact that the state of Israel is a refuge for Jews all over, the fact that every Jew is a citizen of the state of Israel.

For me to be able to stand here today in the presence of the Israeli consul general is indeed the very greatest honour that I can have. On behalf of the Jewish community, I can't thank this Legislature enough for granting me this opportunity.

The Speaker: Statements by ministers? It is now time for oral questions.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: There was this morning a very important decision affecting fishing in Ontario. I think it would be fair to ask the government of the day to make some kind of statement with respect to that court decision, and I would ask, in the interests of the natural resources people and in the interests of commercial fishing and native fishing in this province, why there is not some kind of statement with respect to this very important court decision. I would ask that you inquire of the first minister as to when we can expect a statement.

The Speaker: The member for Bruce will know that my responsibility is to ask if there are ministerial statements. If there are, then this is the time in the agenda which allows for the same. However, no doubt the members' interests have been well communicated to the government benches.

It is now time for oral questions. The Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is to the Premier. We have said before and we will say again that we support the need for restraint. For the past two years we have been telling your government that your mismanagement of the economy and of this province's finances has worsened the effects of the recession. But you waited until only four weeks ago to suddenly discover that the province is facing a financial crisis. Premier, the chaos and the confusion that your government has created reached a new height on Friday.

Premier, you have kept talking about the need for partnerships and cooperation if we are to deal with this need for restraint, but if you really wanted cooperation from your partners, you would have sat down with them a year ago; you wouldn't have waited until the crisis hit. It has become painfully obvious that neither the employer groups nor the unions trust either your government or its negotiating process. Many have made it clear that they do not intend to participate in the so-called social contract talks.

Premier, now that you have waited until this late in the day to get the negotiation process under way, I ask, how do you intend to proceed if in fact no one is willing to participate?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would be very surprised if at the end of the day, as they say, people who perhaps have not fully accepted the need for the kinds of changes that we are proposing didn't respond in a positive and in a constructive way to the situation in which we find ourselves, in which the province collectively finds itself.

I would say to the leader of the official opposition, if she's now saying that she supports the initiatives which the government has undertaken, then I welcome that support. If she's saying that she continues to oppose it, then I can only say to her that the advice we're getting from people, certainly the letters and phone calls we're receiving, is that we're on the right track, that people realize that difficult decisions have to be made. I think the leadership of the broader public sector, whether it's the union leadership, the employee leadership or the employer leadership, share our view that while they might not like having to make some of these changes, that we're all having to make them together and that this process of discussion and dialogue must and will continue.

Mrs McLeod: I am saying very clearly that we support and have called for restraint, that we have called on your government to recognize the financial problems that this province was facing because of your mismanagement for the past two years, as the record will show. But what I am also saying very clearly, Premier, is that you have created the crisis, your mismanagement has created the chaos, and we all need to know what plans you have to resolve the issue now.

Premier, you are well aware that many union leaders have called your proposals a declaration of war. The province's unions are warning that they can't even meet your deadline for the start of the social contract discussions. The time is running out. You have a budget to bring down in less than a month, and we'd like to know how long you are prepared to wait to see if this process is going to come together.

Hon Mr Rae: We are certainly, if I may say so, prepared to hear what various people have to say about our proposals. Look back at the growth rates in revenue, for example, during the Liberal administration of 10.2%, 13.3%, 10.1%, 15%, 11.4% and compare that to the situation that faced this government, whereas in 1990-91 we had an increase of 4.4% and in 1991-92 a decrease in revenue facing the province of 5%.

I can understand full well why the Leader of the Opposition would want to try to personalize this thing, but I say to her that I think the people of the province know far better than Liberal partisans that what we're doing is responsible, that it makes sense, that it's an effective response to a very difficult situation and that in fact we are all going to have to participate in the solution.

I would say to the honourable Leader of the Opposition that when people look back at the record, look back at what happened under the Liberal administration -- I've had all kinds of business people at the most senior level, CEOs of corporations, saying to me, "Premier, we understand the problem you inherited and the fact that previous governments have not had the courage to deal with this issue." We have the courage to deal with the issue, we are dealing with it, and we know our social partners are going to want to deal with it as well.

Mrs McLeod: Well, Premier, it took the previous government some four years to get the Tory legacy of a $2.6-billion deficit down to zero, and we're not sure how long it'll take to get rid of your deficit.

1400

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs McLeod: But Premier, the record is not what's on the table today.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): At least they had a set of books you could read.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order, both sides. The Leader of the Opposition with her final supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, the issue that's before this House today is the question of what you are going to do about a problem you have created if the people you're counting on to participate say no. The landmark British Columbia labour deal that was supposedly the model for your social contract has now fallen apart and that province's health care employers have voted against the deal.

Premier, I think that does not bode well for the future of the talks here in Ontario, particularly since the people you are negotiating with were already suspicious and after Friday they are genuinely angry. So, Premier, I am simply asking you to tell us your plans. If you cannot get your negotiating partners to agree to participate willingly in your wage rollback proposals, is it your intention to bring in legislation to impose them?

Hon Mr Rae: I much prefer to look at life in a perhaps slightly more positive way than the honourable member. I think it's important for us to recognize that the situation the province is facing is not a particularly easy one. It doesn't have a whole lot of precedents. But I want to say to the honourable member that all that requires, therefore, in response is that we work together, that we be as candid as we can with each other about the situation we face and that we understand that there's little point in engaging in idle rhetoric.

I know when you're in opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition, particularly the Liberal opposition, that's difficult, but all I can say to the honourable member is that I don't intend to engage in any of it. We've got a job to do. We've got a dialogue to establish. We've got a problem to solve. We intend to work with our partners in helping to solve this problem, getting us on the way to a stronger economy, to stronger job growth and to a much better financial picture for the province.

We're convinced that in cooperation with our partners we can in fact achieve that goal. I think that's the path most people in the province would expect and like us to pursue.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: Perhaps I can turn, then, to the effectiveness of the government's planning process to date, but my second question will be to the junior Minister without Portfolio, Ministry of Finance. Is the minister in the House?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): He's not listed as absent. He should be here.

Mrs McLeod: Shall I stand down my question, Mr Speaker, until we know whether or not he is to be here?

Mr Elston: He's supposed to be here.

The Speaker: Can the chief whip be of any assistance?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Brad, where are you?

The Speaker: Would the Leader of the Opposition like to stand down the question?

Mrs McLeod: If the minister is expected, I will stand down my question. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: We move to the third party, with its first leadoff question. I recognize the leader of the third party.

TAX INCREASES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Mr Speaker, I would like to have a chat with the Premier.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): So would I.

Mr Harris: And so would you; so would a lot of people, Premier.

I found it interesting that the Liberals were yelling over at you, for all those years they were in office, "Spend, spend, spend," and they said, "Okay, okay, okay, we'll spend." It was a little bit like a pillow fight.

Mr Premier, on Friday your Finance minister took the first step towards correcting the irresponsible and wasteful spending built up over eight years of Liberal-NDP-accord spending. However, at the same time your Treasurer confirmed the worst fears of men and women in this province. He confirmed that you and he and your cabinet and your party are eyeing the single-largest tax grab in the history of the province of Ontario. Premier, I think even you would agree that not only will raising taxes not create a single job, but according to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, $2 billion of taxes will cost 50,000 jobs in this province.

Given that your plan seems to be to downsize government, which we agree with, and that the only way that's going to be effective is if you upsize the private sector, why, can you tell me, are you allowing your Treasurer to bring in a tax grab that will cost 50,000 further jobs in the private sector?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I want to say to my colleague from the Conservative Party that I've heard speeches and comments he's made. For example, I understand that one of the things he's been proposing is an overall change with respect to health care where there would be, I understand, a very substantial resort to user fees across the health care system, in which case we're looking at another way of raising revenue.

I would say to the honourable member that the issue is tax fairness and the issue is our dealing in a positive and effective way with the deficit. I think one has to recognize that if you think the deficit is a significant problem for the future of the provincial economy, and given the fact that we're now into a period of recovery, it's important that we begin to deal with this issue.

If you look at the experience of the Liberal administration in New Brunswick, if you look at the experience of the Conservative administration in Manitoba, if you look at the experience of the New Democratic Party administration in Saskatchewan, if you look at the experiences of all the provincial governments, people say, "You know, you're all the same now."

Well, look, perhaps we've all recognized that there is a problem we have to deal with. When you look at how a variety of governments are dealing with these issues, invariably, from one party to another, we're faced with having to deal with the revenue situation and with the spending situation. That's what your government had to do in 1981 and 1982. That's precisely what took place then.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that we are trying to wrestle with this question as fairly as we can. We do not believe it is possible to deal responsibly with the debt and deficit situation in this province without also dealing with the question of taxes. We don't think you can ignore the tax question. That's not to say we're relying solely or exclusively on taxes. In fact, I think the evidence will point to the most significant expenditure reduction that this province has seen since the Second World War. There's never been an exercise like it.

I would say to the honourable member that this has been the focus of our efforts. There will be an element of tax increase in the next budget. There's no getting around it if we're going to deal effectively with the deficit question. That's the position we've taken.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I think, when you look at what we need to do and the balance we need to strike, it's the most responsible, fair thing to do. We think it's the fairest way to proceed.

Mr Harris: I've two comments for the Premier. Yes, I've called for little user fees on a lot of things. You're calling for 100% user fees on everything. You're going to introduce in this House today a Bill 101 bringing in $150 million of new user fees. So yes, I talk about little user fees on more things instead of 100% user fees. Yes, we're both talking about user fees. I admit that.

Secondly, Premier, let's be clear about a couple things here. We are the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America. That's why we don't have tax capacity. Let's be clear about something else.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

1410

Mr Harris: You're talking about spending cuts on a base that the Liberals moved up three times the rate of inflation every year they were in office, at a rate so high that it's laughable that we can't cut expenditures and get back to a more reasonable level. This is not difficult at all.

Two years ago, I called for a 2% wage freeze. Had that been brought into play instead of your 13% hike, you'd have saved $3.5 billion, more than all of Friday's hand wringing put together. We have called on you repeatedly to pull the government out of the housing industry. You still refuse, costing you $605 million this year. You still have a spending problem. I admit that the Liberals got you into this spending problem, but you still have it. That's what you inherited and that's what you must deal with. I asked you to deal with it the first year in office. I asked you to deal with it the second year in office. You've started to deal with it the third year in office, and I ask you again, Premier, since every study shows that if you hike taxes you'll lose jobs --

The Speaker: Would the leader place his question, please.

Mr Harris: The Burns Fry study shows that if you cut spending, you'll get $1.25 off the deficit; if you hike taxes a buck, you'll only get 75 cents. Would you not agree that there is much more yet that can still be cut, instead of hiking taxes, and that this in fact will cut the deficit more and allow the private sector to upsize?

Hon Mr Rae: There's two things; it's such a long preamble I can't resist commenting on a couple of them. The first thing I'd say is that your statement that you persist in making, that Ontario is the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America, is false. It's a completely false statement. It's a false statement, and we can demonstrate it very clearly. If you're going to stand by that remark, I can tell you there isn't an observer around who would share that perspective with respect to Ontario's situation.

Mr Harris: Every investor does. Everybody in the private sector does. You name one that is higher.

Hon Mr Rae: I can tell you that for you to persist in repeating something that simply isn't true and simply doesn't respond --

Mr Harris: Name it. Name one.

Hon Mr Rae: Neighbouring jurisdictions have higher income taxes and have higher payroll taxes.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The Tories might want to run Ontario down as a place to do business. I'm proud of Ontario as a place to do business, and I'm going to tell people the facts, even when the Tories are spreading misstatements about the situation with regard to that.

The second thing the Tory leader says is that somehow this problem belongs exclusively to the Liberals. I want to say to the honourable member, when you look realistically at this problem, it's not a problem that started in 1990 and it's not a problem that started in 1985. The problem we face is even more serious and difficult than that.

I look back at the record in the early 1980s. I look at the Suncor decision, $650 million for 25% of an oil company back in the early 1980s, a SkyDome that ended up costing twice as much as it was supposed to cost, a Darlington nuclear station that cost three times as much as it was supposed to cost, $14 billion.

No party has a monopoly on virtue in this area. We now have to deal with a difficult problem. Part of it comes from the distant past, part of it comes from the recent past in terms of the mid-1980s.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: We have to deal with this problem, and we're determined to deal with it. We don't think we can deal with it without dealing with revenues, but your statements about Ontario's revenue position and its position with taxes are utterly and completely untrue.

Mr Harris: Look, we're trying to deal here with solving the future problems. There's nobody, I don't think, sitting here who agreed with the Suncor decision, but you wanted to buy 100%. How you have enough nerve -- you said, "Buy more." We said: "Hey, you're making a mistake here. We'll lose government if you carry on doing this." We were all right again, but you wanted to buy 100%. So don't talk to us about Suncor. That's your record on Suncor.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): We didn't want to buy any of it. We didn't want any of it.

Mr Harris: That's right. The Liberals had one thing they've been right on in the last decade. But let's deal with the future. Let's deal with solving the problem.

Mr Premier, do you agree with the Burns Fry study that says if you cut spending, you will cut the deficit $1.25, and if you hike taxes, you'll only cut it 75 cents. Premier, do you agree with the study done by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association? It says for every $40,000 you hike taxes -- $2 billion, we'll say 50,000 job losses. Can you explain to me, do you disagree with those studies? If you do, do you have one single one that counteracts that and shows something different?

Secondly, where are the 11,000 laid-off public sector workers going to go if all your policies are going to destroy another 50,000 jobs in the private sector? Where are they going to find work as you downsize government if you are also downsizing the private sector? Can you answer me that at the same time?

Hon Mr Rae: It's precisely because we want to maintain the recovery in the private sector that we're taking the steps that we are. I think that on balance, when you talk to people in the private sector, they recognize that at the provincial level there has to be some movement on the revenue side to deal with the extent of our problem.

That's why it's happened in New Brunswick, that's why it's happening in Quebec, that's why it's happened in Manitoba, that's why it had to happen in Saskatchewan. All of our neighbours are faced with a similar situation whether the government is Liberal or New Democrat or Conservative.

Maybe you can explain to me why Premier Filmon had to spread the base of the sales tax and raise his revenue situation. Maybe you can tell me how Premier McKenna had to raise his income taxes by several points in order to deal with his particular situation. There isn't a provincial government that isn't facing this situation.

I think the people of the province understand that and they know that what they're hearing from the opposition at this point is nothing more or less than pure and simple partisan rhetoric designed to create a headline of the moment and not designed to deal with the underlying problem. This is a government that's dealing with the underlying problems and we're proud of the fact that we're tackling these problems in a straightforward, candid and very direct fashion.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: I think if the Premier checks the record, he'll find that I was saying the same thing four years ago, three years ago, two years ago and this year. I will support you when you move in the right direction. I will fight you tooth and nail when you move in the wrong direction. That indeed is my job and I think you'll find that over four years it has been pretty consistent.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Premier, I'd like to ask you about consistency, I'd like to ask you about integrity, I'd like to ask you about making statements that reflect the fact and I'd like to ask you about the letter that you wrote concerning hauling garbage to Kirkland Lake.

In your letter you said, "It is clear that the general population of Kirkland Lake is opposed to the plan." Mayor Mavrinac says, "This is misinformation, this is an absolute bloody lie and the Premier of the province is propagating this."

Premier, can you tell me, is Mayor Mavrinac right or do you have information to counter all of the information he has, including the fact that he is still mayor? Do you have any information to say the people of Kirkland Lake clearly are opposed to the plan? Could you share that with us or could you tell us whether Mayor Mavrinac is right or wrong?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier) Speaker, I'd like to refer this to the minister responsible.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I think that it's obvious that in the meetings I've had with Mayor Mavrinac and with local representatives there's a difference of opinion in the Kirkland Lake area regarding the transportation of waste from the GTA to the Adams mine site. There are those who are in favour and those who are opposed.

Mr Harris: I will, I guess, as the rules are, direct my supplementary to the Minister of Environment. It's interesting that whenever I challenge the Premier on statements he personally made, either to the Youth Employment Service in Sudbury or now in his direct letter, he doesn't want to answer those.

I suggest to you that Mayor Mavrinac is quite correct in everything he has said. There is absolutely nothing you have to produce to challenge the statements that he has made. There was a referendum where the overwhelming majority of Kirkland Lake said, "We want the study to proceed."

Mayor Mavrinac ran against another candidate who clearly was opposed and he is the mayor. He has all the information, all the research, all the polls, plus the elections, on his side, and you have the Premier of the province saying, "It is clear that the general population of Kirkland Lake is opposed to the plan." Maybe he's meeting every general who lives in Kirkland Lake. Do you suppose that's what it is, Mr Minister of Environment?

Let me ask you this by way of supplementary: We have a plan before us that makes so much common sense to everybody who looks at it that they don't understand why you aren't doing it. It makes economic sense. It would allow you to save millions of dollars that you're wasting on the interim waste management authority --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader place his supplementary, please.

Mr Harris: -- since you still need to find money to waste. Why is it that your Premier is writing letters and making statements that are 100% false to justify your stupid position?

1420

Hon Mr Wildman: I've had many discussions with Mayor Mavrinac and I know that he would never use that kind of intemperate language in dealing with this issue.

As a matter of fact, there was a referendum at the time of the municipal election which asked if people favoured the possibility of an environmental assessment and the majority were in favour of an environmental assessment. There is nothing to prevent a proponent from proceeding with an environmental assessment and there never has been, keeping in mind that Bill 143 remains in place and government policy remains in place and that any Environmental Assessment Board would have to take into account the government policy.

Having said that, there was also a recent opinion poll, which polled approximately 1,000 people by telephone in the area, and 57% of that group opposed the use of the Adams mine site for garbage, so there obviously is a division of opinion.

