Hansard Transcript 1988-May-12 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

I am pleased to actually have a chance to debate this bill. It is basically designed along the same lines as the Niagara Parks Commission or the St. Lawrence Parks Commission. It appoints a local group to actually look after this abandoned railroad line, assuming and presuming, of course, that it will have public ownership.

For the benefit of those people who do not know just exactly where this abandoned railroad line is, it runs from Picton right through to Lake St. Peter. That is known as the Marmora subdivision. It is actually broken into two divisions, the north and the south. What I am dealing with here this morning is basically the northern portion of that subdivision and a small portion of the south subdivision.

My bill actually relates to the little hamlet of Glen Ross, where it starts. At that particular point is where the old railroad crossed the Trent Canal. There is a swing bridge there. Let’s face it, it has not swung in many a year and it would be unrealistic to think the government or anybody is going to maintain a swing bridge for recreation equipment or vehicles.

I start at that particular point, and from there for the first five or six miles, this abandoned railroad line runs through reasonably good farm land. Then it comes to a place the locals would know as the old rock, or Rawdon station. Actually, the railroad line runs out on to Flat Rock, and from there, through the northern part of Rawdon township and through Marmora township and Madoc, it runs through class 5 or 6 farm land with maybe the odd pocket of class 4 farm land. When it gets into Tudor township, and from there back through Bancroft to Lake St. Peter, it is actually in the Canadian Shield or the Laurentian Shield and the land is extremely rough.

If this were a recreation trail, I am sure that snowmobiles would use it and it would provide access to some people to get to their property. It would be used for horseback riding, for skiing and for snowmobiles. Actually, the sled dogs are trained on this abandoned railroad line for the big sled-dog competition that they have each year in Marmora.

Back in 1985, the then Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), commissioned a study which cost $30,000. It recommends that this abandoned railroad line be taken over for public ownership.

This study addresses quite a few things. Of course, it relates some of the history of the abandoned railroad line. It also mentions costs and the revenue that would be gained from this abandoned line as a recreation trail. Also, it relates to the cost to maintain the trail. I question that a little bit because I think the revenues it is going to gain, and also the cost to maintain it, are exaggerated a little bit.

It also mentions certain safety concerns that would have to be addressed. This railroad crosses over a lot of township and county roads. It crosses Highway 7 and criss-crosses back and forth over Highway 62 four times. In one particular place where it crosses Highway 62 it is extremely dangerous. That would have to be addressed.

I might also mention that there is another subdivision that crosses the Marmora subdivision at a place called Anson, and this is known as the Corbyville subdivision, which runs all the way from Corbyville right through to Peterborough.

I know there is a controversy in one way. Most local farmers want that abandoned railroad to go back to the local land owners. But if you move a little way from the railroad land, you get an opinion from people that they figure the snow-mobilers might better be riding on that abandoned railroad line than riding on private property, so there is a controversy there.

I might mention that I have told the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and some of the land owners about the Corbyville subdivision, that I am quite willing and agree that that particular subdivision should go back to the local land owners, because I think it is a little unrealistic to think every abandoned railroad in this province can be used as a recreation trail. The cost of keeping them up and maintaining them would be excessive.

I would like to compliment the government on the ads it had on television last winter in regard to safety. There was an ad that came on television, and it showed two snowmobilers talking. One was suggesting it was time to head down the trail home. The other fellow says, “Yeah, that’s right, but I know a shortcut.” Then it shows them riding off into the night, and then their obituary notices start appearing on the screen. One person who was watching that said, “That ad would certainly make you think.”

1010

I am mentioning this because I had two snowmobilers go through the ice last winter in my riding alone, and if we can provide a recreation trail for these people to ride on rather than be out there on the rivers and lakes, and in some way prevent loss of life, even if we save one life it is worth it to have those trails out there.

One thing as far as a recreation trail is concerned is liability insurance. Once the ownership of that particular abandoned railway line is transferred to, say, a recreational trails commission, people will expect it to be maintained in that particular manner. As I mentioned, if there is a washout and somebody is hurt on that trail, there could be a chance of a liability suit. But in other cases -- I mentioned that case of snowmobilers going through the ice, and there was a case about a month ago where an all-terrain vehicle with a chap on it ran into a tree and, once again, he lost his life -- I do not know how you can actually justify a liability suit in those cases. You cannot go out and sue the lake; you cannot go out and sue the tree. We have trees on our county roads, our township roads and our provincial highways. I really do not know how there would be any more liability on a recreation trail than there would be on an ordinary road.

I would like to mention, too, that I have a lot of support from municipalities in my riding, especially those that this abandoned railway line goes through. I would like to read into the record the names of these municipalities. They include the township of Rawdon; the township of Bangor, Wicklow and McClure; Sidney township; Faraday, Monteagle, Dungannon, Marmora and Lake township; and the village of Bancroft. I have also had endorsement from the villages of Stirling, Marmora and Madoc, the town of Parry Sound and the chamber of commerce of Parry Sound. Even in this particular report there are a lot of snowmobile clubs and horseback-riding clubs that recommend that this abandoned railway line be a recreation trail.

To inform members of what has taken place in other jurisdictions, I will just give out some statistics. There are 125 rails-to-trails in the United States. Twenty-seven states are involved. Many more are in the planning stages. In Britain, 20 railways are being converted. Part of the old logging line in British Columbia has also been converted to a recreation trail. Elroy-Sparta Trail in Wisconsin, which stretches 32 miles, is the United States’ oldest rails-to-trails, and along that particular railroad line, campgrounds, bed-and-breakfast inns, restaurants and bicycle repair shops have sprung up. There are over 50,000 vacationers a year, which brings in over $1 million in revenue from that particular recreation trail. The longest trail in the United States is the Luce Trail in Minnesota. It is 104 miles long.

Last year was the first time the United States federal government gave money to convert abandoned rails into trails. Last year it gave $75,000 for this particular project. The state of Massachusetts leads all other states in funding rails-to-trails, with $3 million directly earmarked for the purchase of abandoned railroad lines. The province of Nova Scotia is actively pursuing the development of abandoned railroad lines, and one stretches from Liverpool to Dartmouth. Nova Scotia has already purchased the land from Canadian National Railways.

A lot of people believe the provincial government should be the owner of this abandoned railroad line because it reaps the sales tax from snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles. They also reap the gas tax from the gas these machines use and sales tax from, certainly, different things. I might mention, too, that in this study they recommended that there be a restaurant at both ends of this particular abandoned railroad line. This study, I should inform the House, deals basically with that portion from Marmora to Lake St. Peter.

I say that they recommend a restaurant at each end, but there are restaurants in Marmora, there are restaurants part-way back -- the Log Cabin Inn -- and also in Bancroft, in Maynooth and at the Algonquin Lodge right at the far end of this abandoned railroad line, so I question whether they really need any more restaurants at this time.

I certainly would like to pay tribute to my staff, Graham Loughton and Ruth Martin, for the research they have done in getting this information. Also, there is a lady in my riding who has distributed a tremendous lot of petitions around through the riding. I have had the pleasure of presenting them to the Legislature. There were over 1,200 names on those petitions in support of this abandoned railroad line becoming a recreational trail.

I would ask all members of this assembly to join with me in supporting this bill. Let us hope that eventually we can get some constructive manner in which we can deal with these abandoned railroad lines. In a case where these particular railroad lines go through rough terrain, I think it just stands to reason that they should be recreational trials.

With that, I would reserve the rest of my time until after I hear the comments from some of my fellow members.

Mr. McGuigan: I wish to commend the member for Hastings-Peterborough for the work he has done in the preparation of this bill and, in addition, for the attention he has given to his constituents, especially concerning the rail line called the Marmora line.

The government has no quarrel with the concept of acquiring abandoned rail lines for recreational or other purposes. Indeed, I think it has a great deal of merit. My reason for withholding support is that the government believes that a commission is an expensive method of dealing with this exercise, and it would also commit the government to a very expensive venture, not only in this case but in many others.

As well, I believe we have the machinery in place already for acquiring land for the crown on a priority and need basis. The framework within the Ministry of Natural Resources is very capable of acquiring and managing crown land. In fact, as most members know, almost 87.7 per cent of the land in this province is owned by the ministry on behalf of the crown. We have the surveyors, the lawyers and the field staff to carry out the responsibilities, and they have the expertise. We do not believe, therefore, that it is advisable to create an extra body for this purpose.

1020

There are situations where the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) might want to acquire lands, and even abandoned rail lines, because of their significance as part of a desirable wetland, or as part of a Carolinian forest in southern Ontario, or as an area of significant and scientific interest, perhaps even as part of a provincial park. But I do not think the minister is interested, because we have such competition for funds to purchase lands that we do not consider it to be a priority. This is not to say we do not consider the recreational component as one without significance. It has, but it does not have priority at the present time.

The minister is not prepared to acquire lands that carry very serious and costly liabilities strictly for recreational purposes. Such liabilities could be the cost of fencing in a situation where the perimeters stretch almost to infinity; that is, in relation to the enclosed area. Maintenance of these fences is a big problem. There is weed control, bridge repair -- the member has mentioned we would not be expected to repair the swing bridge but I assume there are other bridges along the line -- trail maintenance, drainage costs, erosion control, road crossings, litter and garbage, noise control and supporting facilities such as washrooms and, of course, law and order. As well, the government would not wish to cover the expense of a commission when we believe the system is in place and working well already.

The member for Hastings-Peterborough will be pleased to learn that we think abandoned railway lines could at some time be put to use for purposes such as he has suggested in his bill. However, we do not wish to give the perception that we see all railway lines as significant parcels for purchase. Instead, we choose to identify the merits of each within our criteria, assess the available funding and secure the taxpayer of the province from unnecessary expense.

If we deem a stretch of rail significant for natural, recreational or conservation uses, we then must determine if the funds are available for the purchase. Of course, if a stretch has a very high significance, we will look harder for those moneys. We must have a development and long-term management plan in place and it must be acceptable to the government. We do not wish to burden the district staff of the Ministry of National Resources or the taxpayers with a piece of land we cannot develop or manage because of the budget.

Therefore, we would rather see a municipality or user group be involved in a co-operative way. We would hope they would come up with a well-thought-out and sufficiently funded plan of action. If such a plan were presented to the Ministry of Natural Resources and other government agencies, we would certainly give all due consideration to holding the deed to a piece of abandoned rail line for use by such a group. In fact, I encourage the ministry to listen and consider. Such a group could sell shares in a corporation, just as golf clubs or curling clubs sell shares to their user-members.

The members might think that is putting an onus or burden on the recreation people, but if they just stop to think of the thousands of dollars a good snow machine or an all-terrain vehicle costs, or the trucks and trailers they use to pull these machines around, they will realize that they are very costly and they already have a lot of money in it. It would seem reasonable to me that they would be willing to pay for their use. Tourist operators and municipalities could be interested in the recreational benefits and the subsequent economic benefits.

It is very easy, regardless of where one sits in this House, to suggest to the government what appears to be a legitimate enterprise. The problem is that more money has to be spent and that means more raised by taxes or cut from another program. Seldom does anyone hear from any side of the House where we should cut to accommodate needs.

As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, I am often called upon by the minister to meet with delegates from conservation authorities who come to Queen’s Park in an effort to advance their particular projects. The projects most often have merit, but do not rank sufficiently high on a priority scale to receive funding at the time. There is simply not enough money. With conservation matters, we are obliged to give priority to those that hinge upon matters of risk to human life or risk to property, and as a result, recreational projects receive a smaller share of the available dollars.

The ministry stands ready to listen to any proposal, including the one offered by the member for Hastings-Peterborough. We are looking for significant lands that are supported by a group that proposes to develop and manage them in a way that meets with the interests of the Ministry of Natural Resources, but we must be assured we will not be left to take over the liabilities in the event of a default.

If funds are available and if these conditions are met, the Ministry of Natural Resources is willing to participate in a case-by-case, specific situation. This is consistent with the acquisition of any land, including abandoned rail lines.

I wish to make it clear that we do not condemn the bill, as it is well prepared by the thoughtful and honourable member for Hastings-Peterborough. Therefore, I want to close by saying that this bill is expensive and establishes a precedent and a perception that the government cannot afford. I ask all members to recognize these facts and give support to our position by defeating the motion.

Mr. Farnan: I rise to speak in support of the concept of recreational trails in general and of the bill brought forward by the member for Hastings-Peterborough in particular.

This is a concept and an issue that is close to my heart. Indeed, since my arrival at Queen’s Park as the member for Cambridge, I have promoted the idea of converting abandoned railway lines into recreational corridors and linear parkways. I have written to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) on this matter. I have made the minister aware of the potential that exists for creating trails along a corridor running between Cambridge and Lynden. I have also raised the issue with the minister during daily question period.

I believe that in Ontario in 1988, and for several years now, we have been faced with a once-in-a-lifetime, perhaps a once-in-a-century opportunity. As the rail system shrinks, abandoned track becomes available, and as it does, we have the potential to convert these valuable rail corridors into public trails for running, walking, bicycling, wildlife conservation and observation, cross-country skiing, horseback riding and other uses.

I do not believe we want to see each and every abandoned line saved for public trails, but the abandonment process should include an evaluation of each of these lines for trails so that potentially excellent trails are not lost for ever.

Let me review some of the characteristics of rail corridors. Let me draw to the members’ attention some of the features that make for outstanding trails -- attributes, I might add, that are present in large measure in the proposed Cambridge-Lynden trail, in the Collingwood-Meaford trail and in the trail we are presently discussing, the rail corridor known as the Marmora subdivision.

For instance, rail corridors are flat or nearly level, and thus are generally usable, even by the elderly, the infirm and those in wheelchairs. Rail corridors traverse every conceivable environment from urban to suburban to rural, including farm land, river valleys, wetlands, industrial areas, residential tracts, forests and lake shores.

Rail corridors also include historically interesting structures such as stations, bridges, tunnels, mills, factories and canals, all of which enhance the trail user’s experience. Rail corridors are often prime wildlife breeding and conservation areas, with remarkable collections of birds, small mammals and plants.

Rail corridors can represent a financial bargain to a community, with the price of a right of way amounting to only a fraction of the comparable cost of assembling a continuous corridor through a crowded and fragmented urban or suburban area. Rail trails represent an excellent way of increasing recreation in built-up areas.

Rail trails are being shown to increase property values of homes nearby, since a significant number of people will pay more to have a walking, running and bicycle trail in the vicinity of their neighbourhood. In fact, in some areas of the United States, real estate advertisements touting the close proximity to trails has caused an increase in the value of homes.

In some rural areas, particularly those hard hit by the impact of railroad abandonments, a rail trail can be a significant stimulus to a local economy, with trail users spending money on food, beverages, camping, hotels, bed and breakfast, bicycle rentals, crafts, souvenirs and gasoline. Indeed, studies in the United States show this to be true also.

1030

However, let me say this: I support the Marmora subdivision trail because in supporting this trail I support the entire concept. Rail companies are abandoning lines in dozens of small communities across the province, and my hope is that not only will this private member’s bill win support, but also that the support for this bill today will signal to the government the value and advantage to our province of promoting and developing a broad network of such trails.

The key question, of course, is the manner of provincial involvement. I have urged the Minister of Tourism and Recreation to take a leadership role. I have urged the minister of the urgency and the necessity to demonstrate a political will that goes beyond simply providing assistance to study the problems of rails-to-trails conversions. Indeed, the member for Hastings-Peterborough has also encouraged more forthright involvement by the minister and his ministry.

For these trail corridors to be developed in a meaningful manner, there must be a commitment to implement a co-ordinated program. Many of these corridors often pass through several municipalities, and this makes co-ordination difficult and the need for a leadership role imperative. In my own area, for example, the rail line runs through Cambridge, North Dumfries, Branchton, South Dumfries and part of the village of Harriston, and ends up at the village of Lynden, thus passing through several communities.

Unfortunately, to date there is no evidence that this government, this ministry or this minister have the political will required to provide leadership and co-ordination. For the members present let me quote, from Hansard, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. This was in response to my questioning. The minister said this, “This ministry is not involved in owning and operating recreational facilities.”

I ask the minister, what does he consider Ontario Place to be if not a recreational facility? What is the domed stadium if not a recreational facility? Is this government more interested in providing facilities recreation-wise for the urban Metro area, while rural areas and cities away from Toronto are to have second-class recreational investment?

The minister made some rather innocuous comments. He says, for example, in answer again to my questions, “My ministry staff within both the ministry head office and the regional offices are looking very closely at the problem that exists.” Is that not fine? Is that not wonderful? They are looking very closely at the problem. Again, he says: “It is our preference that in some way the different municipalities will co-ordinate this effort.” This is not good enough.

I urge this minister to review his policy. There is very little to commend a mind frame or a mindset that simply says, “We have a policy and our policy does not allow us to be flexible, to be innovative and to meet new opportunities.”

This type of inflexibility represents the type of bureaucratic inability to take advantage of opportunity. Ontario is at a moment of decision. We can give to our children and to generations to come a wonderful recreational facility, but it demands leadership on the part of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. I hope the minister will review the policies of his ministry and demonstrate the necessary leadership.

It is precisely because these corridors pass through several communities, villages and townships that there exists a need for this provincial leadership, not the leadership of encouraging individual local governments to become involved, because such a policy and directions give no guarantee of final outcome. At best, bits and pieces may be converted. In the most extraordinary circumstances, a continual trail of some significance might be the outcome; but this policy of this government, this direction, gives no guarantee that the best trails and the maximization of the best trails will be held in the public interest.

Indeed, the opposite is true. It is much more likely that we will end up with fragmented recreational facilities, and at worst, because of the lack of total co-operation of all the partners, all the municipalities involved, a precious opportunity will be lost for posterity. If this opportunity is lost for posterity, if this investment in the future recreational facilities for our children and generations to come is lost, it is this government and this ministry that must be held accountable.

Finally, in summing up, I would like to read from a letter of the president of the Grand Valley Trails Association, Betty Schneider, who says:

“It seems imperative that some action be taken immediately to preserve these corridors before they disappear. It seems logical, since these corridors already exist as quasi-public lands, that they be preserved and protected for some future public use. As well as trails, they may serve as future utility corridors. With the widespread distribution of railway lines, any long-range plans would ultimately involve local, regional, provincial and federal governments.

“It seems like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to restore purpose and vitality to these lands. Let’s not let this national resource slip through our fingers.”

The member for Hastings-Peterborough is to be commended for bringing forward this bill. It deserves support. Support for this bill is support for the entire rails-to-trails concept.

I urge the members to support the rails-to-trails concept, and in so doing to invest in the quality of our recreational future.

Mr. Eves: I would also like to rise in support of the bill introduced by the member for Hastings-Peterborough. The first time this issue was brought to my attention was actually late in 1987 and early in 1988. Although it does not deal with the specific area referred to by the member, I want to point out to the House that the abandoned railway line we are talking about in my riding extends from Georgian Bay right through to the Ottawa area.

I would like to read from a letter sent to me by a constituent of mine, a councillor actually, for the town of Parry Sound, and a lady who is very active in the Parry Sound Chamber of Commerce, Nancy Cunningham. The letter is dated February 2, 1988, and she writes to me:

“Re: the Ottawa-Arnprior-Parry Sound Rail Line. The Parry Sound Area Chamber of Commerce has recently formed a task force to investigate the preservation of the abandoned Ottawa-Arnprior-Parry Sound railway, founded by J. R. Booth. The line, abandoned in 1974, runs some 264 miles from Georgian Bay to Ottawa, and the committee is interested in protecting this historic corridor against its potential loss.

“Portions of the rail line are presently being used as a recreational trail and the possibility of development of the entire line brings endless ideas of opportunity and community benefits to mind.

“Rights of way, such as this one, are a unique resource which should be protected by the government. Once lost, they can never be regained. With the growing importance of tourism in the economy of the country, the input that would be required to retain this corridor and others like it would be repaid many times over in the future.

“At present, the committee is in the information-gathering stage and wishes to inform you of our intentions.”

On behalf of Mrs. Cunningham and others in the area, I did some investigating with respect to the Ministry of Natural Resources and received the following status report from the ministry.

