Hansard Transcript 1988-May-11 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Allen: Let us end child poverty. About 330,000 children in Ontario are stricken with poverty. Children do not choose where they will be born or when they will be born or to whom. The arbitrariness of their fate very quickly overtakes them.

Poor babies have a higher death rate. Poor kids in the lowest income group, aged one to 14, are almost twice as likely to die from some cause than those of the highest income group. The odds are almost five times higher that they will be in a motor vehicle accident; they are three and a half times more likely to drown; suicide and homicide rates are almost three times higher for boys and four times higher for girls aged one to 14 who are poor. For boys 15 to 19, the suicide rate is almost twice as high from the lowest to the highest income group, and they are three and a half times as likely to get killed at somebody else’s hand.

That is not the end of the story. If you are aged one to 14 and in the poorest income category, you are not only twice as likely to get cancer, you are almost twice as likely to die from it within the next two years. If you get a respiratory illness, especially pneumonia, you are twice as likely as a poor boy and six times more likely as a poor girl to die from it. You are also more likely to suffer from anaemia, tooth decay, chronic ear infections, mental retardation, learning disabilities and poor school performance.

These conclusions should shock us. They are the result of a thorough review of existing research by three Toronto medical researchers and, added to the findings of Dan Offord on the social-psychiatric impacts on children on welfare, they are devastating. Do we have in this country an ongoing conspiracy against poor kids and poor children?

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs. Cunningham: I would like to comment on the statements and performance of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) over the last week on the leaseback issue. Put bluntly, but as kindly as I can, it was embarrassing. From day one of this controversy, the minister has been unable to explain the actions of her ministry, unable to explain why she was unaware of the issue and unable to understand that the economic times we are in -- but more important, the actions of her government -- have been forcing hospitals into leaseback arrangements. This government boasts about its new programs and initiatives; yet what it does not say is that it funds only 50 per cent of many of those programs and then expects hospitals, already hard pressed, to find the other 50 per cent.

The Minister of Health owes not only this House but the civil servants in her ministry an apology. Yesterday, when it was revealed that her ministry did indeed grant formal approval for leaseback arrangements, instead of accepting responsibility for it and for her error in denying it, she attempted to put the blame on the civil servants in her ministry. She should be ashamed.

If she wants to play semantics, as she did with the leader of the official opposition the other day, when she waved a thesaurus and said nowhere in it did the word “realign” mean “cut,” let me suggest she look up the word “formal.” One of the definitions is “through channels.” The minister has been hoisted by her own petard and she owes us all an apology.

INGREDIENTS IN FOOD

Mr. McGuigan: In the House of Commons on April 22, Sheila Copps, MP for Hamilton East, introduced private member’s Bill C-289, an Act to amend the Food and Drug Act. This bill would compel each restaurant to make available for public consultation a list of all the ingredients in food sold by the restaurant. Bill C-289 would also compel each branch restaurant to affix a label listing all the ingredients in packaged foods on the container.

At least two families in my riding have recently suffered the death of their children as a result of allergic reactions to food. Ms. Copps, myself and others have addressed this concern. I am pleased to say many restaurants have undertaken voluntary disclosure actions.

The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association has said it supports the consumer’s right to know the ingredients used in restaurant meals. This statement, Ms. Copps’s bill and a recent documentary on CBC’s The Journal are very significant.

I believe we need further recognition from federal Minister of National Health and Welfare Jake Epp that the solution does not rest totally with the allergy sufferer. I believe the measures suggested by Ms. Copps’s bill must be considered in the federal House of Commons and I urge each member of this House to lend his or her support to food allergy sufferers and write to the Honourable Jake Epp to indicate support.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Wildman: In response to the concerns I have expressed and those that have also been expressed by the school boards in northeastern Ontario, the Ministry of Education is sending the assistant deputy minister, Roy Houghton, and regional ministry staff from Sudbury to tour northern Algoma this week to meet with educational officials. The problem is that the ministry has been providing inadequate funding for small school boards in small northeastern Ontario communities. The officials from Toronto and Sudbury will be meeting with the Michipicoten education officials today and then travelling to Hornepayne tomorrow.

I have specifically requested the minister to have them visit St. Basil separate school in White River as well, so that they can discuss the financial difficulties that school faces. Because White River is part of a larger board jurisdiction -- that is, the Michipicoten District Roman Catholic Separate School Board -- and does not have its own board, it does not receive this special isolate school funding that separate boards in neighbouring communities of Dubreuilville and Hornepayne get. As a result, the Michipicoten separate board cannot staff St. Basil sufficiently to meet its mandate to provide needed remedial teaching and special education programs this year.

The problem is not isolated to St. Basil school in White River. It is a problem that small boards and small schools face across the north. Hopefully, Mr. Houghton’s visit will lead to changes in ministry funding policies to ensure that boards across the north get the adequate funding they require.

USE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr. Harris: I rise to bring concerns about ministerial use of confidential bank records to the attention of the House.

This week approximately 95,000 Province of Ontario Savings Office account holders received a personal letter from the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître). The minister’s letter deals with the introduction of guaranteed investment certificates, repeating information provided in an accompanying information pamphlet.

The substance of this particular letter is not at issue, but I am concerned that there is a letter and I am very concerned that the minister has access to the names and addresses of some 95,000 account holders.

Many people question whether our government should even be in the banking business. The savings office was created in 1921 to give credit to farmers. Now it serves as a source of borrowing for the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and costs taxpayers more than $8 million a year to operate. This kind of letter demonstrates just one of the conflicts created by politicians meddling in the private sector.

This financial institution has such a low-profile its own director calls it “the best-kept secret in town.” Obviously, this secrecy does not apply to the names and addresses of its 95,000 clients. I submit the minister should not have personal access to this kind of privileged and confidential information.

1340

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Beer: Mr. Speaker, some housing good news.

Fact 1: With leadership provided by Peter Formica and Sharron Richards of the York Committee on Affordable and Adequate Housing and with strong support by York region council, a nonprofit housing corporation has been set up in York region and an interim request for 350 units is being submitted to the Ministry of Housing.

Fact 2: A joint review has just been carried out by the Ministry of Government Services in the town of Aurora to determine the feasibility of providing housing on government-owned land at the south end of Aurora. Mayor John West and members of his council are working to respond positively to the need for affordable housing in Aurora.

Fact 3: The town of Newmarket’s Mayor Ray Twinney, responding to the request of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) for more affordable housing, has put forward an innovative proposal to cut local lot levies in return for a fixed number of more affordable homes.

Fact 4: The town of Newmarket’s housing committee, chaired by Councillor Tom Taylor, is pushing forward with plans for nonprofit and co-op housing in those areas of the town now slated for housing development. Fellow councillors Diane Humeniuk and Dave Kerwin, along with Chairman Taylor, have announced that 75 units will be built in a new development on the south end of town. The councillors believe Newmarket will respond effectively to the Premier’s request that 25 per cent of all new housing projects be geared to some form of affordable housing. Councillor Kerwin states that “Peterson’s suggestion is humane and decent.”

Fact 5: Today the Premier and the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) are meeting with the regional chairs of York, Durham, Halton, Peel and Metro Toronto to develop more ways to bring on line the affordable housing we need.

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

Mr. Beer: People, ideas and leadership will bring us the housing we need.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale for 31 seconds.

INCINERATOR

Mr. Reville: Congratulations go out today to all those who worked so hard to deliver a significant victory for the environment. Citizens for a Safe Environment and Councillor Rodger Hollander, working together, convinced Metro council yesterday to close down the Commissioner Street incinerator in Riverdale. Kudos to them and a large raspberry to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), who once again got scooped by citizens and local politicians.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am rising to inform the House that under the Public Hospitals Act, I am sending an investigator into the Cambridge Memorial Hospital to report to me on the quality of management and administration of the hospital.

As members will know, the Cambridge hospital is on the list of 22 hospitals with chronic deficits that my ministry has been reviewing. In the fiscal year 1986-87, the hospital ran a deficit of $400,000. In 1987-88, the deficit was $1.5 million and the projected 1988-89 deficit is $3 million.

Ministry of Health staff met with representatives of the hospital yesterday and the hospital presented an amended plan to reduce its deficit, the main points of which were closure of a 40-bed medical-surgical unit and the layoff of 50 staff members and introduction of user fees to patients at the rate of $150 per admission and $50 per surgical day care visit.

The hospital administration intends to present the above plan to its board at a meeting tomorrow. Thus, I am announcing today that I have appointed Vickery Stoughton, president and chief executive officer of the Toronto Hospital, as an investigator under the Public Hospitals Act.