Mr Harris: By way of final supplementary --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The leader with his final supplementary.

Mr Harris: Minister, we have a Premier about to enter into a discussion with their partners, of which we have the mayors and reeves of this province. A lot of the things the Premier is talking about -- he says: "Trust me. We're doing the best thing for the province."

Can you tell me, Minister, how we can proceed with these negotiations when nobody can refute the accurateness and the correctness of the truth of Mayor Mavrinac when he says, "The Premier of the province is propagating this, an absolute bloody lie," when the editorial in the Northern Daily News says, "Either way it's a matter serious enough to question the integrity of the Premier"? Can you explain to me why the Premier would be spreading this kind of information throughout northern Ontario that is obviously incorrect, false, a blatant lie?

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, I won't question whether or not that is in itself parliamentary. I would just say this --

The Speaker: The awkward part is that the member was directing a question to the minister, and in so directing he made a suggestion that the Premier was telling a lie. It's not appropriate language and I would ask the member to withdraw it and to use a different --

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, obviously I've tried to be very careful, and if I have offended you or the House, let me just ask the minister to respond to the mayor of Kirkland Lake's comments. Is the mayor right or wrong?

Hon Mr Wildman: Mayor Mavrinac is the president of the association of Ontario municipalities this year. Most of us have known the mayor for a good number of years and know him to be a hardworking individual who works very hard for his community and for the municipal sector, and all of us know that despite the differences of opinion that we may have as politicians from time to time that Joe Mavrinac never shirks his duty and has been working hard for the municipalities of this province on the basis of the disentanglement and he'll do the same with regard to the social contract.

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question. Leader, is this your second leadoff question?

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Yes, Mr Speaker. Although it was not indicated that the Minister without Portfolio for Finance was going to be absent today, I understand that he's not going to be present in the House. I will, in his absence, address my question to the Chairman of Management Board.

I had thought that the Minister without Portfolio for Finance would have wanted to answer a question which affected the ministry he's involved in as well as his own riding. I also knew that minister would be aware of his own participation in an announcement that was made just two months ago, a reannouncement which was actually a reannouncement of the government's commitment to moving some 310 jobs to Brantford.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I want to hear your position on one single issue. Give us your position.

One. Just one.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I say to the Treasurer so that I can proceed with my question --

Hon Mr Laughren: You ran away from the issues.

The Speaker: Order. Leader.

Mrs McLeod: If the Treasurer could stay a little calm so I can ask another question, I will have arranged to have sent to him immediately the three pages that we provided on Friday of what this government has not done, what it should have done and what we would do if we were in its place.

Now if I may continue with my question to the Chairman of Management Board and remind the Chairman of Management Board that he would be aware, as the Minister without Portfolio for Finance would be aware, of the government's reannouncement just two months ago of its commitment to send 310 jobs to Brantford. The minister will also be aware that last week, in the midst of all the chaotic management, the government announced that those planned moves to six communities, including the 310 jobs going to Brantford, were cancelled.

Minister, we know that land has been sold to the province for some of these moves, that a number of employees have already sold their homes and relocated, and I ask you to tell us today how much money in total has already been spent on these abandoned relocations, how many jobs in those communities will be affected by the cancelled moves and how much money net, Minister, you intend to save as a result of the cancelled relocations.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The leader of the official opposition's question is one that I can't fully answer this afternoon in terms of all of the numbers she has asked for. Let me start out, though, by saying that the relocation reviews that were done were done by the individual ministries involved in those relocations as a part of a very difficult overall process that we've been talking about in this House and elsewhere for some time now around a need to reduce government expenditures.

The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that in terms of the total savings question she asked there are capital aspects to these relocation programs, operating costs aspects to these relocation programs, some of which impact in the Management Board secretariat, some of which impact in the individual ministries in which the relocations were being done. We can certainly pull those numbers together, but I don't have them here this afternoon.

Mrs McLeod: I was asking what I thought was an objective question. I can't believe that the minister cannot give me an immediate response. This government devastated six communities on Friday, six communities that were expecting those jobs because this government promised that it was keeping its commitment. They devastated those communities because they were saving money, they told us, and yet they cannot tell us how much money they were planning to save.

Let me try again. Let me ask the minister: As you know, part of Friday's announcement was that you're reviewing the scale and the timing of the moves to Peterborough, to St Catharines, to Niagara Falls and to Guelph. These communities were also assured just last February that these moves would go ahead as planned. Minister, can you tell us, can you tell those communities today whether the relocations to those four communities are going to be further delayed, how long the delay will be and how much money you plan to save through the delay?

Hon Mr Charlton: The four locations which the Leader of the Opposition has just mentioned, it was announced last Friday those four relocations would proceed. It was also announced last Friday that each of those four relocations would be reviewed as a result of the exercise which was announced last Friday.

I guess lastly it should be pointed out, and pointed out fairly clearly, that the former government, the Liberal government, went into these relocations without having a single clue what the costs would be, what the relocation costs of individuals would be, what the capital costs would be. For the member opposite to get up and make the kinds of comments she's making today just reflects the political nature of the question.

Mrs McLeod: I'm simply asking a question about cost cutting. I thought that was the issue this government put on the table on Friday. I thought it had carried out the most extensive review of expenditures in government's history and I can't get an answer to a question about how much the cut is going to save.

1430

I draw the minister's attention to the announcement that he himself made, along with the Minister without Portfolio, Ministry of Finance, the MPP for Brantford. It was made on February 12, 1993, two months ago, and the minister said, "Today's announcement sends the strongest possible signal to the people of Brantford that the government is fulfilling its pledge to bring economic renewal to the regions through the relocation program, and that we intend to get the shovels in the ground as soon as possible."

Quite clearly, on February 12 this government saw that this was an important and an economically sound initiative. When it announced the cancelled relocations last week, the government also stated that most of the capital saved, a total of $100 million, is going to be redirected to economic development projects in the communities where the relocations were planned.

The question is obvious. You're putting the money back into the communities to support the economic development that the relocations were supposed to support. You're putting the money back so the motive for cancelling the relocations is obviously not cost cutting.

The Speaker: Would the leader place her supplementary, please.

Mrs McLeod: Given you've decided to put the money back, why not give them what they want and go ahead with those relocations?

Hon Mr Charlton: I guess the reason why the Leader of the Opposition has to ask that question is that she doesn't understand the exercise the government went through in terms of trying to bring its operating expenditures under control.

It has been made clear by the Premier and by the Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, from the outset in this project that we want to try and maintain our capital investment in the infrastructure in this province at the same time as bringing the operating expenditures of this government under control. So the capital allocations to which the Leader of the Opposition is referring, we will move out and see that those investments happen in the communities affected, but in addition to the capital costs of these relocation projects, there are significant operating costs associated with both my own ministry and each of the individual ministries involved in those relocations, and it is the operating dollars that we will save.

CARLTON MASTERS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Premier. Last Thursday, Mr Premier, my honourable colleague from York Centre asked you a question about the Carlton Masters affair, to which your response, I would say, was completely unsatisfactory.

Let me put the question again to the honourable member. The perception of interference is very obvious when Julie Davis, the president of your party, and I understand another member of your caucus attend a party which is perceived as a celebration of Mr Masters's vindication. Prior to the release of the report, they attended that.

Tell me, Mr Premier, did you speak to Julie Davis about the case brought against Carlton Masters between the period of the allegation and upon your receipt of the final report?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I spoke to a number of people in very general terms saying only one thing to anybody who would speak to me, including, if I may say so to the honourable member, a number of people who expressed their general concern about Mr Masters's situation. I said to them what I would say to you, and that is that I'm not in a position to discuss the case in any way or any detail except to wait for the results of the process, and that's precisely the kinds of conversations that I had with anybody to whom you are referring.

Mr Curling: I think I got from the Premier's response that he spoke to many people. I presume you spoke to Julie Davis, that she's one of the many people. Obviously, the involvement, Mr Premier, of one of your top advisers in the case sends a clear message that the justice system has not treated Carlton Masters fairly. Also, those were men who came forward. They feel cheated and they feel let down by the process.

I say to you, Mr Premier, unless an independent inquiry into the matter is conducted, neither party will have been properly served by the justice system. How then can the people of Ontario rely on the judgement you rendered against Mr Masters when all the while you were receiving secret political advice from Julie Davis?

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member, he's seen the report that I saw, as all honourable members have seen the report. He may have a different view with respect to the circumstances surrounding the instances recalled and described in the report. I exercised my judgement with respect to the information contained in the report. He may have exercised his judgement differently. Perhaps he'd like at some point to share with people how he would have exercised his judgement differently, given the information that's contained in the report.

These judgements are never easy, but as I said before, and I'll say it again: Given the nature of the report, I think the steps I took were fair and reasonable in the circumstances and I think they will stand the test of time.

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION TAX

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This question is for the Premier.

The government of Ontario cannot bring Ontario out of the recession by itself. In fact, the private sector has a very important and major role to lead Ontario back on to the road of recovery. There are many things that you as a government can do to help the private sector. The first thing that you can do has to do with taxes, that you will not increase taxes and, in fact, if you could, find a way of reducing taxes. It's to that end that I raise this question.

Would your government repeal the disastrous Liberal commercial concentration tax in its consideration of the budget this month?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): First of all, in terms of the general situation, I just can't help recalling for the House that between 1980 and 1984-85, the most recent experience the House has had of a Conservative administration, the compound average annual growth rate of revenue during that administration was 11.2%. That was the revenue growth under the Tories. In a similar period for the Liberals, between 1985 and 1990, the average annual compound increase of revenue was 12.4%. That's a 12.4% average annual increase of revenue. Under the New Democratic Party government for the last two years: minus 1.3%.

I would simply say to the honourable member, given that revenue situation and the problem we find on expenditures and the extent of the recession in the province, I think the contribution that --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I would like nothing better than to be able to go out and say what the honourable member in opposition can say: "I'll lower your taxes. I'll do this." We had the lower sales tax announced in the middle of the last provincial election by the former government. We have these people saying it now. Now, with respect --

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): He asked you about the commercial concentration tax. That's the question. Commercial concentration tax.

Hon Mr Rae: Now I'll get to the question. With respect to the commercial concentration tax, which I understand he's asking, I want to say to the honourable member, I have heard many, many effective, sound and fair representations concerning the commercial concentration tax. So has the Minister of Finance. I can assure the honourable member that when people talk to me about how a tax that was designed by the Liberals to hit and punish the greater Toronto area may have even made a marginal token of sense somewhere back in the middle of the 1980s might make a lot less sense in 1993, I can only say to the honourable member, we're listening very carefully to the kinds of suggestions and recommendations that we're receiving on that score.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Cousens: It's awfully confusing for the poor people who have to listen to this session. A person asks a question and the Premier gets into a rambling response that does not begin to include the economic scene of the early 1980s, when inflation was double-digit and the government was dealing with that in a tangible way. This government is spending far in excess of inflation, and so we don't get answers to our questions.

Having said all that, I hope --

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: There's lots more to say on this subject, lots more. You're going to hear from the Tories on taxes, because if you increase the taxes --

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Markham please take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Could the member quickly place his question, please.

Mr Cousens: I will, Mr Speaker, and thank you for bringing order to these dissidents.

The private sector is reeling from the recession. It's reeling from high taxes already. The private sector and the whole Ontario economy are still reeling from the Liberal and NDP legislation regulations.

1440

A year ago, Mr Premier, our caucus and our leader pleaded with you to repeal Bill 40, a bill that kills jobs and investments in Ontario. To help create jobs and to get the private sector moving again, will your government repeal Bill 40?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Is this his supplementary?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, I know you'll allow wide latitude with respect to what is supplementary and what isn't, and I certainly have no hesitation in responding by saying we have no intention of repealing Bill 40. But I would say to the honourable member that, as I listened carefully to the advice we received from all quarters, no doubt we will reflect on that advice, but I can say to him: What I find amazing about all the fuss and bother about Bill 40 -- I go out and talk to the business community all the time now and I find people --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: No, before, all the time, any time. Look at my schedule in the last two and a half years: There isn't a day that goes by when I'm not having a meeting with the business community.

I will say to the honourable member, I am rather astounded at how quickly moods and attitudes change. I find now people wanting to work constructively with the labour movement. I plan looking hard with respect to things. Perhaps the best example of this is the fellow in Hamilton who, in response to Bill 40 --

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): And the hysteria.

Hon Mr Rae: -- and the hysteria around Bill 40, said that he -- Mr Foxcroft, who has patented athletic mouth guards, which he manufactures -- went down to Buffalo. He said, "I'm going to get out of Ontario because of Bill 40." What's Mr Foxcroft saying now? He's saying: "I'm coming back to Ontario. I'm coming back to Hamilton. I want to do business in Ontario. I want to manufacture in Ontario. It makes more sense; it's cheaper, it's more efficient, it's a better place to produce, it's a better place to do business, it's a better workforce, there's better training, it's a better business environment. I'm going to set my political rhetoric aside and I'm going to get back to work in Hamilton." That's what the business people of the province are doing and that's exactly what's happening all around Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. There was a question about whether or not the supplementary should be accepted. The Premier may note that in his initial response he made an offer to accept advice. The member for Markham was certainly responding to that in terms of his supplementary, and I believe he offered advice.

Start the clock.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Health. It's an attempt to clean up some confusion about tests for prostate cancer. I've heard that if you're a male 60 years or over, you must pay for your own prostate blood test, but if you're under 60, the test is free.

My question is: Is it true that men under the age of 60, working, with an income, get this prostate blood test free when the over-60-year-old men, retired and on a fixed income, have to pay for it?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to have a question on this issue, because it's one about which there is in fact a great deal of confusion, and I've had a certain amount of correspondence from people who share the belief of the member's constituent that in fact there is some kind of arbitrary distinction.

I think a couple of points need to be made. First of all, this test is relatively new and questions about its value and its effectiveness have not been resolved by the medical community. For that reason, the ministry has no funded screening program for this PSA test. What is happening is that some hospitals are in fact using the test, so if a patient receives the test in a hospital, that is then covered by the hospital's global budget. If the hospital refers the patient to an outside laboratory, then there is no funding. That's the distinction. It is not yet a test which the ministry is funding.

Mr Mills: Thank you very much for the answer, Madam Minister. My supplementary is, do you foresee a time when this test will be free to every male no matter what his age is?

Hon Mrs Grier: Because of the interest in this test and the need to confirm whether or not it is effective, the ministry has established an expert committee which will make recommendations to the ministry on the effectiveness of the test, and any policy decisions will have to await the findings and the work of that committee.

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food today. As the minister knows, Friday was a very black day for the riding of Timiskaming. The government made two decisions that dealt really a death blow to the economies of the twin towns of New Liskeard and Haileybury, and quite frankly I and my constituents are still reeling from those announcements.

As to the cancellation of the relocation of Ministry of Natural Resources jobs to Haileybury, while I disagree and believe it was wrong, at least it's apparent to all of us where the pressures came from and why that decision was made. But it is not obvious at all, nor apparent, why you and your ministry, Minister, decided to close the New Liskeard College of Agricultural Technology.

We believe in restraint, but we don't believe in mismanagement, and from what I've been able to reconstruct as to the decision-making process of the last few weeks, this decision came with a great deal of haste. It appears this was a decision that was taken without looking at the full impact to the community and to the agricultural industry of northern Ontario and the province as a whole.

Minister, the college has now formed a union-management committee and a community committee and it's preparing a cost-benefit study and a financial impact study. Minister, I'm asking you today to take a look at those studies.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'm not exactly sure what the question was, other than the final part of it asking me to take a look at a study that's being conducted. I want to assure the member for Timiskaming that, sure, I will look at any study that's produced by anyone who is related to the agricultural community.

I think the question was more fairly in his preamble leading up the final point, and that is, why close colleges at all? I want the member to know that we looked at all of the colleges, including the Ontario Agricultural College at Guelph, and looked at the overcapacity that we currently have in the college system. Some people have called for us to close more than just two, that we might reduce the number down to just two and close another two colleges in addition to what we've already done. We tried to match up the capacity we need by closing a couple of the colleges and seeing what happens next.

I understand the member's point of view, that this was the only college in the north and that there were some programs and some importance attributed to that college. We will be looking at things we can do to accommodate some of the very essential services and extension programs that this college offered for northern farmers, and we'll make sure we do the best job we can in continuing some of those programs without having the college there as a physical structure to carry on those programs.

Mr Ramsay: Minister, I would certainly ask that you take a look at those studies, because you certainly have an inkling of some of the problems there and some of the services that this college provides. I really can't understand, with that evidence, that you would make that decision, because you really have given a kick in the teeth of northern agriculture. This historically has been the Ontario government's outpost for northern agriculture. It was centred in 1922 in the clay belt, has done field trials since then, has been a full college for the last 25 years. It's done that field search. It's done Ontario-wide research for sheep, cattle and horses today, and it's the only diploma-granting institution for equine studies that supports the $500-million equine industry in Ontario.

Minister, this is the wrong decision. It's the sole provider of innovation and training for northern agriculture, and again I implore you to take another look at this decision, to look at these studies and to work with the community to see how we can reduce some of those expenditures and maybe raise revenues from that institution so that we can better agriculture in northern Ontario.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I don't want the member to be under any illusion here. We're not going to revisit the decision. That decision has been made and that will be firm. We will look at how we can maintain some of the other programs and some of the important -- he mentioned the test plots. Some of that activity can continue with other colleges as the support for those test plots, and there's a number of things we can do without actually having a college there. But I do not want him to be under any illusion that any committee is going to come up with a recommendation that we should reverse our decision. That's not on. The decision has been made, and we're very firm on that.