With respect to the area of the rail line in the Georgian Bay area, we were informed that the township of Foley, just south of Parry Sound, was offered that part of the rail line and initially declined, but I am now led to believe the township of Foley has given its consent to go ahead and obtain that portion of the rail line until the provincial government decides what it is going to do.

The Bracebridge district office advised that MNR does not own anything of the line in its area, that CN initially offered the property to the federal, provincial and municipal governments in the area, all of which declined. They are now in the process, unfortunately, of offering some of this property to adjoining land owners. This covers the area from Fern Glen to Algonquin Park.

The Algonquin Park line is owned by Ontario; however, the ministry is of the opinion that nothing can be done in the park until a management plan has been reviewed. All the property is owned by the province; a presentation to the management plan board which governs the park would be required.

In the Whitney-to-Madawaska area, high priority of purchase; MNR was in the process, and planned use for a provincial waterway park.

There has been strong involvement, of course, by the member for Hastings-Peterborough in the Hastings area with respect to the Marmora-Lake St. Peter line, and I understand this is being done on a piecemeal basis. I know that Mrs. Cunningham and her colleagues have also been approaching the federal level of government, asking for a freeze on sales to adjoining land owners, not only until her association can come up with a comprehensive plan but also hoping that Ontario will take some initiative and responsibility in this matter as well.

1040

I am informed by a letter of March 9, 1988, from Mrs. Cunningham, that she has been corresponding with the MPP for Hastings-Peterborough with respect to his private member’s bill, which she supports, and that Foley township has now voted to purchase its section of the line. She understands that the township of Grattan, which intends to permit private land owners to acquire sections as soon as the township obtains title, is going to be a problem -- that is a stretch of about three miles -- along with a stretch near Carney that is being privately purchased, which are also known private areas.

I wanted to mention some of the background. I am afraid that, although the minister has said this is a good idea and a nice idea, I think he is leaving somewhat mixed signals out there with respect to the recreation community. I am reading from a letter from the minister dated March 21, 1988, to Mrs. Cunningham. He thanks her for her correspondence and indicates that the ministry has acquired the line between Highway 69 and Highway 11, as well as a section through Algonquin Park. Of course, they always owned the section through Algonquin Park.

It was pointed out by my colleague the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) that not only does this abandoned railway line have some use as a recreational trail, but it also has a use as far as the residents of west Parry Sound are concerned, as the natural site for the location of a natural gas pipeline in the future, so it could serve a dual purpose in that regard.

The minister goes on to state: “We are also acquiring the sections of the line that parallel the new Madawaska waterway park through the townships of Airy, Murchison and Dickens, on the east side of the park. The remaining sections of the line have not been acquired because the government cannot justify the costs of line management, fencing, bridges, right-of-way upgrading and the associated costs unless these are related to existing programs. However, the ministry is prepared to consider rights of way on a case-by-case basis if local municipalities, interest groups and/or user organizations can present viable proposals to upgrade and manage these corridors. I would support your effort to put a case together for route protection and management.”

I would think those are exactly the types of things that the Minister of Natural Resources should be doing himself. He has infinitely more resources -- pardon the pun on words -- available than do private citizens in Ontario. I think these people have done a great amount of background work. I might also note that in discussing sending out mixed signals, I am quoting here from a booklet from the Ministry of Natural Resources. It has the minister’s name on it and introduces people to recreational trails in Ontario. Lo and behold, one of the trails described is the Seguin Trail, and it says, “The relative ease in travelling this trail is due to the origin as a bed of the old Arnprior and Parry Sound railway.”

It goes on to describe the history of the route and certainly leaves everyone with the impression, visitors and permanent residents of Ontario alike, that the province has acquired the trail and is maintaining it and doing everything to keep it up to snuff. Obviously, as members can see from looking at the correspondence, the background and the comments made by the government here today, that is not the case, nor is this a brand-new issue.

Going back to November 1987, there was a Meeting of Minds Symposium on Recreational Trails in Ontario, held in Whitchurch-Stouffville, on Wednesday, November 18, 1987, and I am now looking at a letter addressed to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), dated December 10, 1987. It reiterates a resolution that was passed at that meeting:

“That the participants of the Meeting of Minds Symposium on Trails held on November 18, 1987, endorse the concept of use of abandoned railway rights of way for recreational purposes and request that the government of Ontario take immediate action to protect such corridors.

“The resolution was unanimously endorsed by representatives of various trail recreation organizations working in the interests of more than 570,000 residents of the province. We submit that the resolution recognizes the outdoor recreational interests and related businesses and industries of close to two million individuals of all ages.

“We are mindful that not all railway abandonments are suitable for recreational-trail use. However, in our role as the user interests, we believe we can best serve by indicating those corridors having the highest priority and those capable of providing essential linkage and trail systems. At the conclusion of the Meeting of Minds, two resolutions were put forward and both received unanimous endorsement of the trail representatives.”

There is an endless list of groups that supported and attended this symposium and supported this resolution. Suffice it to say that they do represent some two million people in the province of Ontario, the list is practically endless and there are some very -- one would think not necessarily compatible groups, but they all seem to be working together. I would suggest that the Minister of Natural Resources and the government of Ontario should pick up the ball and work with these concerned individuals to provide this very worthwhile enterprise. I support the member’s bill.

Mr. Pelissero: I too would like to commend the member for Hastings-Peterborough for the work he has done in preparation of this particular piece of legislation and would like to spend a few minutes talking about some issues. I think it is important to identify the potential of abandoned railway lines within the province of Ontario.

Currently there are some 1,500 kilometres of railway rights of way that have been abandoned where the applications have been approved, there are another 800 that are under application and awaiting decision from the Canadian Transport Commission, and there is a potential for another 1,800 kilometres of lines that are vulnerable to abandonment. So we are looking at a potential of about 4,100 kilometres of abandoned railway lines.

What this particular member’s bill is asking the province of Ontario to do is to establish a commission. To reinforce some of the comments that were made by the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan), there is probably a more cost-effective method of dealing with the situation than establishing a commission and the bureaucracy and sometimes the cost that is associated with that.

In the abandonment of railway lines, certainly there is a process by which the railway lines, the federal government and the provincial and municipal governments determine whether, in fact, the line is of use to them from a communications or transportation point of view or a tourist point of view. Indeed, local governments have taken the initiative in the past to request user groups to come together and put proposals, and those proposals are then brought forward as requests to the provincial government, usually the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.

A number of private sector corporations, municipalities and public interest groups are expressing an increased interest in these abandoned railway lines as a means of establishing some type of recreational corridor. As an example, the county of Haliburton purchased a 21-mile abandoned Canadian National Railway line, which runs between Kinmount and Haliburton village, in September 1987, for $31,000. The county plans to develop the line into a multi-use, four-season recreational trail in support of the local tourist industry. The Rideau Valley Heritage Railway Association proposes to assemble a tourist railway, operating steam trains, on 67 miles of former Canadian Pacific and CN track between Kingston and Harrowsmith Falls and Gananoque.

Again, the government funded a feasibility study and the results of that showed a potential major and positive impact on the tourist industry in the economy of eastern Ontario. Victoria county is in the process of developing a feasibility master plan for the acquisition and development of the county’s abandoned railway for a recreational trail.

On February 8, when the member for Hastings-Peterborough tabled his piece of legislation for the Marmora-Lake St. Peter abandoned line, he proposed it be developed as a recreational trail. Indeed, my ministry, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, for which I serve as a parliamentary assistant, provided a $30,000 planning grant towards this particular project. So I would take some exception to the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) when he classifies our treatment, as a government and as a ministry, with respect to second-class citizens living outside of the Metropolitan Toronto area. Indeed, our support has been there for feasibility studies, for equipment acquisition for different types of programs, not necessarily just the domed stadium.

1050

I am saying, I guess, the means by which the government is proceeding, as it has done in the past, in encouraging local municipalities to take the initiative and really determine their own needs for that abandoned section of the railway lines, is indeed the best way to proceed on this particular matter.

It is with that in mind that I have to say I am not going to be able to support this particular bill, again not because the concept is a bad one in terms of the Marmora-Lake St. Peter line, but because it asks for the establishment of an East/Central Ontario Recreational Trails Commission. That, by its very nature, leaves an implication that we are going to be going out and purchasing all abandoned railway lines. Again, from the point of view of cost-effectiveness and managing limited resources, we feel that there are other mechanisms for achieving the same end. Certainly we would be willing to work with the member for Hastings-Peterborough to see that particular project come to fruition.

Again, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, once a project from local municipalities or user groups has been approved, does provide some assistance, either in trail grooming equipment or, in some cases, even the actual acquisition of a particular railway line. It also provides some funds and assistance from an organizational and leadership development point of view, in particular, as well as the feasibility and the planning grants that we identified earlier, which are very important to ensure that a project is, in fact, feasible at all.

Again, I want to commend the member, who has himself recognized that in some cases trying to maintain all the lines, using his own words, would be excessive in terms of a cost point of view. I think the government’s position in terms of judging it on a case-by-case basis is the best way to proceed at this particular time, but again, I want to commend the member for taking the initiative to champion his cause. Unfortunately, I will not be able to support his particular bill.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt for two minutes and 28 seconds.

Mr. Pollock: I will give the member for Nickel Belt one minute off my time, anyway.

Mr. Laughren: I simply want to reinforce the member for Cambridge in his support of the resolution by the member for Hastings-Peterborough, whom I commend for bringing it forward.

I can recall this being an issue several years ago. The former government did absolutely nothing about it, and the people who are now in government were castigating the then government for not proceeding. Now it seems as though all that has happened is that they have changed places in this chamber and changed positions on this matter, because it really is something that would cost the government very little to bring in and would mean a great deal to the people in those communities.

Once again, I commend the member for Hastings-Peterborough for bringing this forward.

Mr. Pollock: I want to mention that I think the member for Essex-Kent is an outstanding member of this assembly, but I do not totally agree with all of his comments. Of course, I do not think anybody here has ever said that we want the government to take over all abandoned railroad lines.

I agree with his concern that there is liability out there, but let’s face it -- people have been snowmobiling on this particular abandoned railroad line that I am talking about ever since the tracks came up in 1985. In fact, they were snowmobiling there long before that. There has been hardly any maintenance done on that. I really do not blame CN Real Estate for trying to get rid of it. That is not its mandate.

He mentioned it should be looked after by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Well, we contacted the Ministry of Natural Resources shortly after the government took office in 1985, and he put it right in the letter that the government was not interested. So what is a person really supposed to do? It is not going to take it over, and yet it should be taken over by the Ministry of Natural Resources. I really cannot figure that one out.

As far as the member for Cambridge is concerned, I appreciate his comments. I thought he brought forth a really legitimate comment in the fact that they seem to have money for Ontario Place, the domed stadium, that sort of thing, but they do not have money once they get away from the Golden Horseshoe. I do not think that is fair. In fact, the former Minister of Tourism and Recreation and the present Minister of Tourism and Recreation voiced loud and clear that the former Tory government had forgotten about eastern Ontario as far as recreation was concerned.

Now the government has a chance to redeem itself and all it has come up with is a feasibility study. I appreciate that, but they have had the feasibility study and the feasibility study recommends that there be public ownership. As I say, what else can one do?

As far as establishing this East/Central Ontario Recreation Trails Commission, it is worded in such a way that it basically takes over this abandoned railroad line. But there are a few spur lines, one running off this abandoned railroad line into Coe Hill, if they thought and felt in their wisdom that they would like to own that section. Basically, this just deals with this particular abandoned railroad line.

As I say, it goes through rough terrain. There are people from the south end of my riding who will hop on a snowmobile, ride back to Bancroft and spend the night there -- this is on a weekend -- at the Sword or the River Bend motor inns and then come back down the next day. They regard that as an outing, a good way to spend the weekend. It certainly helps with unemployment in the Bancroft area, where unemployment is usually a little higher than the norm.

Nobody here has yet said that every last one of these abandoned railroad lines is supposed to be a recreation trail, but there are abandoned lines out there that I firmly believe should be recreation trails.

I compliment the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) on his efforts to promote the line from Parry Sound to Arnprior and Ottawa.

This liability insurance seems to keep standing out there, but they claim that nobody can actually shift liability insurance. For instance, I have talked to people who have said, “Canadian National knows that there have been snowmobiles riding up and down that track for the last five, 10, 15 or 20 years.” They cannot really excuse themselves from liability for those snowmobiles even though it is a recreation trail. They know they are there.

Yet that has never been an issue with them, to the best of my knowledge. I think one reason they want to get rid of these abandoned railroad lines is that they even pay taxes to the local township. As I say, that is not their mandate. The government will see that there will be all kinds of problems if these abandoned railroad lines start to go back to the local abutting land owners, because the land division courts will not pass it.

Those are just some of the comments I have made. I have run into that situation already where one abutting land owner wanted to actually buy this abandoned railroad line -- not this one, but another one -- and the land division court would not pass it.

SPEED LIMITS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Miclash moved resolution 26:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that great distances between communities in the north necessitate long periods of highway travel, and recognizing that speed limits in the United States and Manitoba are 90 kilometres per hour, and recognizing the importance of encouraging tourism in northern Ontario from these two areas, and also recognizing that some northern roads have been upgraded but that speed limits have not correspondingly been increased, the government of Ontario should amend current legislation to increase speed limits on secondary highways in northern Ontario from 80 kilometres per hour to 90 kilometres per hour where highway conditions warrant.

1100

Mr. Miclash: This resolution is of great interest to me and to the constituents of the Kenora riding as well as to other residents in northern Ontario. Highway travel has come a long way since 1923 when the speed limit was 25 miles per hour on the province’s 2,976 kilometres of roadways. Today, 5,818,000 Ontarians drive 6,578,000 vehicles on the province’s 132,510 kilometres of roads.

Transportation, particularly through the operation of vehicles on provincial roadways, is one of the linkages that bind communities together. Nowhere is this more important than in northern Ontario, where great distances and sparsely populated areas can make highway travel between communities a long and sometimes lonely experience. There are several reasons why I believe speed limits on secondary and King’s highways in northern Ontario should be raised.

As I have mentioned, the distances in the north can necessitate long periods of travel in unpopulated areas. Time is an important resource for both businesses and private citizens of the north. A 10-kilometre increase in the speed limit would reduce travel times on long distances significantly.

Let me give some examples of distances in my riding. On Highway 105 from Red Lake to Vermilion Bay, we are looking at a total distance of 169 kilometres; from Sioux Lookout to Dinorwic, another secondary highway in my riding, Highway 72, a total distance of 68 kilometres; and from Fort Frances to Kenora, mostly on secondary highways, a total distance of 215 kilometres. All these distances are on secondary highways that are in good shape and will handle a higher rate of speed. These are distances of very sparse population and low traffic volumes.

Increasing the speed limits would also help to promote tourism from Manitoba and the United States, both of which have speed limits of 90 kilometres per hour plus. Tourism, as we know, is a very important generator of economic activity in the north and should be encouraged at every opportunity. Currently, there is discussion in the United States about increasing the speed limits on many of the highways there. This would further increase the disparity between the speed limits in Ontario and those in the states.

I would also like to note that the time savings and encouragement of tourism promoted by a higher speed limit would not occur at the expense of safety or fuel efficiency. Studies in the United States have shown that speed limits of 90 kilometres per hour are both safe and efficient.

Finally, looking at comparative roads in southern Ontario, county roads in Middlesex county, near London, which are similar to our secondary highways in the north, have speed limits of 90 kilometres per hour at this time.

I wonder if I might take this opportunity to familiarize the members of this House with the recent history of highway speed limits in Ontario. Up until February 1976, the speed limit for cars was 112 kilometres per hour and the speed limit for trucks was 96 kilometres per hour on Ontario freeways. In February 1976, limits were lowered depending on the type of road. The following speed limits apply to all vehicles at this time: 100 kilometres per hour for multilane expressways, 90 for two-lane primary highways, 80 for secondary highways and 50 for built-up areas. Of course, we had varying lesser limits for things such as school zones, parks, bridges and construction zones.

Speed limits in Canada were lowered as part of a country-wide campaign to reduce oil consumption in the transportation sector in answer to the world oil crisis in 1973. In response to the Arab oil embargo of 1973, posted speed limits on highways were reduced to conserve scarce fuel supplies.

According to the United States Department of Transportation in its 55-miles-per-hour fact book, the medium energy efficient speed, taking into account wind velocity and engine efficiency factors, is 55 miles per hour or 90 kilometres per hour. A speed limit of 90 kilometres per hour is the speed that best balances engine efficiency, fuel efficiency and driver response times.

A survey of speed limits in other countries indicates that an increase of speed limits on roads in northern Ontario is not at all unreasonable. Speed limits for the following, given in kilometres per hour, are: Austria, 120; Belgium, 120-130; France, 120; Italy, 120 --

Mr. Laughren: Have you seen the roads, Frank?

Mr. Miclash: I will make comment on that in a minute.

-- Switzerland, 130; and United Kingdom, 112.

These figures will show that from a comparative perspective, an increase in 10 kilometres per hour is quite modest and, having travelled some of these countries, I can say from firsthand experience that our provincial secondary highways are in much better shape that those I describe in many of these countries.

On January 1, 1988, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, came into effect. Contained in this act are new hours of service regulation that will govern the working hours of commercial truck drivers in Canada. Under the regulations, drivers can drive a maximum of 10 hours per shift and work a maximum of 15 hours per shift. A driver must have eight hours off duty before the beginning of the next shift. Twice a week, the driver is allowed to log 12-hour shifts.

Enforcement of this act will mean that trucking companies and drivers will be under increased time constraints. Increasing the speed limits on some secondary and King’s highways in the province will assist trucking operations to remain cost-efficient while complying with the new regulations.

At this point, I would like to discuss the extent of support for increased speed limits in northern Ontario. The Ministry of Transportation has received requests from the following groups to increase these speed limits: 23 municipalities in northern Ontario; the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association; the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association.

Within the riding of Kenora, I have received support for increased speed limits from all of my municipalities. These include: Dryden, Keewatin, Kenora, Sioux Lookout, Ear Falls, the townships of Jaffray and Melick, the township of Golden, the township of Red Lake, the township of Barclay and the township of Machin.

Might I enter into the record three resolutions from some of these townships.

Adopted by the council of the town of Kenora:

“That this council support the private member’s resolution of Mr. Frank Miclash, MPP Kenora, proposing that speed limits on secondary highways in northern Ontario be increased from 80 kilometres per hour to 90 kilometres per hour.”

The corporation of the township of Ear Falls:

“Whereas speed limits on highways such as the King’s Highway 105 were 90 kilometres per hour prior to the gas crisis and even prior to hard surfacing; and

“Whereas distances between centres in northern Ontario are greater than those in the rest of Ontario; and

“Whereas speed limits of 80 kilometres per hour on highways in northern Ontario relegate us to secondary citizens;

“Therefore, be it resolved that council of the township of Ear Falls hereby supports the private member’s resolution proposed by Frank Miclash, MPP Kenora, to have speed limits on Highway 105 and other highways in the province of Ontario increased to 90 kilometres per hour; and

“Further, that the Premier and cabinet support this long overdue change to speed limits on certain Ontario highways.”

This is one from the corporation of the town of Keewatin:

“That the municipal council of the town of Keewatin support speed limits on secondary highways in northern Ontario being increased from 80 kilometres per hour to 90 kilometres per hour.”

I have also received support from several independent carriers in my riding who use these highways.

In summary, I would like to say that constituents in my riding have indicated their overwhelming support of this resolution. A 10-kilometre-per-hour increase in the speed limit on secondary roads and King’s highways would allow residents of northern Ontario to save time and thereby increase both personal and commercial productivity.

I present this resolution because of the long distances between communities in the north, as well as in the hope that raising Ontario’s speed limits to par with Manitoba and the United States will help to promote tourism for these regions.

I think it is important to recognize that speed limits were originally lowered because of the oil crisis in the 1970s. Today we are not faced with this impending oil crisis. While lower speed limits have served their purpose, I see no reason why they cannot be raised modestly.

A survey of speed limits in other countries showed that even if speed limits are increased 10 kilometres per hour, they will still be below almost every speed limit in the countries surveyed. The implication for the trucking industry also supports slightly higher speed limits. Most commercial truck engines are designed to run more efficiently at higher speeds. In addition, the saving of time would offset any higher fuel costs. Further, the new Motor Vehicle Transport Act, with its hours-of-service restrictions, will increase pressure on trucking operations to remain financially viable.