Mr. Stoughton’s report will provide information on the following:

1. The appointment of additional medical staff at Cambridge when the board of governors of the hospital had full knowledge that the resulting cost increase would increase the hospital’s deficit position;

2. The approval of the purchase of expensive computerized systems with little or no financial benefit to the hospital’s operation at a time when the hospital was in a deficit position;

3. The economic impact of the transfer of moneys from the hospital’s operations into the Cambridge Memorial Hospital fund;

4. Decisions to initiate new programs without Ministry of Health approval and the funding and operation of beds above approved and funded capacity;

5. The deliberate approval by the hospital board of deficit budgets.

6. Any other matters relevant to the quality of administration and management of the hospital.

MANDATORY RETIREMENT / LA MISE À LA RETRAITE D’OFFICE

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Today it gives me great pleasure to table the report of the Ontario Task Force on Mandatory Retirement. The task force was chaired by Dr. Ronald Ianni, president of the University of Windsor, and was commissioned by the government in January 1986. Its mandate was to study existing laws and employment practices, which allow for mandatory retirement at age 65.

The task force was also asked to assess the implications of any change in the laws that would restrict or prohibit mandatory retirement practices.

The task force was given this assignment because mandatory retirement had become the subject of considerable debate. It had been noted that the Ontario Human Rights Code affords protection against discrimination in employment only until age 65, at which point individuals may be required to retire.

Opponents of mandatory retirement argued that placing this age limit on protection deprives individuals of their right to equal treatment under section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Others argued that mandatory retirement is socially justifiable because it permits individuals to leave the workforce in dignity, facilitates personnel planning and creates employment opportunities for younger workers. It should be noted as well that the Ontario Court of Appeal has held that mandatory retirement is a reasonable limit to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter.

In their report, the three members of the task force expressed their view that mandatory retirement is out of step with a growing concern for human rights.

They also said the practice is inconsistent with trends developing in Canada and elsewhere, but they disagreed among themselves on what should be done about it.

Dans leur rapport, les trois membres du groupe d’étude ont exprimé le point de vue que la retraite obligatoire n’était plus au diapason de l’inquiétude croissante vis-à-vis des droits de la personne. Ils ont aussi indiqué que cette pratique était en contradiction avec les tendances qui se développent au Canada et ailleurs, mais ils n’ont pu s’entendre sur ce qu’il fallait faire pour remédier à la situation.

The chairman, Dr. Ianni, said that mandatory retirement should be prohibited by law. He said this would put an end to uncertainties about the practice arising out of the charter and would avoid the costs associated with court challenges. This was not the view of the two other members of the task force -- Daniel Damov, president and chief executive officer of Travelers Canada, and Heather Webster, research director for the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers’ Union.

They took the position that relatively few people are affected by current practices and that formal abolition is therefore not necessary.

In the report, the question of whether to legislate an end to mandatory retirement was left open. Should the government decide to end mandatory retirement by means of legislation, the task force recommended, among other things, the following: (1) that employers be given a three-year notice period before implementation of the ban; (2) that the Ontario Human Rights Code be amended to remove the upper age limit on discrimination; (3) that the code still allow employers to claim the right to discriminate on the basis of age, where such discrimination can be shown to be a bona fide occupational requirement; (4) that law enforcement officers, prison guards, firefighters and others whose work is vital to public safety be exempt from the ban; (5) that pension plan rules be changed to allow employees greater latitude in making retirement decisions; (6) that a retirement counselling program be made available to Ontario public servants; and (7) that the government explore means to encourage and facilitate early retirement.

1350

Those are the major recommendations and they will be given every consideration by the government. In tabling this report, I would like to express my appreciation to the task force members for the diligence and the thoughtfulness they brought to their study of this very complex issue. At this time, I would like to introduce the members of the task force, who are with us in the members’ gallery today. They are Dr. Ron Ianni, Daniel Damov and Heather Webster.

RESPONSES

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

Mr. B. Rae: I look forward to reading the report of the Task Force on Mandatory Retirement, but simply say to the minister that, in our view, he cannot deal with the question of mandatory retirement unless he is also prepared to deal with the question of pensions, pension reform, the indexing of pensions and income security for people who are retired, whether they retire at 55, 65 or 70.

To take a legalistic approach that separates the question of mandatory retirement out and away from the question of the indexing of pensions and the adequacy of pensions would be a very serious mistake. I know it was that sense of tension of the issue which has exercised the members of the commission. I, too, want to thank the members of the commission for their labours. I hope very much that they will not be wasted. That depends on the minister’s willingness to bring forward legislation dealing with pensions, as well as with employment standards, in response to what they have had to say.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. B. Rae: I do want to respond, and so will my colleague the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan), to the announcement by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) this afternoon. It is obvious that on Monday, Timmins got the carrot, and on Tuesday, Cambridge got the stick. I think the minister’s announcement today can only be described as the use of a bludgeon to punish hospitals that are faced with the incredible problems which flow from the announcement by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon).

What is obvious from the minister’s statement is that Mr. Stoughton is being asked to provide information on what the ministry has already decided is the problem, rather than to make an independent investigation and determine from the hospitals’ point of view why it is they have made certain decisions and felt forced to do so.

If I might say so, throughout the minister’s statement there is absolutely no sense of the difficulties and dilemmas faced by this hospital, and indeed by every single hospital in this province, in response to the minister’s statement. It is truly incredible when one thinks about it.

When one looks at the major partners in the health care system, what is out of control? Under the Treasurer’s own figures, the Ontario health insurance plan is out of control. What has the ministry’s response to that been? It has been to ask the Ontario Medical Association to decide what the problem is and to let the OMA partially pay for a task force, which has a majority of OMA members on it, to determine what the problem is.

When it comes to drugs, then the ministry says yes, there is a problem, obviously the system is out of control. What is the answer? It is to appoint a long-term commission -- not to do anything about it, but to appoint a long-term study. When it comes to private laboratories, we have no steps by the government to deal with this question.

When it comes to hospitals, whose budget increases have been far less than those of the other partners I have mentioned in the system, what is the response of the government? It is to set out an arbitrary limit of 4.4 per cent, to say that anybody who goes over that is out of luck and not to try to determine what the problem is.

That is why the government is in trouble. It will not do to punish hospitals. It is not the answer to punish hospitals that go public. The answer is to recognize that there is a funding problem. Until the government is prepared to recognize that, it is out of luck.

Mr. Farnan: Also in response, it is obvious that this ministry is in total disarray. It is also obvious that any dialogue that has taken place between this ministry and Cambridge Memorial Hospital has been a total farce.

There has been a drastic increase in population in Cambridge. There have been significant increases in services to meet that demand and, at the same time, there has been absolutely no recognition of this on the part of the ministry. The ministry has avoided serious dialogue. It has destroyed any confidence this community can have in this government to look at the situation seriously, to look at the needs and to look at the needs that are being met. As my leader has pointed out, simply in an effort to look tough on an issue, it takes a hospital and makes this kind of drastic announcement.

This is not the way to run a government. It is not the way to build up confidence. It is a way to undermine the health care system of this province, something the government has started out upon. In a very short time, I can tell the minister, she has undermined the confidence of hospitals, not just in Cambridge, but there are 22 hospitals looking at this. If this is an example of the way we are going to take care of the health needs of the citizens of Ontario, it was a sad day that this Liberal government was ever elected.

Mr. Eves: I would like to respond to the statement from the Minister of Health as well. I think it is a sad day in Ontario’s health system when a minister of the crown has to respond with such a mean-spirited, retaliatory message as she delivered here in this House today.

Where is the report? Why will the minister not make that report public? Where are the other reports for the other 21 hospitals as well? I thought this was open and frank government over there, true democracy. We heard a lot about that in 1985. It seems it has only taken a few short months to forget about that.

Where are these reports? What has the government got to hide? Why are they not public information? The Ministry of Health has had them for 41 days. If the minister did one a day, between her and Dr. Barkin, they could have cleared them up in the first three weeks; or are they not that important?

We have had the reaction of the government earlier to St. Mary’s General Hospital in Timmins. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) said, we have the typical carrot-and-stick treatment being handed out by the Minister of Health in this province.

Cambridge is one of the fastest-growing areas in this province. In fact, the government acknowledged that, with the new Toyota plant in the area substantially increasing the population. The government put $30 million of the taxpayers’ money into it. It is a fast-growing area.

This hospital is obviously doing what the minister has said hospitals across this province should be doing. They are responding to providing essential health care needs for their community, and this community is a very rapidly growing one. Obviously, the hospital thinks it needs more capacity. It has to deliver more services to meet those essential needs in the community.

The minister and the Treasurer have sent some very mixed signals to hospitals across this province: “We’re not going to cover deficits whatsoever. Well, maybe if it was our fault. Well, maybe we’ll cover some and maybe we’ll cover portions of others.” I think the government is going to have to get its act together over there and decide exactly what it is doing with the future of health care in Ontario.