1450

LAND TRANSFER TAX

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue: The non-resident portion of the land transfer tax was established in 1974 in response to non-resident purchasers of farm land in Ontario. The tax is deferred if the individual becomes a landed immigrant. In 1991, Albertus Boercamp and his family purchased a dairy farm and moved to Atwood in Perth county. Six weeks later, at the age of 50, Mr Boercamp passed away.

Your strict insistence on the technical interpretation of the act certainly does not make me recall the NDP of old, the NDP we used to know. If the family had any indication that Mr Boercamp was seriously ill, they would have put the wife on title, or the children, and there would have been no tax. The family continues to farm, reside and pay taxes in Ontario. It is not a complicated matter to recognize that the act was not aimed at people who have had the mishap that the Boercamps have.

Cabinet has discretion in this instance, Mr Treasurer. Would you look at this situation and correct it the way it should be?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I do happen to be aware of this issue and recently wrote a letter back to the family's lawyer, which you have a copy of, I understand. When I wrote back I agreed to reduce the tax liability of the family by 50%, as I recall, in the letter back to the family.

I was concerned about a couple of things. One is tax consistency, even though I don't disagree that sometimes, when tax legislation is written, it has to be so precise that it can cause a problem with the implementation of the statute. I appreciate that. In this case, I thought we went some way to meeting the problem by reducing the tax by, as I recall -- it's a couple of weeks ago now, but I believe that the liability was reduced by about 50%, and I really did think that was the kind of compromise that would satisfy everybody without treating previous taxpayers who had been through the same problem differently than this family.

Mr Villeneuve: Just to quote your letter, in the last paragraph it says: "The outstanding account may be reduced by one half." It does not say it will; it "may" be reduced. The one reason why this family did not meet its commitment was because the father and owner of the property passed away, unfortunately. This takes the NDP tax-grabbing to an unbelievably low point.

Will the Treasurer not agree? These people fully intend to stay. They're farming now with two sons. They're paying taxes. They're not going to fly away on us. They are residents of Ontario in spite of the fact that the father has passed away. Would you not look at this and say: "Look, you now are residents. You comply. You don't owe the tax"?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, I'll take a look at it, but the arguments the member makes are very similar to the ones that were made most passionately to me by the member for Perth, Karen Haslam. That's why I went back and looked at the whole matter, because I was concerned about it, because technically 100% of that tax can be applied and not changed whatsoever. That's why I thought that a 50% reduction, while it didn't go all the way to giving a 100% reduction --

Mr Villeneuve: It said "may"; you only said "may."

Hon Mr Laughren: All right, but I'm making a commitment to the member here and now that I will take a look at that and make sure that that 50% is more than just a "may" but is a reality, and get back to the honourable member in that regard.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I have an opinion piece here in the St Catharines Standard. It says: "Time and Tide of Technology Overtaking OWMC." In it, environmental reporter Doug Draper questions the need for the Ontario Waste Management Corp to continue with its bid to build a permanent toxic waste incinerator in West Lincoln. Mr Draper argues that there is a new generation of technology that could potentially serve as alternatives to OWMC's proposed toxic monstrosity: "Two of the more impressive alternative systems have been developed by Canadians and are getting more respect abroad than they are here in Ontario. Both are mobile. One destroys toxins using a chemical reaction rather than burning."

Would the minister agree that, given this new technology, it is no longer feasible for the OWMC to build its $400-million white elephant?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I know the member's concern about this issue, and I appreciate the question. He will know that the hearing before the joint board for environmental approval of the proposed hazardous waste treatment and destruction facility is expected to be concluded in early May. We anticipate that the decision will be rendered within six months of the hearing's finish. I don't want to prejudge the panel's rulings, but obviously, should the joint board approve the facility, the government would then have to decide what its next step will be.

We should all recognize that we will have to look very carefully at the numbers and the costs involved, as well as the rulings that we hear from the board, but we also should all recognize that this is only one component of the government's overall hazardous waste management plan for Ontario. The

most important approach we have is the 3Rs -- reduce, reuse and recycle -- so that we can reduce the amount of waste that would have to be dealt with by any such facility.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, I want to raise with you a point of order. Since the ministers without portfolio with responsibility for certain departmental affairs are now to attend to answer questions, we would respectfully request that we be advised when they are absent. We have been caught today with the absence of one of those ministers without portfolio. It seems to me, sir, that we need to be advised fully of the duties of those ministers without portfolio and, as a result, their attendances. I wonder if you might look into that particular issue for us.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Bruce will know that there is not anything in the standing orders which will assist me in trying to comply with his request. I understand that there is an informal agreement among the parties to circulate a list or to indicate to the opposition members who is expected in question period and who isn't. Perhaps that matter can be dealt with at the normal three House leaders' meeting that occurs on Thursday mornings, I understand.

Did the House leader wish to be of assistance?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just very briefly, Mr Speaker. Although I'm prepared to sit down with my colleagues and have a discussion about the issue they've raised, the agreement that was reached at some time in the distant past -- long before my time, obviously -- about notification is an agreement that's been carried on in this House.

Unfortunately, we've been proceeding -- and I think it was made clear in our position last week -- on the basis of notification around ministers responsible for ministries. We hadn't discussed any change in that procedure, so we're certainly prepared to discuss it with them at this point.

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition that has been forwarded to me by Major Ivan McNeilly, who is the divisional commander of the Salvation Army, Ontario central division, in Belleville. It's signed by many people in my riding, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

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

"Whereas credible academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

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

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I sign my name to this petition.

1500

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition that says:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas all individuals of Ontario must be treated within the spirit of a free and democratic society; and

"Whereas the individuals must be treated by government in a manner consistent with the Ontario and international human rights codes;

"Whereas these codes demand that government respect the inherent worth and dignity of the human person;

"Whereas in the municipality of Penetanguishene, the following did take place:

"Whereas the municipality advertised in the local paper that housekeeping revisions to the Zoning Bylaw Report 1993-303 would be discussed on March 22, 1993, at the municipal office;

"Whereas some of the so-called housekeeping revisions changed the zoning from M1 to IRSD, to IRS, and other changes; and

"Whereas the individuals reading the advertisement had no indication that their property was involved and to be changed from industrial to residential;

"Whereas such conduct is a disgrace in a free and democratic society;

"Whereas such conduct cannot be labelled service to the people of a municipality;

"Whereas it seems to me it should be labelled 'Stabbing the citizens in the back, removal of participation, removal of the democratic process and replacing it with a dictatorship;'

"Whereas, after investigating the matter, it became apparent that the Planning Act authorized and sanctioned such action, here the blame must also be placed on our provincial government, which permits the Planning Act to turn democracy into a dictatorship and turns inherent worth and dignity of the human person into false and misleading propaganda slogans,

"I, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To revise the Planning Act and any other act in such a manner that such conduct, as shown above and experienced in the town of Penetanguishene, never can take place again in Ontario. Also permit me to address the legislative proper committee where I, in a participatory manner, can show how the people are treated and how the people should be treated."

That's signed by Mr Henry W. Freitag, box 838, 70 Lorne Avenue, Penetanguishene, Ontario, L0K 1P0.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Again, I add to the thousands of petitions that have been made against casino gambling in Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted with the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

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

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

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

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this very fine petition.

HOME CARE

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition with over 900 signatures, and it's addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario for wanting to eliminate the private sector for home care services in Ontario. We, the undersigned, feel the government should reconsider its position on this matter."

This is from the residents of the Cornwall and SD&G ridings, and I also have signed this petition.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a petition to support Bill 80 and it's signed by 289 construction workers:

"We, the undersigned construction workers, urge all members of the provincial Parliament to vote in favour of Bill 80, as submitted for first reading."

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a petition from the Ottawa district post-polio association that reads:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a post-polio clinic in the rehabilitation centre of Ottawa-Carleton for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients and to disseminate information so that the estimated 1,000 known polio survivors in the centre's catchment area can receive adequate treatment and that the medical profession be educated regarding the post-polio syndrome."

I have signed the petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Like a few other members, I have a couple of petitions, one from the Oxford presbyterial United Church women and the other one from St David's United Church council, expressing their opposition to casino gambling, and that's addressed to the Legislative Assembly.

HISTORIC VEHICLES

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I would like to present another petition, if I may. it's from a Mr Robert Barkley, who is the vice-president of the Model A Restorers' Club in the Kingston region. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas government funding is supplied for the restoration and maintenance of historic buildings and sites, both public and privately owned, financing museums and the preservation of Ontario heritage;

"Whereas historic vehicle owners receive no assistance in the restoration or maintenance of these fine examples of an integral part of the history and heritage of Ontario,

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

"We, the members of Ontario antique auto clubs and concerned citizens, respectfully request an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act and regulations permitting a 'one-time-only' licence fee valid as long as the registered owner retains ownership, for 35 years and older historic vehicles with an option to register and legally display 'year of manufacture' plates in place of current issue historic vehicle plates.

"Modified vehicles, kit cars or street rods are not eligible."

I add my name to this petition.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): I have a petition signed here by approximately 30 people from Stratford. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

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

"To change the current policy of evaluating the amounts of welfare and family benefits payments to recipients. We believe the net amount of welfare and family benefits should never exceed the net amount that is earned at minimum wage (based on a 40-hour week) regardless of the family's circumstances. Low wage earners should be entitled to the same benefits as welfare recipients; eg, prescriptions and emergency dental. Low wage earners deserve the privilege to net the same amount as welfare."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LONG-TERM CARE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

Mrs Grier moved third reading of Bill 101, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long-Term Care / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les soins de longue durée.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The minister has moved third reading of Bill 101. Does the minister have any opening remarks?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do have some comments and I'm delighted to have this opportunity to, I hope, bring to a conclusion what has been a very long process. It's my pleasure to move third reading of Bill 101 because I think it brings us one step closer to making long-term care reform a reality in Ontario through these important amendments to existing long-term care legislation.

We are at a point of a new departure in long-term care, and we have arrived at this point through the hard work and persistent efforts of very many people: hundreds of consumers, service providers and advocacy groups that have participated in consultations, program design activities and public hearings on Bill 101; the members of the standing committee on social development; and several ministers of Community and Social Services and Health over the years, as well as the Minister of Citizenship.

I hope that all members will recognize that this legislation is a starting point for comprehensive reform of how long-term care and support services are planned, managed and delivered by and for consumers.

The policy framework document which was released to the public on April 7, 1993, outlines our vision of a cohesive, community-focused system of integrated health and social long-term care and support services.

Over the coming months, communities, under the leadership of their district health councils, will be called upon to participate in local planning activities for the purpose of developing local strategic plans for the design and implementation of the long-term care services that best meet their needs and their priorities. The legislation before us today is the first step towards realizing this vision.

1510

Members, I know, are familiar with the purpose of the bill, but I want to review briefly the key objectives of the legislation and then move on to address in greater detail the amendments that were made by the social development committee. Bill 101 will enable us to achieve fundamental and long-overdue reforms in nursing homes and homes for the aged.

Amendments to the Nursing Homes Act, the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act and the Charitable Institutions Act will introduce, first, a more equitable method of funding homes based on the levels-of-care funding scheme for nursing and personal care; secondly, a fair and consistent resident payment policy based on ability to pay -- residents will contribute to the cost of their accommodation only and will no longer be charged for care; third, there will be a province-wide system for coordinating access to facility services and assisting consumers to gain access to the home of their choice and the home that best meets their particular needs; and finally, we will have a new framework for accountability to facility residents, to their families and to the government.

Bill 101 will also enable the introduction of the direct funding model of service to assist adults with disabilities to choose, direct and manage their own services in support of independent living.

As the members of the House know, during the winter intersession the standing committee on social development held public hearings in seven areas of the province. Over 170 presentations and over 200 submissions were made to the committee by consumers, family care givers, service providers, advocacy groups and professional associations. Strong support was expressed for many aspects of the reform, and very clear concerns were expressed about certain features of the bill.

This government, as well as our opposition colleagues, took these concerns seriously, and in a spirit of great cooperation adopted a number of important amendments during clause-by-clause review by the social development committee.

I believe the single most important aspect of those changes is the fact that they strengthen the primacy of the consumer in the long-term care system, and consumer rights protections and safeguards.As a result, it is my opinion that the bill has been improved substantially, and I thank the members of the committee for that work.

One of the issues that was raised by many of the people appearing before the committee was placement coordination, and extensive amendments have been made to the placement coordination provisions in the bill to clarify our intent that it is the consumer who chooses what home he or she will live in. If the consumer requests the assistance of the placement coordinator in selecting a home, when providing such assistance the placement coordinator will be required to take into account the person's preferences based on ethnic, spiritual, linguistic, familial and cultural factors. It's very important to emphasize those factors.

In addition, provisions have been added to require that the applicant consent to an admission. These changes ensure that no one can be forced to enter a home against his or her wishes.

As many members are aware, over time various ethnic, religious and cultural groups have developed charitable homes for the aged and nursing homes to meet the specific needs of members of their particular communities. The amendments that have been made will ensure that a person's preference to enter a particular home is respected and facilitated, and that no one can or will be forced to enter a home designed to meet the needs of persons with a different ethnic, spiritual, linguistic or cultural background.

These amendments also ensure that a person's familial ties and needs are respected and that persons needing care in a facility can enter the same home where his or her spouse or other family member resides.

During the hearings, operators of homes also expressed concern that they might be forced to accept persons whose care requirements could not be met within their particular facility. As a consequence, provisions requiring that a home approve an admission and the grounds on which a home can refuse to admit a person have been incorporated into the statutory amendments.

If the home, for example, lacks the physical facilities or if the staff of a home lack the nursing expertise necessary to meet the person's care requirements, the home may refuse or approve the admission. Additional grounds for refusal can be prescribed in the regulations.

We also heard concerns from several individuals and groups about the need to provide assistance in finding alternative services for consumers who are not eligible for facility care and for those who are eligible but face a waiting period to get into the home of their choice. To ensure that such assistance is provided, the bill has been amended to require the placement coordinator to suggest alternative services or make appropriate referrals on behalf of such individuals.

Another issue that raised much concern was that of assessments. To ensure that when a placement coordinator is making an authorization for admission the records of the applicant's needs are up to date, a new requirement has been added to the bill stating that the assessment for eligibility must have taken place within the preceding six months. This will help ensure that only persons whose needs can be met appropriately in nursing homes and homes for the aged and who are in the greatest need are admitted.

Further provisions have been added to require the placement coordinator, when determining eligibility, to take into account assessments made by health practitioners, including physicians and other health professionals, relating to the person's condition and assessments or other information relating to the person's requirements for medical treatment, health care or other personal care.

A number of the groups appearing before the committee represented veterans' organizations, and members will be aware the Rideau Veterans Home and the Perley Hospital are being redeveloped to create the new Perley Rideau Veterans Long Term Care Facility in Ottawa.

The Royal Canadian Legion made several representations to the committee and to me personally about the need to maintain priority access to veterans' beds once the redesigned facility is in operation. To address this concern, a concern that members of the committee indeed held and brought to my attention -- and I thank the member for Simcoe West for his particular concern on this issue, as was the member for Chatham very concerned in particular about this one --

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): What about the member for Ottawa-Rideau?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member for Ottawa-Rideau, all members of the committee. Can I be generic in this debate? There were some who in fact heckled and interrupted my remarks, may I say to the member for Ottawa-Rideau, which had me respond to them directly, which I know is a mistake and merely leads other members to consider that their particular contribution was not valuable. I want to assure all of them that the bill has been much improved, as I said in the opening of my remarks, as a result of the constructive cooperation that was evident on all sides during the discussion and during the clause-by-clause debate.

However, to address the particular concern that had been raised by the Royal Canadian Legion, provisions to ensure that preference is given to veterans for access to certain beds in the new facility have been added to the Charitable Institutions Act and the Nursing Homes Act.

This additional provision incorporated into Bill 101 places a statutory obligation on the minister to ensure that preference is given to veterans for access to beds in this home that (1) are funded through an agreement between the government of Ontario and the government Canada relating to veterans and (2) are designated by the minister as veterans' priority access beds.

The next issue I want to address is that of appeal from eligibility decisions. Improvements have been made to the appeal process regarding eligibility for facility admission. The 30-day time limit, within which a person who is found ineligible has to appeal the decision, has been eliminated in recognition of the fact that some consumers and their families would need more time to prepare for and participate in the process. The appeals will be heard by a three-person panel rather than just one person, as originally proposed.

1520

The bill also originally indicated that no more than one physician could participate in the panel, and this restriction has been eliminated. To ensure that appeal proceedings and decisions are carried out expeditiously, the bill has been amended to require that a hearing must begin within 21 days after the appeal board receives the application for a hearing. The board must render a decision within one day after the end of the hearing and provide written decisions to the appropriate parties within seven days after rendering its decision.

In keeping with the belief of this government, a belief I know our colleagues in opposition share, that the long-term care facility system must be focused on improving the quality of care and the life of residents, the bill has been amended in several ways to empower consumers and to enhance residents' safeguards and protections.

Support for incorporating the residents' bill of rights and residents' councils, currently only in nursing homes, into legislation governing municipal and charitable homes for the aged was overwhelming. All residents of homes will now have these protections, which clarify what the resident should expect and what the home is expected to carry out.

The written notice that every resident is to receive describing the services the home is required to provide under the service agreement with the province must include the bill of rights and a statement of the obligation of the home to respect and promote those rights. The bill of rights is now included among the items that the home is required to post visible in the home.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is this the environmental bill of rights?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member for St Catharines asks if it's the environmental bill of rights, and I'm glad to be able to assure him that I certainly hope before very long that that right will join the list of rights that the people of this province are entitled to.

Transitional provisions for substitute decision-making, modelled on the Consent to Treatment Act, have been incorporated into the bill and will be in effect until the Substitute Decisions Act comes into force. This will ensure that persons with the appropriate authority are identified to make decisions on behalf of the individuals who are not capable.