I would like to reserve some time for concluding remarks.

1110

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to address this resolution presented by the member for Kenora. It is quite fascinating to see what the Liberal priority is for highways and for transportation networks in northern Ontario. It has very little to do with improving the highways or improving the transportation links in the north, but instead it is to look at issues like what the speed limit should be on the secondary highways.

I suggest to this Legislature that far too many of our secondary highways in northern Ontario are in such a state that the highway speed limit in fact should not even be 80 kilometres per hour and that they are unsafe at that kind of speed. We have highways across the north that have had lack of attention from this government, and in terms of improving our highways the only proposal that we can get from a member of the Liberal Party from the north has to do not with improving the quality of them, improving the links, improving our competitiveness in the north, but instead has to do with changing of the speed limits on highways which in fact are in terrible shape generally across northern Ontario.

I think it is interesting to look at the province’s highway construction program for 1987-88. The province has approximately 50 per cent of its highways located in northern Ontario, but certainly it does not spend a proportional share of its funds on improving those highways. I have here the release, from the first day of this month, the highway construction projects for 1987-88 as set out by the Ontario Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton). His program includes five pages of highway programs for southern Ontario and then a page and a half of programs for northern Ontario, of which less than half are actually highway programs.

In fact, the major components of the highway program for northern Ontario include components such as, “In the northwestern region, four new 24-metre platform scales will be constructed at the following locations....” They go on: “An ongoing program to upgrade patrol yard facilities at a cost of $3 million. Contracts for nine new sand-salt storage buildings in northern Ontario.” Then they include, in their highway transport program, remote airport construction programs, the first phase of airport construction at Angling Lake, improvement in air transport. This covers the largest part of this announcement of what is supposed to be the highway construction program in the north.

I have no complaints about improving those air links and the facilities that are in the smaller communities in the north, but there just is a lack of highway initiative going on in northern Ontario. In the most recent budget, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has committed to the north additional funding of $12 million. That kind of a budget would allow one to construct approximately 12 miles of two-lane highway or six miles of four-lane highway.

In the summary of provincial highways construction projects 1987-88, the number of kilometres committed to multilane divided highways in southern Ontario is 113 kilometres. In northern Ontario, multilane highway commitment is five kilometres for the year. So we are generous when we say that they can do six to 12 miles of highway. In fact, all they are doing a year is five kilometres, approximately three miles of highway, across northern Ontario.

On the Trans-Canada Highway alone, we are talking about at least 1,000 miles to cover the links to Toronto on Highway 69 and Highway 11 and then to cover the Trans-Canada across northern Ontario. At the kind of expenditure rate this Liberal government is willing to commit to highways in the north, we are looking at a program that is going to take on the order of 150 years. In 150 years from now, we will have a modern highway in northern Ontario. That is the Liberal commitment to what is supposed to be the major transportation link connecting all the provinces of this country, the Trans-Canada Highway.

I would like members of the House to know that this is an issue of importance to everyone in northern Ontario. I get numerous letters on this issue. My most recent riding report was focused on the free-trade issue, but many, many of the comments that came back had to do with: “What is the government doing about highways in the north? Why can’t we get them to act and to start a phased program of construction on the TransCanada Highway?”

As well, many of our secondary highways are still gravel. Many of them have not been upgraded or improved for at least a decade. Until we get some action on both the major links and the secondary highways, we are not going to go anywhere in terms of our competitiveness and in terms of providing a real transportation link across the north.

I would like to read from the latest issue, the May issue, of Northern Ontario Business. It is not too often I want to use Northern Ontario Business as a support for my point of view, but we have here a letter under the Viewpoint column on the opp-editorial page by John Wilson of the Sault Ste. Marie Chamber of Commerce. He has chaired a task force of the Sault Ste. Marie Chamber of Commerce which has looked at developing a case in favour of four-laning of Ontario’s highways in northern Ontario. He says that after much deliberation, the subcommittee has reached the following conclusion:

“We do not want a four-lane highway system across northern Ontario. Our conclusion is based on the following assertions:

“1. We prefer to be the only province in Canada which is not significantly four-laned for the majority of its land mass.

“2. We prefer to have the most primitive highway system in North America.

“3. We like our two-lane highway as it provides more than an adequate barrier to interprovincial trade.

“4. Northern Ontario does not want to be competitive.

“5. Increased tourism and ease of traffic flow are not regional priorities.

“6. Northern industries are not concerned with just-in-time delivery and transportation costs.

“7. Major carriers prefer our narrow, windy, hilly roads with fully wooded rest areas.

“8. Equalization of services as it applies to highways is an invalid argument.

“9. Saultites prefer to drive the longer distance to Toronto via the Michigan interstate system than via our highways.

“10. Ten years is not even remotely enough time for the federal and provincial governments to reach an accord and to establish a game plan and financing regarding a progressive improvement in paved trade links.

“11. Safer transportation routes are a luxury, not a right, of the inhabitants of northern Ontario.”

These are the kinds of arguments that the Liberal cabinet has obviously been using in order to stop the development of four-lane highways in northern Ontario. Obviously this parody of what the government positions are lays out very clearly the business community’s concerns about our lack of highway infrastructure in northern Ontario. I would ask this Liberal government and the other members of the Legislature to question, in fact, what are the priorities of this government when the resolutions that come forward from their members do not address the major concerns of the people of the north.

Transportation links are a major concern. We have the geography. We may have only 10 per cent of the population, but we have something on the order of 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the land mass of the province in northern Ontario. We have to have an efficient, competitive highway system, one that allows us to compete with other areas of North America. Until we have that, the north will not be in the kind of position I and others in the north would like us to be in.

I ask the members to look closely at this resolution and question what the Liberal priority really is today for highways in northern Ontario.

1120

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I had not intended to speak on this resolution. The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) was to have been the speaker, but he has been unavoidably delayed with the House leaders’ meeting. I will make a few comments and, hopefully, there will be time for the member for Nipissing to speak towards 12 o’clock.

I would like to rise and indicate our party’s support for the resolution. I think it makes a lot of sense. I commend the member for Kenora (Mr. Miclash) for bringing the resolution forward and I hope the government will give consideration to his very reasonable request.

I think the key point that should be mentioned is the great distances involved in the north. I have had the opportunity on several occasions to travel both the northern and the southern routes to the provinces in the west, and I might just mention that, leaving my home town of Mount Forest, I could be at the Florida border in less time and with less distance travelled than if I were to head north and go to the Manitoba border. It indicates the vast distances that we have in this great province of Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: It takes less car too; less axles and less springs.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The member mentions that he has been doing it for some time.

Because we have such vast distances to travel, I feel that if indeed highways are safe and there is no problem with increasing the speed limit because of the safety factor, I would encourage the government to give consideration to increasing the speed limit from 80 to 90 kilometres per hour. Because of the fact that the adjacent states in America have the 90-kilometre speed limit, and I understand Manitoba has as well, I think it would make more sense to these people to have a uniform speed limit.

It would encourage people to obey the traffic laws we have. When speed limits are set too low, when people are in a hurry to move across vast stretches of highway and there is no safety reason that they should not do so, then it makes a bit of a mockery out of keeping in existence the legislation that holds the highway traffic speed limit down too low. I think 10 kilometres an hour is not that great an increase and is certainly reasonable under the circumstances set out by the member for Kenora.

Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest that, hopefully, some time can be set aside for the member for Nipissing to present his case, and I will adjourn now with that understanding.

Mr. Lupusella: I would like to thank my colleague from Kenora.

Interjection.

Mr. Lupusella: It is unfortunate that the member from the New Democratic Party took the opportunity to attack government policies rather than address himself to the content of the resolution. Therefore, l am trying to do just that.

I would like to thank my colleague the member for Kenora for bringing to the attention of the House the improvements my ministry has made in northern highways. I also commend him for his efforts to boost tourism in the north, something I am sure we all favour.

Mr. Hampton: When were you up there?

Mr. Lupusella: I would like to remind the member that I toured all of northern Ontario. I also sympathize with him for the great distances his constituents and visitors to the scenic northwest must travel.

However, the Ministry of Transportation undertook a comprehensive evaluation of all Ontario’s speed limits some 18 months ago, a study sparked by requests from various parties to raise existing limits. I would like to recall what the Minister of Transportation said when presenting the conclusions of that study:

“We know that 1,314 drivers and passengers were killed in motor vehicle accidents in 1975. Speed limits were lowered in 1976 and that figure fell to 1,109. It continued to decline until some 835 fatalities were registered last year.”

The minister concluded, “I believe that is conclusive evidence that together with seatbelt usage, we are on the right track. We also found that despite requests from municipalities and businesses to raise speed limits, the majority of the general public was in favour of maintaining the current rates.”

Those rates to which the minister referred in 1986 are those in effect today, those which my colleague would like to see raised in some areas. If those limits seem on the low side to my friend, there is other ministry research to consider. We have counters in the roadbeds of most Ontario highways to log traffic speed and volumes. They show consistently that the mass of the motoring public drives on an average at about 10 per cent over the posted speed limit. For example, when the speed limit on divided freeways was 70 miles per hour, the average speed of the traffic was 77 to 78 miles per hour. When it was reduced to 60 miles per hour, traffic speed dropped to 67 or 68 miles per hour. Therefore, there is already a cushion on the high side of the posted limit, a cushion that much of the motoring public takes for granted, despite our increased enforcement.

Our researchers, who study traffic accidents in the minutest detail, point out something often missed by people who argue for a faster average flow of traffic under certain conditions. It is that speed may not necessarily be the cause of the accident, but speed invariably dictates the severity of the accident. Why? Because it is a basic law of physics that the impact goes up by the square of the increased velocity. Therefore, a crash at 90 kilometres per hour is not marginally more severe than one at 80, it is 26 per cent more violent. That is often the difference between a crash that is fatal and that is survivable.

As I said at the outset, I can sympathize with my friend when he refers to the great distances our citizens and visitors have to travel over our northern highways. There are a lot of wide-open spaces. However, speed limits are designed to account for drivers’ reaction time to the unexpected. As my colleague well knows, motor vehicles are not the only users of our northern highways. Moose, deer and occasionally bears cross them, often with little warning. The results for the motorist who is going too fast to stop or to take evasive action can be disastrous. In 1986 in Ontario four persons died in cars after collisions with large animals.

Again, I must say my colleague from Kenora raised a logical question in his resolution and has done so with the best of intentions. However, for all the reasons I have recited, our ministry must maintain that the present speed limits through the entire province are appropriate for the times. In essence, they will remain at 80 kilometres per hour on provincial highways other than the Trans-Canada Highway and the divided freeways.

1130

Mr. Hampton: Madam Speaker, it is with some pleasure that I have an opportunity to speak to this resolution because, as you may know, my constituency is next to that of the member for Kenora and I drive over many of the same highways he drives over. I have to admit, though, that I have not driven over all of the same roads that he has obviously driven over in Switzerland, Austria and whatever. I can only say that some I have driven over in those countries I would hesitate to compare to some of the secondary highways we have in northern Ontario.

I can only conclude that if I tried to drive at the rate he is advocating in terms of Austria and Switzerland, I would literally fly over the highway, flying from bump to bump. But I will leave that for now.

I want to speak to this resolution because it is one which does speak to a serious situation. In northern Ontario, we are separated by some very great distances between communities and we have, as anyone who reads a highway map of Ontario will agree, only secondary highways connecting our communities.

When one is required to travel at 80 kilometres over some of these roads, it does take a great deal of time to travel, let us say, from Fort Frances to Kenora, Kenora to Red Lake, Atikokan to Dryden, or Ignace to Sioux Lookout.

A couple of the of the so-called secondary highways, for example Highway 11, have been designated as 9O-kilometre-per-hour highways. We also have a section of the Trans-Canada Highway, Highway 17, whereon you are permitted to drive at 90 kilometres per hour.

But I really do have to agree that I think the resolution here misses the main issue. The main issue is that many of these highways simply are not designed for 9O-kilometre-per-hour traffic and would be rather difficult to negotiate at 90 kilometres per hour consistently throughout.

Let me give an example of the kind of situation that many of our communities in northern Ontario face. During the recent Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association convention, I had the opportunity to speak to some of the Ministry of Transportation district officials. I put the question to them, “What are your priorities in the next two years or what do you see as the priorities over the next few years in terms of highway maintenance and highway upgrading?” The response to me was: “We really do have a difficult time with that. You see, we’re so short of funds that the only things we can do in terms of highway maintenance and highway upgrading are those sections that absolutely need it the most. We recognize that a lot of areas of the highways are in very sad shape, but there is nothing we can do about it. We simply don’t have the money. We can deal with only those sections of the highway that really need it the most.”

I think that is a very sad comment on the situation that does prevail across much of northern Ontario in terms of highways.

While listening to the member for Kenora, I could not help but say to myself, “Gee, you know, the resolution speaks to something that many of us have an interest in, but where is the member for Fort William (Mrs. McLeod), where is the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Kozyra), where is the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), where is the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) and where is the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay), to speak in support of the member’s resolution?”

Instead, I see the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella), and I think he would admit that he has probably seen most of northern Ontario from an airplane. I have to say that I think we would all have appreciated it if some of the government members who also reside in northern Ontario would at least have been here to lend greater support to the member for Kenora.

I note that the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Brown) has just returned. After abandoning the member for Kenora to the wolves, he has returned. He must have been outside watching the monitor.

There are a couple of things which those northern members of the government could have learned if they had been here.

First of all, there is an incredible anomaly here. How is the government or anyone else going to determine which highways are worthy of the 9O-kilometre-per-hour speed zone and which highways are not? I can imagine, if we lobbied very hard, the highway from Kenora to Fort Frances would be designated as a 90-kilometre zone. Both the member for Kenora and I would agree with that. We would both enjoy that.

But what happens with the new highway between Atikokan and Dryden? What happens there? Indeed, what happens to that part of Highway 17 that runs from Ignace to Kenora?

Mr. Wildman: Is it a secondary highway?

Mr. Hampton: It is a primary highway. But here is the anomaly. I have heard tourists who are returning to the United States stop in Fort Frances and say, “Now is that a corduroy road or is it a corduroy road?”

Here we would have people travelling over supposedly secondary highways at 90 kilometres an hour where the member and I would both agree that the Trans-Canada Highway from Ignace to Kenora is, indeed, a corduroy road.

Mr. Miclash: I travel at 90 all the time.

Mr. Hampton: I can only say to the member for Kenora, if he travels that highway at 90 all the time he had better invest in a new set of springs.

Interjection.

Mr. Wildman: That’s right. The member for Kenora has an airplane.

Mr. Hampton: Yes, the member for Kenora does have an airplane. I think that should also be noted.

I wonder if the same thing applies to the member for Kenora that applied to the former member for Kenora. While he was a cabinet minister, he used to fly over the highways. Then when he was reduced to the opposition and he started to complain about the conditions of the highways, one of his constituents was quick to retort: “Aha, Leo; they took away your plane, eh?” I wonder if this is the case with the present member for Kenora.

I want to point out these anomalies. The fact of the matter is that well over half of the secondary highways are barely fit for travel at 80 kilometres per hour. I would admit, and I think the member for Kenora and I could agree on the fact, that a couple of highways should perhaps have the 90-kilometre-per-hour designation.

The real problem is that two or three, at least, of these highways are in such desperate shape that what the member for Kenora really should be speaking to is condemning the Minister of Transportation for not allocating enough of his budget to the proper maintenance of highways across northern Ontario. That is what the resolution should speak to. If we had that kind of resolution, I can assure the member for Kenora that he would have unanimous support from all of the members on the opposition side of the House.

Mr. Miclash: Read the last part of the resolution.

Mr. Hampton: The member for Kenora asks that I read the last part of the resolution. He says again, “where highway conditions warrant;” and that is exactly the anomaly we get ourselves into.

The member for Kenora and I know that virtually every municipality across northwestern Ontario has sent to the government various resolutions, whether through municipal councils or through the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, asking first of all for an upgrading of the highway, and asking as well for the upgrading of speed limits.

This is what I call half-handed government. They pay attention to the one resolution, hoping that those municipalities will not notice that the second resolution is being ignored. That is the crucial part of this debate; that is the absolutely crucial part of this debate.

If the government were to allocate the sums that are deserved and the sums that are necessary for the upgrading and proper maintenance of these roads, we could have 90-kilometre-per-hour zones throughout northwestern Ontario and indeed throughout a lot of northern Ontario --

Mr. Wildman: Even 100 kilometres.

Mr. Hampton: -- and even 100-kilometre zones; which brings me to another anomaly here.

The member for Kenora well knows that as soon as we cross the border into Manitoba the speed limit on many of the highways, not just the Trans-Canada, not just the primary highway, but on many of the highways is actually 100 kilometres per hour over the same sort of topography that we have in the area of Kenora and Rainy River. The highways are maintained such that people can travel over them.

So I want to say to the member for Kenora, I have substantial agreement with this resolution, but the other part of the resolution that is so important is missing.

1140

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Would any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate? The member for Nipissing.

Mr. Harris: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and congratulations on the pronunciation of my riding.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on this resolution, and I thank members from all parties for accommodating me, in my being late coming out of the House leaders’ meeting, by letting me have the opportunity to speak. I thank my colleague the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson), who did say a couple of words on behalf of our caucus but was kind enough to save me the time to speak a little bit from the perspective of those of us who live in northern Ontario.

I want to say, first of all, that I agree with the intent and the principle of the resolution that is brought forward by the member and indicate that I will be supporting the resolution. I would like to talk about some of those reasons for which I want to agree with some of the things the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) said, his comments on the quality of our highways in northern Ontario and the deterioration they have gone through over the last three years.

[Laughter]

Mr. Harris: I had to have a little smile there.

It may have been four years. Listen, we went through some very depressing times, a severe recession and depression in there, and most northerners understood that things were squeezed a little bit for a couple of years and the government was not able to do all that it wanted to do. But they really do not understand that situation now, particularly in the last three years, with the fourth budget of the Treasurer. With the amount of money that Brian Mulroney’s and Michael Wilson’s fiscal policy has allowed to roar into Ontario and put into the Treasury of this province, we do not understand why we can no longer get our share up in northern Ontario. So I concur that highway conditions are a problem.

But let me also, before I get into the main text -- I may run out of time before I do that, but some of the little snippets of information I am proffering, I hope, will be beneficial as members, I know, are reflecting, deciding and waiting until I have spoken before they decide how they are going to vote on this resolution. Let me also congratulate the former member for Sudbury, Jim Gordon, who took a very strong initiative on this issue, brought forward resolutions and petitions, circulated a resolution to all municipalities in northern Ontario and received overwhelming support for a desire, on those highways that warrant it, to see the speed limit increased.

I think it makes sense. If we are talking tourism, tourists cannot understand, when they come from the United States, when you are coming from the west, where you can go 90 or 100 kilometres an hour -- even when you come along Highway 17-11, if it is designated an interprovincial highway it is always at least 90 -- and yet many of the roads and secondary highways in northern Ontario are of better quality than some of those roads.

So that is kind of an artificial designation. The government says, “This highway connects with the highway east-west, so therefore it will automatically be 90,” regardless of condition; and yet many of our secondary roads in better condition are not deemed that way.

I want to say where I take exception with the comments from the member for Rainy River. He indicated that it would be a horrendous problem, I guess, for the Ministry of Transportation to determine which ones are in good enough condition. They do that all the time. When you are looking at secondary highways now that go through municipalities or go through Indian reservations or go through townships, the amount of consultation that goes on in setting the speed limits is very extensive. I found the Ministry of Transportation pretty good, when a road deteriorates, at reducing the speed limit on those roads and on those secondary highways, so I do not think that is a problem at all.

Why l am in favour of this resolution is that we in general are making a statement that the secondary highways in northern Ontario should be good enough that you can go 90 kilometres an hour, and I think if this resolution passes today we are making that kind of statement. Now, there will be exceptions. As I say, when we go through reservations we have to respect that situation and their wishes and the amount of traffic that crosses the highway there; and when we go through townships, when we go through those areas.