There are not only the 22 hospitals under review right now, but there are also the other hospitals. There are 90-some hospitals in Ontario that operate deficits as well. What are they to gather from the announcement the minister made in the House here this afternoon? What message, she might ask herself, is she sending to some 40 per cent of the hospitals across Ontario?

These are people who, in good conscience and with all sincerity, are trying to deliver essential health care services in rapidly growing areas of the province, and the minister is not providing them with sufficient funds or giving them direction to provide those services I think every Ontarian deserves.

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

Mr. Harris: I want to add my word of thanks to Dr. Ianni, Mr. Danov and Ms. Webster for tackling a very difficult, very complex and very interwoven issue and indicate on behalf of our party our thanks for the effort and time they put into the report of the Task Force on Mandatory Retirement. I look forward to reading it and contributing in any way we can with the government in a difficult problem.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Harris: I want to talk a little bit about the statement from the Minister of Health. It concerns me because North Bay Civic Hospital is one of the hospitals which have had administrative review. Those reviews have been in now for six or seven weeks. They have been completed and they have been finished. What bothers me about these administrative reviews and the way this minister and this government have dealt with the issue is this. They have told the hospitals, “Here is your review,” the peer review that has gone in. “In spite of what that says, you are not to take that to the media. You are not to take that to the public. You are not to talk to Mike Harris about what that administrative review says.” Those are the orders the minister has given out.

Mr. Eves: “And if you dare even think about it, we are going to club you.”

Mr. Harris: “If you dare even think about that, we are going to club you.”

1400

That bothers me. It has bothered me right from the start and it is one of the reasons we have been talking about the issue for a period of time. Now we see this study which has come out here and the talk about retaliatory measures.

There was one administrator in this province who said: “This is too important an issue. My board members have to know. The public has to know. The people who own the hospital have to know.” That was the administrator of the Cambridge Memorial Hospital. He released the report, I assume with the permission of the board. What happens to them? We get this kind of statement from the minister condemning the hospital and the administration.

If these things are all true, the responsible thing would be to take over the management of that hospital. If one is going to do an independent review, one does not come out with this kind of retaliatory, accusatory statement.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions today for the Minister of Health. The minister should know of a case which I want to bring to her attention because it typifies a problem.

Albert LeBel is 39 years old. He lives in Oshawa. He works as a glazing metal mechanic in Whitby at Snap Services, which is a nonunion shop. He is in severe pain. He has to take strong medication every day and his doctor has advised him that he needs his left hip replaced with an artificial joint. He suffers severely from arthritis.

He was booked for surgery for January 30, 1989, at the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital just down the street on Wellesley Street. This booking was made in March 1988.

Mr. LeBel has just received a form letter from Dr. Hugh Cameron, who is the doctor at the Orthopaedic and Arthritic hospital. This letter informs Mr. LeBel that as a result of government cutbacks and restrictions on the hospital’s budget, his new admission date is February 7, 1990, and his new surgical date is February 8, 1990, 20 months hence. What does the minister have to say about this?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I have said a number of times in the House, our goal is to provide the highest possible quality of services with the greatest possible efficiency in hospitals. Over the past three years -- in fact, since the 1984-85 budget -- we have increased funding to hospitals in their base operating budgets by some 39 per cent.

We also have a regionalized system across this province for determining where and how services are provided. The specific hospital the Leader of the Opposition mentions is in contact with the ministry and the ministry determines what program level of service is available.

My advice on this individual case and to anyone is that they should ask for a referral to other hospitals that also provide this service within the system and then judge the differences in waiting time.

Mr. B. Rae: This is a disgraceful situation. The minister should know the executive director of the hospital has said the hospital is having to cut back on joints from $1.6 million to $1 million, which means that artificial hips and knees will be reduced from 600 joint replacements a year to 400. We are not talking about any old hospital. We are talking about one of the leading hospitals in Toronto and indeed in Canada dealing with the question of orthopaedic surgery.

I wonder if the minister can explain how she feels about the fact that Dr. Cameron has felt compelled to write that this document does not apply to patients who are from another province or who are covered by workers’ compensation. What they are clearly saying is that the problem is with the Ontario health insurance plan. It is the restrictions in the government’s payments. It is the way in which the government of Ontario is funding the hospital and that is what is forcing Mr. LeBel to live in this province in acute pain for another 20 months without surgical intervention. Surely, as Minister of Health, the minister would agree that it is quite simply a disgrace.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Actually, I think the issue the Leader of the Opposition raises is one of planning and who should appropriately be planning for services on a regional basis across this province. We recognize that not every hospital can provide every service to everyone, and that is really what this debate in this House is all about.

I accept the fact that we have an important planning process in this province. With the advice of district health councils, the ministry then divides up the allocation we receive from the Treasurer. That allocation has been significant. Over the past 10 years, the hospital sector alone has received a 250 per cent increase. In the past four years, that increase has been 40 per cent.

What we need to have is integrity in that planning process so that as we make the decisions and approve programs, we will then be able to fund them adequately and look at where we have waiting lists and where adjustments may need to be made.

Mr. B. Rae: I say with the greatest respect to the minister that she is so trapped in bureaucratic gobbledegook that she has lost a sense of the humanity of this situation.

Mr. LeBel is not alone. There is not a planning problem. Mr. LeBel may have to quit his job and is going to be in pain for 20 months because those guys have not got a handle on the health care system. That is the reality. We all understand that. That is the reality and that is the problem, and he is not alone.

I would like to ask the minister what she is going to do to see that Mr. LeBel and hundreds of other patients like him are not having to wait for months, and indeed years, simply because she has gotten swamped by the system. She is immersed in the system and she does not have control of it.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I believe, and I think every member in this House would agree, that it is important for us to manage the resources we have. I believe the Canadian system, which is the envy of the world, is one that we must work at together to enhance, preserve and protect. Let me tell the member that a recent statement from the Wall Street Journal of April 22 says it all, I think:

“The Canadian system is beginning to look like a paragon compared with those of the US and Britain. The US system is plagued by runaway costs and a crazy-quilt patchwork of government and private insurance that still leaves a big hunk of the population uncovered, aggravating cost differences in care between the haves and the have-nots. The National Health Service in Britain covers pretty much everyone, but thinly; its quality of medicine is crumbling and Britons who can afford it are fleeing to private physicians. Nobody needs to do that in Canada.”

We must manage our resources. We must plan together. We must not have the kind of open-ended system without adequate planning that will lead us to the kind of disarray south of the border or to the effects of the National Health Service in Britain, which we know has problems.

Mr. B. Rae: I will tell Mr. LeBel the minister’s answer is that he should take out a subscription to the Wall Street Journal. It is tragic to see a minister who is in this position.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: We are not talking about the National Health Service. We are not talking about the American health care system, which stinks and everybody in this House knows it stinks.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Your question is to the Minister of Health?

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the minister, with respect to the announcement she has made today about the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, how can she explain the fact that after several months of consultation with that hospital, there would not be one indication in her statement that anything the hospital has done has been in response to the health care needs of the people of Cambridge?

Why is there not one mention in this entire statement that at least part of the budgetary pressure on this hospital is caused by the fact that there are more and more people living in Cambridge and that this is placing demands on the health care system in that city?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think the Leader of the Opposition does a disservice to this House and the people of this province if he does not suggest that we all agree that quality of care and access to the system are paramount for all of us. In order to do that, through that access and proposal, we must have a well-planned and well-managed system. I think we have planned relatively well in the past with the help of district health councils. What we cannot have is a system where each individual hospital does its own planning and presents its bill to the Ministry of Health.

1410

Mr. B. Rae: The minister cannot describe what is happening as a triumph of planning. It is planning gone nuts to have a situation where a hospital feels obliged to make the kind of announcement it was planning to make or planning to propose to the hospital board, which everybody on this side realizes is completely unacceptable, and then to turn around and say, “I am going to ask the president of Toronto Hospital, Mr. Stoughton, to go in.”

Just look at the minister’s terms of reference. Every aspect of her terms of reference is a classic case of blaming the victim. There is not one aspect here in which the minister has said -- I mean, it is guilty even before the investigation takes place. The minister has hung, drawn and quartered the Cambridge hospital. She has said, “It’s all your fault and nothing to do with the ministry.”

Why does the minister not ask Mr. Stoughton to look into the actions of the Ministry of Health? Why does she not ask Mr. Stoughton to look at the ways in which budgets of the Ontario Liberal Party government affect the Ministry of Health and affect the way in which hospitals operate? Why does she not make him really independent instead of having to do the minister’s hatchet job for her?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Cambridge hospital was one of 22 which were under review by the ministry. One of the results of that review was the need to send in an investigator under the Public Hospitals Act, which is the beginning of a process of inspection under that act, which is a result of some of the things we found as a result of that review.