In addition, the bill has been amended to clarify that residents and their substitute decision-makers can participate fully in the development of the plan of care to be created for each resident.

We heard many concerns about the quality assurance provisions in the bill and many suggestions for an alternative to the term "quality assurance," which many groups and individuals felt did not encompass the concept and expectation of continuous improvement in quality.

The legislation now requires each home to ensure that a quality management system is developed and implemented, and the bill states specifically that the purpose of the system is to monitor, evaluate and improve the quality of accommodation, care, services, programs and goods provided to residents of the home.

Appropriate revisions to the requirement that a home provide a written notice to each resident and post certain information in the home also have also been changed to reflect the addition of the bill of rights and residents' councils and transitional substitute decision-making provisions.

The committee heard many arguments against the inspection powers, arguments which I believe are based largely on misconceptions and misunderstandings that many people had. I want to state clearly that we will continue to have inspections of facilities providing care to some of our most vulnerable citizens. We can do no less.

Consumer and advocacy groups such as the Ontario Association of Residents Councils and Concerned Friends indicated their support for inspections. Their criticism of the process, a criticism with which I happen to agree, has to do with the frustrating and difficult task of getting some homes to correct the problems that have been identified by the inspectors.

While inspections will continue with some modifications in the rules, which will be explained in further detail by my parliamentary assistant, the member for Simcoe Centre, I want to stress that we are by no means moving away from the collaborative and cooperative approach now employed by the province's program supervisors and compliance advisers.

These staff will continue to work in partnership with homes through consultation, problem-solving and supportive relationships to work continuously to improve the quality of care and services in nursing homes and homes for the aged. However, where this collaborative approach does not achieve the desired results, we will act to protect the residents.

I believe I've covered the key changes and improvements to the bill and I'm sure the Minister of Community and Social Services, if he's able to return, or our respective parliamentary assistants and other members will wish to add to my comments and share their personal perspectives on the amendments.

In closing, I want to make a special point of commending the standing committee on social development and its Chair and the many individuals and groups who participated in the public hearings and put forward their ideas and suggestions for improving the bill and the long-term care system in general. I firmly believe in the value of open public debate and consultation on proposed legislation which makes it possible for this Legislature to be responsive and responsible to the people of Ontario.

I mentioned the work of the Chair and I want to particularly stress my admiration and respect for the work of the member for York North, and indeed for all the members of the committee, for the spirit of cooperation with which they approached the clause-by-clause review of the bill. The member for York North was one of those who I think began the debate on long-term care, which is, I hope, ending today with the passage of this piece of legislation.

It is a piece of legislation that many in the province and certainly many of the institutions have long awaited, because with its passage in fact an equitable system of funding can begin to flow to those homes, many of which have been pressing us for just this day to occur.

The opposition members of the committee indicated from the outset of clause-by-clause debate on the bill that they recognized and supported proceeding with the facility funding reforms in particular and that they would not hold up passage of the bill, and I appreciate that constructive response very much.

I'm delighted that we are all in agreement on the need to move ahead with long-term care reform and I look forward to the full support of the House today for this very important and long-awaited piece of legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions and/or comments on the minister's statement? The honourable member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mrs O'Neill: I must begin by stating that I found some of the closing remarks of the minister very difficult to accept. It had to be a slip of the tongue when she said that today she hopes these are ending the discussions on long-term care that the member for York North began, because this document has certainly yet to come into life.

The second event that we are long awaiting is what we're looking forward to as having been described as a real complex piece of long-term reform in health care, which we were told about during committee. At this present time Bill 101 is but amending seven bills. What we are expecting is real reform in the place of a piece of legislation devoted just to that. So I find that very confusing.

The minister's statements, much anecdotal reporting done here about the committee. What I find is we still don't have much in the way of commitment in time lines, fuzzy details of financing, and we still don't know how this is going to affect the communities.

I'll have more to say as the debate progresses.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

The honourable member for Burlington South.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I listened with interest, but let me for the first time, at least in the House, welcome the new minister to her portfolio. Certainly long-term care is a matter which has been discussed at her cabinet table while she was the Minister of the Environment, but now as the Minister of Health she would have had a much more complete and fuller briefing.

What was noticeably absent from her comments was the very significant fact that these extended care services, which are the subject of the bill we will be debating this afternoon in the House -- and I understand we may be voting this evening -- that in fact it is the NDP government's decision in this bill to remove extended care services from the OHIP formulary of insured benefits.

1530

Now that, I believe, is a very significant decision on the part of the government which will have long-range implications. I would have hoped that in this spirit of openness and candour, the minister would have brought that very obvious element of this bill to the attention of the public, because it does remove as an insured benefit a right of a citizen who lives in this province who requires extended care services at a frail period of his or her health. It is being removed by this government, and they are now left subject to the control and the regulatory arm of a bureaucrat of the state.

In these times, that decision is a substantive one and carries with it a lot of responsibility. As seniors all across Ontario are reeling from this government's recent decision on cutbacks to the Ontario drug benefit formulary and other significant decisions which adversely affect seniors, this statement, within the context of this bill of removing extended care services from the formulary, should not pass today without it being brought to the attention of Ontario seniors.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's interesting that we are dealing with this particular bill, long-term care, on the first business day after the province has been shaken to its very roots by what was described as a mini-budget, one which has fully indicated it will take well over $1 billion out of the health care industry, a significantly sized reduction in anybody's imagination. It has a significant implication for delivering to the people who most need our services health care at a time when our province is struggling with coming to grips with the new world.

I had the opportunity of meeting with Mr Don Moore, who is working at Brucelea Haven in Walkerton, and speaking to him as a person who is working in the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors and listening to his concerns about all of the changes that were coming at us in this province. We talked at length about a number of things, but he provided me with a copy of the presentation made at the standing committee on social development by Robert Pettitt and also one made by the association itself in February, 1993.

I've taken a look at both of those and looked at some of the salient points which were being addressed, and I must say that I came, near the end of the presentation by Mr Pettitt, to what is really the crux of the delivery of all the services in the government's mandate, and that is the issue of funding. Because without funding, without adequately paying the salaries of people who deliver services, nothing good can happen, and in this case the proof will indeed be in the pudding.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We can accommodate one final participant. The honourable Minister without Portfolio attached --

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister without Portfolio in Health): And member for Perth.

The Acting Speaker: And member for Perth -- attached to Health.

Hon Mrs Haslam: I just wanted to mention that I'm very, very pleased to be working with the minister and to have this legislation come forward today for third reading. I think we all agree it's necessary to look at this type of legislation. It's a beginning, not an end, of our long-term care reform and I look forward to working very closely with all members of the House to be sure that this is step one on addressing some of the concerns that our seniors have in the homes for the aged.

Around funding, I think that we are looking at a more equal access to the area of homes for the aged. As I just wanted to reiterate, I am very, very pleased to join the minister today in saying that we're really pleased to see this legislation go through.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was just inquiring whether or not a minister without portfolio who has responsibility for the carriage of activities in the ministry can actually participate by way of comment on a bill which is in her own ministry's undertaking when it is being shepherded through the House by the minister herself. It seems to me, a minister who is likewise responsible for that ministerial obligation should not be able to use up the private members' or backbench members' allocated comment time, and I would ask you, sir, to study that issue because the Minister without Portfolio is responsible for the Ministry of Health. I think, sir, that would mean that both the minister, however they describe themselves now, and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Health should not be allowed to comment at the same time on the minister's communication to the floor. So if you could provide us with some information, that would be quite helpful.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. It's an interesting comment that you make. It's my understanding that a parliamentary assistant or a junior minister cannot ask questions, but during questions and/or comments it is open to all members, as the junior minister could also be carrying the legislation.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to know if there was a rule against silly points of order on the part of the opposition.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: I want to agree with the member for Ottawa-Rideau that, of course, this is only the first step and I think I made that clear in my comments when I referred to the policy framework document I know she has in her possession that I released, and acknowledge indeed, that will require another piece of legislation. That is why I certainly look forward to swift passage of this piece because it is essential in order to lay the underpinnings and the foundation, and within the institutional side of much of what is to follow, as we have a broader debate about the implementation of the framework for long-term care.

The second point I want to make in response to the constant interruptions of the member for Bruce is to reiterate, as I have said in public many times, that the reason this government is taking some very difficult decisions, making some unpleasant choices, is because we have priorities. One of our priorities is to reform the long-term care services of this province and to turn those services into a system, something that has not happened despite years of debate about long-term care.

Let me reassure the member for Bruce that, as part of the expenditure reductions, as part of the expenditure reallocation, the $647-million increase in expenditures on long-term care that was committed by my predecessor and by other ministers is still there, is still what we anticipate the increase to be and just as soon as this piece of this legislation is passed, the funding is there to begin to flow to the institutions, the homes for the aged and the nursing homes that have been surviving with inadequate levels-of-care funding during the years of the previous government and that now await eagerly the passage of Bill 101.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The minister's time has elapsed. Further debate on Bill 101, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long Term Care.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): As we're going through the third reading debate on Bill 101, which, as you know, amends several acts in order to introduce level-of-care funding for nursing homes and charitable homes for the aged, I think that it's right and I think many other people will reflect and be concerned and have the same sense of trepidation as I do.

We have, as you know, in our party a commitment to support this bill, which does provide level-of-care funding between the two kinds of institutions, each of which provides care which has been studied and determined to be equivalent in the needs of people who require that care.

1540

However, when I say we approach this bill now with trepidation, I will tell you that we are looking at even a completely changed circumstance than we were viewing when we dealt with this bill in committee a few short weeks ago. I just want to walk through the funding issues because, you see, some 75,000 people, to use the government's own figure, participated in a consultation process that led to not only this document but to the green document, Partnerships in Long-Term Care, which the minister put on the table a couple of weeks ago.

Those 75,000 people, as a result of those consultations, have built up expectations with respect to service delivery, with respect to how funds will be allocated and spent within their own community, with respect to what protection they will have in terms of accessing and obtaining a place, finding a place in a long-term care system. I want to, however, walk through some of the parameters until we reach last Friday.

Last June, the Minister of Community and Social Services announced in a statement to the Legislature that funding commitments for long-term care redirection would include $647 million in new funding by 1996-97. Of the $647 million about $440 million would be directed to community programs. The remaining one third -- that is, $200 million -- would be spent on facility services, a combination of provincial funds and facility resident payments. Subsequently we discovered that the facility resident payments would in fact be $150 million of the $200 million.

Then, in the same announcement, the figures change and we are told that of the $637-million commitment to long-term care services, a minimum of $37.6 million will be provided over a five-year period through a transfer of existing funds from the provincial hospital budget to long-term care community-based services, and then we are told that the $200 million in facility services would come from a $56-million provincial contribution and the $150 million in copayments or resident fees.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The Minister of Health has left the floor just briefly for other business. I would like to ask, is the member for Simcoe Centre, the member for Durham-York or the member for Perth actually carrying the bill while the minister is absent?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Elston: The question is, is the junior minister or are the parliamentary assistants responsible for the bill?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, I was just behind your seat. I had not left the chamber and I was attempting to get some further information that would contribute to the debate. It is my intent to be here most of the afternoon in the anticipation that we will finish the debate today, as I hope the member for Bruce has agreed. In my absence the member for Simcoe Centre, who has carried this bill in committee and in consultation, will be here to deal with any issues that may be raised.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Elston: I thank the minister for clarifying the fact that the junior minister does not have carriage of the bill when she is here but that the parliamentary assistant does.

The Acting Speaker: We resume debate.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Halton Centre has the floor.

Mrs Sullivan: Thank you. I was addressing the entire question of the $647 million in funding which was announced last June. At various times the government has indicated that $440 million would be directed to community programs. Then we start to look at some of the figures which are included, by example, in the long-term care funding description which came out in April.

We are told that $133.5 million will be allocated to expand integrated homemakers; $37.6 million to expand community support services; $40 million for services in support of housing; and $56 million, plus the extra $150 million which comes directly out of the patients' pockets for increased residents' payments, will increase services in facilities. There will be additional funds of some $200 million to finance in-home services in general. No expectation of any further disclosures there but, once again, a conflict in all of these different figures that we're seeing from time to time.

Then on Friday the bomb drops. In Ministry of Health initiatives with respect to the expenditure control plan, we look down at "Population Health and Community Services System" and discover this quote: "Long-term care will proceed as announced, with expenditures adjusted to reflect the need for the development and approval of community implementation plans." The chop beside that line is $100 million. Included in that chop is an additional chop to public health services, which are a significant part of the government approach to long-term care.

The continuum of care, which we have been discussing over a period of time, means that as well as facility care, the community services would include health promotion and disease prevention programs. Yet where are the chops?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Halton Centre has the floor, is participating in the debate. Other members will have the opportunity to question or to comment as soon as the member has completed her participation. Please allow her the opportunity. The member for Halton Centre.

Mrs Sullivan: I will reiterate: The buildup of expectations with respect to funding announcements in the past have been completely undermined as a result of one announcement to chop $100 million out of the health care budget, particularly as it's directed to long-term care. The second area is that the municipalities are also having the rug cut out from under their feet, and for many, in fact, for about 30,000 of the 60,000 beds that we have in Ontario in long-term care, the funding comes from the municipal base.

What is happening now is that people who are employed in those facilities are having the rug cut out from underneath them. The property tax base is being hit once again. There is a buildup of expectations with respect to the services which are going to be delivered on an equivalent basis, no matter where the resident is located, and all of a sudden the money is being yanked away: in one way, out of the entire allocation from the ministry; in the second way, out of the allocation to the municipalities.

As I look at and reflect on the people who came before our committee believing that there was going to be a system in place that was funded with a consistency -- certainly in terms of this government, more of a consistency in its announcements than has surrounded most other health care announcements, the $647 million -- all of a sudden we are faced with an announcement that expenditures will be adjusted. Well, the $100 million that sits beside those two areas of public health and community health and long-term care is very worrisome indeed.

How, then, is the government going to make that chop? Where is it going to come from? Is it going to come from the facility base? How many more beds will of necessity close? How many more community-based agencies, which are to provide the services if there is a freeze on new beds -- as there is a freeze on new beds -- will be starved to the point where they cannot fill in the slack, and how many people will again be disappointed because they cannot have their needs met in any community, let alone in those communities which we know are underbedded and underserviced in terms of community agencies and facilities that exist in those places?

1550

I don't know how to say it, other than to say there is a breach of faith here. The government has led people on to believe that services will be in place, that they will be delivered within a certain time line in a certain way, and yet now we see, with no other explanation than one or two lines in the expenditure control plan, an indication that $100 million is being cut out of a $647-million expansion of home care services. That's more than one sixth. We don't know where those cuts are coming from, but I'll tell you, the $100 million that's shown there is only a portion of what's now being cut.

I want to move to other areas in association with the funding issue, because as the bill was being discussed in committee, it became very clear that in addition to concern about the availability and the funding flow of that $647 million, there was a concern that for each person entering a long-term care facility, a home for the aged or a nursing home, a plan of care was to be developed for that person, but nowhere was the government obligated to cover the costs of providing the services that were described in that plan of care.

If I can take the liberty of referring to some of the very important interventions which were made to committee on this issue:

The nursing homes association said, "Facilities must have the flexibility in meeting their service agreements, especially when they do not have sufficient resources."

Other intervenors indicated, "Service agreements should include a commitment to the funding needed to fulfil the requirement of a service agreement."

When we move to the care plan, we see indications that "The care plan must be financed appropriately so that the services required by the patient can be met within the amounts of money which the government provides to meet those service plans."

The plans of care, basically, have to be more than promises. They have to be commitments to the resident with respect to the health and personal services that will be available to that person within the home. If the funding is not available -- and I reiterate that there is no obligation on the government to provide funding to meet the requirements of the care plans -- then once again there is a breach of faith in the promise given and in what will be in fact the actual means of delivery.

I probably wouldn't have been quite as concerned about this issue had I not seen the very blatant chop that's included in the expenditure control plans which were announced on Friday. In fact, it seems to us that we are entering a totally different ball game than we were in when we were in committee. I believe that every member who sat on that committee and who looked at the very significant issues associated with the reform of a long-term care plan has to now share the concerns that I have and that agencies around the province have with respect to that issue. How firm are any of the commitments that have been made with respect to long-term care. In fact, is the green document worth the paper it's printed on? Should we be going back to base? And when are we going to start telling people in fact what can be delivered and what can be expected?

I want to speak to some of the issues where there was concurrence as we went through the bill. There were three or four areas that, it seems to me, were brought from a very broad base of people around the province to committee and around which members of the committee had no disagreement.

One of the areas was with respect to the rights of the residents to have a say in the placement choice and to have their own needs, whether they were ethnic, spiritual, linguistic, familial or cultural, met within decisions around which these people would be spending the rest of their life, or a portion -- a major portion, perhaps -- of the rest of their life. The demands came from virtually every part of the province and from every organization which appeared before us, whether service providers, boards of directors of community homes for the aged, charitable homes for the aged, municipal homes for the aged, residents' associations themselves, senior citizens' organizations or others.

Certainly, the broad agreement of the need to ensure that the placement coordinator simply couldn't override an individual's heritage, an individual's religion, an individual's choice of the nature of the home that he or she wanted to live in was very important and was well expressed and articulately expressed to the committee. Everyone on the committee and all parties agreed that those issues had to be taken into account, and I am pleased that the resident bill of rights and the resident council has been added to the bill. I believe it strengthens the bill and that the experience of the nursing homes sector will be a positive one when it's applied to the charitable homes sector.

The difficulty now is that, given the yanking back of funding, how can be sure that those promises will be met? How can we be assured that those guarantees that have been provided now by legislation can continue? Can we say to a person that his or her preferences which are based on ethnic, on spiritual, on linguistic, on familial, on cultural factors in fact will be recognized if the funding isn't there to ensure that the space is available in the appropriate place at the appropriate time?