We are not saying that it is 90 everywhere. We are saying that, as a general principle, it should be 90 kilometres an hour. Then, as required because of built-up areas, it would be appropriately reduced, the same as it is, quite frankly, now. There may be some places where 80 is appropriate through built-up areas, and if highway conditions deteriorate or do not permit, maybe it should be 70. I will tell members, there are some secondary highways in northern Ontario that should be 70 kilometres an hour, not the automatic 80.

But this says that, in principle, it will be 90 and then be adjusted down as conditions dictate, and I do not see anything wrong with that. That is making a statement that says we should be constructing highways in northern Ontario as well as we do in the south, that is all. I do not think anybody would disagree with that.

When we talk tourism, when we talk trucking routes, when we talk about whether a trucker, a hauler is going to use a southern route or a northern route, these things are considerations: the road quality, the speed at which he can travel. Nobody in northern Ontario is saying: “Would you please let us drive at a dangerous speed? Could we go real, real fast through this area or across this road that is dangerous?” We are not asking that. We are saying that we think the quality of roads and secondary highways that we have in northern Ontario should be such that 90 kilometres an hour is a safe speed to travel at.

Now, the parliamentary assistant talked about animals, he talked about moose and he talked about these things. There are some areas in northern Ontario which, during times of the year, are areas where there are a lot of deer or moose crossing; we know that. There are warning signs up. One can reduce the speed during those seasons.

Maybe the parliamentary assistant was well trained in the party he came from; I do not know, I am sorry. He has absolutely no understanding of what life is like in northern Ontario, of the great distances there are between communities, of driving on a highway for perhaps an hour and not seeing another vehicle, not one other vehicle. That is why we have a few more animals on the road than there are in southern Ontario. What is more dangerous: eighty-five million trucks and vehicles and everything else you have got to negotiate and dodge while you are going 115 or 120 along Highway 401; or the likelihood that -- you are not going to see any cars -- that you might see one deer on the side of the road in this 50-mile stretch?

So give us a break. I mean, when the government puts up a speaker of that calibre with that lack of understanding of northern Ontario, it is embarrassing.

I hope those members who are here will understand that, in my view, this member’s resolution is simply saying that we should have secondary highways in northern Ontario of such quality that we can travel 90 kilometres per hour, This designation may put more pressure on the government to upgrade some highways, I think perhaps it will. It will be embarrassing to a government if It has to say, “Yes, I know this is supposed to be 90, but it is only 80 because the road is no good.” That is very beneficial for us in northern Ontario. It points out those things.

We are conscious of safety. We are conscious of these things in northern Ontario, but those members who do not live there have to understand what it is like in the north. I urge members to support this resolution.

1150

Mr. Brown: I am happy today to stand and indicate to the member for Kenora that I support this resolution, and I commend the member for bringing forth the resolution at this time. He has a riding that is much like mine, a large northern rural riding. I think his is significantly larger, but many of the problems are the same.

He has made a convincing case for this resolution. He pointed out that the history of speed limits in this province, and the speed reduction, is really an issue of conservation which was taken up during the oil crisis of the 1970s. While I fully support conservation, as do all members of this House, I think that if 80 kilometres per hour is a conservation measure, it should be right across the province. It should involve what happens here on Highway 401, where there is a far greater volume of traffic and there is far more potential for energy savings. In fact, we as northerners consider an increase in speed limit a conservation measure, because it will conserve time, and time is one of the critical factors in northern Ontario.

If I might make a small personal observation about speed limits, I would say that, as a northern member, I drive approximately 1,000 kilometres a month on secondary highways. I would make another assumption: that I drive the speed limit -- that might be questionable -- and I also would make the assumption that perhaps I have an eight-hour working day, which I would also suggest is probably questionable. But doing that, I spend 19 working days per year on secondary highways just driving. Just a 10-kilometre increase in that speed reduces the amount of time that I spend on the highways by two days. I suggest that that in itself is not a big deal, but we have people in my riding who drive far greater distances as a matter of course.

I have a friend who is a registered nurse at the Manitoulin Health Centre. Using the unlikely assumption that she would drive the speed limit and assuming that she would work a 40-hour week, Lou would save the equivalent of one and a half weeks of time per year just by increasing the speed limit by 10 kilometres per hour. Assuming that she would make an average wage for a registered nurse, I suggest that she would save approximately $1,000 worth of time merely by increasing the speed limit by 10 kilometres.

I say this to point out the fact that not only for my constituents but for the very high-distance drivers, like the courier services, truckers, buses, even home care providers, people who are forced to move throughout our large distances in doing their work, it would boost their efficiency and, therefore, our northern economy.

In the north, when we are talking about distance, we do not talk in kilometres. I do not say my home is 120 miles or 200 kilometres from Elliot Lake; I say it is two and a half hours from Elliot Lake. Obviously, by decreasing the time, we increase our efficiency. It makes our markets more compact. It essentially shrinks the north. It makes us smaller. It helps us overcome our large distances.

I would be the last to suggest that the province increase the speed limit on all northern secondary highways. Some of them just would not be able to have increased speed limits. I am, however, sure that the Ministry of Transportation could have guidelines that would indicate which ones are safe. We have guidelines in the Ministry of Transportation for everything, and I am sure the ministry could develop guidelines for what is safe and what is not.

I also point out to members that the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Northern Development have made a very significant program to improve northern roads. Since this government took power in 1985, spending on northern highways has increased by over 50 per cent. I think that is a significant number, especially in terms of the fact that there is also the question of the industry’s capacity to deal with this increased and unprecedented activity on northern roads.

I believe, however, that the majority of northern secondary highways will in fact accommodate increased speed limits. Northern Ontario is a very large region. It contains over 80 per cent of Ontario’s land area but under 10 per cent of its population. Of that population in the north, 75 per cent live in one of the five major centres. That leaves 2.5 per cent of all Ontarians spread out across this vast area.

In order for us to improve our quality of life, in order for us to compete, in order for us to attract tourists, businesses and industry, we must improve both transportation and communication. We must make realistic assumptions about these old problems and we must use new technologies, such as computers, fax machines, all the communications things we have, to facilitate our competitiveness in the global village. I do not believe an increase in the speed limits on secondary highways is therefore unreasonable. I believe it would be an inexpensive way of improving our quality of life.

I would also make the point that has been made on the other side of the House. There are members who have difficulty understanding how driving on Highway 401, which to northerners looks like a parking lot moving at 120 kilometres an hour, bumper to bumper, is more safe than driving on a northern road on which you will often not see another vehicle except for the odd one with flashing lights on it.

I would therefore suggest that we support this resolution in the interests of improving the northern economy, improving our quality of life and restoring a sense of sanity to Ontario’s speed limits.

Mr. Miclash: First of all, I would like to thank the member for Algoma-Manitoulin and the member for Nipissing for their support. They, too, realize the vast distances and the travel that we in northern Ontario are faced with.

As I mentioned earlier, I do have a great amount of support other than what the member for Rainy River has suggested. There are a lot of people throughout the north who have given me that support, noting the fact of the great distances throughout.

I must bring to the attention of the member that I was talking about highways where the conditions warrant. I think that is a very important part of the resolution. As the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has stated, the Ministry of Transportation should be able to judge these areas where safe travel at this speed would be accommodated.

As we have also mentioned, we are putting money into the roads in northern Ontario, with the increase in the budget of 50 per cent since 1985, and we are looking at improvements. The member from the opposition mentioned the building of highways. We are not talking about money in the budget for the building of highways; we are talking about money in the budget for the improvement of highways. There are two very significant differences there. I would say that the money we are looking at going into northern Ontario is for improving those highways so that we can get more of them up to that standard where 90 kilometres per hour would not be an outrageous speed limit.

I would also like to bring up the fact of the improved quality that we see in our vehicles today. I mentioned earlier about gravel roads, about the speed limits on these gravel roads in years past being 60 miles per hour. I feel that with the quality of the roads we have today and the quality of vehicles we have today, we are not asking for anything outrageous here.

The member for Rainy River mentioned the building of roads in Manitoba, the speed limit in Manitoba being 90 or 100 kilometres per hour. I must remind him that the roads he is talking about are much easier to build across the prairie regions of that province than through the rock cuts of Kenora.

I also would like to mention a former member, Jim Gordon, as the member for Nipissing earlier mentioned. From the north, he too realized the problems that we in the north face with the extended distance and the extended travel times. As I was doing my research, his name did appear. So it is not something that we in the north have just begun to take a look at but something that has gone on for a long time, and I do ask the support of all members in the House for this resolution.

1205

Mr. Speaker: We will now deal with the two items before the House.

EAST/CENTRAL ONTARIO RECREATIONAL TRAILS COMMISSION ACT

The House divided on Mr. Pollock’s motion for second reading of Bill 67, An Act to establish the East/Central Ontario Recreational Trails Commission, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Ballinger, Bryden, Callahan, Charlton, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cunningham, Daigeler, Elliot, Eves, Farnan, Fawcett, Hampton, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Laughren, Mahoney, Martel, McCague, McLean, Philip, Pollock, Runciman, South, Sterling, Sullivan, Villleneuve, Wildman.

Nays

Adams, Black, Brown, Carrothers, Epp, Ferraro, Johnston, R. F., Kanter, Lipsett, Lupusella, Mancini, Matrundola, McGuigan, McGuinty, Miclash, Miller, Neumann, Nicholas, Owen, Pelissero, Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Velshi, Wilson.

Ayes 30; nays 25.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on resources development.

SPEED LIMITS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Miclash has moved resolution 26.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:12 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GALT BRANCH 121, ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

Mr. Farnan: It gives me great pleasure to read into the record of the Ontario provincial Legislature a tribute to Galt Branch 121, Royal Canadian Legion, on the occasion of its 60th anniversary.

The Legion represents the spirit of commitment to one’s fellow man. In times of great crisis, this was reflected in the unselfish acts of young men and women who put their lives on the line to preserve a way of life. That spirit of generosity lives on.

Since 1928, Galt Branch 121 has been faithful to veterans and their families, to the traditions of the Legion through their service bureau, Remembrance Day services and the familiar poppy campaign. Branch 121 has also opened its heart to embrace the entire Cambridge community. It has promoted education by public speaking activities and by bursary and scholarship programs. Charities, minor sports, scout and cadet groups, our community hospital and medical research have all benefited from funds donated by Branch 121.

Gait, and now Cambridge, is a richer community because of the presence of Branch 121 in our midst, and I am confident that in the years ahead it will continue to remain a beacon of sacrifice and a model of generosity for our community. On behalf of all the citizens of Cambridge, I say thank you, Branch 121, and may God ever bless your work.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mr. Villeneuve: Members will know that cystic fibrosis is a disease for which there is no cure. Today in all of Canada perhaps some 500 young people with cystic fibrosis have passed their 18th birthday and, of those, only some 200 are able to work. These courageous young adults will require expensive drugs and, in most cases, financial support.

Members should be shocked to learn that Ontario will not assist adult cystic fibrosis sufferers who attempt to work full-time hours and who want to be productive members of our society.

Luke Labelle is one such courageous 2O-year-old who resides in the riding of Nepean. His mother is a constituent in my riding. Luke is working at two jobs but cannot afford the monthly drug bills of over $1,000 required to keep him alive. The Ministry of Community and Social Services is not able to help and will not help as long as he continues to work.

To date, he has been able to stay alive because the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario has not collected the money he owes them for drugs. This hospital has a $9-million deficit. If this government’s hospital deficit policy is enforced, Luke’s drug supply will be cut off.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) knows of this case, and urge him, as well as the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), to resolve this and similar cases. We cannot allow these circumstances and conditions to go on for these sufferers of cystic fibrosis.

HANOVER INDUSTRIAL FAIR

Mr. Daigeler: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and the over 70 Ontario business leaders who helped to improve our export opportunities by taking part in the recent Hanover Industrial Fair.

At a time when the federal and provincial Tories would have us believe that our economic future should be tied even more closely with the United States, it is important to underline and explore aggressively the trading opportunities in the other parts of the world.

As the largest industrial fair in the western world, the Hanover event is not only a showcase for the latest developments in industrial technology but also a unique opportunity for establishing new business contacts and for creating profitable deals with suppliers and purchasers, especially in western Europe.

I am proud to know that this government, through its trade representatives in Frankfurt, is vigorously supporting these contacts and helping Ontario businesses to become even more export-oriented. Competing in a global market is the message of the Premier’s Council on Ontario’s economic future. Participating in the Hanover fair was one way to make this message real, and I am proud to have been associated with it.

ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I rise in recognition of Canada Health Day and remind members that a number of the promises of this Liberal government have not been fulfilled around health policy.

Members will remember, of course, a number of years ago when the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), who is here today, promised that we would be seeing reductions in Ontario health insurance plan premiums and the eventual waiving out of OHIP premiums in a four-year period. The generosity of the taxpayers has, of course, known no bounds, as the Treasurer is saying, but he did make that promise and that commitment in 1984 and 1985. It has since been retracted.

But under OHIP, some members will not know, a very strange situation is occurring, and that concerns diabetics, usually people who have to inject themselves with insulin on a daily basis. If you are on a fixed income, you can receive coverage through OHIP for your payments for your insulin itself, but there is no payment for the syringes that you have to use.

I have been receiving letters in the last little while from members of my constituency who are having to spend $22 a month on syringes which they cannot afford out of their basic pensions, and this government, and this Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) who is sitting here today, have refused to move on this matter now for numbers of months. We do hope that, besides the assistive devices changes which we are waiting for with bated breath, the Ministry of Health will move in this one small matter and make life a little easier for diabetics who are on fixed incomes in Ontario.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Eves: I rise today also to comment on Canada Health Day. This is an annual event designed to promote awareness of health issues by the general public and the health sector. Hospitals across the province celebrate this day by holding special events for the public in which they share information and invite the public to participate in some of the special programs which they offer.

However, this year Ontario hospitals do not have too much to celebrate. Many of the preventive programs they offer, such as nutritional assessments, hearing tests, proper back care instruction and even diabetes education centres, are doomed to extinction in light of the confrontational, inflexible position that this government has taken with respect to hospital funding.

The public does not have much to celebrate, either. If you need heart surgery, be prepared to wait up to a year, if you survive that long. If you need an artificial joint, be prepared to wait up to two years. And, to quote a health professional I talked to, if he had cancer he would leave Ontario to get treatment. For those who finally do manage to get a bed in a hospital, be prepared to enjoy your stay in the hospital corridor.

Our so-called world-class health care system is in serious trouble. We need effective, responsible leadership from the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), the Ministry of Health and the government of Ontario, and we need it now.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) and concerns the failing health of Ontario’s Workers’ Compensation Board system.

The minister is no doubt aware that the high cost associated with the system, coupled with exorbitant assessment rate increases, is taking its toll, and the Workers’ Compensation Board is in danger of expiring. I have serious concerns that the WCB assessment rates, which increase at an alarming rate each year, will drive industries in northern Ontario, farmers trying to maintain their farms and small business operators throughout Ontario out of business.

That is why I have urged the minister on several occasions to use the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia as a site for a new WCB rehabilitation centre or a regional medical centre to research work-related injuries and rehabilitation problems as well as to provide therapy designed to reintroduce injured workers back Into the workplace gradually. I believe this would go a long way towards reducing the high cost of assessment rates and the other costs associated with injured workers in Ontario.

The ministry should be aware that the owner of a lumber company in my riding indicated to me that the WCB assessment has increased 14.89 per cent in 1985-86, increased a further 13.8 per cent in 1986-87 and rose another 9.87 per cent in 1987-88. The assessment rate for carpet installers and retail workers increased by a similar percentage at this very same mill.

1340

CARABRAM

Mr. Callahan: In the brief time that is left to me I would like to extend an invitation to all of the members of the Legislature, as well as those people who may be watching us on television, to attend a very excellent multicultural event that occurs in Brampton each year. This year it will take place on July 8, 9 and 10. We have 16 pavilions, and if members come along they will have an opportunity to savour the sights, sounds and the enjoyment of visiting 16 different communities without even leaving the lovely and beautiful city of Brampton.

Mr. Brandt: Will you be there?

Mr. Callahan: Of course.

Mr. Brandt: I am not going, then.

Mr. Callahan: Oh, all right. I will convey your apologies.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

GOODYEAR CANADA INC.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to announce today that Goodyear Canada will be constructing a $320-million radial passenger tire facility in eastern Ontario this year. This plant, which will be located near Napanee, will represent the state of the art in modern radial tire production and is part of this government’s continued efforts to promote province-wide industrial growth.

This initiative is the result of lengthy negotiations between our government and Goodyear and this investment is an important first step in making the Ontario tire industry internationally competitive.

This state-of-the-art eastern Ontario facility will be built in two stages, the first to begin later this year at a cost of $160 million, with production to start in the first quarter of 1990, and the second due for completion in 1994. When it reaches full production following completion of the second phase, the plant will employ 800 workers and produce 20,000 tires daily, using the highest level of technology available.

In addition to providing a direct boost to the eastern Ontario economy in the way of jobs, the plant will provide a number of spinoff benefits as well, including the introduction of advanced radial tire technology, which could result in the attraction of other automotive-related manufacturers to eastern Ontario.

Ontario is providing a $32-million loan to assist the establishment of this facility. The loan, which is repayable over 10 years, reflects our confidence in the ability of Goodyear to deliver a top-quality product. The loan will be interest-free, provided certain performance targets are met, including the completion of the project’s two phases, totalling a minimum of $320 million in capital investment and the creation of 800 jobs in eastern Ontario.

The need for a new direction and new opportunities for Ontario’s tire industry cannot be overstated. Faced with the reality of the loss of two out-of-date tire plants, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology staff and I have met personally with representatives of the tire industry in Ontario, the United States, Japan and Europe on a regular basis, with the aim of restructuring the industry to meet the needs of a modern and increasingly competitive market. We have worked closely with the industry to identify new opportunities, and the new Goodyear tire plant is an example of both the process we went through and the progress we have made.

In conclusion, this sound and progressive investment reflects both the renewed strength of Ontario’s tire industry in meeting the challenge of the world marketplace and the faith that the government of Ontario has in this industry’s potential as a generator of increased economic development in eastern Ontario.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH REORGANIZATION

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I wish to draw to the attention of the members that, throughout our country, today is recognized as Canada Health Day. Here in Ontario this event is being used as an opportunity by many groups working in health care to show how effectively they can work together to promote health in their communities.

In particular, I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Public Health Association and the Association of Local Official Health Agencies This year they have joined forces with members of the public and the major providers of care to host a number of community events all across the province.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with ministry staff to launch the reorganization of the Ministry of Health. Today I am pleased to release details of the restructuring, which has been under development for the past six months. This new structure will improve the delivery of health care and promote innovative community-based services.

As part of our new ministry organization, I have created a new focus for mental health services in the province. A program co-ordinator for mental health has been appointed. The co-ordinator’s role is to ensure that all services related to mental health are brought together and co-ordinated at the management level. The co-ordinator will also serve as a single point of entry for interest and advocacy groups in mental health.

Our intention is to establish a more cohesive framework for our rapidly expanding network of mental health services. We intend to better integrate services provided in psychiatric, general and specialty hospitals and we intend to promote relationships among the more than 400 community programs sponsored by the ministry. Our objective is to help everyone requiring mental health treatment and care to remain in or move back into the community.

One of our more important partners in the provision of mental health services is the Canadian Mental Health Association and its local branches. With us today in the members’ gallery are Howard Richardson, executive director of the Ontario division of the CMHA, and with him are Oscar Johvicas, Brian Davidson, Rena Scheffer and Andrew Wright. I want to thank each of these people for their support in helping us to provide effective mental health care.

To promote the further development of community mental health programs in Ontario, I am announcing today that the budgets of the 23 branches of the Canadian Mental Health Association will be increased by $720,000 annually. These funds will be used by the Canadian Mental Health Association branches for administrative costs such as recruitment of personnel, rental of community facilities and program supervision.

In addition, we will provide a funding increase of $100,000 annually to the Ontario division of CMHA. These funds will be used for grants for special projects, workshops, advertising and the training of branch staff, volunteers and board members.

The ministry has also approved a special grant of $480,000 for the Ontario Mental Health Foundation, to be used for research into the prevention and treatment of mental illness. The projects will be conducted by researchers at universities across the province. Among them will be studies relating to adolescent mental health, sexual abuse, dyslexia and sleeping disorders as well as the effects of maternal stress.