The terms of reference are very clear. If the member opposite is saying it is acceptable to have a list of unapproved programs, unauthorized purchases or operating funds which have been shifted or shielded to a foundation of the hospital, let him stand up and say that that is acceptable management practice. To me, that is not acceptable management practice.

The message is that we are going into the hospital to ensure that essential services are maintained and that that hospital is properly and appropriately managed.

Mr. B. Rae: What I am saying is that to have a trial of a hospital in which the minister is the judge, she is the prosecutor, she presents the evidence and then she appoints her investigator is not just, is not fair, is not right. She is to blame for this situation as much as anybody else in this province, and that is what we are saying.

The minister knows perfectly well that there is a Woods Gordon study out on the hospital which says that the hospital has been operating efficiently. In a conversation which our researchers had just a few moments ago with the administrator of the hospital this is all news to the hospital. There has been no advance warning to the hospital with respect to what the government was planning to do.

I say to the minister that if she wanted to have a study in which she says to somebody, “Look at us, look at the hospital and say what the problem is,” that would be one thing. But to say, “We are blameless, we are lily-white, we have not done anything wrong; it is entirely the hospital’s fault that more and more people are getting sick in Cambridge and more and more people are living in Cambridge,” that is a disgrace, that is not justice, that is unfair.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think we all agree, and what I am hearing from the majority of the hospitals in this province is, that we must work together co-operatively and we must ensure that funding is used appropriately, and the Public Hospitals Act is there to ensure that care is provided to people in communities in a fiscally responsible manner.

I believe the hospitals are willing to work with the ministry, and we meet with them on a regular basis. The suggestion that Cambridge hospital has not been in contact with the ministry is factually inaccurate. They met with ministry officials yesterday, as this statement was very clear about, and I expect that the problems existing in that particular situation will be resolved in the very near future.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Brandt: I, too, would like to pursue the question of health care funding with the minister, particularly as it relates to some of the answers that she gave to questions yesterday in the House related to the whole concept of leaseback.

The minister obviously is now aware that approvals were in fact given by some of her ministry officials for leasebacks by certain hospitals, and even if the minister herself did not know about it, certainly ministry officials who were in a position of authority gave that kind of direction to various hospitals throughout this province.

By way of a question, I wonder if the minister could indicate to the House today how many hospitals have entered into leaseback arrangements in Ontario and how many millions of dollars’ worth of public equipment has been sold to private investors as of this time?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: My answers in the House yesterday regarding leaseback situations were made on the basis of incomplete information, and I would like to set the record straight. When I made initial inquiries about the matter of leasebacks some days ago, the information supplied at that time was that there was no approval process and that the ministry was concerned only with general guidelines on leasebacks.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I do not believe I am getting an answer to my question. If this is a statement of clarification on the part of the minister, there is an appropriate time for her to respond to that kind of statement.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: For the information of the leader of the third party, I think it is important that he have this. I did not approve any leaseback arrangements, nor did I delegate authority to any ministry official to do so. I was not aware that approvals were being given at the bureaucratic level. This, to me, is clearly unacceptable, and I have moved to ensure that it is clearly understood that “approval” means approval by the minister.

Mr. Brandt: It is totally unacceptable to me that the minister stood up and gave her statement and completely ignored the question I asked her. That is completely unacceptable. If she wants to apologize for a question that was asked yesterday --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think any member would want the Speaker to judge whether a question is in order or a response is in order. Would the member place his supplementary?

Mr. Brandt: Certainly it is in order to comment that the minister has full ministerial responsibility and is responsible for her staff.

My question -- and I am sure the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) will find this to be a responsible question -- is very simply the question I asked in the first instance when I led off to the minister: How many hospitals? How many millions of dollars? A simple question.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In light of the questions being raised and also my interest in this subject, I have asked ministry officials to gather together the very information the leader of the third party has requested. If he would like to put it in the form of a question in Orders and Notices, I would be pleased to respond.

Mr. Brandt: I can see that we are going to proceed by very small inches with respect to information on this particular topic. I want to be helpful to the minister, because this is not a good day for her. This is a very difficult day for her in the House, I can see.

On the basis of public information to which I have access and certainly to which the minister should have access, my staff has put together figures for the hospitals and the universities -- for the information of the Treasurer as well – which are involved in leaseback arrangements, all publicly reported.

There are five hospitals and two universities which have publicly indicated and confirmed that they are involved in leasebacks. The amount of money involved is over $200-million worth of equipment, which has been bought and paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario and has ultimately been sold to private investors. That is only seven institutions. Can the minister tell us, at the very least, how many hospitals have entered into leaseback arrangements?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think the questions of today and yesterday raise the importance of the initiative the Treasurer took in placing a moratorium on sale-and-leasebacks. I fully support the action he has taken, because it will give me an opportunity to discuss this issue with the Ontario Hospital Association and some of those hospitals which have practised this in the past.

The specific information the leader of the third party requests could be available if he would like to ask for that as an order paper question.

Let me say that the one delegation of authority as minister which I have done with an open heart and wholeheartedly was to delegate the responsibility under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to ensure that all members of the public have timely and easy access to information from the Ministry of Health.

1420

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Eves: I, too, have a question for the Minister of Health. A few moments ago, in response to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), the minister said she was taking a co-operative, consultative approach with respect to Cambridge Memorial Hospital, but we, too, just confirmed with the administrator of the hospital that he was totally unaware of the announcement that the minister is making today until she stood up in this House and made it. Is this her idea of a co-operative, consultative approach? Is this how she intends to operate with respect to hospitals across the province and deficits?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The ministry officials were very clear in their concern about the hospital’s plans. We believe very strongly that the hospitals cannot work in isolation, and the action taken today, I believe, is appropriate to ensure that we maintain essential services in the community.

Mr. Eves: On the second page of the minister’s statement today, the third item of information is, as she refers to it, “the economic impact of the transfer of moneys from the hospital operations into the Cambridge Memorial Hospital fund,” better known as the capital reserve fund. The Ministry of Health’s hospitals’ operating procedures booklet, if the minister will refer to section 2, subsection 2, says that hospitals should set aside money for their capital funds.

In Dr. Barkin’s famous letter asking hospitals to realign their services, as the minister and he choose to put it, it also says to hospitals that they are to set aside some of their funds for capital funding, a capital reserve fund. How does the minister explain that this is supposedly some breach by Cambridge hospital of what it is supposed to be doing?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me reiterate something I have said in this House before: The majority of the hospitals in this province meet their budgets. A significant number, some 25 per cent, have been having regular surpluses. We know that they provide excellent care to our communities.

On the other hand, as I have said, they cannot work in isolation, and I am looking forward to the report from Mr. Stoughton so that I can ensure not only quality care but also responsible fiscal management in our hospitals.

Mr. Eves: The minister has referred in the House this afternoon to an open approach, to a consultative approach, to a co-operative approach with the hospitals. Will she table in the House this afternoon the 22 reviews of the 22 hospitals with deficit problems? This is an open and frank government, this is true democracy here in Ontario. The taxpayers have paid for those reviews. The minister has had 41 days to go over them. Will she table them in the House so the people of Ontario can see what is happening with their health care system in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: From the very beginning of this process I have clearly shared with all the members what that process would be.

The first phase of this two-pronged process is that we would conduct a review of some 22 hospitals experiencing chronic problems. Second, we would bring those together and we would work with the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Council of Administrators of Teaching Hospitals. the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Nurses’ Association and share that information as we look for the root causes of those deficits.

The second phase is to look at the overall remuneration system of how we fund those hospitals. That process is ongoing and not complete. When the process is complete, I will be pleased to share that information with members of the House.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question as well for the Minister of Health about the underfunding of health care in northern Ontario. Perhaps she may want to redirect it to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), who has been cheering on her answers all afternoon to this point.

The minister knows that the General Hospital in Sault Ste. Marie had a deficit of $1.2 million last year. Because of a projected deficit of $2.4 million for the upcoming year, they have recently announced major cutbacks across the board, including staff cuts and the closure of beds. These will include the closure of five beds in their paediatrics unit as well as five of 16 beds in their modified level III neonatal intensive-care unit, a regional unit serving all of northern Ontario.

Why is the minister cutting these vital health services to women and children across the north?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think again it is important to reiterate what it is that we are trying to accomplish. We have a planning and an approval process within the ministry. Annually, the ministry approves budgets of hospitals, and that is based on approved programs. We then expect those hospitals to manage within resources, like every other institution in this province.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Certainly that response is of no comfort at all to the General Hospital or to the people, and the women especially, in northern Ontario.