I think that once again, and now legislatively, we will be holding out a promise and building an expectation that is going to be very difficult to deliver in the end, and I would like to see some assurance from the minister before this debate is concluded that those issues will be recognized and the funding that's appropriate to ensuring that the resident preferences are taken into account is in place. We know we had to battle a substantial amount to ensure that those rights were written in and that the recognition of those preferences were written into the bill, and given that the first draft of the long-term care bill indicated that there would be patient choice, we couldn't understand in the beginning why they were left out, unless there was an intention that those issues be left out of the bill. Now, with the $100-million cut, we are wondering if in fact that choice will ever be available to residents when they are making a determination and the application for placement into a home.

We spoke at some length in committee about the role of the placement coordinator and in fact the power of the placement coordinator, and as we went through public hearings in various communities around Ontario, we heard in some communities of a placement coordination system that was working extremely well. I think Thunder Bay was put to everyone as a model to be examined. There were other areas which had placed a high degree of support behind the placement coordination systems which existed there.

1600

None the less, when we saw the drafting of the bill we saw an extraordinary amount of power given to a placement coordinator in terms of determining what could in fact be decisions respecting the remainder of a person's life and the way that person would be treated, housed and cared for during the remainder of their life. We have since then received the green book. It's difficult, as you know, having been provided with one bill in isolation and outside of an implementation and a planning framework, to place that bill now within the entire framework document, because we now see a slightly more fleshed-out view of the multiservice agency, where the MSA would provide a single entry point into the long-term care system.

The green document goes on to suggest that the MSAs would provide a continuum of service, of care, ranging from disease prevention -- now we know that the budget for disease prevention has been chopped substantially -- to in-home, acute and chronic treatment. We have no information about what chronic treatment will be available, because of course the chronic care role study hasn't been made available to us; nobody knows what's in it; nobody knows how this government sees chronic care in the first place, let alone in the last instance.

What we read, though, is that the government envisages one-stop shopping. They say, simply by calling an MSA, seniors, adults with physical disabilities and people who need health care at home will have access to a comprehensive range of services provided in both the community and in facilities. Now, the MSA was not available; the concept was not on the table; the issue was not included in Bill 101, the bill we are discussing today and that was before us in committee. As a consequence, placement coordinators had powers that may in fact usurp the powers of the MSA and there is no indication of how the two will work together.

The placement coordinator, under an amendment that was included in the bill, must now -- if the eligibility for admission is not approved and the authorization for admission to a home or to a facility is not approved, the placement coordinator under amendments to the bill is responsible for suggesting alternate services and making alternate referrals on behalf of the applicant. What we see here is a clear confusion in thinking, because we now have a placement coordinator doing the work of the multiservice agency.

Who comes first and how do they link? We asked those questions in committee and the answers weren't there. We asked about how the placement coordinator would work and how a community would be defined for the placement coordinator's work. We know there has to be a separate placement coordinator for each individual home, and if that placement coordinator is responsible by statute for making alternative service suggestions and making appropriate referrals, then how will that fit with the MSA, the multiservice agency that will ensure that seniors, adults with physical disabilities and people who need health care at home, will have access to the comprehensive range of services in both the community and in facilities.

Who is doing what? We understood that this document, this expenditure control document, was one which looked at duplication of services and overlap and tried to come to terms with streamlining government. In fact, in the billion-dollar chop to the health care system, one quarter of the chops across the system, we see the word "streamlining" used several times. Yet what we are now building into the system is an overlap and a duplication of effort by the placement coordinator and the multiservice agency that will work in the communities.

We also see, in terms of service delivery, that the placement coordinator has some responsibility with respect to the assessment of the potential resident, yet as we look at the role of the multiservice agency, we also see another assessment role. How many times do people have to go through processes of assessment, of being assessed by one group here and one group there? In one case the medical model, so-called, is taken out and yet there still may well be a need for personal care services within a residential facility. In the other case, the medical model must be very much on the table in terms of determining whether a person can take advantage of and be served well in a nursing home facility.

We have, on the one hand, an assessment process that works over here, and on the other hand, an assessment process that works over there, both of them called the same thing, both of them apparently to assist in moving people through the system so that there is a continuum of care, and yet each one operating at odds one from the other. There has to be an awful lot of cleanup in that particular situation.

I want to move to the question of the appeals, and to do that I think we have to understand how this system will work from the point of view of the service agreements in that each residential facility, whether it's a home for the aged or a nursing home, will enter into a service agreement with the province which will outline in broad general terms the requirements of the individual home in meeting provincial standards. An addendum, an aside, a separate contractual agreement will be attached to the standard service agreement and will spell out specific instances and specific services which the individual home must deal with and provide.

Once signed, the service agreement which is written means that funding will be provided by the government to those homes and those institutions -- the homes, whether they're nursing homes or charitable homes -- to assist in defraying the cost of operation. However, there's no appeal, either of what's written in the service agreement or on the basis of how much money the government will be providing.

I mentioned earlier that the province is responsible for establishing the service agreement, will sign the service agreement, but has no responsibility for providing adequately the funding that will ensure the care is provided. If the government determines that X level of services must be provided and does not provide the funding for that X level of services, the home has no right of appeal. The home has no way of a different decision, of determining that its costs should be lowered, that the demands on the system should be lowered, that the demands on the home should be lowered in terms of services that are provided.

The other aspect is that these plans of care which are developed and the service agreements which envisage the plans of care being developed may not all be offered within the facility, and yet the home must sign an agreement and must provide a plan of care which guarantees that the home will deliver services for which it has not necessarily full responsibility and for which it may not receive funding.

1610

When we're talking about $100 million of cuts when we already had concerns about how adequately the plans of care for individuals in these homes would be financed, we, I think, are right in warning people to have a second look at what in fact is on the table in the long-term care promise that's included in the green book.

The appeal mechanism simply isn't adequate from the point of view of the home, nor is it adequate in terms of the rights of the resident. The appeal process is one which will take a resident into a highly aggressive, controversial, confrontational system which ultimately ends up at the Divisional Court if an appeal is launched following a decision at the Health Services Appeal Board.

It's our view that there should be a different kind of mechanism, a different method of approaching the resolution of disputes, whether it's in respect to the service agreement between the home and government or whether it's with respect to issues that a resident himself or herself wants to bring forward and have dealt with in a way that the person feels has not been handled adequately at the home level.

There are other methods. We know that there are alternative dispute resolution methods that could include arbitration, could include a less formal committee structure, could include local decision-making where perhaps a placement coordinator or another body is involved in those kinds of arbitration. This was forcefully put before the committee by a number of intervenors. The only response we had -- and the parliamentary assistant unfortunately had to put it many times -- was that the entire question of the appeal process would have to be dealt with in the next round of long-term care legislation.

In the meantime, there is an appeal process now built into this piece of legislation which is here before us, the first of the long-term care bills, so clearly, whenever the next piece of legislation comes forward, perhaps September, perhaps next autumn, perhaps never, this bill will have to be amended again to bring about an appeal process that's reasonable, that works, that removes some of the confrontation and some of the aggression from this system and that participants in the system see as having some validity and some caring.

We could not understand why, when there were so many intervenors, when there were proposals that were put, when discussions had been held for a period of time with people who work in the bureaucracy surrounding the long-term care reform, there was not more on the table before committee and in this legislation to reflect what people saw as a real need and a real demand in terms of the system.

What we are seeing now is something which is clearly not what people want. The providers don't want this appeal mechanism, the residents, the seniors, don't want this appeal mechanism, and yet it appears we're stuck with it until such time as the government comes forward with another bill, the time line for which we have simply vague promises. That is a matter that we want to see followed up. We hope the minister will make some announcements in the House very soon about the kinds of approaches she's looking forward to in an appeal process.

We think it's wrong to put someone who is frail, who is perhaps concerned on a personal basis about the level of care that he is receiving, about services that should be available, to a process where he has to appear before a formal board, probably with legal advice. Then, if a further appeal is seen to be necessary, where that has to be done in a courtroom situation. We think that many of these issues could be dealt with in a different way that is more personal, more caring and more in fact relevant and appropriate to the situation in which people will find themselves in the facility.

We had some extensive discussion in committee about quality and about determining how quality assurance plans, quality improvement plans, which I raised in the Legislature on the first go-round of this debate on second reading, could indeed be applied so that an appropriate wording use was placed in the bill and therefore before this particular sector, but as well so that the words had some meaning with respect to current practice.

The bill originally, as you well know, indicated that there should be quality assurance plans in facilities which would be expected to improve the care and the work plans and the staff training and so on within those facilities. The difficulty with the words that were used in the bill, and we gave the government the benefit of the doubt and said that perhaps these were drafting errors, was that "quality assurance plans" referred to one particular methodology and are necessarily static. They don't provide for an improvement framework, which is what we wanted to see and which I believe the entire industry wanted to see. That change was made and we are pleased that the change to a more generic term was introduced.

None the less, that change as well, however, begs the issue of the inspection process which is included in this bill, because on the one hand we have an inspection process which is comparable to that which was in place many years ago in the nursing homes area, under the Nursing Homes Act, and which was found not to work. It was highly confrontational in nature and it was not seen to be a joint moving forward but rather something which in fact created less of a cooperative approach to change and to improvement.

With the introduction of the words "quality improvement plan" into the bill, however, we now have a new reason to relook at the inspection processes that are included in the legislation. Our view is that those inspection processes should be based far more on the model which is now used in the nursing homes sector, which is an improvement model, which is a peer review model, which is a model that ensures and I believe spawns cooperation rather than the confrontation which the inspection model, which is now described in this bill, puts forward.

I regret in our committee discussions, although it's not an issue which will find massive public demand, that this entire area did not receive more concentrated interest. Those who participated in discussion of the entire inspection process did so from what to my mind was a very ideological point of view. One group said, "It doesn't work if you do it this way"; the other group said, "It doesn't work if you do it this way."

It seems to me that the issues associated with framing an appropriate inspection process were not adequately addressed in committee so that an appropriate legislative solution could be placed within the context of this bill and ultimately into full operation.

1620

The matter, I think, is going to have to be revisited when there is another section of the long-term care legislation before the House. I think that along with the entire appeal process -- the two frankly do go hand in hand, and we'll also have to take into account the whole debate and discussion with respect to quality improvement as it applies to facilities.

I want to, if I may, although it isn't specifically a part of the amendments that are included in Bill 101, speak to the issue of the management of the long-term care services which are included in the green book, and particularly the issue of how the new system will function.

With what we have now, I think that the difficulty here is that we have a bill, as I've said, that's presented in isolation from the overall implementation framework, from the overall policy framework. The green book is also significantly vague in terms of addressing the shape of the fundamental changes which will necessarily occur.

What the green book tells us, in terms of how the new system will function in terms of planning, is that the district health councils will have a new mandate for long-term care service planning through their long-term committees.

Then the discussion goes on to indicate that district health councils will "participate in forming government long-term care policies, working through the association of district health councils" and that DHCs will "develop service and allocation plans within community services' funding envelope guidelines, reflecting the needs of people locally and taking into account the area's demographics, rural-urban mix, cultural composition and existing services."

I'd like to say first of all that if this is going to occur, if the district health council is going to be given additional responsibilities, then we should have a bill before the House now changing the mandate of the district health councils, because they do not have the power to do what this document says they are going to have to do.

In the meantime, arbitrary decisions have been made by the government with respect to facilities. There will be no new beds in facilities, ie, there will not be another nursing home bed put into operation, nor another bed in a home for the aged put into operation, for a period of time.

We do not know specifically the period of time and we now have a new body, the DHCs, which are apparently to be responsible for the service and allocation plans, the funding and distributing of funding envelope, and also to develop plans to improve community services etc. They have no mandate to do that. We need new legislation if they are going to have that mandate.

We now have a bill which provides equivalency in funding, a level of funding that is totally outside of this new system surround, and the DHCs haven't participated in it at all. The DHCs will not be participating in it, nor will the DHCs have access or the legislative responsibility for some time, it appears, because the minister has indicated to us that there will not be a new long-term care bill on the table for some time.

So we're in a situation where district health councils have now been told to set up committees. We are told that funding will not flow; $100 million is coming out of that funding while the DHCs -- or we assume it's the DHCs -- are working on coming up with service and allocation plans.

The DHCs, we are told, are going to have the responsibility for allocating that money. They don't have the mandate, they cannot legally do that, yet we have a bill over here that says that many of the issues that the DHCs are going to determine are going to be placed before them as a result of level-of-care funding.

It doesn't work; it simply does not work. We have the cart placed before the horse. We said that from the very beginning, that we should have had the philosophy, the policy context, the implementation framework, the buy-in from the participants, and that has not happened. Now we have a new system being devised into which the bill we are faced with and dealing with and will be voting on within a week or so, whenever it comes to us for a vote, operates completely independently of the long-term care framework.

The calls which are coming into my office and into the offices of my colleagues are saying that people do not understand where the fit will be. They do not understand how one, by example, can ensure that there are respite care beds maintained in nursing homes and homes for the aged if the regional planning and composition and demographic analyses have not yet been completed. They do not understand how a nursing home can be required to provide certain services if the analysis of what services are needed to meet the needs of the community has been done.

We see in this entire system an ad hockery that really is quite astonishing and we hear of pilot projects to test the effectiveness of transferring management responsibility from the government to the local level. We hear of pilot projects which were supposed to have taken place some time ago in direct funding and did not take place. We see difficulties in, by example, the chop in health promotion programs for seniors and chops in the drug benefit plan for seniors, and yet we see that the drug benefit plan is included in the discussion of multiservice agencies. What's going on here, Mr Speaker? We cannot tell and no one can tell who and what will be responsible for what and what.

I think that when people are seriously calling and saying, "This is not fitting together," that the green book is not fitting together with Bill 101, they are absolutely right. They particularly aren't fitting together when you've got a $100-million chop right out of the budget that was to fund the long-term care reform. This chop appears arbitrary. No one knows the extent to which their own interests and their own projects and their own agency services will be affected by that chop. It appears arbitrary, it's one-line, the minister has not further explained it, and frankly that is not good enough.

Many of our homes are homes that have boards of directors. The charitable homes for the aged are homes with their own boards of directors and their boards have been elected or selected in a manner that's appropriate to the body. They may include residents of the facility, they may include families of residents of the facilities, they may include people with expertise in various areas with respect to the operation of the home. It may include people who are representative of specific religious organizations that are sponsors of the home, but they have an accountability through that board structure and they have a responsibility that has, as you know, a range from fund-raising to expansion of services to provision of basic services within their community.

1630

We have a new and secondary level of accountability that is being placed on the homes as a result of Bill 101, a responsibility for them to enter into service agreements which will require them to provide certain services for their residents that are equivalent to all of those provided for every home across the province, but then for others which are unique to that home. One wonders what happens when the accountability required of the sponsoring organization is in conflict with the accountability required by the government or where there is a higher level of accountability to the sponsoring organization than there is to the government.

We have been told that the role of voluntary boards of directors should be recognized in this bill and that the voluntary boards of directors have indeed been responsible for maintaining quality in homes for many, many years. There has not been a problem nor has there been seen to be a problem. None the less, the governance structures appear to be under attack, and many organizations are deeply concerned that they will be able to attract volunteers to serve on their boards and to provide the community representation and the community coordination we've been used to in the past.

The bill in fact redefines the role of the voluntary board of directors by putting the board in a position where it has to rubber-stamp decisions that are made outside of its boundaries and outside of its borders. The government, in drafting Bill 101, did not take into account the voluntary board, the very strong role in integrating services, whether it's in the community for home care services or other services of that nature, along with those which are provided in a facility, nor did the government take into account the legal responsibility which those boards now have and undertake for, by example, the inspection system and for providing services of a quality and nature that respect the needs, the safety and the security of their residents.

Once again we feel that as this bill and the long-term care reform moves along we are going to see conflict between the boards and the government, which is requiring service agreements to be developed and signed, and we see again a necessity for change that will recognize that the governance system of charitable boards and municipal boards is something of a long-established tradition in Ontario and one which has recognized the skills and the talents of volunteers who have given hours of free time to ensure that the homes are well operated, well maintained and indeed meet the needs of people from their communities. We are going to be asking the minister again to respond to the entire issue of the conflict between the voluntary board governance and the responsibilities and requirements of the ministry and to review the impact on voluntary boards and their attraction of people who in fact want to serve when the ministry is making all the decisions in isolation and quite apart from the operation of the individual home.

I want to speak for a moment about direct funding. We have, as you know, been supportive of a pilot project which would enable people with physical disabilities to direct the funding for services which they require by indicating the priorities that they place towards a certain kind of service, the nature of the direction of the service, the selection of the person or agency to provide that service and the recognition that simply because one has a physical disability doesn't mean that one should be refused to participate in decisions, including those which would enable one to determine one's own continuum of care.

We were disappointed and, in fact, we still refute the ministry's assertion that the pilot project could not have gone ahead without Bill 101 being in place. We believe that it should have gone ahead a long time ago and that some of the issues associated with self-management of care should have been reviewed in the context of a much earlier pilot. Certainly, in 1989 the previous government was prepared at that time to move ahead with a pilot project in direct funding.

The issues are important issues. If it's recognized that a person has the dignity and the right to select his own care givers and those who will be providing personal care for him, it seems to me that person is strengthened through that initiative.

We also know that there may well be problems in self-management of care. We know that some of the models of self-management eliminate, move away from, those problems. I suggest to you that a supportive housing surround, by example, is one. But some of the issues, including the question of what happens when the care giver is taken with the flu and cannot reach the home of the disabled person who has contracted for the service, are very practical issues, and frankly we would have liked to have seen those addressed and some of the studies done and before us before this bill went ahead.