I am also announcing that the Ministry of Health will spend more than $1 million over the next two years on 29 community projects promoting good health for targeted population groups. This is the first round of approved programs in our new health promotion grants program.

The sponsoring groups will use a variety of techniques, from peer counselling to martial arts training, native culture and English-as-a-second language classes to get people involved. The 29 projects include a Toronto program to improve nutrition among low-income groups, a Hamilton program to encourage healthy lifestyles among immigrants and refugees and an Ottawa program to promote dental health among seniors.

Local health units and district health councils are deeply involved in developing many of these projects. The proposals were well thought out and demonstrated a good knowledge of health promotion skills. I want to thank everyone involved in helping us begin this new program on such a successful footing. twill inform the House when the next round of health promotion grants is received.

1350

POLICE WEEK

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am sure the honourable members are aware that next week is Police Week in Canada, and I would ask them to join me during that period in taking the time to express Ontario’s appreciation to the men and women who serve us so ably.

Since my appointment as Solicitor General, I have become all too familiar with the challenges faced by today’s police officers. Today’s police officers are very special people. They must be, because they work on the cutting edge of a rapidly changing society.

True, technological changes like the computer, for example, have helped police to process all sorts of information rapidly and efficiently. But as surely as the invention of the automobile was followed by car theft, society’s widespread use of computers has been followed by computer crime and the need for new investigative skills.

The social mandate of our police force has changed also and our police officers have had to acquire new skills to match this. They have been devoting extra care and energy to assisting victims of crime. They have been tackling the public’s fear of crime by strengthening their ties with the communities they serve.

The changing nature of Ontario’s population has created a determination to recruit more women and members of minorities.

Social problems like impaired driving have generated enforcement solutions like the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program and new emphasis on public education programs.

Time and time again our police forces are challenged with new problems and time and time again they meet those challenges successfully.

I urge honourable members to show their appreciation by giving Police Week their wholehearted support. Our police have earned it.

RESPONSES

Mr. B. Rae: I want to respond to the announcement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) and my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) will be responding to the announcement by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan).

GOODYEAR CANADA INC.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to say to the minister that he will know how profoundly disappointed we are that his statement says nothing about guarantees for the workers in the Etobicoke plant. He had an opportunity to do so in his statement. It is clear that by his omitting it from his statement, those guarantees are not there and he will know that is profoundly disappointing to those workers who have given the best years of their lives to the company in Etobicoke.

It is profoundly disappointing to my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip), who has been asking questions on this matter for sometime, and I think it sets a very bad precedent for the relationship between the government and industry when it comes to job protection and just who is speaking up on behalf of the working families in this province.

With respect to the $32-million interest-free loan, I want to say this: that is a $3-million-a-year gift from the government of Ontario to Goodyear Canada. It was said by a wise philosopher that to govern is to choose, and among all the people in this province who deserve money, among all those causes that are out there that are in desperate need, out of all those hospitals that are looking for additional funds, out of those patients who are on waiting lists for months, and indeed years, this government has chosen to ignore them.

To give to whom? To the poor? To the needy? To the struggling? No, to a company that took $30 million out of Canada just this last year on a special levy, a company that internationally has made hundreds of millions of dollars a year in profits and that last year made over $20 million.

We are all delighted to see the free enterprise system work, but when it is neither enterprising nor genuinely free, surely we are entitled to ask why the government is choosing to give money to Goodyear Canada when it does not have money for hospitals, it does not have money for people who are sick and it does not have money for our education system.

The government has chosen to give money to them; let the judgement of the people be on its back.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH REORGANIZATION

Mr. Reville: Things are getting stranger and stranger in the Ministry of Health. We have an announcement today that there is a reorganization of the Ministry of Health, the details of the restructuring are released today and then the minister goes on to talk for several pages about $1-million worth of funding she has provided for mental health.

Then she talks about a little drop in the bucket for community health, which works out to about $17,000 annually for 29 community groups. She says nothing about which of the assistant deputy ministers has been given a golden handshake. She says nothing about improvements in the development of community health centres or health service organizations.

She is going to award a grant to an Ottawa program to promote dental health among seniors. Obviously that would be a useful program, but she does not say anything about the dental program for seniors that the city of Toronto has been funding now for many years, hoping that the Ministry of Health would finally get involved in the dental health of seniors.

This afternoon, of course, we are going to have a debate about health at last. I think it would be particularly useful if the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) would sit in her chair during the debate so that in fact she will know how badly the Ministry of Health needs restructuring and reorganizing and that then she will share with members of the House just how such a reorganization and such a restructuring would in fact help to meet the health objectives we want to have for the citizens of our province.

The minister is allocating about $500,000 to research into prevention and treatment of mental illness. That is a useful grant. Perhaps she would like to authorize a grant for research into why and what kind of doughnuts the ex-psychiatric patients of Ontario like best, because in fact we know it is the doughnut stores of this province that provide most of the aftercare for ex-psychiatric patients, in spite of the good work done by my friends from the Canadian Mental Health Association and allied agencies.

The minister has not acknowledged that she is talking about a four per cent item of her budget in community health and a four per cent item for mental health. It is shocking.

GOODYEAR CANADA INC.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to respond to the announcement, or rather the reannouncement, of the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Kwinter) with respect to the development of the plant in eastern Ontario.

There is no question that we are delighted at this announcement, which will help the economic growth and development in eastern Ontario. We are also delighted, knowing the track record of this government, that during the one and a half or two months since this announcement was originally made it has not done anything to cause the plant to go elsewhere during the ensuing 60 days. So it was a little bit reassuring to hear that the plant is in fact going to be going to eastern Ontario.

Let me say to the minister that I think the argument that some $32 million has been loaned to this company to cause this plant to be built, either in that location or elsewhere in Ontario, is not something we would necessarily oppose on this side of the House, at least within our party, but I think there should be some further explanation with respect to the need for that particular loan. It looks to be about 10 per cent of the total capital investment of some $320 million.

The minister very carefully has avoided mentioning any other competition that was perhaps a factor in granting the loan, any other jurisdictions where this plant may have considered locating and the need for this particular amount of money. I recognize that the minister does not have a program which necessarily invests a specific amount of money in a specific plant, so there has to be some justification for this amount on this particular occasion.

Let me take this happy occasion to congratulate the minister and the government. I think it is an excellent project for eastern Ontario. I think in particular, now that we are at the advent of a trade agreement with the United States, that the spinoff benefits the minister wants to see happen as a result of the improved access to the American market -- which of course is argued against in this report he has just shared with us today -- is something that will happen, hopefully, in eastern Ontario as a result of that trade agreement.

I wish the minister well in this investment. I trust the 800 jobs will bring a form of secure and beneficial employment to the people in eastern Ontario.

1400

MINISTRY OF HEALTH REORGANIZATION

Mr. Eves: I would like to respond briefly to the statement of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) in the Legislature this afternoon. We welcome the contents of her statement as made in the Legislature. There are indeed some pieces of good news there. We would point out to the minister, however, that there is still no community mental health act in existence in Ontario despite the efforts of my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville).

We are happy to note the minister has chosen not to accept Dr. Barkin’s approach, which he was promoting around the province some three or four months ago, that we should wipe out the mental health operations branch of the Ministry of Health altogether, although on this side of the House we are still not too sure about that because we were informed a few moments ago by the minister herself that the reorganization plan that was supposed to be handed out to every member has not yet reached the members on this side of the House at least.

POLICE WEEK

Mr. Harris: I want to comment briefly on the statement made by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). I too, and on behalf of our party, want to congratulate the police as we enter Police Week next week. In so doing, though, I want to point out the remarkable job they do, and they do do a remarkable job.

The remarkable job they do is even more remarkable when we look at the obstacles that have been put forward, when we look at the obstacles that are in their road. I am talking about obstacles of the justice system. I am talking about the obstacles that are in their road with the lack of crown attorneys and the lack of incentive for good crown attorneys to practise in this province. I am talking about some of the ridiculous sentences that are handed Out by the courts.

I am not blaming the courts here. I am blaming the government, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) for not setting a direction, for not unequivocally saying, “These types of light sentences are unacceptable to us as politicians and we are reflecting the wishes of the people of this province.”

The police are doing a remarkable job under very, very difficult circumstances and under a regime that does not appear to believe in law and order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions again today for the Minister of Health. I wonder if the minister can tell us why, when she made her statement yesterday with respect to the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, she would not have had the courtesy to at least have given the House the information which her ministry staff had, which I have today, which is a rather thorough refutation by the board of the hospital of the allegations contained in the minister’s statement.

The minister would have had that information available to her when she made her statement. She will know, for example, that the board is very much of the view that a turnaround to a position where revenue at least covers expenses can be achieved only through a drastic reduction of services to inpatients and outpatients. She will be aware that the board is not about to recommend that action and that is precisely why it was so troubled by the announcement the minister made yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: Can the minister tell us why, in all fairness to this particular hospital, instead of having an inquiry which would look at it from the hospital’s point of view as well as from the point of view of the minister’s bureaucrats, she chose the bureaucrats over those who are delivering care to patients directly in Cambridge?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We had an interesting and expert outside review done of the hospital as part of the review of 22 hospitals. It is interesting to see that the leader of the New Democratic Party, the leader of the official opposition in this House, is championing the cause of those who deliberately run up deficits and those who would even consider patient user charges.

It is quite a turn of events when the leader of the NDP supports user fees. We on this side of the House believe, on the other hand, in a well planned, well managed, universally accessible health care system that does not erect financial barriers.

Mr. Reville: That is a new cue card. That is called the aggressive cue card.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister’s new cue card is a cue card that tells her to make allegations with respect to my position which the minister knows full well are totally inaccurate.

I can say to the minister that it is possible -- maybe she does not understand it and maybe the Liberal Party does not understand it -- to be worried and troubled about cutbacks without for a moment believing in a user fee of any kind. The minister knows that perfectly well.

By way of supplementary, I would like to ask the minister, again, a simple question. I will repeat the question with the observation that people make absolutely baseless allegations in response to a question when they have no answer to the question.

I asked the minister a very simple question and I will ask it of her again. Why did she not, in the statement she had to make yesterday, refer in any way, shape or form to the fact that the hospital itself is profoundly troubled by the problem of accessibility and throughout its response to her report and the so-called report of her experts -- which, I might add, called for the use of sale and leaseback arrangements --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is quite clear from the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition that he believes in an open-ended, unplanned, unmanaged health care system. He believes that $12.7 billion -- one third of the total provincial budget -- is not enough for the Ontario health care system and he says this at a time when he knows that we have one of the best and one of the best-funded systems in the world.

Mr. Farnan: As I listened to the minister today, I felt rather sick. I listened to the minister and the words that the minister used today in her statement were “working together” and “a cohesive framework.” This is what she talked about.

Compare that with the arbitrary and heavy-handed approach of this ministry in initiating the inquiry yesterday. I cannot help but think that this minister is a hypocrite.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat. I heard the honourable member accuse another member of being a hypocrite. Will you withdraw that word?

Mr. Farnan: I cannot withdraw that word, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would, in all fairness, ask the member: will you withdraw that word? Will you?

Mr. Farnan: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Yes or no?

Mr. Farnan: -- in the interests of asking --

Mr. Speaker: Yes or no?

Mr. Farnan: Look, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Yes or no?

Mr. Farnan: -- the minister is a hypocrite.

Mr. Speaker: I have no choice but to ask the member to remove himself from the chamber for the balance of the sitting day.

Mr. Farnan left the chamber.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the minister another question. The minister yesterday, in answer to certain questions that I asked about Mr. LeBel, told him the answer to his problems was to read the Wall Street Journal. I say to the minister, if she is reading the Wall Street Journal today, she will be reading horoscopes next week.

1410

I would simply like to tell the minister now about the case of Betty Hodge. Betty Hodge is in her 70s and lives in Oakville. She has an artificial joint in her left knee and needs part of it replaced. She was scheduled to have surgery at the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital in February 1989. She received the same letter as Mr. LeBel and she is now rescheduled for April 9, 1990. Other patients have received letters rescheduling up to September 1990.

I would like to ask the minister, is she telling all the patients who have received the same letter from the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital that they should abandon their plans to have operations there and start shopping aimlessly all around the province, trying to find their way onto a waiting list?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: My advice to the Leader of the Opposition and to anyone in this province in need of care is that we have a number of hospitals that provide services right across this province. If they find themselves in that situation, they should request a second opinion.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister is perhaps unaware that some of the operations that are performed at the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital are not widely available across the province. If I could come back to the example of Mr. LeBel, whose case I raised yesterday in the House, she should perhaps know that because Mr. LeBel is comparatively young, the hope is that he will have one operation which will last him for his lifetime. Dr. Cameron uses a technique called porous in-growth technique, which is not widely used across the province. In fact, he uses a special hip replacement which again is not widely used across the province.

I would like to ask the minister, was she aware of that and is she aware of it when she makes such casual recommendations to patients that they should simply shop around all across the province, hoping to get some kind of care?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think the Leader of the Opposition raises a point which is important for everyone to understand. There are a number of physicians in this province who offer services right across this province, in every centre, in numerous procedures. The recognition that one physician has 24 hours a day, seven days a week and can schedule only what he personally is able to perform is very important in this matter. However, there are many physicians who provide this service. If an individual does not wish to wait for a specific surgeon to perform the procedure, he can ask to be referred to another surgeon performing the procedure. That is very reasonable in a system of regionalized care.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if I could come back and just ask the minister what she is saying to those patients, many of whom are elderly, many of whom have already had one operation with a particular doctor. In the case of Ms. Hodge, the example I raised earlier today, she has had three operations on her knee. She has a relationship with Dr. Cameron. Does the minister not feel that her advice is, at the very least, insensitive to those literally hundreds of patients who are now being asked to wait for as long as until September 1990 for an operation which they have been counting on?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: Does she not realize that it simply is not that easy for people to shop around?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have said on numerous occasions that our system is designed for those in need of urgent care to receive priority. That system is called triage. We also rely on the medical judgements of physicians to determine in what order patients will receive care. I would not presume to interfere in a patient-and-doctor relationship and I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition do the same. If a patient is not satisfied with the place he has in the doctor’s estimation as to when his surgery is required, he can, and in my opinion should, seek a second opinion.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to raise a point of order under standing order 28(d). The Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) gave a statement yesterday on Cambridge Memorial Hospital in which she referred to extensive written reviews that had been done of that hospital, and there was no compendium of information filed with the House.

Again today the minister refers in her statement to a reorganization of her ministry and that the details will be filed. We have not received them in the mail, as the minister said we would.

We have just checked. They have not been tabled here.

How do we hold the Minister of Health accountable when she can make statements in this place and deliberately not give the information to the members of the Legislature?

Mr. Speaker: You have drawn that to the attention of the minister.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that an information kit should be placed in the mailbox of every member before the end of question period.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The rule clearly says, “After any policy statement the minister shall table a compendium.”

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It doesn’t say “may.” It says “shall.”

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Does she have it on her desk? She doesn’t. If you have it on your desk, table it.

Mr. Wildman: The rule doesn’t say “mailboxes.”

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It’s your review that you paid for. You made a policy analysis as a result of your review. Selective disclosure, that’s what it is. Selective to meet your own purposes.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Health. It relates to the issue of the Cambridge review.

Since yesterday the minister indicated in this House that an investigator was going to be sent into the Cambridge Memorial Hospital as a result of that particular facility initiating new programs without ministry approval, I would like to ask her why that is, in that she wrote in February 1988 discouraging hospitals from sending in requests for 1988-89 reviews for new programs. In fact, she had not even approved the programs for 1987-88. She was a full year behind in reviewing any requests for new programs.

As a result of that information, does it not appear that the hospital itself is not causing the problem but that the ministry’s delay in the approval process for these programs is, in fact, the problem?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I came across a quote that I found particularly interesting. This dates back to October 27, 1980, and I am sure the leader of the third party will find this as interesting as I do.

I quote: “If any hospital introduces a program or adds staff without obtaining approval by going through proper channels, thereby incurring a deficit beyond its global allocation, that hospital is operating outside the rules.”

Do the members know who said that? Dennis Timbrell.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: Some of the members of the government may applaud that response, which again has absolutely nothing to do with the question I have raised, but I have to tell them that I agree with what the minister has said and I agree with what Mr. Timbrell said back in 1980. Certainly the hospitals should go by the rules, and certainly the minister’s review process should be brought up to date so that when the hospitals, in fact, submit a request for an expanded program, she at least will give them a response and not hold them up, as she is doing.

My question to the minister is that yesterday she indicated that an investigator would find out why the deficit budget was approved and the report would tell us why. Well, let me quote page 7 of the report which she refuses to release in this House, which from 1981-82 to the 1987-88 periods would indicate: “Both revenues and expenses have increased dramatically and costs have grown more rapidly than expenses. For instance, diagnostic and therapeutic service expenses have increased by 83 per cent, drugs and surgical supplies by over 100 per cent.”

Would that not indicate to the minister that the real problem here is with funding, not with some kind of witch hunt that she obviously is on with respect to the Cambridge facility?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The further part of the quote in 1981 was: “No more overspending. Increased hospital autonomy must be balanced by increased accountability. Let’s call deficits for what they are: overspending.”

Mr. Brandt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: I am on a point of order, if you don’t mind.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order.

1420

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, yesterday you allowed the minister to make a statement that had absolutely nothing to do with the question that I had raised. Twice today the minister is getting up on her feet and answering a question that I have not, in fact, raised. Now she can quote from whatever she wants, but I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to direct the minister to answer the questions we are raising.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the assistance the member for Sarnia is giving. However, it is not up to the Speaker to put words in the mouth of the questioner or the responder.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: This is very relevant. Part of the difficulty I am having is that when I tell the hospitals what we expect from them, as the previous minister did one year ago, they do not believe that --

Mr. Brandt: Statement period, right Elinor?

You can make any statement you want. I’ll keep asking any questions I want. You keep making your statements.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In 1982, a former Minister of Health said -- I know the members will find this very interesting – “We will not accept or pay for deficits incurred in this or future years.” Do you know who said that, Mr. Speaker?

Some hon. members: Who?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Mr. Grossman.

The difference is -- I want to acknowledge this, because it is exactly relevant to the leader of the third party’s question -- that we do what --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is impossible to hear anything.

Mr. Brandt: I cannot wait to hear the next quote. I am sure it will be just as enlightening as the last two.

In her statement the minister said, “Investigators will investigate any other matters relevant to the quality of administration and management of the hospital.” I believe I am quoting her accurately.

The report she refused to release to either of the opposition parties yesterday states: “The area of quality of management is not an issue. The board is well informed and all their decisions are based on actual, accurate and timely information. The administration is a highly capable, hardworking and dedicated group.”

No wonder the minister did not want to release the review yesterday, for the review very clearly states that the problem is not -- I repeat, not -- with the Cambridge Memorial Hospital but with the minister and with the Ministry of Health. Will the minister not agree to release that report now to all members of the House, and will she not admit that she is on nothing more than a witch hunt as it relates to the Cambridge hospital?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Over the past five years, Cambridge Memorial’s budget has increased by 41 percent: in 1983-84, 10.1 percent; 1984-85, six per cent; 1985-86, six per cent; 1986-87, 5.8 per cent; and 1987-88, 7.5 per cent.

The review of that hospital is available from the hospital. Within the ministry it is a working document. Any suggestion that that hospital has not been fairly treated in the past five years is clearly, clearly inappropriate.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to point out that I raised the matter a few minutes ago about the compendium of information. The members should know that the press gallery has been given the information package, not the members.

Mr. Speaker: That is a point of information.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Eves: I, too, have a question of the Minister of Health. We have spoken to the administrator of Cambridge Memorial Hospital.

He said the amended plan she accuses the hospital of being about to implement --

Interjection.

Mr. Eves: Well, maybe the minister should try talking to him if she has the time.

He said that the amended plan she accuses the hospital of being about to implement was merely a part of a range of options that the executive committee of the board had developed to present to the board for discussion; which meeting was taking place tonight, by the way. At no time was it a confirmed plan of action of the hospital. They had merely asked her ministry for input. Instead of the consultative, co-operative approach the minister enunciated yesterday in the House, she reacted by sending in an investigator under the Public Hospitals Act. I might note that this was not recommended under her review by Woods Gordon.