Last fall the minister’s Advisory Committee on Reproductive Care issued a report, Reproductive Care: Towards the 1990’s, which emphasized the need for neonatal and perinatal care in northern Ontario. The report recommends: “Immediate measures need to be taken by the Ministry of Health to train, recruit and sustain obstetrical, neonatal, perinatal and anaesthesia specialists in northern Ontario so that mothers and newborns will receive the same care as is available in southern Ontario.”

Instead of closing neonatal beds in Sault Ste. Marie, why will the minister not act on these recommendations and give women in northern Ontario the same reproductive services enjoyed by women in the south?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The specific question the member asks is a very important one. Ontario is a world leader in perinatal and neonatal care, and Sault Ste. Marie is acknowledged as a centre of excellence. In fact, in hospital funding, we acknowledge this by the fact that our neonatal level III intensive services are provided additional funds under life-support systems when that is determined necessary.

At this time, we are reviewing the service provided in Sault Ste. Marie so that we can make sure the capacity is there to meet the needs.

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Minister of Health. It relates to the question of the deficit problems suffered by 22 hospitals across the province and the ministry’s response to what has become an increasingly urgent health care problem for the citizens of this province.

We have seen the bloody-minded approach of the minister when it comes to Cambridge Memorial Hospital. I would like to deal with what appeared at first blush to be a capitulation by the ministry at the 11th hour with respect to the St. Mary’s General Hospital system.

The minister will know that last year’s deficit was $1.46 million for St. Mary’s hospital in Timmins. This year it is projected to be $2.2 million.

I have carefully analysed the minister’s statements on Monday of this week in the Legislature with respect to the funding of St. Mary’s hospital. The response of the minister is important when it comes to the other 21 hospitals which are suffering from deficits. Therefore, in light of the minister’s answers on Monday, is she going to pay the total accumulated deficit of St. Mary’s hospital? If so, when? Are all existing programs essential? When will they be approved? How much money will be --

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are quite a number of questions there.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member for Cochrane South, in whose riding St. Mary’s hospital is located, has raised once again the issue of how we are proceeding with these reviews and how we are going to achieve our goal of providing the highest-quality service in a fiscally responsible way in a well-planned and well-managed system of hospital delivery of care.

St. Mary’s is a very good example of where the Ministry of Health had not yet acknowledged in the base budget the funding requirements for the success of our underserviced area program. I have said repeatedly in this House that when, through that review process, we determine that the base has not acknowledged the funding approvals from the ministry, we will make those adjustments. The corollary to that, of course, is that where we find there are unapproved programs, that is unacceptable.

Mr. Pope: We are talking about St. Mary’s General Hospital in Timmins, with an accumulated deficit of $3.66 million, and the deficit problems of another 21 hospitals in Ontario and the response of this government and this minister to their problems.

I think the other 21 hospitals and the people who enjoy St. Mary’s hospital services are entitled to know exactly what she means. Her officials were there Monday. They have been back. It was the first issue in the Legislature on Monday that she had to answer. She has now had time to be briefed. I think we are entitled to know: will the minister pay the total accumulated deficit of $3.66 million? If so, when? Will she designate all existing services as essential? Will she increase the base budget; and if so, by how much and when?

1430

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

Mr. Pope: These are the basic economic issues that confront the board and we are entitled to an answer. Now, what is the answer?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I know the hospital has responded with a public statement, and I am pleased to inform the member that there will be no staff cutbacks or cutbacks in services at St. Mary’s General Hospital. The ministry has allocated funding from the underserviced area program and has enhanced the base so that St. Mary’s can maintain existing staff and service levels.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for St. Catharines-Brock.

Mr. Dietsch: I hate to be out of style today, but my question is for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara).

Mr. Pope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think the minister might want to rise right now and correct the record. The base budget of St. Mary’s hospital has not been adjusted.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for St. Catharines-Brock.

BERYLLIUM FUMES

Mr. Dietsch: My question is for the Minister of Labour. I have been aware for a number of years that the residents of the Fitzgerald neighbourhood in St. Catharines-Brock have been facing a fugitive emission problem, originating at the Burnstein foundry since 1970. I understand as well that the workers in the plant are also concerned with the concentrations of the heavy metal beryllium that have built up internally.

My question to the minister is: what steps are being taken to make this plant safe for those inside as well as outside in the community of St. Catharines-Brock?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I understand the concern the member for St. Catharines-Brock has on this issue and I thank him as well for notice that he was going to be pressing me on this issue. I can now tell my colleague that control orders have been issued by both my ministry and the Ministry of the Environment.

Beryllium fumes had been occurring in concentrations of up to five times the acceptable level inside the plant during pouring operations. On March 9, 1988, my ministry issued orders to the company to put in engineering controls in the form of mechanical ventilation. This order was placed in concert with the Ministry of the Environment control orders, both of which should improve dramatically, I should say, the safety not only of the workers but also of the people in the surrounding community.

Mr. Dietsch: The neighbourhood ratepayers have expressed some serious concern that the main Ministry of the Environment control order, which will reduce emissions into the community, has been held up for some six months at the request of the Minister of Labour. Why has the minister delayed this control order that has been so long awaited by the people of the Fitzgerald neighbourhood?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If I can just explain to the House and to my friend the member for St. Catharines-Brock, the control order has not been delayed. What has been requested by the Ministry of Labour is an extension of the Ministry of the Environment control order from a period of 30 days to 200 days. This does not mean the control order program has not been extended. What it does mean is that it gives us an opportunity to demand a far more sophisticated system.

Mr. Mackenzie: You are not serious.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I tell my friend the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) that the Ministry of the Environment control order had called for the boarding up of windows on the George Street side of the factory. The boarding up of those windows would have exposed the workers to a far higher level of beryllium. Instead, what we have had, after consultations between the two ministries, is a system where we can require a comprehensive ventilation system so that not only the people in the community but the workers inside the facility as well will not be exposed to beryllium.

The safety of the workers has to be as important as the safety of the surrounding community, and I think with the extension period and the more sophisticated system we have achieved both objectives.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Farnan: Two months ago in this House I urged the Minister of Health to inform the Cambridge Memorial Hospital immediately whether or not it would be receiving a grant. I used the date of April 19, when her ministry officials were meeting with the Cambridge board. No response. The minister came to me personally and promised that she would brief me on the Cambridge situation. The minister has never briefed me and never called me for such a briefing.

The announcement today came without the Cambridge hospital board’s being aware of such an announcement, and yet the minister’s officials met with the board just yesterday and gave no indication that this announcement was coming today. I ask the minister, is this the way to run a ministry? Are we going to go along with subterfuge and deceit, or is there a better way in which to run a ministry, with openness, with honest dialogue so that the people she is talking to know what they --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened very carefully and probably we should all tone down our comments and stay a little more relaxed.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I caution the member to be sure his criticism is responsible. It is very important that we have, within the hospital sector, quality of care, good and responsible management and fiscal responsibility. The boards have a very important function. I expect to work closely with those hospitals and I expect them to work closely with the ministry. We cannot have hospitals working independently and expecting the ministry simply to pick up the bill.

The Cambridge hospital, as I informed the member some time ago, has had a number of deficits and has been suggesting what we consider to be inappropriate solutions to some of the resulting deficits from its taking actions that we consider to be questionable. I am looking forward to the results of the review that the investigator, Mr. Stoughton, will give to me about the actions of the board and the administration so that I can ensure essential services are maintained in Cambridge.

Mr. Farnan: Patient days have increased over the last year in Cambridge Memorial Hospital from 136,700 to 140,363. Admissions have increased by over 7.3 per cent. We know it is a growth area. We have had reviews. We have had dialogues. In speaking to the administrator of the hospital, indeed he says they welcome review, but they have been through a review and they have been through a review of a review. The minister’s modus operandi for running her ministry is to have a review of a review of a review. That is not running the health system.

Mr. Speaker: And the question would be?

Mr. Farnan: I ask the minister: is it not about time that she changed her modus operandi from review, review, review to care, care, care and action, action, action, and financed these much-needed hospital and health care centres in our province?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We have had several examples in the past in this province of hospitals that have experienced difficulties with chronic deficit problems. One example is a hospital which, some four years ago, was providing good quality care and today is providing superb quality care. Instead of running the deficit of four years ago, it is running on a balanced budget and has surpluses. That institution is now an international example of efficient management; that is Sunnybrook Medical Centre.