We think that when the previous government had been prepared to do that kind of study and to work on that kind of pilot in 1989, some four years ago, and we have yet to see a pilot move forward in any way, there is a real and, I think, honest and deserved sense of disappointment with the approach to the self-managed care or a direct funding of care.

If we look at those organizations that have been supportive of direct funding for many, many years, we see enormous support. As I look through the pages of intervenors who discussed this entire issue, we don't see one intervenor that had any reservations about moving ahead. We do not understand why the government -- and as I say, we refute that the government needed this legislation in order to move ahead, but we feel that this should be an extremely high priority and the government should tackle this immediately.

1640

The independent living centres of course have provided one model, and several organizations spoke to the independent living centre as being the appropriate model and perhaps the only model for direct funding. It seems to me that we are going to have to look beyond simply one model and we are going to have to look beyond simply one specific group in terms of the direct funding issue. Seniors as a whole should also have an opportunity to take part in a self-managed care situation, perhaps through an independent living centre scenario or through others that can be developed through other organizations and with other supports in the community.

We have been interested in the conceptual detail as it has been put in the past with respect to supportive housing for seniors. One of the things that we were extremely disappointed in in the green book, the partnerships book, was the fact that the supportive housing issue was addressed in basically one line. Without the attention provided to supportive housing, all the talk of pilot projects in terms of a direct funding model, in terms of independent living centres and the coordination between all of those issues and the models which could be appropriate, is just really so much in the wind.

We are asking specifically that the minister will make an announcement within the next very few days on the design of pilot projects for direct funding, self-managed funding, and that people will have an opportunity, and that we will have an opportunity, to know who is likely to be involved in the direct funding models which are likely to be placed before us.

One of the issues that once again is not specifically included in Bill 101 but around which there may well be a link is the palliative care issue. We know that the government has committed close to $5 million to palliative care. We also see a commitment that a certain number of respite care beds would be available within the existing complement of nursing homes and homes for the aged. Clearly, a number of those respite care beds will be used in situations where the care giver is dealing with a palliative situation and the patient will be enabled to move into a home for a period of time.

What we are deeply concerned about is that there will be demographic change that we know about, that there will be such pressure on our long-term care beds in our facilities that there will not be a place for those respite care beds to become available.

We spoke about that issue in committee. We had no satisfaction that indeed there was any way of freeing up beds which are now used for long-term care by people with increasing chronicity. People are sicker when they go into a nursing home, they are more frail when they go into a home for the aged than they have been in the past, and as our population is aging, the opportunity for those respite care beds to be freed up is one that appears to us to be dreaming in Technicolor. In fact, what will have to happen, if the ministry is honest, is that a respite care bed will only be freed when a person dies. What that means is that the next person who is on the list for acceptance or for approval, for authorization to enter that home and use that bed, will not be able to do so.

So while we applaud improvements in palliative care funding that is delivered at the community base, we say that the government is dreaming in Technicolor if it thinks it will in any way, shape or form be able to provide the respite care beds that it's promised. Once again, I underline that it's dreaming in Technicolor if it considers in any way that those respite care beds are going to be available unless a considerable number of new beds are added to the system.

Mr Speaker, I have a few minutes to speak generally about Bill 101, which was, as you know, a disappointment to us, coming as it did in isolation, and the nature of the shape of the bill itself, that so much of the bill is left to regulations: so much of the determination of where money will be spent, how it will be spent, what direction will be taken is left to regulation; that so much of the determination of which residents are allowed to enter which home, when, is left to regulation; that eligibility for entry to a home is left to regulation; that virtually every single question that individuals want to ask about how and when they might spend the rest of their lives is left to regulation.

There has been nothing that is clear in a law put before them about what guarantee of services will be provided, what guarantee of cultural and other diversity will be available, what guarantee with respect to their access, what guarantee with respect to the kind of accommodation, the kind of care, the kinds of services, the kinds of programs they will have access to and that will be available to them, the kind of information with respect to what a home will cost, changes with respect to limitations on spending, on charges to be made to a resident.

All of these things are not clear, open. They are all included in regulation, which means there's no debate. It means that the people who now serve as spokesmen for residents, for people who are now requiring service and care in facilities and who will in the future, have no guarantee, first of all, of what's on the table, and second, what can be removed from the table with or without any kind of information being passed on.

So what we see, first of all, is a bill which is a conceptual bill. It went far beyond what it needed to in that the government could have, in this first stage, we believe, made the funding changes through order in council and then moved into the entire long-term care reform in an appropriate, integrated way, where you don't have a bill placed on the table and then having to be brought back for change, some of which will be substantial. Already we know where some of that change is required. I mentioned some of them, the appeal process being one.

1650

There's an enormous amount in long-term care reform in the first bill that's before us that's been left out: respite care, just barely touched upon; palliative care, in this bill not touched upon at all; rehabilitation, not mentioned in any way and yet we know that rehabilitation in a facility or outside a facility is extremely important in ensuring that a person will be able to leave a facility within an appropriate period of time; dental care, completely left out, and indeed we had the Ontario Dental Association appearing before the committee speaking about the vital aspect of basic and ongoing dental care which should be provided as a preventive measure and not simply as something to be added on in terms of a chargeback either to the resident or to the home. It's left out of this bill and it's left out of the green book, the long-term care reform framework book. Once again, assistive devices have been mentioned in one line in the long-term care green book. Transportation has not been mentioned at all, even in one line.

The assistance for family care givers issue -- what happens when the sandwiched generation is finally out-sandwiched -- mentioned in one line, a study coming up. Good grief, how many times do we have to wait for more study and more study? This is a government that indicated it wanted to do something in that area and yet, once again, it simply left the issue off the table.

I began, in discussing this bill, by indicating that we are now approaching Bill 101 with far more trepidation than we did when we went into committee, despite all of the issues that we raised in committee and indeed in spite of all of the issues on which we believe we achieved some success in committee. And we're pleased with that. We felt that the atmosphere in the standing committee was indeed a valuable one and that we owe a lot to the chairman of that committee for that; I concur with the words of the minister. But I must go back to the point I began with.

We believe now that with the substantial chop in health care funding that was made on Friday, we are now standing in all of our places -- and my party of course will be voting for this bill -- holding out expectations of service delivery that will not be met, that it will be impossible to meet, and that it will be impossible to meet in a time line that this government has indicated the program would provide.

What that means in the long run is that not only will residents be treated unfairly in homes; it means that people applying to enter a facility will not have their expectations met of facility care being available to them appropriate to their needs. It means that community-based services will not be funded adequately, and we've already seen facility-based services starved to the point where they cannot cope with one additional client or one additional even minutia of care.

We are seeing our providers, the people who work in the long-term care system, being treated very unfairly in terms of their income levels, in terms of how they are compensated for the very heavy work that they do in providing service in facilities and on the ground in communities. We see people being displaced from home care services rather than an expansion of those services being put in place when it's required, as our institutions are being restructured and reformed. In fact, I guess, to sum up this concern, I think that what's happening here is that we are holding out, and the government is holding out, a promise that it will find impossible to keep unless there is a change in the entire funding mechanism and the announcement which was made on Friday, which in fact jeopardizes a singularly important part of the long-term care reform.

As you know, we'll be supporting Bill 101 with enormous reluctance, given the funding changes that were announced on Friday. We believe that it is going to be virtually impossible to carry out the long-term care reform under these revised scenarios and that it will be extraordinarily difficult, with any fairness and equity, to implement even Bill 101, which was one tiny step along the way to full long-term care reform.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments? The member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mrs O'Neill: I certainly would like to commend the member for Halton Centre for bringing to the floor of this Legislature the many uncertainties that surround Bill 101. We're still wondering how firm the commitment is to long-term care. It is described as a clear undertaking. We fear that could be government rhetoric.

I'd like to just read one passage from the green implementation book that underlines what the member for Halton Centre said, and I am pointing to:

"For a long time, people with developmental disabilities and their families have urged that there be greater equity in serving their wide range of needs. Beginning within the next three years, there will be a review of the two systems," long-term care and services for those who are developmentally delayed. Is that a commitment, a review to begin in three years?

The NDP government, in this legislation, as has been brought forward by the member for Halton Centre, says it's all so very easy, but there is a great deal of confusion surrounding assessment, a very crucial process for the long-term care reform. The expansion of the community-based services is still in limbo, and the role of the private operators is certainly in jeopardy and has been underlined several times by this government as preferential for non-profit organizations. What happens to the up to 50% of those who are private operators?

The bill comes in isolation, regulations governing much that it is trying to fulfil. The role of the district health councils is still very undetermined. The bill is being presented in an incomplete fashion, but one piece of the puzzle.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I will say that the Progressive Conservative Party voted against this bill for second reading. I expect that unless something unusual happens, we will be supporting the bill, but most reluctantly, I will say.

The minister is currently in the House. She and I have one common thing between us, and that is that we both have relatives in the Avalon Care Centre in Orangeville, and we both therefore have some personal experience of the operation of the private home care, the private residence.

I guess when I say we're going to support this, Madam Minister, there is a certain amount of reluctance. One of the pieces of reluctance is that there's no question that the bill is creating a form of bureaucracy, and at a time particularly when we're trying to cut down on bureaucracy, in the Treasurer's and the Premier's statements and perhaps your statements as well last week, and as the cutbacks in the civil service continue. Yet here we are creating more bureaucracy. We are going to need more civil servants to operate this process.

I would hope that the appeal mechanism -- as I understand it, there is no appeal mechanism and I would like to see some changes in that.

1700

One of the comments, Madam Minister, to which hopefully you will respond in due course, is that there have been comments made, not by you, as I understand it, but by the former minister, that if this bill isn't passed, the bridging of the gap or the making of the gap for funding for long-term care will not take place unless this bill is supported.

I hope that statement will be denied as a position of your ministry because certainly, if that is the case, that's almost a form of blackmail. The private home care operators have supported this bill and, as I understand, will continue to support the bill, but that is one of the reasons why they're supporting it, and I hope that you will deny that allegation that has been made.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I want to compliment the member for Halton Centre for her thoughtful comments. I think that she probably could have gone on at great length. I know that all the members who participated in the committee hearings certainly heard from a number of different areas. I think she probably could've spoken at great length about the written notices of residents and the need to empower the residents, whether it be involved in simply the posting of information or whether it be the appeal mechanisms for seniors.

One area that I know I could speak at great length on, and I'm sure she could as well, is the plan of care. I know that it's an opportunity to allow people to develop the plan and to put in place the vision of care, and it's something that I know again we probably could speak on at great length.

I know that while we travelled the province there were a lot of people talking about consumer choice and we did have to make some amendments. After listening to a lot of people, we changed the outline so that we could reassure people that the choice of the residents and the people who wanted to be a resident in a certain home was going -- to make it easier for people to have that choice. It's something that is quite important.

One thing I think, as we come from different communities of course, in the tone of empowerment the district health council has got a key role to play in all of this. I know that the district health councils that represent the two parts of my riding, the Durham Region District Health Council and the York Region District Health Council, have already got committees up and looking at trying to see how they can fit into this, and they're trying to establish their subcommittees. I'm sure that if the member for Halton Centre had more time, she'd probably go on a little further about the role of the district health councils.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'd like to speak just briefly on implementation of this particular piece of legislation. I think the government has found out very obviously in the last few short weeks that it is so much more difficult to claw back or retrench money and jobs than it is to in fact put it in place in the first instance.

I speak directly about the placement coordinators and the multiservice agencies that will have to in fact be added because of this particular piece of legislation. I would caution the government as emphatically as I can that when placing these particular expenditures on the books, you be very careful about the numbers and the size of the bureaucracy you in fact create.

The clawbacks that we've seen in the last few days, the reductions municipalities are going to face, hospitals, school boards etc, should leave you with the very distinct and obvious impression that when you are putting the bureaucrats in place is the time when you make those prudent, fiscally responsible and managerially responsible decisions.

After the fact is no good, because by trying to claw them back, you end up in a cat fight, which you're apparently in today, where there are no winners. People who have had jobs and lose them are not happy about the situation, and I don't think any government in this province is happy about seeing people laid off or rolled back etc. As you learn on local council, it's much easier to give than it is to take back.

So just one note of caution on any expansion ideas, any expansionist plans that this government has in any ministry, but particularly in Health or Community and Social Services, and particularly when it comes to the placement coordinators and the multiservice agencies: Be very, very careful about how expansionist you get, because if you find you're going to spend too much money, you've got to claw that back, and it becomes problematic and certainly more difficult than not putting it in place in the first place.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Halton Centre, you have two minutes to reply.

Mrs Sullivan: I'd like to thank colleagues from all sides of the House for their comments with respect to the remarks that I put on the table today.

I want specifically to respond to the questions raised by the member for Scarborough Centre with respect to the plan of care. The member has spoken about a plan of care as being a positive initiative whereby the residents of a home will know and will understand issues surrounding their own care and treatment.

One of the difficulties with the plan of care is that it can be written and yet there's no guarantee that it will be delivered. There's no guarantee that the institution, the facility, which is providing that plan of care will have the funding in order to deliver the plan of care.

In other words, if a plan of care for an individual resident requires rehabilitation, perhaps physiotherapy, requires medical services of some form or another, requires a recreational component, requires perhaps an oxygen supply or a chiropractic service, some or all of those portions and segments of the plan of care may be available within the home and there may be the human and physical resources to provide those, but if they aren't available in the home and the funding isn't available to ensure that they're put in the home, they will not be provided, and therefore the home will be in breach of its service agreement.

There is something wrong here with the way this bill is written and the way the regulations are being presented, and if you don't think this is going to become an issue in your own constituency, just wait until this goes into effect.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I do want to take a few minutes this afternoon to join in the debate on third reading with respect to Bill 101. Perhaps before I get into the text of my remarks, I want to just compliment my two colleagues the member for Dufferin-Peel and the member for Etobicoke West, who I think raised some very good concerns in the last few minutes, one with respect to a new level of bureaucracy that may be introduced as a result of this legislation and, second, the member for Dufferin-Peel raises some very good concerns that we've heard out there and that perhaps the government would deny.

But you'll recall, Mr Speaker, that when the private nursing home operators were lobbying us -- in fact they had a huge rally on the front lawn of Queen's Park and other people from the private sector with respect to health care had a huge rally last year on the front lawn of Queen's Park -- at that time Minister Frances Lankin told nursing home operators that she would move to bridge the gap between funding between the private nursing home sector and the charitable and municipal homes for the aged sector.

What we saw was the ministry and the government move a little bit towards bridging that gap. Of course now we're talking about levels-of-care funding so the point is moot, but I think the point that the member for Dufferin-Peel was trying to make was that along the way the passage of Bill 101 got tied to increased money for the private nursing home sector and, although there remain a lot of flaws in this legislation, I and my colleagues in the Ontario PC party feel pressured from the not-for-profit sector and the private nursing home sector. We feel pressured to pass this legislation because the government, through its political wisdom back in November and December of last year, very much tied future funding to the passage of this legislation.

So I want to say with that that I and my colleagues, or most of them -- I haven't surveyed all of my colleagues, and of course we have a number of free votes in my party. I expect most of them, though, will be supportive of Bill 101. Certainly we're supportive in principle of this legislation, because we recognize and support the need for the redirection of long-term care in this province.

However, we remain concerned with the NDP's vision for the redirection of long-term care and with several aspects of Bill 101. While we are pleased with the progress that was made during the committee hearings, both during the public hearings and the clause-by-clause hearings, with a number of issues that were outstanding and that we had problems with with respect to the legislation, mainly issues such as consumer choice, greater accountability of placement coordinators, increased sensitivity towards cultural, linguistic and social needs and improvement of the assessment process, Bill 101 does leave several problems unresolved, in our opinion.

1710

Before I talk about some of those problems, I do want to very briefly take a moment to highlight some of the 150 Progressive Conservative amendments that were put forward or planned to be introduced with respect to this legislation, and I want to outline for the public and recap for members of the Legislature some of the changes that the government did accept and where the government, because of our prodding, I think, brought in some of its own amendments to make this legislation in fact better.

As the member for Dufferin-Peel pointed out in his remarks a moment ago, yes, many of my colleagues in the Ontario PC Party did not support this legislation upon second reading. However, after the amendments and the good work that was done by the staff and the legal counsel of the ministry, we've for the most part been able to come around and support this legislation. Yes, we do have a bit of a gun to our head in terms of funding, and yes, we still have some problems, but we think that the government, and I give it credit now, did come a long way on a number of issues during the committee process, and after all, that's what this government feels the committee process is for. We used to iron out these issues ahead of time, but now we find ourselves going head to head, on province-wide television in many cases, in the committee rooms downstairs. But, as I say, the government did come around to making some changes, and I think we can live with the legislation.

Included among some of the key changes to the bill is a residents' bill of rights like that already in the Nursing Homes Act. It has been added to the acts governing municipal and charitable homes for the aged. The bill of rights also includes a fundamental principle clause which will ensure that physical, psychological, social, cultural and spiritual needs of residents are respected. That was an amendment that was put forward probably by all three parties, and we were pleased to be able to support that.

Consumer choice will be enhanced because of amendments that allow applicants to select the facilities to which they wish to apply. A placement coordinator assisting an applicant in making selections must take into account the ethnic, spiritual, linguistic and cultural factors.

I recall conversations with Villa Colombo, with Baycrest and with a number of other charitable non-profit homes which were very much concerned that their special ethnic and cultural concerns and wishes would not be taken into account, and I think they were right; they were right to lobby their MPPs, they were right to lobby the government on this issue, because the original drafting of the bill certainly didn't leave us with a high enough comfort level that placement coordinators would be required to take into account the ethnic, spiritual, linguistic and cultural factors of applicants, and I commend the government for coming around on that particular amendment.