Mr. Speaker: And the question would be?

Mr. Eves: Is this the type of treatment that the Cambridge hospital and other hospitals in the province can expect under the minister’s cooperative, consultative approach?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The terms of reference for the investigator that I announced yesterday are all from the review which the member has in his possession. It is interesting to note as well that, as well as a 41 per cent increase over the past five years, what this included was adjustments for growth in every single year. When the deficit was paid off, the hospital’s base budget was adjusted to prevent a deficit the next year.

What we are talking about is a clearly planned and managed system of health care, one that I believe we all wish to see in this province and one that, as Minister of Health, I intend to implement.

Mr. Eves: One of the areas the minister said would be looked into was the computerization that the hospital has implemented. Quite frankly, we find that rather puzzling in light of the statements on the advantages of hospital computerization which both the minister and her deputy have made in the past.

I wish to quote directly from a speech which Dr. Barkin made at a conference on computerization in health care on February 1, 1988: “The ministry’s view of its role in planning for, implementing and evaluating information technology is that of a facilitator and partner with Ontario hospitals rather than a decision-maker or intervener.”

I hardly think the minister has acted either as a facilitator or a partner in this case. She most certainly has acted as an intervener. The deficit review found that Cambridge’s information system was, and I quote, “a valuable tool in managing the hospital and in handling the increased volume.”

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Eves: Why is the minister now penalizing Cambridge Memorial Hospital for following her advice, her deputy minister’s advice and her ministry’s guidelines for trying to improve its efficiency?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think we all acknowledge, or should acknowledge, that the hospital system is well funded. In the past, since 1984-85, as I have mentioned, we have increased funding to base budgets by some 40 per cent across the board. It is essential that the ministry and individual hospitals manage the available resources as efficiently as possible.

In this particular situation I want to point out the fact that hospitals cannot work in isolation. We must have a co-ordinated level of services, both at the community and at the provincial level. What we are talking about is a well-planned, well-managed health care system.

Mr. Eves: The minister keeps on talking about “well-planned, well-managed.” To quote from the review: “In terms of productivity and unit cost, Cambridge Memorial Hospital has performed better than most of its peers.” So much for well-managed, well-planned productivity by hospitals.

Let me quote again from the hospital board’s position in the Woods Gordon deficit review:

“By legislation and regulation, the Ministry of Health directive, responsibility for delivering insured hospital services in Cambridge has been laid on the hospital. The hospital cannot legally refuse to provide those services or curtail or otherwise impede reasonable access to them. The province, too, has a responsibility in law to pay the hospital for the provision of these services.”

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Eves: The hospital has done its job and it has done it well. Now the responsibility is upon her, as the minister, and her government, to tell the people of Cambridge and Cambridge Memorial Hospital what services she does not think the people of Cambridge should have because she is going to reduce their budget and eliminate their deficit.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Obviously, this member does not listen. This was said. One year ago, the former minister announced there would be a review of how we fund hospitals to ensure that they are fairly funded. But Dennis Timbrell said it best in 1980, when he said: “If any hospital introduces a program or adds staff without obtaining approval by going through proper channels, thereby incurring a deficit beyond its global allocation, that hospital is operating outside the rules.”

I expect hospitals to receive approval before they add staff and before they expand programs, because if they do not it is not fair to those hospitals, the 60 per cent of hospitals in this province which consistently meet their budgets, which want to expand their programs, which want to add new programs. This party --

1430

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. This might be the appropriate time to remind all members of --

Mr. Brandt: Tell us what services you are going to cut then.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia, order.

Mr. Brandt: We are having a little conversation.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that. This may be the appropriate time to remind all members of standing order 24(b). When one member is addressing the House, all members should refrain from making any comments. The member for Welland-Thorold.

FUNERAL SERVICES

Mr. Swart: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Again, it is on the bereavement sector. I want to send to him a memo which was sent out by the president of Memorial Gardens, Philip Wilson, to all of his branches in Ontario, dated April 13.

In that, I point out to the minister, as he will know, Mr. Wilson claims to have had discussion with the ministry’s director of the business regulation branch. That memo, which the minister now has, indicates that the director, Mr. Tappenden, is sympathetic to them.

Mr. Wilson says, “It seems impossible that we will not win on the vital issue of freedom to contact the public by telephone.” Further, I want to tell the minister that the president of the Ontario Monument Builders Association, Brian O’Brine, has confirmed that he was told the same thing by Mr. Tappenden as late as May 5.

May I remind the minister that he told this House just two days ago that he is looking at all of the options with regard to this solicitation. Is it not really true that the decision has already been made and that he is going to permit the commercial cemeteries to continue with door-to-door and telephone solicitation?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: No.

Mr. Swart: I am glad to hear the answer “No.” That means then that the minister is going to take some responsibility for this and that his official is not speaking for him.

Mr. Speaker: The member might bring along a supplementary.

Mr. Swart: I want to say, by way of supplementary, that the minister must have received letters, as I have, from the Consumers Association of Canada, the Federation of Ontario Memorial Societies, the United Seniors of Ontario, the monument builders and the funeral directors, asking for the ban on solicitation and demanding a full separation of the bereavement industry into the funeral section, the cemetery section and the upright monument section.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought you asked if he had received letters from all those.

Mr. Swart: No, I said he must have. The question comes now. I want to remind the minister that the only ones supporting the telephone and door-to-door solicitation are the commercial cemeteries. So I want to ask him, unless he is totally in the pocket of the commercial cemeteries, why can he not give a commitment to this House today that his legislation will require the separation of the three sectors and will prevent the distasteful practice of telephone and door-to-door solicitation by all sections of the bereavement industry?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think the honourable member would know that we have had a very thorough and ongoing consultative process, which has included many of the groups to which the honourable member has referred.

Indeed, those groups have indicated to me that before final decisions are made, they will want to make one final attempt at representations. We have had them in, had discussions with them and sent them away with the understanding that there will be one more opportunity for them to put their position.

The member for Welland-Thorold puts his position quite eloquently, as he always does, and I know he feels very strongly about the need for a ban of telephone and door-to-door solicitation. I tell the honourable member very clearly that no decision has been made by me as to what position I will take before my colleagues as we bring in thorough changes.

But I share with my friend and with the House, and hopefully with those in this very sensitive area, the concern that I have about the lack of sensitivity with which a number of these operations have been carried out by a number of people in the past, and an expectation that those people who wish what Memorial Gardens and some others do -- and there are some out there who wish that; I say that to my friend -- will understand the sensitivity with which they ought to bring their commercial enterprise to this very difficult area.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr. Harris: To the Minister of Health concerning ministerial responsibility: over the last couple of days the minister was presented with overwhelming evidence that it was ministry policy for sale and leasebacks. She was presented with a letter dated June 3, 1987, before she was minister, to the former minister, sent out by an assistant deputy minister to the hospitals, talking about sale and leaseback provisions. Then she was presented with letters of approval from the area teams, which is how the ADM said it would work; the approvals were there.

Yesterday, I was astounded that in spite of that overwhelming evidence that those arrangements have been ministry policy since at least June 3, 1987, instead of apologizing to the House for the misinformation and instead of admitting that she should have known, she lashed out at staff and blamed everyone but herself.

I would like to know two things. First, does the minister have any evidence that staff acted improperly, that they did not have the authority, as they had back on June 3 with the former minister, to proceed? Second, she said that it is clearly understood that approval means approval by the minister, but how are hospitals and how are all the agencies she deals with to know when they get a letter from the ministry whether it has approval of the minister?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I took the opportunity yesterday to clarify that in this House. The information, when I first asked some time ago about sale and leaseback arrangements, was that the ministry had no approval process. I set the record straight yesterday when I said it came to my attention, that I saw that in fact there was a bureaucratic approval. I had never approved any leasebacks, nor had I delegated authority to anyone to do so. I have found the situation unacceptable and I have clarified that within the ministry and informed the staff that in future approval means approval by the minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: Let me go, then, by way of supplementary, to the famous Barkin letter that has been sent out to hospitals as to how they are now to deal with budgets and how they are to deal with the cutback process. Is this ministry policy when they get a letter from Dr. Barkin? How are they to know? Since the minister does not know herself what is going on in the ministry, how are the hospitals to know? How are the agencies she deals with to know? They get a letter from a director telling them about how to treat Barkin’s letter. Do they have to wait for everything to be signed by the minister before they know anything is approved, or how they are to act?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is important for members of this House and for all those doing business with the ministry to know that when they receive a letter of approval for a project it will be signed by the minister.

1440

TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROJECT

Mr. Neumann: My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. First, I would like to congratulate the minister on the fine job she is doing in managing the combined function of culture and communications.

My question relates to an exciting and creative project planned for our community which will become a national focal point for telecommunications across Canada. It is a logical location because Brantford, being the birthplace of the telephone, is a logical place to put a project of national significance related to telecommunications.

The minister knows that phase I results of a study on this project were presented to her by the chairman of the board of directors for this project, Jean Claude Delorme. Since February, the minister has had the information. The community is awaiting the results. Has the minister had discussions with her federal counterparts, and can she give us any report on progress with respect to approval of phase 2?

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: As the honourable member indicates, results of the first phase, which covers planning and development and which was funded to the tune of $1 million, have now been received, with the exception of final audited statements. This leaves us in the position of working more strongly with our federal counterparts and moving towards the date when we will announce phase 2, that phase being implementation and construction. My department indicates that particular time line will be in either May or June, and we are working well together.

I agree with the member that it is a very significant project, and I have no fears that we will be moving forward as soon as that final audited statement on phase I is received.

Mr. Neumann: The land for the project is assembled. The design work is well under way. The displays for this major tourism effort have been designed. My question is, in view of the fact that construction costs could well escalate if construction is held up until next spring, would the minister ensure that there is effective communication between the provincial and federal levels to ensure an early announcement so that construction can commence this year rather than next year?

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: I wish to assure the member that the dynamics of good federal-provincial relations continue on this particular project. I am confident that we will be moving into construction during the summer months, and again I am hopeful the announcement will be made in June.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Financial Institutions. It was two weeks ago today that his caucus voted against my private member’s resolution calling for indexation of pensions in Ontario. The minister is obviously aware of the Friedland report and its recommendations, which would result in some indexation of pensions 30 or 40 years from now.

Is the minister closing the door on the possibility of indexing pensions for pensioners who are retired now, or is that being considered? If it is being considered, does the minister not think it would be wise to freeze contribution holidays so that the money will actually be in the pension plans to pay for the indexation?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The member is correct that Professor Friedland made recommendations on indexing which do not include mandatory retroactive indexing. He has three or four specific indications, however, that are designed to persuade those people who have voluntarily gone into an approved pension program to provide at least partial indexing if not full indexing. Alternatives to Professor Friedland’s recommendations are being considered, and this work is being undertaken by my ministry with the co-operation of other involved ministries.

Mr. B. Rae: Were you going to say something else, Minister?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I was about to say something, but I thought I’d wait to the next question.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: There goes my supplementary.

I would then like to ask the minister probably the question that he was going to answer. Does it not seem appropriate that there should be a freeze on contribution holidays since millions of dollars are in effect being taken out of pension plans which could be used to improve pension plans now or certainly when his final policy decision comes in during the next number of weeks and we deal with the matter legislatively this fall?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: All the funds in the pension plans are frozen, but we have allowed contribution holidays to continue because of the requirements of the Department of National Revenue for Canada.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That’s not true.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is. I am not going to quibble about the use of the words. In fact, the contribution holidays can be frozen and the money would go in, but the people making the contributions cannot reduce it from their taxation at the federal level. I do not think that is an appropriate suggestion even for a socialist, democratic or otherwise.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Housing. In April the province sold off provincial lands in Scarborough at record high prices and in an inflationary style. Then yesterday there were meetings with the regional municipalities where the Premier (Mr. Peterson) lectured regional municipalities that they should be providing more affordable housing. It appears that these two positions of the government are contradictory.

When we consider that the price of land is probably the largest single expense in providing housing in Ontario today, how does the minister justify selling provincial lands in Malvern at what the Toronto Star quoted on April 7 as “The highest price ever paid for residential building lots in Metro” and then having the Premier threaten municipalities like Metro to provide affordable housing?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The conversation that we had with the regional municipalities yesterday focused on a variety of things that we could do together. What we identified were the things that the province could do to speed up the time of production of housing and what the regional municipalities could contribute to that process.

We also discussed, working in this way, the variety of servicing needs and infrastructure needs that could make a significant impact in the provision of housing that was affordable. I think that meeting went extremely well and we are moving very swiftly in the right direction together.

Mr. Jackson: The minister’s policies in fact are not achieving that end at all. In fact, three points: since her government took office, of the 135,000 units it has promised, it has been able to come up with less than 40,000 units. Of the total dollars it will get out of its land-banked revenues from the sale of land-banked provincial properties, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) gets only 25 per cent of those; the rest of the money goes to the federal government. Finally, the very act of the government’s getting into a lottery or an auction for these lands is driving up the price of not only those lots but also all the lots in the neighbourhood. The government’s policies are contributing to the inflation of housing prices in Metro Toronto.

What specifically did the Premier discuss with the regional municipalities about reducing those land costs so that they will become affordable, because the government’s policies do not do that?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Actually, our policies on land are moving in exactly the direction that will provide housing that is more affordable than much of the housing that is currently being built.

Part of what we discussed yesterday is the land that the government of Ontario is prepared to and is going to, in an orderly fashion, put out in the process for building housing which is affordable to many groups of people.

We also discussed the lands that are currently held in some cases by the regional municipalities and by the regions, which are also prepared to look with us at a reasonable strategy for putting their lands and our lands into the building process in order to make sure that housing that is affordable gets built.

FILM DISTRIBUTION

Mrs. Fawcett: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. After 14 long months of waiting for the proposed film distribution policy of the federal Minister of Communications, all we Canadians received was a significantly watered-down compromise, with a grade Z rating, I might add, on what could have been a very worthwhile proposal.

Could the minister please tell the House Ontario’s reaction to this disappointing proposal for Canadian film distribution and how it could affect us in Ontario?

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: I thank the member.

Fourteen months ago, Ontario was very supportive of the federal government’s legislation, which was extremely strong. That proposed legislation was supposed to take a look at the structure of Canadian film production and distribution, to allow Canadians to own and control distribution in their own home market. As members are aware, the Americans now control distribution, and will continue control under this watered-down legislation.

We are very concerned because at the moment they are also looking at Quebec legislation on distribution and for us this poses problems, especially on the co-operative arrangements of our productions with Quebec.

Our problems with the legislation relate to a strong licensing aspect, a process which will ensure that Canadian-based distributors have control of their own market and also control over the nationality of the distributor. We are extremely disturbed by this legislation. In addition, I think the federal government enacted some flim-flam, because in addition to introducing legislation, it gave us some funding initiatives which do not really amount to --

1450

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. Supplementary.

Mrs. Fawcett: I would like to ask if the minister feels that this bowing to pressure has come from the strong lobby of major United States producers and that this is in fact another ploy with strong roots in the proposed United States bilateral agreement known as the free trade deal.

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: With all due respect to Simon Reisman, I must say that these actions really confirm my very worst fears. I believe the federal government has acquiesced to the American lobbying efforts of Valenti, and I believe we will never ever be able to approach the 23 per cent control of distribution. In essence, this particular action really cuts to the heart of the Canadian identity and cultural sovereignty, and I say we were sold out on this trade deal.

PROPOSED RELOCATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Energy concerning the village of Warren, which is in the east end of my riding. The village is an administrative centre for Ontario Hydro and it also employs a whole host of other employees on its lines and in its forestry operations. Recently, I was advised by Ontario Hydro that it wanted to conduct a feasibility study to determine the possible cost savings of moving the administrative services, and those 12 jobs, from Warren to North Bay. If acted upon, the decision to relocate services to North Bay will result in tremendous losses not only in terms of revenue but also in terms of deterioration of service to the community.

I want to ask the minister, as a consequence, does he intend to intervene in this situation to determine that the best interests of that small community are going to be represented?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I appreciate the honourable member’s interest in this particular situation. I do not have any specific details at this time, but I will look into it and make sure she is apprised of my findings.

Miss Martel: The minister knows that once a public utility like Hydro begins to relocate services out of one community to another, then anything else it has in a particular community is soon going to be lost. It was the agreement of myself and the town council, when I met with it and Hydro employees, that if the administrative centre were moved, then the lines and forestry operations were also going to be moved in the future.

Given the fact that Ontario Hydro has said that jobs would be relocated and not lost, and given the fact that the costs are going to be very high -- in fact, will destroy this community of only 560 people -- will the minister not assure this House and the people of Warren today that he will do everything possible; in fact, that he will ensure Ontario Hydro will not move those jobs from Warren to North Bay?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I appreciate, as I indicated, the honourable member’s very compassionate and humanitarian plea. I can assure her and the House that I will look into this matter and consider all the details and indicate to the honourable member what our findings are.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Nipissing.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, the minister might be interested to know that the member for Nipissing supports the member in her efforts. I just thought he would be interested in knowing that.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Harris: My question is to the free spender from St. George. At last count, to the Treasurer, over 80,000 people had taken the time to write a Toronto paper --

Mr. Speaker: Order. To which minister?

Mr. Harris: The Treasurer, I said, sir.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry; I did not hear that.

Mr. Harris: -- protesting the smash-and-grab tactics this government has resorted to in support of its big spending habits. People in all parts of the province have said what the Treasurer is doing is wrong and unfair. Virtually every taxpayer in the town of Tillsonburg agreed. In the Oshawa plant, virtually every union worker took the time to sign petitions, all of which said, ‘You’ve gone too far.”

Will the Treasurer not indicate that he has even some sympathy for the working people of this province and withdraw, at the very least, the regressive and inflationary increase in the sales tax? Can he tell us why his government finds it so much easier to raise taxes than it does to control its spending?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member knows, if he is fair, that the spending programs of the ministries of the government are planned and controlled and are operating in the best interests of the people of the province. Unfortunately, the mess we inherited three years ago is just now being set straight, as we have an opportunity to properly fund our schools, our roads, northern development, our environmental programs, and most important of all, our hospitals and our medical care system.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Cue card; follow the script.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Is that a cue card?

Mr. Harris: That is my cue card. It says all the increases in environment went into administrative costs, not programs. But that is not my supplementary.

The Treasurer, last fall, did not tell the people that the price of the Liberal majority was going to be the biggest tax hike in Ontario’s history. He did not tell them that then and he refuses to listen to them now. If the Treasurer will not listen to them, if his government will not listen to them, surely he will agree that the $1.3 billion the taxpayers will be paying over a year should at least buy them admission to a hearing.

I ask the Treasurer if he will undertake to guarantee that neither he nor members of his party will block an opportunity for all the members of the public to come into full and open committee hearings on the budget bills that will increase taxes in this province.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member knows, as he is the budget critic and has perused the budget carefully, that of the increased funds that are going to be realized from the expansion of the revenue base, 40 per cent at least will go to health care. It seems strange to me that the irresponsible approach, which perhaps he has not taken but his colleagues are taking, towards the funding of hospital services, says on the one hand that we must spend more and on the other hand that we must tax less. That may make good sense for Tories, but it does not make sense for any reasonable person.

In response, I think the honourable member will be aware that the matters that come before this House are disposed of democratically and properly by the members of the House itself and I am quite prepared to live by their decision.

CANADA PENSION PLAN BORROWING

Mr. Mahoney: My question also is to the Treasurer. I have received several calls in relation to Canada pension plan borrowing. The main thrust of public concern is the claim that the provinces of Canada continually borrow from this fund with no intention of payback, and that the provincial governments are therefore putting their future pension moneys in jeopardy.

Are we jeopardizing the public’s future pension moneys by borrowing from CPP? If this is not the case, what are the criteria for Ontario in ensuring that our portion of the funds are fully repaid?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member was good enough to give me notice of the question. Therefore, I can inform him and the members of the House who may be interested that the repayment of Canada pension plan loans is on schedule. As a matter of fact, since we took office, we have repaid $729 million of capital. This year alone, the interest payment that will be made on behalf of the borrowing from Canada pension plan by Ontario will be $1,527,000,000.