Mr. Harris: The minister today read a strong, condemning statement about the administration and management of the Cambridge hospital. She has indicated to us that it is based on an administrative review or a peer review that was done at the request of the hospital. Those reviews are done at the request of the hospital. They request a peer review to justify why they need an increase in their base. The minister made a strong statement today on the basis of that review, condemning this hospital, and yet she refuses to table that review in this Legislature, to give it to the opposition parties.

Can she give us one single, solitary, good reason why that review, requested by the hospital, paid for by public funds and upon which she has read the most condemning statement I have ever heard read in this House, should not be tabled today with this Legislature?

1440

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I ask the member opposite not to put words in my mouth. I looked through the statement as he was reading and there were several words he used that I have not used. I have attempted not to be inflammatory in this House and urge him to assume that same style. What I have said is that when the reviews are complete and we are finished with the examination, I will be happy to see that those are available to members of the House.

Mr. Harris: She has said “when the reviews are complete.” She has had this review for some 41 days now. She has analysed it to the extent that she felt obliged to make this statement she made today. She has analysed it to the extent that she has decided on the action she is going to take. The action she is going to take is that she is going to appoint Vickery Stoughton to go in and do the investigation. She has already said, “This is the action I am taking.”

We are saying, is it not fair and is it not reasonable, if she has analysed it, made her decision and this is what she is going to do, that we have an opportunity, and the public have an opportunity, to judge the basis on which she made that decision?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have been very clear in this House as to process. We have reviewed the 22 hospitals. We now have those 22 reviews which we are reviewing together to look for chronic root problems so that we can solve the problem of hospital deficits on an ongoing, long-term basis. At the same time, we are looking at the individual hospital situations and responding as we believe is appropriate in the best interests of maintaining essential services in a responsible way.

Mr. Brandt: When will it be released? When will we get it? That is the question. It is not about the 22 hospitals.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: You tried to close the hospitals.

Mr. Brandt: We want an answer today. We didn’t get one answer today, not one; or yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

DISCOUNTS ON MOTOR VEHICLES

Mr. Lipsett: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. From time to time, motor vehicle dealers offer potential new-car buyers one of two discount purchase options, a cash rebate or a low-rate interest finance plan. Why does his ministry not allow Ontario dealers the opportunity to offer a choice of the two options to their customers?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: First, let me say to my friend the member for Grey, so that he presumably can tell his dealers, that we do not prohibit the automobile dealers or manufacturers from offering either a cash rebate or a low-interest option. What we do require is that if they want to offer that option, they have to disclose the true cost of borrowing and the true interest rate. If I could use an example very briefly, in a case where it is a $750 rebate or a certain amount of financing, they must disclose the true amount of financing, including the $750. In that case, rather than being 3.9 per cent, it turns out to be a true cost of borrowing of 12.2 per cent.

Mr. Lipsett: Since other provinces do allow customer choice in this matter, does the minister feel this policy is in the best interest of our consumers?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Certainly the honourable member is correct that Ontario is the only province, in fact maybe the only jurisdiction in North America, that has taken the position we have taken. I can tell the honourable member that the motor vehicle manufacturers challenged the position the ministry had taken in court late last year, and earlier this spring Mr. Justice Maloney delivered a decision that was favourable to the ministry.

I should read just a portion of that decision because I think it is important that the House and automobile dealers understand the position His Honour took. He said, “On any common sense interpretation, the waived rebate must be included in the cost of financing.” He went on to say: “Obviously, the rebate which would otherwise have been available to the purchaser is buried in the transaction in place of what would otherwise have been shown as interest. It would be naïve to think otherwise.”

I think that position the judge took is a very important one and I note the motor vehicle manufacturers have accepted that ruling and have not appealed it.

RICHMOND HILL LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. following up some of the questions I put to him yesterday. He said in answer to my question that there was an investigation of a kind under way with respect to the Gormley industrial development, as I understood his answer. The minister will know that allegations with respect to the assembly of land, the rezoning of land and the incredible speculation in the value of that land involve not only that particular land assembly project, but also the so-called 16th Avenue site in Richmond Hill and questions around the jail farm site and the Wilcox Lake development. The minister will, I am sure, be aware of all of those.

Can he tell us, is it his intention to ask Mr. Hamblin to investigate all these questions or is he simply looking in a very restricted way at the one question involving the Gormley industrial development?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Our ministry is responding to the citizens who have asked our ministry to look into the administrative practices of the town of Richmond Hill and we are responding according to the act. If some 50 residents ask this to be looked into, we will do that. That is simply what we are doing, responding to the residents of Richmond Hill.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister does not have to just do that. He should have a look at section 10 of the Municipal Affairs Act.

I ask the minister how he would feel if he were a farmer and he went to the mayor of the town and said: “I am retiring. I have been in farming and my family has been in farming for 100 years. I am planning to sell. Do you have any plans for this land?” The mayor says, “Your land is going to be farm land for another 10 or 20 years.” The farmer turns around and sells that land for $23,000 an acre and in the space of two years that land is changing hands at $100,000 an acre.

If the minister were in that position as a farmer I wonder how he would feel, if he would not feel that his provincial government was the one government he would expect to be fighting on his behalf to see that he simply was not taken advantage of in the way that appears to have happened in York region in the last few years.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I think we have to be very careful here. The practices we are looking into are all those in connection with the administrative practices of the town of Richmond Hill. If the member is referring to a conflict of interest, that then becomes a criminal charge; and as I said yesterday the Ontario Provincial Police has an investigation in which it is looking into certain allegations.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Will the minister tell this House exactly how many provincial parks he has designated under the regulations since 1985?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think I would be just a little too quick if I responded to that without examining precisely where we are. We are in fact examining that in great depth. I will be prepared within the next day or two to give the member a full report on the numbers that have been regulated since we took over as a government, and where we are going with the future parks.

Mr. Pollock: It is my understanding the minister has only designated 14 parks of the 65 provincial parks he originally said he was going to designate. That is only 20 per cent of that total. It is my understanding the minister was seriously considering closing two provincial parks. Will the minister live up to his promise and commit that provincial park network?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This causes me to share, just to a small degree, the kind of initiative that is being taken in Ontario. The member is going to be very pleased when he sees that this government over the next while is going to provide to the people of Ontario more parks, the best parks there are anywhere in the world, in the kind of numbers that will entertain anyone who wants to use them, for wilderness experience, for camping and hunting, for all of those things. It is going to be done in a way that is going to bring a smile to the member’s face and to the face of every other user of parks.

1450

TRADE WITH EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of being part of a trade delegation to the Hanover Industrial Fair. As the minister knows, the Hanover Industrial Fair is the largest industrial fair in the western world, with over 6,000 exhibitors from all over the world.

Somewhat to my surprise, a key question discussed by many European newspapers on the occasion of the fair was the free market plans to be set in place by 1992 in all member countries of the European Community. The establishment of a totally unrestricted trading zone for some 300 million people will be of major impact on all export-oriented economics. In the interest of monitoring, or better still increasing, Ontario’s international trade, my question to the minister is, therefore, does he agree with the importance of this date and how is his ministry preparing for 1992?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Members should know that outside of the United States, the largest market that Ontario has is western Europe under the European Community; 80 per cent --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Is the Premier (Mr. Peterson) not going to wait for my question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but I remind the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) of standing order 24(b) -- he should be very familiar with it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I made the mistake of telling the Premier I was going to ask him a question, so he left.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I will just repeat that next to the United States, the largest market Ontario has is western Europe, with 80 per cent of our sales going to the European Community, so we are of course very conscious of the fact that in 1992 there will be one economic union; there will be opportunities but there will also be challenges. We are currently doing a review to see what the implications will be.

I should also say that there are several companies, Northern Telecom included, that are also looking at this issue.

Mr. Daigeler: I am pleased to know that preparations are under way to prepare for this significant date in Ontario. Quite frankly, I am somewhat surprised how little mention has been made in the North American press about this matter.

I would like to ask the minister, what is being done not only by his ministry but also to interest Ontario’s industry leaders themselves in these new trading opportunities in Europe and in fact the world over?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure members will know that as part of our response to the bilateral trade agreement negotiated between the federal government and the United States, we have taken the stand that it is imperative that we not only deal with the United States but that we also diversify and deal with the Pacific Rim and Europe.

Our traditional partners in Europe have always been very good markets for us. We are currently meeting with the various trade delegations, the ministers of trade in those jurisdictions, and we are also sending trade missions to Europe. We are very active in that arena.

ADVOCACY SERVICES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have always had the capacity to clear a hall quickly, but I have never had this effect on the Premier (Mr. Peterson) before. In the absence of the Premier and in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who did not know I was going to ask the question, I will ask the question of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons.

It was last August that Father Sean O’Sullivan finally reported on a review of advocacy in Ontario, entitled You’ve Got A Friend. I know Father O’Sullivan was hoping there would be a very quick response by the government in terms of legislation.