They also supported an amendment which talked about an applicant must consent to his admission to a facility, thereby eliminating the chance that people get placed in settings in which they do not wish to reside. That was cleared up during the clause-by-clause hearings.

Amendments have been added so as to provide homes with grounds to refuse an admission if (1) the facility lacks the physical facilities needed to meet the applicant's needs, (2) the staff of the home does not have the expertise required to care for the applicant, or (3) if they meet the grounds for refusal established in the regulations. Facilities will be required to provide a written notice to the applicant, the placement coordinator and director of the home explaining the refusal of admission. I think that's a good thing.

Preference must be given to veterans who wish admittance to facilities where the minister has designated veterans' priority access beds. This was a tremendously huge issue for Progressive Conservatives because we have always, always, stood behind those brave men and women who defended our country in two world wars and in Korea. What we found was that there was a great deal of concern among Legion members in particular, who have been over the years very supportive of ensuring that the health care needs of legionnaires are met.

The government, after a lot of prodding and after a meeting had to be arranged with the minister, finally came around to putting an amendment in the legislation. If they hadn't done it, we would have really pressed our amendment and I know the Liberals would have pressed theirs. None the less, the government did come around, and I think there's greater assurance in there that veterans and their rights will be respected in this legislation.

"In the circumstance that a placement coordinator finds a person eligible for admission to a facility but is unable to admit them immediately or finds a person ineligible for admission, he or she must suggest alternative services to the client or make referrals on the client's behalf." This was an amendment put forward by myself on behalf of my colleagues. Again, I think it brought some fairness and some assurance to clients that they simply wouldn't go to the placement coordinator to be turned down for admission and left out in the cold, as it were. This was to ensure that placement coordinators provided a little more information and a great deal more assistance.

"To ensure that the quality of services is continually being improved, facilities will be required to have quality management systems." Again, all three parties spoke at length about changing the wording in the bill from "quality assurance" to "quality management." At the end of the day, the government saw fit to adopt our amendments.

We supported provisions to establish residents' councils, which already existed in the Nursing Homes Act. They will now be extended to legislation governing municipal and charitable homes for the aged. We supported protection against reprisals for whistle blowers who disclose information to inspectors. That's now in the legislation as a result of prodding by opposition members.

One amendment that we didn't support and I don't have time to get into at great length here, but transitional provisions have been included in the revised act to allow for substitute decision-makers pending the proclamation of the Substitute Decisions Act of 1992. Just briefly, for the record, the reason I and my colleagues do not support those provisions is we felt that the hasty attempts by the government to bring Bill 101 in line with the previously passed legislation, the Substitute Decisions Act, really weren't good enough and perhaps would do more damage and sort of mutilate the intent and effect of the Substitute Decisions Act.

For that reason and many others, we didn't support those amendments, but none the less, the government did bring forward those amendments. They're now included in the revised final edition of the bill, and there is an argument on the other side that without those, the Substitute Decisions Act would have had no meaning in this legislation. Our only complaint was that the government should have thought this through. It seemed to be a case of where part of the ministry didn't know what another part of the ministry was doing and, at the last minute, had to come up with some pretty highfalutin' amendments to make sure that they weren't stepping outside of what had already been decided and passed in the Substitute Decisions Act of 1992.

"In determining eligibility for admission, a placement coordinator shall consider information relating to the person's medical treatment, health care or other personal needs and any assessment of the applicant made by a health practitioner." That was another amendment put forward by the PCs and adopted by the government.

"If admitted to a facility after having been wait-listed for a six-month period, a person's need must be reassessed." This was something that I, on behalf of my colleagues, very much pressed the government to include in the legislation to ensure that people weren't on waiting lists for a great length of time. While they were on that waiting list, the applicants' needs may indeed have changed. So we tried to come to a compromise where we would ensure that within a reasonable time frame the needs of the applicant would be reassessed if they were on a waiting list for a great deal of time.

We also supported amendments that, "After having authorized an admission to a facility, the placement coordinator will forward medical, social assessment and care information to the facility upon the approval of the client or the client's substitute decision-maker." We felt this amendment was necessary to ensure that the facility and the operators of the facility and the staff there had complete information and complete knowledge of the needs and all aspects of the client's life. It just makes the transition into the home much easier and more logical.

Originally, Bill 101 created only one opportunity of appeal for consumers and none for facility operators. Unchanged is the ability of applicants deemed ineligible for admission to a facility to appeal a placement coordinator's decision.

Bill 101 is being amended to ensure that hearings on rulings of ineligibility will begin within 21 days after the day an application for a hearing is received by the Health Services Appeal Board. Decisions must be rendered within one day following the end of hearings. I think the minister spoke briefly to that in her comments, and we were supportive eventually of those changes.

We're also supportive of changes which talked about the fact that the residents or the substitute decision-makers will be allowed a role in the establishing and updating of the plan of care drawn up for them.

1720

Inspectors must give a copy of their completed report to the operator of the facility that has been the subject of the inspector's review. I think that's a commonsense provision that apparently was always the intent to be the practice of the ministry and the inspectors, to ensure that the operator received a complete copy of the inspector's report. But we found out that sometimes in inspector staff there's a turnover, and a different inspector might go in and he or she will have a report that the operator of the facility may not have seen, the previous complete report, and sometimes new inspectors come in and say, "Yes, but the last time our inspector was here, you were told to do X, Y and Z, and you haven't done it," and the operator of the facility would say, "But I never saw that; that was never brought to my attention." So we tried to clear that up so everybody knows where they stand.

An inspector will be required to obtain a warrant from a justice of the peace if he or she wishes to enter places mentioned on the warrant or to exercise a right outlined in the act that has been refused. Again, we thought it was a point of fundamental justice that warrants have to be sought, and the government, as I say, at the end of the day did come around to ensuring that amendments to that effect are included in the legislation.

The amendments to Bill 101 represent a dramatic improvement to the legislation. We made considerable gains in several areas during the clause-by-clause hearings and successfully urged the government to amend Bill 101 to include many of our suggestions or forms thereof.

As well, the PC members of the standing committee on social development were able to support most of the government's amendments to Bill 101, since many of them address the very issues we'd expressed concern about during the public hearings on the legislation.

We were disappointed, though, that the government refused to accept our amendments that would have expanded the opportunities for appeal and a creative dispute resolution mechanism. The Ontario PC Party argued throughout the process for the adoption of such mechanisms, and I'll expand on those thoughts in greater detail in just a few minutes.

But I also want to talk about funding, because it is one of the outstanding issues with respect to the whole long-term care package, in particular with phase 1 that we're dealing with in Bill 101 here today.

One constant source of frustration for the opposition through the consultation process on this bill was the absence of any sort of detailed funding arrangement from the government. In June 1991, the Minister of Community and Social Services announced that $647 million would be spent on long-term care services by the years 1996, 1997, but during public hearings on Bill 101, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, the member for Simcoe Centre, was asked to provide more detailed background on this total. It is sad to say that this request, although we did receive a breakdown, really didn't give us great comfort and really didn't yield any new information that we could sink our teeth into and be assured that the government really has this $647 million it says it's going to put into community-based services.

All we know for sure is that Bill 101 says -- or at least the government's assurance that accompanies the passage of this bill is -- that about $205 million in new dollars will be put into the nursing home, charitable home, municipal home sector, which will now be called the long-term care facility sector.

We know that $205 million is committed. What the government's a little shy about telling the public is that $150 million of that $205 million isn't government money. It's money on the backs of seniors and the disabled and the elderly in our province. It's new user fees.

I was astonished today in question period that the Premier had the gall to get up and try and blame Mr Harris for talking about user fees in this province. The problem that we've seen with this government is that there are a lot of user fees. There are hundreds of millions of dollars of user fees in the health care system now. Anyone who's ever taken an ambulance ride or been a resident of a chronic care hospital or is a resident of a charitable home, a nursing home, knows that there are user fees for different services and accommodation and that sort of thing in the sectors now. All we have said -- and we've been consistent for the past three years, when it came up in the last campaign -- is look, poor people are getting bills for ambulance services right now. It's $85 for a non-emergency transfer and it's $165 or $185 now -- perhaps the minister will want to correct me on the exact figures, but it's around $185 -- for an emergency transfer. Rich or poor, you get a bill from the government. What kind of fairness is that?

We have said, let's not lie to the people. Let's not pretend user fees don't exist. Let's simply be honest with the people of Ontario. Admit that there are hundreds of millions of dollars worth of user fees in the system now, and this bill introduces $150 million more of user fees. We want a discussion, and I challenge --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Listen to your boss. A tax grab.

Mr Jim Wilson: The Minister of Transportation is heckling me. I challenge him, because he's a member of cabinet, to very soon have that discussion with us of where user fees should be appropriately placed, because poor people are being sent bills and they can't afford it, while people who can afford it aren't being asked to pay their fair share even under this socialist government's amendments.

I don't see anything wrong with a policy that says that. I think it's honest, I think it's morally correct, and I think it recognizes reality. It's incumbent upon all members to stop using rhetoric with respect to this issue and to level with people, because the people out there, they're smart. They know they get bills for ambulance rides. They know that if they've got a loved one in a nursing home or whatever, there are lots of bills to be paid. Those are all user fees, whatever way you talk about it, and the government is bringing $150 million more of user fees.

Secondly, on the point of funding, it's important to note in this legislation, as my colleague the member for Burlington South said earlier this afternoon, that for the first time in the history of this province, we're seeing a major delisting of an insured service under OHIP. This bill spells the end of extended care. There will be no more extended care certificates written out by physicians. That is the end of extended care.

When I talked to the previous Minister of Health, Frances Lankin, in committee about delisting insured services -- because you'll remember that she delisted electrolysis last year, and I think we had all-party agreement that there was a lot of cosmetic type of electrolysis going on and that that wasn't appropriate and it shouldn't be insured under OHIP. But the fact of the matter is that she assured me at that time that there would be no more delistings of services without full public debate. Well, I'll tell you, we didn't really have full public debate even on our clause-by-clause hearings because the public wasn't aware that this was the first major delisting.

So all I want to say to the NDP members is, don't in the next all-candidates meetings get up and pretend you're holier than thou with respect to health care, because frankly, no one's going to believe it, and your opposition at those meetings will have lots of fuel to say that you guys began the end of medicare as we know it in Ontario, and this bill proves that.

That's all I have to say about that, because there are lots of Hansard copies out there in circulation with the minister's own admission in committee and members of the government's admission in committee that yes, this is a significant delisting and it is the end of extended care. To be fair, they are replacing it with this new levels-of-care funding, but I'm going to talk about that in a minute too.

With the release of the government's policy paper, Partnerships in Long-Term Care, a few more funding details were made available. We saw the release of that document, I think, on April 7 or April 8. The first few weeks that we were dealing with Bill 101, we were doing it in a void. We didn't know what the government's greater vision of long-term care was supposed to be, so we pressured and pressured and pressured the government to come up with the final, or what I'm told is the final, version of their vision of long-term care. With that, a few additional details on spending allocations were provided, but there were numerous questions left unanswered.

The government has neglected to include any sort of breakdown on how the money will be spent on projects that are contained in the government's own long-term care documents. Included in these projects are expanded community support programs, extension of palliative care programs and the expansion of supportive housing. As well, the government has declined to commit to any deadlines or establish any time frames for actually making the promised funding available.

This particular piece of legislation will come into effect upon proclamation. Now, the government's record on proclaiming, actually bringing a piece of law into effect, is pretty poor. If you look at the Regulated Health Professions Act legislation that we spent last summer doing and passed last year -- if it wasn't the year before; I guess it was last year -- they're nowhere near proclaiming all of that. They're going to bring in some quick proclamation for the section dealing with midwives because of the promise they made out there, but the rest of the 23 regulated health professions are left up in the air with respect to the regulatory framework that's being developed.

That bill isn't proclaimed, yet the government's moving ahead with this stuff and wants to move ahead with Bill 100, which deals with sexual abuse, sexual harassment by health care professionals. At the same time, the health care professionals legislation hasn't yet been proclaimed and we're told we'll be lucky if it gets proclaimed this year in whole.

1730

Having said that, it goes back to the point raised by the member for Dufferin-Peel. Here the government wants us to pass this legislation and we give in, we're passing it, because we kind of have a gun to our heads because it's tied funding to the nursing homes sector to this legislation. There's no way out, so we have to pass this legislation. We tried, as I said, through the committee process to improve it and I think made some improvements.

However, I just want to make it clear out there that the government could go ahead any day and flow money to the private nursing homes and the charitable homes without this legislation, that it's a political game that's being played. Secondly, I was meeting last Friday with a nursing home operator, the operator of the Collingwood Nursing Home in my riding, and she said, "Well, that's fine, you're going to pass the bill on third reading, but when will it be proclaimed?"

You see, now, Mr Speaker, people out there are getting wise to this government and they realize that it's not so bad at passing legislation -- most of it I don't think I've ever voted in favour of -- it can get its legislation passed, but whether the heck it can get it proclaimed and actually figured out and all the regulations done has been an intellectual challenge for this government, to say the least. A number of their very senior and good bureaucrats have quit along the way, so they've been left trying to develop regulations in a bit of a knowledge vacuum, and I speak particularly there about the Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act.

Last Friday, contained within the government's expenditure control plan, there was another vague reference to the funding of long-term care reform. This time, the government told Ontario's long-term care clients that, "Expenditures" will be "adjusted to reflect the need for the development and approval of community implementation plans."

Well, I only ask a question of the minister that perhaps she or the parliamentary assistant could respond to. Perhaps they could explain to this House what this adjustment might entail. Again, the expenditure control plan, the cuts made by the government last Friday, sent out some pretty nervous signals to people in the health care community, and particularly those who are waiting for long-term care reform.

Congratulations government. You've cut 5,400 hospital beds, you've laid off over 2,000 nurses, but none of that money's gone into the community-based sector, and we've also laid off community-based nurses, VONs and health unit workers, who actually do education and prevention programs. So I just hope with the passage of this legislation we'll actually see the money flow in a timely manner.

Two weeks ago the nursing home operators, charitable homes, were given their case mix indexes. Those darn things are meaningless unless you know what kind of dollars are involved so you can plan and actually live up to what's required in this legislation, and that's providing actual levels of care funding and levels of care services.

The government's inability thus far to live up to its long-term care financing promises has not gone unnoticed by seniors' groups. The Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance in a news conference here at Queen's Park just recently pointed out that, "While a $100-million down payment on the $647 million was provided in the Treasurer's 1992-93 budget to strengthen community support services, only $26 million of the $100 million was actually spent last year on home care service expansion." That's from the Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance.

Ontario's seniors have received no explanation for the obvious discrepancies between the NDP rhetoric and the reality and have every reason to be sceptical of the future reform of the long-term care system.

In regard to the proposed levels-of-care funding scheme, a whole realm of unanswered questions has been encountered. As of yet the government has not released the specifics of what the new classification system will exactly look like. It is known that the proposed funding model will consist of three funding envelopes. They are nursing and personal care, quality-of-life programming and accommodation.

It's also noteworthy that Bill 101 provides no requirement that the level of funding which coincides with this new funding mechanism, ie, the levels-of-care scheme, will be consistent with the amount of money actually required to provide the services and programs needed by residents.

What we have, and I said it in committee many times, is levels-of-care funding but not necessarily levels-of-care funding. The government put the cart before the horse in terms of it said what the pot of money would be for this institutional long-term care, but then it went around assessing residents to find out what their needs are going to be, and we're told that the needs exceed the amount of money in the pot, so there's no way the government can actually meet the levels of care and the expectations it's put out there with its own rhetoric and its own legislation.

Two weeks ago, as I mentioned, the facilities were given their case mix indexes, but as I said, it's darned near useless to have those without any idea what kind of money is going to be attached to each level of care etc, and it's making planning very difficult out there in the real world.

Under the heading of appeal opportunities and dispute resolution mechanism, notably the government has refused to incorporate a mechanism that would have dealt directly with the funding and other concerns that we heard expressed by facility operators. It was repeatedly argued during committee that appeal opportunities for facilities and consumers had to be built into the structure created by Bill 101. The PC Party introduced several amendments during clause-by-clause to increase opportunities of appeal in the interest of improving the accountability of placement coordinators and decisions of the minister.

Under Bill 101, the minister will be allowed to withhold funding in the case of breaches of service agreements. Both operators and consumers could be negatively affected by such an action, since the withholding of funds impacts upon the operation of the facility as a whole and on all residents directly.

We still weren't able to get an amendment through that would actually allow operators of the homes to appeal funding decisions by the government. That's something that we felt, given that we don't necessarily have levels-of-care funding, given that the pot of money was established before the actual need was found out, was very important, because at the end of the day the persons who are going to suffer if the money isn't there are the actual residents themselves.

It's not so much -- I should correct myself -- that the money isn't there; it's if the government deems that a home has breached its service agreement. That's this new contractual way of doing business. Remember, you don't have ensured extended care any more; you've gone to this airy-fairy, state-versus-home-operator contractual agreement called the service agreement. If the state, if Big Brother, decides that the operator of a home is not living up to a service agreement, then the minister may withhold funding. If the minister withholds funding, the question that's never been answered is, what happens to all the poor residents of that home as a result of the government withholding money? Do they not eat? Do they not get their needs looked after?

Although the government tried to settle us down on that issue in committee, I was never fully satisfied that it really thought through that mechanism of withholding funding for breaches of service agreement, because if there's a breach of the service agreement, funding can be withheld. We're told, though, that would be the very last, draconian measure that would be taken by the government, to withhold funding. But the fact of the matter is, it's still a hammer there. It's still the final hammer on the heads of operators and it is a very heavy sanction that won't necessarily hurt the operator, but certainly will hurt the residents, and we felt that there were better ways to work with operators of homes and you could send out a better signal to our health care professionals, our operators of homes, to nurses, to residents, that this government has more faith in them than what this bill actually speaks to.