I think I should make it clear that since this government took office, it has turned back a large proportion of the money that might have been available for us to borrow; it has been left at the federal level. Our borrowing on Canada pension plan has been turned on to Ontario Hydro, which uses it, of course, for productive purposes in establishing new Hydro plants.

Also, according to the budget, as the honour-able member will be aware, and which prompted the question no doubt, $2 billion of these funds will not be directed towards simply paying the bills of the province but will be directed through the Ontario Housing Corp. for low-interest loans for nonprofit housing purposes.

1500

Mr. Mahoney: With regard to the $2-billion fund that the Treasurer mentioned, I would like to know, is the province solely responsible for acquiring these funds or are we in fact acting as an intermediary for housing corporations? How is the role of the provincial government defined in this matter?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Crown corporations have the right to borrow directly from the government of Canada and utilize these funds.

I think it is imperative, however, since the Ontario Housing Corp. will be doing this under the aegis of the budget and the Ministry of Housing, that in the final analysis we are responsible for the repayment. But in this instance, of course, the collateral will be the actual buildings that are constructed utilizing the funds made available.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH REORGANIZATION

Mr. Reville: My question is for the Minister of Health. Dr. Peter Faux, chief of psychiatry at Peel Memorial Hospital, was good enough to give me advance notice of the restructuring of the Ministry of Health. I have now been able to acquire from the press gallery the information kit that the minister has put out and I have been reading it with great interest, although I must admit I find most of it to be incomprehensible gibberish.

I would like to ask the minister how she can make this statement: “. . . new directions for health care services in Ontario, with a stronger emphasis on community-based care, health promotion and disease prevention.” Those are the minister’s words and those are laudable goals. How will the minister manage to achieve those goals, when in fact there is no money in the budget that is in any way arranged in a different way than it has been in the past bad old days, which she is seeking to change with this reorganization? I wonder if she can tell me what this reorganization will do, given that they have no money to do it with.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I look forward to discussing this subject in estimates because that is where we have the opportunity to look line by line, and discuss the plan. In fact, I know the deputy minister spent some time before the committee discussing the reorganization plans for the ministry and the focus in the future.

I am proud of our commitment to community mental health and our commitment to double resources over the next three years. Those resources are available and in the budget. We are looking at a co-ordinated and integrated approach to planning.

Let me say to the member in closing that one of the reasons I am determined to bring predictability to hospital budgeting is so that in fact we can move towards community-based services. We know there are many things that are done in our institutions that can be better done in the community. With finite resources, we must bring predictability into our budgeting so that we can plan better and move to the expansion of community-based services, which are a priority with me along with health promotion and illness prevention programs.

PETITIONS

CUSTODY OF CHILDREN

Mr. Henderson: “To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario and urge speedy passage of Bill 95, An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act. We support the proposed legislation regarding a rebuttable presumption in favour of joint custody by both the father and mother in the case of a separation and/or divorce.”

This petition has been signed by about 112 Ontarians and by me.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Harris: I have a petition signed by 2,000 irate taxpayers in the province of Ontario which reads as follows:

Mr. Callahan: I want you to file that card, Mike.

Mr. Harris: They keep telling us we do not get this in exactly the right spot, so I am trying to get it in the right spot.

“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:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

This brings to 6,000 the petitions submitted in opposition to the budget.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Henderson: “To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

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

“Whereas we would like to keep Sunday as commerce-free as possible, we therefore would like to indicate that in a poll conducted in Etobicoke, 453 residents opposed wide-open Sunday shopping while only 22 were in favour.”

Mrs. Marland: I have here approximately 1,750 petitions to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, and they say in part:

“We, the undersigned, object to the decision to pass the responsibility for seven-day retailing on to the municipalities and we object to the inevitable increased costs and the elimination of the opportunity for a common day of pause for our families.”

They are signed by residents and customers throughout Ontario and presented by Howard Kitchen of the Lansing Buildall lumber company. I am happy to add my signature to these petitions.

Mr. Runciman: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor. It is from the Athens Christian Reform Church.

“We, the undersigned, urge the Ontario Legislature not to pass legislation that would pass responsibility for regulating Sunday and holiday retail hours to the municipalities in Ontario;

“Rather, the Ontario government should revise its current legislation in order to uphold more strongly a common pause day across the province. We believe that a common day for family and worship activities is essential to the wellbeing of Ontario.”

It is signed by approximately 300 members of that church.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that notwithstanding order 71(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 24, standing in the name of the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague).

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PRIMROCK MINING AND EXPLORATION LIMITED ACT

Mr. Henderson moved first reading of Bill Pr35, An Act to revive Primrock Mining and Exploration Limited.

Motion agreed to.

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 Thursday, May 12, 1988, to discuss a matter of urgent public importance; that being the government’s arbitrary and heavy-handed approach to hospitals facing budget cutbacks, forcing cuts in vitally needed services to people, at the same time refusing to release its reviews of all 22 hospitals facing serious deficits, while doing nothing to provide funding for community-based alternatives to hospitals which would, if put in place, relieve some of the pressure on hospitals.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Reville has moved that the ordinary business of the House be set aside for the reasons you have just heard. This notice of motion was received at my office at 5:18 p.m. yesterday afternoon and therefore was in time. I will listen to the honourable member, as well as representatives from the other parties, for up to five minutes if that is necessary.

1510

Mr. Reville: In fact, we have heard three sets of speeches about the necessity of a debate on the hospital situation in Ontario over the last three days -- on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. In each of those three cases, the Health critic for the Progressive Conservative Party has joined me in calling on the Legislature as a whole to agree this was a matter that did require urgent discussion and a matter of sufficient public importance that we should indeed set aside the ordinary business scheduled for the House.

On the first of those three occasions -- Monday -- the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston), and on the second and third -- Tuesday and Wednesday -- the government House leader, rose in their places to argue that while the concern I have been expressing in respect of hospitals -- their funding problems, their service needs and their desire to meet the needs of the communities they serve while being hampered by the government’s approach to their funding problems as well as the government’s inability to put in place those community programs that would take pressure off hospitals -- was important, it was not of sufficient importance to override the schedule of the day.

I have had some further conversations with representatives of the government. I believe they have now decided it would not perhaps be totally within the view they take of the rules of this House but, notwithstanding their view of the rules, they would allow this debate to proceed.

I think it is appropriate for me to underscore the fact that we on this side have seen a situation in the province in respect to hospital and community health funding that does worry us, and we did want to have a focused debate on the matter. We were hoping that the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) would be here to hear the views of the members of this Legislature on the matter, and I understand the minister is going to make herself available.

With that, I will take my place and will listen with interest to the other two speeches I hope to hear. I look forward to engaging in a vigorous debate on this matter this afternoon.

Mr. Harris: The critic for the New Democratic Party and the critic for our party have spoken on this three days in a row now, as has been pointed out.

I want to point out that the fact it is the House leader for our party speaking now -- and that may convince everybody to accept the debate -- is not one that people should draw their conclusions from. In fact, it has been the combined efforts of the two critics for both parties that I think have predetermined that the government will allow the debate to go ahead today.

It is an important debate. It is important that we focus in on health care costs, particularly as set out in this motion, with what is happening with our institutions, our hospitals and the deficits that are there.

I find it ironic that the government did not feel this was of significant importance throughout this week when, as each day went by, example after example and new information came forward on how hospitals are being treated in their deficit problems. The minister became more heavy-handed and more heavy-handed and more heavy-handed, when there was talk of the sale and leaseback question that hospitals were having to resort to to try and just have enough money to get through this year.

I think all of us agree that particularly some of those examples are not efficient ways and are not in the long-term interest of the government, as far as allowing hospitals to have sufficient money to operate.

The chief response, as we say, is that if there is a $50,000 benefit this year, the tax cost to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) over a period of years is much higher than that. Obviously, the more efficient way is to go in, look at the problems those hospitals have and give them an adequate level of funding if -- and I say if -- they are operating within the rules and if they are operating efficiently.

These examples have been pointed out. Whenever somebody has to resort to flailing away and blaming somebody else, it is usually a pretty good sign that there is something wrong. In this example, the minister said: “I didn’t know anything about it. It’s not my fault.”

The fact that obviously some minister somewhere along the line -- a year or a year and a half ago -- knew what was going on does not seem to concern her. The fact that she has not been able to learn what is going on in her ministry over the past year, or almost a year that she has been there, does not seem to concern her. She blames somebody else. We deal with the hospital in Cambridge; she blames the administration at the hospital in Cambridge. We are talking about a co-operative way to solve what is a very difficult problem.

I was absolutely astounded with a statement I heard yesterday, a totally unprovoked statement that was made in a very provocative way. A ministry team of officials went to talk with a committee of the hospital board and in one of the examples they pointed out the severity of the problem. They said: “Look, we can cut services. You can give us the money, but if you are not going to do that, we will cut services here. These are the options we have to take forward.’

To illustrate to the ministry officials in a confidential and quiet way the magnitude of the problem, they pointed out that if they did not get the money from the government and if they did not cut services, it would cost $150 for every emergency patient admitted and $50 a day. That is the amount of money that they were talking about.

At no time did the board say that is what it is going to do. It did not meet as a board. It was pointing out in a co-operative way that this is the extent of the problem, and then the minister accuses it of wanting to slap on a $200 user fee. The board has not even met on it yet.

That is not a co-operative approach. Usually, and I think for sure in this case, when somebody starts flailing away, accusing others and blaming others of the problem, it is a sign that things are out of control, and she has no control of this particular ministry. At least, that is the way it appears to us on this issue. I think it is an important debate today. I hope, too, that it is a focused debate --

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

Mr. Harris: -- and I congratulate all members who worked to see that it finally proceeds.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Again I have listened with some care to the interventions of my colleagues opposite. The member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) has introduced, I forget what number of requests now for an emergency debate. I repeat to the member and his friend the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) and others that the government has said from the outset that it views the whole question of health care planning, policy and program development as a significant and understandable issue that we would all want to debate.

Our intention was to set aside this afternoon to debate that very question under the supply motion, the estimates concurrence motion. I thought that was a perfectly reasonable proposal because it is equally clear that the request, understandable and important as it is, that the member for Riverdale put again today for an emergency debate does not meet the requirements of an emergency as intended under standing order 37.

But I am not going to bore the House with that. I think that is the reality, but this has to with more than just reality. As government House leader, I have an obligation and a responsibility to the taxpayers out there to ensure that the important business of this Legislature proceeds. The government has important legislation in the area of tenant protection, northern economic development, assessment reform, local government reform and we want, of course, to proceed on that basis.

1520

Mrs. Marland: So why don’t you do that instead of Sunday shopping?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) chimes in, parenthetically, that there are other matters she is anxious to debate, and, from whatever altitude, I am sure we will all want to engage in that debate.

I have to say that I am very familiar with parliamentary calisthenics. I recognize calisthenics -- to use the most neutral phrase that I can use on a happy afternoon like this -- and what can we say of that? The House leaders met this morning. We have an understanding that the debate we all want for today, namely a debate on health care, will take place. That was my intention all along.

It is not, in my view, an emergency debate. I am quite prepared to give the opposition an opposition day. It seems to be their desire, quite frankly, that we have a sessional amendment to the practices and standing orders, really to allow opposition days by other names. We are quite prepared this afternoon to let this debate proceed because that was our intention in the first instance and we thought we had, by agreement, an arrangement to do that. We have, for what it is worth, an undertaking that next week we will proceed to deal with important legislation in the area of tenant protection, northern economic development, school board reform and other matters in so far as assessment change is concerned.

I sincerely hope, in the interests of an orderly parliament and the population outside of this chamber, that we can proceed to meet those obligations and allow those very important debates of interest to the citizenry of northern Ontario, and of the regional municipality of Waterloo, and all of those tenants who expect this government to do what it wants to do, which is to enact tenant protection; and that all of that important government business, business in the interests of a better Ontario, can be dealt with, debated seriously and moved forward expeditiously.

So we will have this afternoon the very debate that the government was anxious to have and I am certainly going to be interested to listen to that debate. I repeat for the benefit of my friends opposite that it is not my view at all that this repeated request falls under the provisions of standing order 37. But, quite frankly, it is spring and calisthenics are not my first interest in springtime.

Mr. Speaker: Three members of the House have had the opportunity to speak on this matter. We will now deal with it according to standing order 37(d) and I will put the question, shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind all members that each member who wishes to speak will have up to 10 minutes, and when all members who have wanted to speak have spoken, or the hour of six arrives, that will complete the debate.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Reville: It gives me great pleasure to lead off the emergency debate. I am sorry that the government House leader has left because I sat patiently and attentively throughout his pious lecture.

Mr. Ballinger: He will be right back. He is indisposed.

Mr. Reville: I can see why he might be indisposed. I thank the former mayor of Uxbridge very much. I am trying to figure out what riding he represents here.

Mr. Ballinger: Durham-York.

Mr. Reville: Durham?

In any event, the government House leader has now returned and pointed out that he thinks we are engaging in parliamentary calisthenics, by which I presume he means some kind of what my parents used to call “physical jerks.” I do not mean to be unparliamentary. I am trying not to call anyone in this House a physical jerk because I know they are all highly intellectual men and women and not at all physical.

I do view this as a genuine emergency, quite apart from any narrow and somewhat arcane and perhaps meaningless interpretations of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly. In fact, what is before us is a situation in which the absolute heart of virtually every community in Ontario appears to be under threat by this government. When I say “heart,” I mean the hospital that serves the 222 communities in Ontario, the place we all look to to solve various acute health problems we may encounter.

In the wake of well-publicized statements by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), who, for his other attributes, is also reasonably well known as somewhat of a parsimonious old farmer, people begin to worry as they sit at their kitchen tables, as they sit at their work benches, and they say, “I wonder if the Treasurer is going to cut the budget at my neighbourhood hospital?” They say to themselves, “I wonder if holding my community hospital to a 4.4 per cent increase or even a 6.9 per cent increase or, depending on which shell you find the pea under, some other percentage of increase” -- the Treasurer seems to be sitting on something that made him uncomfortable; I recommend a large number of mattresses. In any event --

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: There are no cuts.

Mr. Reville: Mr. Speaker, I am being interrupted by the Minister of Health, who I am sure will probably want to speak shortly. I think she will speak for about 10 minutes, like me.

There are 90 hospitals in Ontario which are running deficits currently, not 22; there are 90 hospitals running deficits. There are some 130 other hospitals in Ontario which are not running deficits but which have been told to be careful husbanders of their money, and that is an appropriate thing for a Treasurer or a Minister of Health to tell an operator that delivers various kinds of health services.

The problem with the message is that the message is mixed. The message has come down very sternly from the Treasurer, “No, we are not picking up any deficits.” The message has come down in two ways from the Minister of Health. In the case of the hospital in Timmins, apparently the Minister of Health believed it was a special case; perhaps she believed it was being funded as a community hospital, not a regional hospital, and required additional funds. But in the case of Cambridge, the minister has issued what amounts to a very vicious attack on the board of governors which is responsible for the operation of that hospital, and I find that a pretty scary message.

We have discussed throughout the last few days the 22 hospitals in question on the review. The Ontario Hospital Association says there are 23 and thinks the ministry must have forgotten one, but I think I understand how that has happened. I think there are hospitals which operate in a group and are being reviewed under one review, even though there are two hospitals.

The health care system, as people well know, has a number of different parts to it. The part which is the most expensive to operate is clearly the institutional part. The 222 hospitals, in fact, use up an enormous amount of public money -- almost $6 billion. That is a huge amount of public money, and the government is charged with the responsibility of making sure that amount of public money is spent wisely.

The dilemma I have with the government training its gimlet eye on just the hospitals is that, in fact, the government has turned a blind eye on parts of the health care system where the costs are increasing far more rapidly than are the costs for the hospital sector.

1530

I think it is appropriate for the government to make protestations that what it wants is good planning. Obviously, we want good planning, and I know the Minister of Health does not really believe that the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), the leader of the Ontario New Democratic Party, really secretly harbours some lust for user fees. I do not believe that the Minister of Health, who is in fact in charge of the largest ministry in Ontario, could possibly be so ill informed that she would think the leader of the New Democratic Party, a democratic socialist, would ever for a moment countenance user fees.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The NDP was championing the Cambridge initiatives.

Mr. Reville: The Treasurer makes an intervention, which I assume he made through the Deputy Speaker, which says that we were championing Cambridge Memorial Hospital. Let us make it clear. We are championing -- that is a hard word to say -- we are on the side of the people of Cambridge, and we think they should be delivered a full range of health services in a timely way. If, terrified by the combined forces of the Treasurer of Ontario and the Minister of Health, they should blurt out that they should consider user fees, I think the Minister of Health would not want to look to this side of the House for support for that approach. We clearly do not support, and I will say uncategorically that we do not support now, nor will we support in the future, user fees in respect of the health care system.

If the Minister of Health, on the other hand, does not deal in a co-operative, open fashion with hospitals, she should not be surprised that they may use a few tactics of their own, such as suggesting a user fee and saying, “All right, if you will not give us the money to run the programs that we think should be run in this community and for which there is a demand and for which there are lengthening waiting lists, then we will come forward with all sorts of goofy proposals, all manner of proposals which, in fact, people who think carefully about a health care system would never support.”

Had the minister provided appendix C, the hospital board position, when she released her battleaxe on Cambridge Memorial Hospital, we could have read and tittered at some of the requests that were being made, and we could have read a lot about leasebacks and begun to wonder just who is in charge in the ministry and how the minister will ever possibly sign all those approvals in view of the fact that it currently takes about four months to get a response from the Ministry of Health. That too, I guess, will change under the new reorganization, if in fact anybody in the Ministry of Health can find his desk.

I have enjoyed participating in this debate. I look forward to other comments.

Mr. Eves: It is a pleasure for me to rise and participate in this debate which we are now having, at a delay of some four days, in the Legislature. I think we should try to cover several topics, although all will not be possible in the 10 minutes allotted per member.

The various topics that I think we should touch upon are hospital deficits in the province, the attitudes and statements enunciated by representatives of the government -- the Treasurer and the Minister of Health, in particular -- and some of the more particularly acute situations in health care in the province, such as cardiovascular surgery and orthopaedic surgery and delays with respect to those as well.

I think we have had a couple of good examples this week of the problem with respect to hospital deficits and funding or lack of funding of the same, dealing, first of all, with the issue of St. Mary’s General Hospital in Timmins. St. Mary’s hospital was put in the position of having to announce proposed cuts of some 40 beds and laying off some 40 staff before it gathered the attention of the ministry officials, who scurried to Timmins over the weekend. The ministry officials, I might add, rethought their position. Then we had an admission from the minister in the House earlier this week as a result of the hospital and ministry officials meeting that, indeed, they had overlooked the fact that St. Mary’s was a regional facility, required many specialists and was required to serve many people from northeastern Ontario and, on that basis, perhaps their base budget was not adequate and that that would have to be rethought and would have to be taken care of.

The minister, however, as my colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) pointed out, was very careful in that she did not say the entire deficit of St. Mary’s would be funded; nor did she articulate which portion of the deficit or how much of it would be funded; nor did she say what services, if any, would be cut back. She said the proposed cuts would not take place, if I recall her language correctly.

Then we had the situation later in the week of Cambridge Memorial Hospital, which has materialized over the last couple of days. Here we have a situation where, according to the hospital administrator whom we have been talking to for the last couple of days, the executive committee of the hospital had proposed a range of options available to the hospital, as they saw it, to propose to the board so the board could discuss them at a meeting today, as a matter of fact. They thought that in the spirit of co-operation and consultation with the ministry, they would share that draft range of ideas with the ministry officials so that this could be discussed and so that the ministry, to quote the administrator, “could have some input into the matter.”

Unfortunately, the minister’s idea of input and discussion is to announce unilaterally in the Legislature, without any prior indication to the hospital board or the administrator, that she was sending an investigator in under the Public Hospitals Act. I presume this investigator is going to review the same facts she has had already in the Woods Gordon review, at some expense to the taxpayer, and to have the same facts reviewed which the hospital had its own independent consultant review, before Woods Gordon reviewed it, I might add.