I would like to ask the minister why there is no mention in the budget of the new advocacy program for Ontario which was advocated in the report and why we have not seen that legislation still, these many, many months in the waiting?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: I just want to let the honourable member know that I was receiving advice from the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine), and I want to let the honourable member know that the Minister of Northern Development always speaks well of him.

I want to say to the member that we have been very active in having interministerial meetings regarding the report that has been prepared by Father O’Sullivan. Some months ago, after the report was first tabled, I took the opportunity to meet with him on several occasions to more clearly understand what he wished to accomplish.

Since that time, we have had meetings with the Attorney General, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) and others. We have had meetings at the staff level.

The honourable member would know it takes a great deal of time to touch base with all the community groups that need to have their input into the system and to put forward a policy as a whole for the acceptance of the cabinet. It cannot be done simply by tabling a piece of legislation after a report like Father O’Sullivan’s is done. It just cannot be done that way.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am aware of the fact that the real problem in this process has been the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services and that this particular minister has been shut out of the role of co-ordinating this particular effort. I do know that.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We don’t shut anybody out.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The members may think it is not taking much time, but Father O’Sullivan’s report was begun over a year and a half ago. I want the members to know that.

I would like to ask the minister about the Fram report on substitute decision-making, which is a crucial part of this whole process and which had attached to it draft legislation and was submitted to the ministry in December last year. Why have we not as yet seen that report tabled in this House, and why again is the legislation required to assist the vulnerable of Ontario not being brought forward? Is it the case now that there is not a friend in the --

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

Mr. R. F. Johnston: -- Ontario government for the vulnerable in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: I want to say to the honourable member across the floor whom I respect a great deal that his accusation is entirely incorrect.

We have not in any way tried to delay the process to fully consider the report which has been prepared by Father O’Sullivan. As a matter of fact, the working group was struck shortly after Father O’Sullivan did his report. The working group is at the present time preparing a report to five different ministers.

We are all working together and we hope in the very near future we will have something to say in a significant way in regard --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Mancini: -- to the report that has been conducted and completed by Father O’Sullivan. I have recently spoken to Father O’Sullivan, and he is aware of what is going on.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs. Marland: My question is for the Minister of Government Services and I hope he is better at fulfilling promises than the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio).

The city of Scarborough has just released its report on changing the zoning of the Rouge Valley lands to recreational. The minister and his cabinet colleagues will soon have to make a decision on the future of this priceless heritage.

My question to the minister is, has he ever gone out to the Rouge Valley and walked through, not driven by, or does he know of any of his cabinet colleagues who have also walked through this precious area?

Hon. Mr. Patten: Yes, I have had the honour and the privilege of walking by parts of the valley. I have had the privilege of circling the whole area, in fact, in a helicopter so that I would get a fairly good appreciation of the land mass, because often one will notice that the television cameras will give only a shot of the valley lands and not a comprehensive picture. It is important to get an appreciation of that. I would think the members from Scarborough who are in cabinet -- and there are two and the member knows both of them -- have been through --

Hon. Mr. Mancini: There are three.

Hon. Mr. Patten: There are three; I am sorry. They have of course taken a great interest and have walked through that area and know it very well.

1500

Mrs. Marland: I am amazed that the evaluation and the future of the Rouge Valley is resting on a decision from a helicopter. For goodness’ sake, that is incredible. I cannot believe the minister’s answer.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: You have lost one of your props.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting near the end of the question period. Perhaps the member would place the supplementary.

Mrs. Marland: It is our information that none of the members of the cabinet have ever actually walked through the Rouge Valley land. I am not talking about driving around or walking around. I am talking about walking through this 10,000 acres of land for which this cabinet has the future decision to make.

Mr. Pope: You can’t get there by boat.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître : You have lost your prop.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Place your question.

Mrs. Marland: My question to the minister is: how can the people of this province trust any decision made by this cabinet, when no one has actually ever been on this property, the future of which we are concerned about? How can they appreciate the property if they have not been on it?

Hon. Mr. Patten: I am somewhat disappointed, frankly, that the member would ask a question like that, when I am sure she might have wanted to ask a question of substance related to the Rouge Valley, and yet she asked a question of that nature.

Yesterday the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) walked through the valley. The Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) has been through it 11 times in the last month. The Minister for Skills Development (Mr. Curling) has been through the area. How much more would the member like?

Mrs. Marland: Have you been through it?

Mr. Chairman: Order. That completes oral questions. It appears that we have to wait for a while to continue with the business of the House. Order. The member for Mississauga South completed her question, and the other members do not need to add to the confusion.

PETITIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Brandt: I have petitions signed by another 2,000 irate taxpayers in Ontario, and they are all here for the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) today. They read as follows:

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

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

A very simple, direct message – “Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

This brings to 4,000 the number of petitions that have been submitted to the Treasurer requesting that he take action on his confiscatory budget. We ask the Treasurer to heed the cry of these people who want him to bring in a responsible budget.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the member signed the petition?

Mr. Brandt: Yes. Signed all 4,000 of them.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: Do you know that we have about 60,000 to 70,000 more?

Mr. Speaker: I would appreciate it very much if the members would show respect to other members who wish to place other petitions. The member for Mississauga East.

Mr. Sola: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Third rate publicity stunt.

Mr. Brandt: This is a fourth rate budget.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I bet you the photographer gets paid more than the leader of the third party.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Reville: Bob, those are your guys over on that end.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Want to frame that, Andy?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The best way may be to recess for a short while.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Sola: I have a petition reading:

“We petition the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and we wish to bring to our government’s attention that we are concerned about preserving our environment.

“We strongly urge you to care about our forests, first, by seeing that reforestation is enforced in the lumbering industry, as well as selective harvesting; second, by preserving some of our forests in their natural state so that wildlife may continue to survive and people may enjoy the natural beauty of our land.

“We are also concerned about the quality of our waterways. The need to clean up the St. Lawrence River is currently in the news and we would urge you to get working on this. Our lakes and rivers are a resource which must be cared for regardless of cost. We need clean drinking water.

“We believe it is our duty to be good stewards of our environment. Please give this your strong support.”

It is signed by 16 members of Bethesda United Church of Glen Forest.

CHRONIC CARE

Mr. Hampton: I have two petitions.

The first is a petition from the citizens of the community of Rainy River, a community where some 67 per cent of the population is now made up of senior citizens. The petition is addressed:

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario to provide the citizens of Rainy River with a chronic care facility.”

It is signed by some 400 people.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Hampton: Finally, a petition from the community of Wabigoon, a community which has recently learned that the school in the community will now be triple-graded.

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

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

“To provide quality education to smaller communities where triple-grading and possible closure of schools will affect our community seriously.”

That is signed by all the members of the community.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Beer from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr56, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

TOWN OF OAKVILLE ACT

Mr. Carrothers moved first reading of Bill Pr48, An Act respecting the Town of Oakville.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Reville moved that pursuant to standing order 37(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside on Wednesday, May 11, 1988, to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, that being the government’s decision to enforce budget constraints on all Ontario’s hospitals, resulting in “service realignments” -- which is another term for cutbacks in service -- resulting in longer waiting lists for people needing surgery, and more use of emergency rooms and hallways to accommodate patients who need to be admitted to hospital, while doing nothing to provide funding for community-based alternatives to hospitals which, if put in place, would relieve some of the pressure on the hospitals.

1510

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 37(a), Mr. Reville has moved a motion that the ordinary business of the House be set aside. I believe some members have received copies of that motion. This motion was received in my office in the proper time and therefore is in order. I will listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes as well as representatives from the other parties.

Mr. Reville: Members of the House may be feeling a slight sense of déjà vu. That is because this is the third day in a row that I have moved that the ordinary business of this House be set aside to debate a matter of urgent public importance. For two days, the government has used its majority to prevent such a debate from occurring and, instead, has sent, first, the Chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Elston), and second, the government House leader to stand before the House and discuss amusing and arcane Marquis of Queensberry-type rules because, clearly, this government does not have the gumption to face a debate on the crisis it has allowed to emerge in the health care system.

Day after day in this Legislature, members of this party and members of the third party have asked questions of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) about problems that are real, problems that are being experienced daily in Ontario by citizens of Ontario, problems such as the one my leader raised in respect of Albert LeBel, who is going to be waiting 20 months to have his hip replaced.

In response to each of these questions we have seen the Minister of Health rise in her place, select the cue card of the moment and read back bureaucratic claptrap about fiscal responsibility that clearly must leave the citizens of Ontario wondering whether this government ever had any appreciation of what it is like to go to work every day with a hip so painful that it can hardly be borne.