We stressed, though our some 150 amendments, that this sort of sanctions, ie, the withholding of money, must, for sure, be a last resort, and I think we have enough on record in Hansard to assure us that to some degree the government understands that concern, although it does remain outstanding.

The government, in its refusal to adopt our suggestions to expand appeal opportunities, has promised to examine the issue in the so-called phase 2 of the reform of long-term care. This, of course, will likely be too little, too late, since, as representatives from the Ontario Nursing Home Association point out, the difficulties and problems in shifting to the new system are likely to occur in the earliest stages of implementation, and we hope the earliest stage of implementation is soon. But the NDP chose to ignore this commonsense conclusion and, instead, proceeded without a balanced mechanism in place to settle matters when disputes do arise.

Similarly, the government has refused our suggestions to include in Bill 101 a dispute resolution mechanism to deal specifically with problems concerning service agreements, the inclusion of a third-party arbitration mechanism as a standard contract clause in the circumstance that there are disputes concerning the service agreement; that is, disputes regarding the interpretation of, compliance with or ability to comply with the service agreement. Our amendment would have ensured that a resolution is fairly reached by a neutral party, a third party, thereby enhancing the system's accountability.

1740

Under the heading of the not-for-profit sector preference, the NDP's redirection of long-term care in Ontario has private sector care providers very concerned. Premier Rae, former Minister of Health Frances Lankin and new Minister of Health Ruth Grier have made no secret of their preference for not-for-profit services, and Bill 101 legislates a preference for not-for-profit nursing homes or long-term care facilities.

Private home care providers, as an example, were shocked to hear from a senior adviser to the Premier in November 1992 that the government intended to cut their market share of home care services from the current 45% to 10% in two years. "When later questioned about their intentions for the private sector home care providers, senior policy advisers to Lankin and Rae refused to confirm or deny the two-year reduction plan." That's a quote from the newspaper.

It is apparent that the NDP government's approach to reforming the health care sector is based more on its ideology, and its ideology says that the private sector should not have a role in the delivery of human services. We know, for example, that with respect to Bill 101, when dealing with institutional care in the nursing homes sector, the charitable homes sector, the government did a secret study. I'm told that the result was that it could cost up to a billion dollars to buy out the capital investment now held by private nursing home operators in this province.

The government figured, I guess, that it couldn't afford to do it through the front door, so through Bill 101 and other long-term care legislation yet to come the government is going to drive private nursing home operators out of business eventually, as it's done in day care, and for sure drive out of business private home care operators out of business who now provide some 45% of the home care in our province.

There are several practical problems with respect to the NDP's strict adherence to this public sector preference or this bias against the private sector in the delivery of health care services.

The first problem is that the Ontario Home Health Care Providers' Association points out that the government has set contradictory goals for itself. On one hand, it's aiming at expanding home care services. Bill 101 will require consumers to prove that they cannot get enough care or the appropriate type of care in the community to be considered eligible for facility care, the facility care that's dealt with in Bill 101. Part of the job of the placement coordinator is going to be to look at the assessment, to take the decision on placement obviously.

Part of the criteria in the draft manual accompanying this legislation speak to the fact that you better be in pretty bad shape before you're going to get into a nursing home or long-term care facility in this province. One of the criteria is that you have to have exhausted all the community-based services available to you where you live.

I think the Ontario Home Health Care Providers' Association is trying to point out that if you drive the private sector out of business, in many communities in this province there won't be any home care services to call upon. In fact this whole thing may backfire on the government because the placement coordinator will have no choice but to put people into nursing homes because there aren't any services available in the community.

We know that the government intends to eliminate, or would like to if it could really have its way, just about half of the home care providers in this province. The government has paid much lipservice to the continuum-of-care model in the reform long-term care system. This model in theory would see the establishment of a whole spectrum of services for clients. We've yet to receive from this government a detailed plan of how it intends to create such a system and are not satisfied with the vague funding commitments to various aspects of the supposed redirection.

A second problem will be created if the government continues with its penchant to drive the private sector out of the delivery of services: Eliminating private sector service providers will mean that jobs will be dislocated. The commercial agencies employ about 20,000 health and support service employees across the province; 6,000 home support and agency administrative staff will also lose their jobs.

The third problem that will be created is that consumer choice between different services will be eliminated with the edging out of the private sector. Missing as well will be other elements by which the industry can measure proficiency and efficiency of home care services.

If you don't have the private sector to measure the efficiency of the public sector services against, then how do you measure efficiency? How do you find out, when you're supposed to be living in a free-market world, whether there isn't another option out there that can do it better and cheaper, ie, the private sector? If you eliminate them, you lose that yardstick, you lose that measure and that's something that you know -- it's pretty difficult talking to socialists and getting them to understand that but I hope they'll come around.

The NDP's preference for one sector over the other is hinged on ideology, I said, not only quality or cost of care. In fact differences between quality and cost between agencies are negligible, according to the Ontario Home Health Care Providers' Association. Commercial agencies comply to contractual regulations and standards as set by public programs.

Contrary to the horror stories the government used to like to tell when it was in opposition about the big, bad private sector operators, we actually don't find that there's great cause for alarm. Yes, there are some operators who needed to pull up their bootstraps and do a better job delivering services, but that's why we have inspectors and that's why we have enforcement.

We know that the commercial operators and the public service now, and had to in the past, abide by the same set of standards so that it is pretty difficult, I think, for the government to argue that the problem was that they were for-profit agencies. The problem was that past governments kept cutting back on inspection and cutting back on enforcement so some agencies, I suppose, were being able to slip through the system. That's unforgivable.

The fourth problem is that the private sector has historically accepted jobs that the not-for-profit sector has rejected, for instance, at nights and on weekend. The fact that they've grown from providing no services to now providing 45% of home care services over the past 10 years suggests the extent of the gap in services that would exist if it were not for the private sector.

Fifth, the cost to the taxpayer for not-for-profit service, delivery mode only, will increase since the deficits of the not-for-profit agencies have historically been covered by the government. One of the reasons the not-for-profits tend to do okay and sometimes can be said to deliver a little better care than the for-profit is that governments over the years have bailed out the not-for-profits.

What kind of a market is that when the government, with its $54 billion that it spends every year, has that kind of clout to bail out not-for-profits? What kind of fairness in measurement between the commercial side and the not-for-profit side is that? That's just absolutely ridiculous.

The Ontario Home Health Care Providers' Association writes: "The reason the commercial agencies have increased their share of the publicly funded home care in recent years is because they have been flexible, responsive and efficient, and able to meet service demands which the not-for-profit agencies could not."

Mr Speaker, I'm almost ready to conclude my remarks.

Commercial home care providers pay their employees the same rate as those in the not-for-profit sector for the most part, and profits of home care companies range between 1% to 5%. This is hardly a get-rich-quick scheme -- where's the Treasurer? -- and those companies pay taxes on their profits, which the not-for-profit sector doesn't do.

The sixth problem that will be created if the government continues to drive out the private sector: The private and public sectors have for over a year and a half been working together to develop standards of home care services. The Ontario Home Health Care Providers' Association believes a balanced home care system, with both private and not-for-profit operations, is the best way to ensure the highest levels of care and service.

That has historically been the policy of governments of Ontario, that there should be a balance between the private sector and the not-for-profit or public sector in the delivery of health services.

Unfortunately, "balance" is not a word in the socialist vocabulary. You've got to have one or the other, you've got to have rich versus poor, you've got to have police fighting minorities, you've got to have division in society, and we see the same thing now --

1750

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Oh stop. That's the biggest crock.

Mr Jim Wilson: Well, you're laying off public sector workers and at the same you won't take the stranglehold off the private sector. So where are these people you're laying off going to apply for jobs? Mr Harris did a good job today of pointing that out during question period.

As well, the government's inclusion of a clause in Bill 101 that will limit capital funding to only not-for-profit nursing homes is further confirmation of the NDP's long-term care intentions for this industry. During clause-by-clause, I argued in favour of eliminating this discriminatory clause in the legislation.

In 1989 the Ontario Nursing Home Association successfully won a court battle launched to address the inequitable and discriminatory treatment of residents in nursing homes compared to residents of homes for the aged. The court found that the system of funding was illogical and unfair and urged the province to move swiftly to rectify the problem. That "move swiftly" edict from the court came in 1990. It's 1993 today.

The attempt to drive the private sector out of the delivery of services in Bill 101 I think will attempt to undo one funding problem, as identified and agreed to by the court in 1990, while creating another. I think, on face value and upon further investigation, this simply doesn't make any sense.

In summary, we will continue to press the government for much-needed appeal opportunities and dispute resolution mechanisms, and we've been given the assurance that during the so-called phase 2 of long-term care reform we'll have another opportunity to do battle with the government with respect to those important concerns.

We remain concerned that a strategy has yet to be announced by this government to ensure the smooth transition towards a greater reliance on community-based services -- again, a great concern out there that the government's been very hasty and actually very efficient, I say sarcastically, in downsizing hospital beds and in firing nurses. At the same time, they've not upsized the community-based sector.

We are mindful of the fact that the NDP has failed to produce a comprehensive, realistic funding blueprint to support its so-called redirection efforts. Again, all the technical jargon in the world doesn't help operators plan if they don't know what the funding levels are going to be. The bottom line is money and the delivery of services. Pious speeches that ignore the reality that funding is the bottom line simply do an injustice to the nursing home sector and the homes for the aged sector.

It's not good enough for this government to keep reannouncing $647 million when the Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance for Long-Term Care Reform told us just a few weeks ago, downstairs in the press room, that of the $100 million that was supposed to flow last year only $26 million ever got spent. Clearly, no wonder we're seeing layoffs in the VON, and you told us this was a priority. Instead, you spent the money on day care and trying to fiddle around with other parts of the health care system and you want to buy out operators and ambulance operators and all that sort of thing.

If this is a priority, buckle down and get those community-based services up and running or in two years there's going to be a health care crunch in this province. You won't have to deal with it; I think we'll have the pleasure of dealing with that, and there are going to be senior citizens left out on the street. There are going to frail, elderly people with no place to go, and all the great placement coordination systems in the world, that this bill speaks to, won't be able to house these people and won't be able to look after their care needs. I tell you to buckle down and get your priorities straight and make sure that community-based services are beefed up.

We remain committed to fighting for the redirection of the long-term care system. The system must be capable of dealing fairly with the concerns of both consumers and providers, and we tried to deal with that in this legislation. Most importantly, we remain, as a party, dedicated to ensuring that Ontario's long-term care system is accessible, of high quality and responsive to the needs of those who are served by it.

I see no value in holding up the passage of this legislation since the government, as I said late last year, tied future funding to its passage. Flagging the puck on this is not a good idea. I wouldn't have taken so long this afternoon if the Liberal critic hadn't told us her life history and the history of this legislation. My intention was to only speak 20 minutes. However, the Liberal critic did get into and took credit, I think, unfairly and unilaterally for a number of amendments that all three parties worked on. So I had to get up and give a little more credit to the government and to the staff and to the two ministers who were involved and a little more credit to my colleagues in the Ontario PC Party.

In fairness, we don't want to hold this up. I hope the minister can get some House time to bring this legislation back quickly. Let's encourage the government to get this legislation actually proclaimed so that the funding can flow, because at the end of the day, if phase 1 of long-term care isn't done as spelled out in Bill 101, it's going to be residents, it's going to be the elderly people who are going to suffer. If we had done anything to hold up this legislation, I as a politician would have a great problem looking an elderly person in the eye. So I think we should all buckle down and make sure this passes. With that, I give the government our commitment that in no way do we want to hold this up. Before I repeat that three times and sound like I'm holding it up, I will end my remarks.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Just to respond very briefly to some of the comments from the member for the Conservative Party, he talked about how this legislation is the first step in ending the medicare system that we know today. I can't help but disagree with the member 100%. He will know from basically everything that we've done with respect to medicare that everything is essentially intended to preserve the medicare system we currently have. The Conservatives are notorious for always going back to the heydays when they reigned for 40 years, but they also have to understand that they presided over a medicare system that was young, in its infancy, and no sooner had they implemented the system we have here in Ontario than they ran into trouble with it. We all know what Frank Miller tried to do with health care in Ontario.

So in order to preserve the system we've got, these are the kinds of measures and steps we need to proceed with so that we don't create a two-tier system, the kind of system our Conservative friends would like to see us create, one for the poor and one for the rich. They talk about user fees. That's precisely and exactly what they would do with user fees. It's also important to note that during the 1980s, health care was allowed to rise by the then Liberal government at twice the rate of inflation: 10%, 11%, 12%, 13% a year. What have we done in order to preserve the health care system that we have? We have reduced the increases in health care to less than 1%. That is the kind of thing that's going to preserve the health care system that we have today.

Mrs O'Neill: I would like to make comments on the member for Simcoe West's final remarks, which were that our lead critic, the member for Halton Centre, is delaying the passage of this bill. The real delay in the passage of Bill 101 is the non-return of this Legislature, a recess that was the longest recess in the history of this Legislature, and we're now taking blame because we want to speak for 90 minutes on a bill that's going to change lives, that's reforming seven bills that have been long-standing in this province. Our critic is responsible, as are the other members of the committee.

I want to say that the funding guarantees of this government on Bill 101 are less than trustworthy, if history is any example. It came before us many times that the nursing home funds were to flow on January 1; they have not flowed. The community-based service funds were to flow on March 31; they have not flowed. We await a budget. The budget is going to be presented to us in May, or it may be June -- we don't know -- the latest this budget has been presented, and everything that's been presented in preparation for the budget is now being withdrawn and is on the table. How can anyone have any security in this province?

The chair of the senior citizens' consumer alliance says in a letter, "We are tired of government rhetoric, and the reality of their spending patterns do not match the rhetoric." The facts have to be placed: We are being responsible in making this bill the best we can. We did that in committee and we're doing it again today.

Mr Tilson: I would like to make a few comments as to the speech just given by the member for Simcoe West. I think he should be congratulated, of course, in persuading the members of his committee in making those 150 amendments -- and I guess, to be fair to the government, they should be congratulated, for once, in listening to the comments made by the member for Simcoe West in persuading the government to make those amendments. I think you deserve congratulations in that respect.

1800

Having said that, and before people think I've lost my mind in congratulating you, I will say that the fear of the long-term care operators is the fear of that lack of even balance, the simple perspective that has been given. It is the image that you have been giving, that you're simply going to take over long-term care. You can't do that. You need the private operators to make the system work.

I think the one issue that has surfaced in these debates is the fact that the funding has been tied to the passage of this bill, and that does concern me a great deal.

The other issue is particularly a matter that has surfaced, to be fair, since the committee has met, the fact that there is going to be more bureaucracy, more bureaucracy in the creation of this system, more people who are going to be required to operate this process. Having listened to the Treasurer and others, as I've indicated in the past, trying to cut back on the bureaucracy and the civil servants, it doesn't make sense that you're going to create yet another bureaucracy a week after saying that you're going to be cutting back on the civil servants.

So that, plus the fact that there isn't, as the member for Simcoe West commented, appeal; there is a lack of an appeal process. That matter needs to be resolved in due course. So the jury is still out as to whether this matter will be proclaimed, and of course the elaboration with the regulations.

The Deputy Speaker: Minister?

Hon Mrs Grier: I just want to set the record straight with respect to one aspect of the remarks by the member for Simcoe West. Let me say that I appreciate his support and the very constructive contribution he has made to this debate and to the development of this legislation. However, he did say in his remarks that in a legal challenge, a charter challenge, the private nursing home operators had in fact won their case. I would like to make the point, so the record may show, that that case is still under appeal. In fact, though in the Supreme Court there was no charter infringement, and the judge made it very clear that that was his opinion, he also said that the government should rationalize funding between the private and the publicly operated nursing homes and homes for the aged, and it was as a result of that comment that the study was done that led to the levels-of-care funding and the legislation that is before us today. So as a result of that case, we now have this legislation.

I, like the member for Simcoe West, profoundly regret that we were not able, in the space of an entire afternoon, to bring to conclusion the third reading debate on a piece of legislation that has had second reading debate in this chamber, extensive public hearings, extensive debate in clause-by-clause, and we are now leaving the owners and operators of those private sector as well as the public sector homes waiting for their money yet again.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Simcoe West, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Jim Wilson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the input by other members. I want to thank the minister for clarifying that the matter I spoke of is now on appeal. I doubt as a backbencher in the opposition that I'll have much effect on the courts. It was my impression that the nursing home operators -- I guess at one level they did win; it's on appeal.

I want to say to the member for Downsview, the NDP member, that in hindsight I guess Frank Miller was ahead of himself. He tried to bring some common sense into health care spending several years ago and all heck broke out in this province. This government's got away with closing 5,400 beds or thereabouts, we're told, and the number will rise as a result of the expenditure control plan announced on Friday. Poor Frank tried to close 20 beds and the unions were on the front steps going absolutely nutzoid at that time. Poor Frank was ahead of himself, as Mike Harris was ahead of himself in 1990, during the last campaign, when we talked about the fact that the increased taxation of the Liberals and the proliferation of increased taxes by this government would kill this economy. Today, and I think Friday's announcement with respect to the debts and deficits of this government, is an admission that Mike Harris was ahead of himself a couple of years ago. Fortunately, we're still around to fight the fight on taxes, and we're going to do that.

I do want to end on a positive note. I notice the minister is just leaving the chamber. I want to say that at least the NDP, with respect to long-term care, has gone beyond the years of rhetoric of the Liberal Party and actually taken some decisions and brought a bill before this House, and I congratulate the government for that.

The Deputy Speaker: Being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1806.

26 avril 1993