The minister has identified 22 hospitals on a hit list. But it is not 22 hospitals; it is virtually every hospital in the province which must look at the services it currently provides and at those which it must cut so as to stay within the strictures placed on it by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon). Such strictures are being placed on hospitals with the collusion of the Minister of Health, who has consistently refused to do anything that would take pressure off the hospitals and has consistently brought forward budgets to the Treasurer, and the Treasurer to this House, which show exactly the same funding patterns as in the past and, in fact, a continuing picayune fraction of health spending to support people in the community. Naturally, they will be in the hospital when in fact they are not going to be supported in the community.

This government clearly does not have a clue about what it is doing and has decided to make scapegoats. The situation in respect of the Cambridge Memorial Hospital strikes me as an absolutely shocking way to deal with the kinds of problems that the Cambridge Memorial Hospital is having to deal with. On one occasion, the minister showers a hospital with carrots, and on another occasion attempts to beat that hospital to death with a stick. One wonders who is going to carry the hatchet to these hospitals. Has Vic Stoughton got enough time to drop in at the Brantford General Hospital? The member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann) probably should be going back home and waiting for that event. The Chatham Public General Hospital: who is going to carry the hatchet there?

Who is going to carry the hatchet to the Doctors’ Hospital, Northwestern General Hospital and the Wellesley Hospital? Maybe the deputy minister will do that because, of course, he comes from the hospital that is held up as the cynosure for all eyes.

Who is going to go over to Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital? I wonder which hospital chairman from somewhere else will go and deliver them a hatchet in the health care of that community?

Who is going to drop down to St. Joseph’s Hospital and St. Mary’s Hospital in London? That one will have to be a particularly good friend of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), you would think.

Who is going to go to St. Joseph’s General Hospital in Peterborough? Maybe the chief government whip could handle that one.

Who will go to the Salvation Army Grace General Hospital, the Riverside Hospital of Ottawa and the Perley Hospital in Ottawa?

We have an emergency in the health care system in the province. We have a government that is afraid to stand in this House and join in a debate that would be about the health care system.

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

Mr. Reville: Obviously those remarks are so cogent, they will be agreed with.

Mr. Eves: It gives me pleasure to rise and again support the motion being made by my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville).

If the members on the government side of the House did not think there was an emergency in the health care system Monday or Tuesday of this week, surely, in light of the minister’s rather shocking announcement in the Legislature this afternoon, they would have to concur that there is indeed an emergency in the health care system today, Wednesday, May 11, 1988, especially seeing as how the motion is drafted with respect to “service realignments,” as referred to in the deputy minister’s letter to hospitals across the province; also, especially seeing as how this particular motion is drafted with respect to deficits in hospital budgets across Ontario.

As I indicated in response to statements earlier this afternoon, I cannot believe the mean-spirited, retaliatory nature of the minister’s statement in the House this afternoon.

In one of the fastest-growing areas in the province, we have a Minister of Health who says, on the one hand, that she is adopting a consultative, co-operative approach with respect to health care and with respect to this particular hospital and its particular problem. On the other hand, we have an acknowledgement that the hospital was not even informed that this statement was being made in the Legislature this afternoon. The hospital has to find out by hearing from the official opposition and the third party in the Ontario Legislature. That is how they find out about the statement that was made in the Legislature this afternoon.

That is true. The members know it; the minister knows it and she refused to deny it.

The report the minister is obviously acting upon she has had in her possession or possession of her ministry since March 31; some 41 days. If as my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) pointed out earlier this afternoon she can make a decision on what is in that report and her reaction to it, then surely she can make that document public knowledge. I would think that is the very least a Minister of Health could do.

That report is paid for by taxpayers’ money. It is a public report. It is a report on the basis of which this minister did not have any problem standing in the House this afternoon and sending in an investigator from her ministry; condemning, virtually, the Cambridge hospital before it even had an opportunity to represent itself. She is obviously not taking a consultative or cooperative approach with respect to this issue at all.

We have the very inconsistent message that is being put out by this government. On the one hand, we have the Treasurer saying that absolutely no hospital deficit in this province will be funded, period, for whatever reason. That was a pretty clear-cut enunciation, I thought, of government policy. Then we have the Minister of Health responding to St. Mary’s General Hospital in Timmins earlier this week, saying: “Well, sorry, we made a mistake. In this case, we may fund part of that deficit. We will not permit the proposed cutbacks to go ahead.” The minister does not say whether any other cutbacks may go ahead. She does not say she will fully fund their deficit. She does not say they will increase the base, or if so by how much.

I think hospitals, and rightly so, are very confused as to the message this government is sending out. I think the point made by my colleague for Riverdale is a very valid one. What are the people in Brantford supposed to think? Or those in Chatham, Cornwall or Grimsby West? Or St. Joseph’s Hospital in Guelph, St. Joseph’s Hospital in London, St. Mary’s Hospital in London, York County Hospital in Newmarket, North Bay Civic Hospital, Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital in Oakville, the Salvation Army Grace General Hospital in Ottawa, the Perley Hospital in Ottawa, the Riverside Hospital of Ottawa, St. Joseph’s General Hospital in Peterborough, York Central Hospital in Richmond Hill, Stratford General Hospital in Stratford, McKellar General Hospital in Thunder Bay, the Doctors Hospital in Toronto, Northwestern General Hospital in Toronto, the Wellesley Hospital in Toronto, Winchester District Memorial Hospital in eastern Ontario?

1520

What are the administrators and hospital boards in these hospitals supposed to think about the attitude that this minister and this government have shown in the last couple of days? I think the message they gave to the hospital administrators and boards across the province today, in the way they reacted to the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, is, “If you don’t do as we say behind closed doors, we’re going to come out in public and club you to death the next day and seek to withhold moneys from your hospital until you toe the line, until you do what this minister and this government want.” This comes from a government that believes in open dialogue with people.

Taxpayers’ money has gone to pay for these reviews. They have had 41 days to review 22 reviews. I do not know how many thousands of employees the Ministry of Health has. If Dr. Barkin himself would have taken one day for 21 days, these would have been done three weeks ago. What has the minister been doing for the last 41 days?

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has now expired.

Mr. Eves: Is there any other issue that is more urgent for this government to deal with than this here today?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We’re opening an obstetrics unit in Clinton tomorrow which your government tried to close. How about that?

Mr. Eves: Your minister is closing beds faster.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We’re opening an obstetrics clinic in Clinton tomorrow. You must be talking tongue-in-cheek.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). You are wasting the members’ time.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have listened with particular interest to the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) and the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves). What I have heard the members opposite say is, in the main, they do not like either the budgetary policy or the health care policy of this government; and that from a parliamentary opposition. I must tell the members, is not a particular surprise.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, to you and my colleagues opposite --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: -- that it is my view that this motion from the member for Riverdale does in no way meet the requirements set out in standing order 37, and on that basis I say to my friend the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) that the government does not favour it.

Having said that, I would encourage my friends opposite; if they want to debate the budgetary policy or the health care policy of this government, they are perfectly able to do so by either engaging --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to my colleagues opposite that if they wish to engage the Legislature on a debate about these matters, they have a perfectly good opportunity tomorrow in the debate on the concurrence motion. I want to say the government has urgent business that it wants to proceed with. We have before the House this afternoon school board legislation that is pressing, because it involves the upcoming elections. My friends opposite will know that Orders and Notices also contains important legislation affecting the economic development and future of northern Ontario, and that is business that is urgent for much of this province.

I say to my friend the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) and others, let us proceed today to deal with that very important business which presses upon this Legislature and, if they wish to debate the issues affecting the health care policy of this government, let us proceed to do that tomorrow when there is a perfect opportunity in a debate on the motion standing in my name for the concurrence of the estimates of 1987-88.

Mr. Pouliot: You’re moving to the right, Sean.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the member for Lake Nipigon.

We have dealt with standing orders 37(a), (b) and (c), and according to standing order 37(d), I must now put the question.

1802

The House divided on whether the debate should proceed, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Brandt, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D.S., Cunningham, Eves, Farnan, Hampton, Harris, Johnson, J. M., Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, McCague, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Pollock, Pope, Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Sterling, Villeneuve, Wildman.

Nays

Beer, Bossy, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Daigeler, Dietsch, Elliot, Epp, Faubert, Ferraro, Fontaine, Fulton, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hart, Henderson, Kanter, Keyes, Kozyra, Kwinter, Leone, Lipsett;

Lupusella, MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan. McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., O’Neil H., O’Neill, Y., Patten, Phillips, G., Poirier, Polsinelli, Ramsay, Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Ruprecht, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., South, Sullivan, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wrye.

Ayes 26; nays 65.

The House adjourned at 6:06 p.m.