Yet in spite of that, the minister does not want to share this review with us; we had to get it through some internal fashion. I think that is most inappropriate. It would have been better if the minister had just tabled the review. Indeed, it would be most appropriate if the minister would table in the Legislature the review of all 22 hospitals, which she and her officials now have had some 42 days to consider.

At no time was the proposed range of ideas by the executive committee at Cambridge Memorial Hospital an adopted plan of action by the board. think that fact should be made perfectly clear in this discussion about sending in an administrator or not. I would have liked to think that the more appropriate way for the ministry and the minister to have proceeded would have been to sit down with the board, which was meeting today, and discuss those various options and let it be known to the board in no uncertain terms which ones they thought were suitable and how they could go about meeting their problems.

After all, I think every hospital board member, probably for every hospital board in Ontario, and every administrator, is there trying in all good conscience and working very sincerely and dedicatedly towards providing health care service to the people of Ontario in the communities and areas which that particular institution serves. I think that is indeed what they should be doing. That is indeed what they are obligated to do, “legally, morally and ethically,” “by legislation, regulation and Ministry of Health directive,” as the hospital points out in its minority report at the end of the Woods Gordon review.

I also quote from a few areas of the Woods Gordon review. There are some major conclusions that Woods Gordon comes to, none of which, I might add, includes sending in an investigator under the Public Hospitals Act.

“Quality of management,” the opening statement: “The area of quality management is not a contributing factor to the deficit situation at Cambridge Memorial Hospital.... The management process is sound and the information available to the board and to senior administration for decision-making is extensive, timely and accurate.”

“Program/service enhancements,” the opening statement there: “The hospital operates within a documented and controlled medical manpower plan. Any new appointments are assessed against the plan and the financial impact is estimated prior to approval.”

It does go on to say that the area of general practice is not controlled, however, and the hospital is currently operating at 46 per cent above the guidelines. However, the hospital goes on to explain why it is doing that. It goes on to explain the rapid growth in the area of Cambridge. It goes on to explain the huge population growth.

1540

We go to the departmental efficiencies component, and one of the conclusions is, as I read in the House this afternoon, in terms of productivity and unit cost, “Cambridge Memorial Hospital has performed better than most of its peers.”

What does that tell the other 200-and-some hospitals out there in the province of Ontario? If this is the type of action that Cambridge can expect -- and it is performing better than most of its peers -- I hate to think what is in store for the other hospitals in Ontario.

“System-wide efficiencies: . . . There have been no major system-wide inefficiencies that would have significantly impacted on the deficit.” That is the opening line in that portion of the report.

It does, however, outline some significant factors which account for the huge increase in expenditures by this particular hospital.

“Our conclusions are:

“1. Wages and prices for drugs and hospital supplies have increased significantly since 1981-82 and may have impacted on the deficit.

“2. The population in the community has increased and this has resulted in increased volumes in costs for the hospital.

“3. There is increased competition in the community from private medical clinics which has affected the non-MOH revenues for radiology and laboratory services.”

Those are the three major significant factors identified by Woods Gordon in their report.

They also have a plan of action which the minister could have chosen to implement. Why pay for a study if you are not going to listen to what they tell you?

“Our key recommendations are:

“To establish an implementation committee to oversee the implementation of the recommendations;

“To establish a ‘growth committee’ to identify all potential opportunities, to manage the future growth/expansion of hospital programs and services and to maximize revenue generation opportunities;

“To implement a plan for identifying and implementing all potential efficiencies associated with the hospital information system;

“To assist the medical staff to make more efficient use of hospital resources, including:

“a system to block bookings in the OR;

“an admission management system and geographical bed allocations.”

Those are the four major recommendations. It would have been very simple for the Minister of Health and the Ministry of Health to implement them in the co-operative, consultative approach that she says she is in favour of, instead of sending in an investigator under the Public Hospitals Act.

I would like to talk more about Cambridge, but I do not want to use up all of my time, which I have almost used up, addressing that problem. I think it is a very significant and serious problem within the system, because I think it shows us what the other 200 hospitals in the province have to look forward to, especially those 90 that have some deficits. I would hate to think what is going to happen to the other 21 that are undergoing review.

With respect to cardiovascular surgery, which is an issue I have spent some time on over the last couple of weeks, l can only say that the situation is indeed appalling out there. The average cardiovascular heart patient who is going to need open-heart surgery in Ontario, on average, has to wait somewhere between eight months and a year from the time he or she is identified as having a problem. Going through the diagnostic tests, their surgery, their stay in hospital and the recuperation period, they are expected, in this great province of Ontario, with a supposedly world-class health system, to wait for one year. If they are lucky to survive a year, they may be able to resume a normal and healthy life after the period of one year.

I do not think the health care system in this province is in such a great state --

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: While I do not believe there is any need for an emergency debate, I am delighted, on Canada Health Day, to have an opportunity to talk about and participate in the health care system in Ontario, which is the envy of the world.

There are many challenges and there are many opportunities. The challenge that we accept is to ensure that future generations of this province will continue to enjoy high-quality, accessible health care.

The people of Ontario believe, and rightly so, that universal health care is one of the greatest achievements of our age. They value it and they want it protected. At the same time, public attitudes about health have also changed. The old cliché applies, and that is, change is constant. We only have to look back over the past decade to see just how true that reality is, so we must plan for it and we must manage it or we will end up reacting to it.

Part of this change has brought us to really a crucial time in health care in Ontario, because there is, I think, a growing realization that the fiscal pie is only so big and only so many demands can be put on it. A decade ago the health care allocation accounted for 27 per cent of provincial spending. Now the health care system takes a full one third, 33.2 per cent, of the provincial budget. That is equal to $1.4 million an hour.

On a per capita basis, in Canada we spend on health care an amount surpassed only by the United States. We are number one in the world in terms of health care spending per capita for a publicly funded, universally accessible health care system. Yes, we have even surpassed Sweden, the model for the universal system, in our per capita funding.

Yet some will say that $12.7 billion a year is not enough. They say that the system is underfunded and that what is needed is a massive infusion of new funding into the institutional hospital sector.

Let us look at the funding of our provincial institutions. In the past four fiscal years, 1985 to 1989, operational funding for hospitals has increased by some 39 per cent. On the national scene, a Canadian Medical Association task force set up in 1983 said in its final report -- this is in 1983 -- that it could not support the contention that there is underfunding generally in Canada.

In the early 1980s the Canadian Medical Association said that in Canada we should be spending 8.2 per cent of our gross national product on health care. The latest figures show that we are spending 8.62 per cent in Canada. That compares, by the way, with about 5.7 per cent in Britain. Compared to Britain, our per capita spending is double that of the Brits. I use the British example because that is the one it seems we are always compared with, and in fact the figures show there is simply no comparison.

The problems and issues we face in Ontario go beyond simply the addition of more beds, more equipment and more programs. We realize that our system must continue to move from its institutional bias to one that provides for a balanced network of community care. There is much that can be done outside of the hospital sector in a more effective manner.

This is not a problem which is unique to Ontario, however. Many other provinces and countries in the western world are taking steps to manage existing resources and redirect their priorities to get the most value for their health care dollars.

The challenges are great. Our government, within the parameters of the Canada Health Act, is working to steer our course towards a better-managed and more manageable health care system. We are doing this in consultation with many groups, and many have already accepted the opportunity to meet the challenge and be responsible managers of our precious health resource.

We have initiated the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy to look at long-term strategic directions. We recognize as well that health goes beyond the traditional mandate of the Ministry of Health. We must have quality education, we must have good environment, we must have housing, our social safety net. All of this contributes to good health in this province.

I believe that health care professionals can and should become more involved in efficiently and effectively managing our health care system. That is the reason I started the Scott task force, which is looking into factors affecting physician services. It is also the reason that I asked Dr. Lowy to head up the Lowy drug inquiry, to determine how we can look at bringing quality of care and ensuring that the dollars that we are spending on drugs in this province will result in good health.

1550

The financial uncertainty that we are finding in the institutional sector and the number of deficits cause me grave concern. I can say that in this process of dialogue and consultation, I am determined, as well, to be decisive. One of the indications of this decisiveness is our thorough review of the hospital reimbursement system. This review was brought on by the fact that so many of our hospitals have had repeated deficits, some 22, even after substantial adjustments had been made.

As I have stated in this House, the first phase of the review will look for those chronic and root problems, because this financial uncertainty in the hospital sector is unhelpful and unnecessary, and we are determined to eliminate deficits altogether and restore some predictability to our global budgeting processes. The key to doing this is to properly and prudently manage our resources, human and fiscal.

The overwhelming majority of our hospitals in this province meet their budgets or even achieve surpluses. It is very important then that the second phase of this review process assess how we fund hospitals. The aim of this second phase is to make sure that the goals of fairness and equity of access and services are available right across this province. If we have 222 hospitals independently adding programs and services without approval from the ministry, what we will end up with is chaos.

As Minister of Health, I accept the responsibility to plan for needed services and programs, and I rely on advice from district health councils. All of us, I am sure -- and I am sure you agree, Madam Speaker -- see the need for rational use of limited resources. Unlike some in this House, I recognize that there is not a bottomless well or an endless pit of money, and the Treasurer has been very generous in his allocation of resources to the ministry of some $12.7 billion.

Of the amounts of revenue raised in the recent budget, in fact, the Ministry of Health received some 40 per cent of all new revenues. At the present point in time, 33.2 per cent of all provincial spending goes through the Ministry of Health to our health care system, 85 per cent of that to our hospitals. I believe we can find a balance between community and institutional care, exploring new and innovative approaches to funding and to the delivery of health care, because I think it is essential. I think it is essential for us to be innovative, creative, to bring predictability, to recognize that while so many of our resources are now going to the institutional sector, only through that predictability will we have the resources available to move to the community-based setting that everyone is telling us is the approach for the future.

Together, I sincerely believe that we will meet these challenges, and I believe that I will have support from the members of this House to achieve our goal and continue to be the envy of the world.

Mr. B. Rae: I appreciate the chance to participate in the debate. I want to say to the minister, first of all, that whether the system is generally underfunded or not is a question, frankly, that health care economists can debate for a very long time.

What the ideal figure is as a percentage of gross national product or gross domestic product or whatever it may be, if the minister will just listen to what I am saying, is, it seems to me, an issue that one can argue about for a long time. But what cannot be disputed is what people in Sault Ste. Marie or Cambridge or Windsor, or indeed Ottawa, or around the Northwestern General Hospital, which is where I am going to be going from this place when I finish speaking -- it is a simple fact, and that is in the space of the last three weeks, working Ontarians know two things: they know first of all that the Treasurer has increased their taxes; and they know that as soon as that announcement was made, he made another announcement. That is, that hospital cutbacks are going to ensue across the province.

I know the government objects when I say that, and I know that it hurts when they hear that. But the reality for patients in this province is that they are now being asked to pay more and to get less. I think that the patients in this province are perhaps justified in saying to the government:

“Surely, we can do better than that. Surely, if we are going to be taxed heavily; surely, if a Liberal government is going to come in and take more than $1 billion out of our pockets, the very least we can expect is that the next week the announcement will not be that hospital services are going to be cut back, but rather that access to health care will continue to be there and indeed, in many cases, will be expanded.” That is not unreasonable.

What is unreasonable is to have a government that reaches into the pockets of every citizen and taxes him or her after having an election campaign in which not once did it raise the question of taxes and the next week announce that there are going to be hospital cutbacks across the province. We are entitled to better than that, and we are entitled to better management from the Minister of Health and from the Ministry of Health.

The minister had the gall to get up today and blame the hospital in Cambridge and say it has had a 41 per cent increase in its budget in the last five years. The minister should have a look at Ontario health insurance plan payments. Does she have any idea how much they have gone up in the last five years? Does she have any idea how much physicians’ incomes have gone up in the last five years? Does she have any idea how much the budgets of private laboratories have gone up in the past five years? Does she have any idea how much the drug plan has expanded in the last five years? In each and every instance, it is way over 41 per cent.

In the cases of physicians’ incomes, and the minister knows it perfectly well because it is in the material presented to us by the Treasurer of Ontario, they have gone up exponentially higher; dramatically higher; astrologically, astronomically higher than they have with respect to the payments to hospitals.

What is wrong with what she has done is that it is not a philosophical question of general underfunding. It is a question of real mismanagement by her ministry; people are paying more and getting less. That is what they see and that is what troubles them, that is what bothers them, and that is what offends them.

What offends hospitals is to see that when it comes to the members of the Ontario Medical Association, what does the minister do? She says, ‘Well, we are going to set up a task force with five people who are doctors, and we are going to have three bureaucrats, and it will be chaired by Mr. Scott,” whom, I am sure, everyone who has met him knows as a very nice man who was a former deputy minister under the Conservative government, an aide to Robert Stanfield for many years, and someone who, one would expect after being an aide to Robert Stanfield, has a considerable sense of humour and philosophy about life. Mr. Scott is being asked to work on a task force over an indefinite period of time, whose administrative costs are being paid for by the OMA to look at the problem, to look at the question of what they call patient utilization.

What do we get for the private laboratories? No announcements with respect to what is going to be done.

With respect to drugs: In the week that we were here in February, we presented information to the minister -- she did not present it to us; she did not say, “I’ve got somebody resigning because he’s so upset about our refusal to deal with the drug-plan problem.” We raised that question in the House. She has to concede that there is a problem. And once the House adjourned, she asked yet another doctor to conduct yet another study with respect to the question of drugs.

The minister cannot say the situation is under control. She can talk glibly about all the community things she wants to do. They have not done them. The minister has not done them. The minister cannot turn around and blame hospitals, when in many cases in Cambridge there are no adequate places for patients outside of hospital.

The programs that are there in terms of home care are insufficiently and inadequately funded. The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has come into the House to say, “There is no more money available to expand the plan.” The government has nurses who are working, and visiting homemakers who are working, who are being paid as little as $4.50 per hour and $5.00 per hour in the plan. It is impossible to take this government seriously when it comes to the control of health care costs.

What is the minister’s response to us? It is, first of all, to leave the House in the middle of my speech. But second of all, in question period it is to say that the New Democratic Party is in favour of user fees.

I cannot use the term in this House that would describe the response to that argument. All I can say to the House is that it is not true and the minister knows it is not true. I have no idea why she would make that kind of a statement, but she knows that it simply is not the case.

1600

What are we debating here? We are debating a problem which will not go away, and we are debating it because of the value that all of us place on health and the value that all of us place on having a system that is caring, that is there for people and that takes away, if I may say so, some of the extraordinary anxiety which all of us attach to getting sick.

We have built this system at great cost. We have struggled to build a system which the minister rather glibly says is “the best in the world.” I want to say to the minister that is not something which is necessarily true every day, that is not something which every patient experiences as a matter of personal experience. I want to say to the minister that it is something that her government is going to have to look at, deal with and face up to.

They cannot continue to administer the system in the way in which it is being run. They cannot announce on a Thursday or a Wednesday that they are going to increase taxes and announce the next week that their revenue to hospitals is going to be frozen at 4.4 per cent. They cannot increase their tax take by as much as 11 per cent, then turn around and say, “We are only going to give 4.5 per cent to the hospitals,” and then have what I think can only be described as the effrontery to say, “We are not asking the hospitals to cut back on services.” Of course they are.

At least, the Liberal Party should have the courage to admit that what in fact it is doing today is two things. It is saying to the citizens of Ontario, “You are going to have to pay more”; and it is saying to the citizens of Ontario, “You are going to have to get less.” That is not a message which I am prepared to accept. That is not a message our party is prepared to accept. We think we can do better.

We had a debate today, perhaps because it is Canada Health Day but I think more than ever because the minister knows perfectly well how serious this problem is and that it is not confined to the 22 hospitals that are on the list. It is attached to every single hospital that is now having to meet that 4.4 per cent requirement.

The minister says there are very few hospitals that have deficits. Let me speak about a number of hospitals which do not have a deficit, but know full well that if they are not going to have a deficit at the end of the year, then the only way they can reach that requirement is by cutting back.

So I say to those Liberal members who are in communities and represent constituencies whose hospitals are not on that list of 22, that they should not be so sure that this summer they are not going to find an announcement that a service which they have relied on and which their constituents have relied on and counted on is being cut. They should not be so sure that they are going to have the same access to those beds, because people are not going to be able to get back into the community because the home care programs are not there either.

We do face a major challenge. It is not going to go away. It is not easy. The minister says there is no bottomless pit. Nobody in this House believes there is a bottomless pit. What we do believe is that there is time for some effective decisions.

Yes, it is a time to make priorities, to deal with the community care problems that our Health critic has been raising so effectively, to make them more of a priority, but to recognize as well that we have to get people working in the system who enjoy it.

We have got to keep the people in the system who are working there. We have got to create a genuine partnership among all the people working in the health care system, and to see that everybody is treated fairly. If we have one standard for some people working in the system and another standard for nurses who are working in the system, do not be surprised if those people start to leave the system, which is precisely what we have seen.

Too many nurses are having to vote with their feet. We are troubled by the failure of this government to understand just how serious this problem is. As a party which has played such a critical role nationally and provincially in the formation of this plan, in its growth and in its nurturing, we intend to do everything we can to nurture the health care plan which is so precious to all of us in the New Democratic Party.

Mrs. Cunningham: We all have responsibilities in this House, no matter what our title and no matter what our party, to represent the public and to speak on its behalf. I think today that our real responsibility is to the people who are on waiting lists trying to get into hospitals in their communities and are being told they are going to have to wait even longer.

An emergency debate on health is most necessary today and certainly most appropriate.

The jokes and the quips directed at members of this Legislature by certain members of the government during their questioning on health matters this afternoon were arrogant and indicative of their lack of concern for patients who are urgently ill and who are waiting 120 days for admission to hospital. Their own physicians recommend no longer than two weeks’ waiting time. That is 14 days, not 120 days.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Things are worse than we thought.

Mrs. Cunningham: I wrote this speech as I was listening to the opposition. It is the best speech today, certainly much better than that of the Treasurer. I have not heard him say important things at all, but we are waiting.

Mr. Reycraft: He hasn’t spoken yet.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Mrs. Cunningham: “Well-funded, well-managed, well-planned health care systems” were the words that the Minister of Health used today. We surely hope so, but we do not agree and neither do the hospitals. The minister today quoted from 1980 speeches, from 1982 speeches, etc. To use those speeches today, in these times, is, to say the least, out of the context of today’s health care crisis. To quote from eight years ago when we have moved so rapidly into the future, into technology, into procedures that are supposed to be available to patients is, to say the least, silly. That is not a compliment.

The minister talks about well-managed hospitals, and for the most part I do agree. Hospitals are basically well managed, and inexperienced, uninformed opinions should not be that hospitals with deficits are not well managed. In fact, hospitals with deficits, as the minister’s reviews have pointed out, are well managed. I am certain the Treasurer, with his deficit, would agree that there are other institutions that are well managed although they are running with a deficit.

The Minister of Health requested audits of 22 hospitals in Ontario recently. Hospitals in London, as well as all the hospitals affected, are aware of the first results of those audits. In cases where the audit found that the hospital deficit was not the result of poor management, why have the government of Ontario and the minister not agreed to cover the deficit? It does not make sense. The minister requests an audit and then ignores the results of it. One that I am aware of not only approved the deficit, but also recommended that the hospital spend $3.5 million more -- very confusing to hospital boards.

Not only does this not make sense, but it is also a slap in the face to all those hospitals that have made a responsible commitment to deliver quality care under serious financial funding constraints. Not only has the government shafted the hospitals by this affront; it has ignored the most obvious and critical findings of the audits. Base funding for hospitals is not enough.

Let us turn for a moment to process. I want to talk about fairness for a moment. In December 1987 the Minister of Health asked for the audit of 22 hospitals. She now has the results of the first part of that audit, which dealt with the deficits and management of the hospitals. She told the House repeatedly that she needed to wait for the second half of the audit before deciding the future of hospital deficits. Prior to that, her colleague the Treasurer had already announced that no hospital deficit could be covered. I have no idea why, in the first place, he was making such a statement instead of the Minister of Health and, in the second place, why he would make it at a chamber of commerce gathering no less.

Now the minister has announced that she will help one of the hospitals, St. Mary’s General Hospital in Timmins. Cambridge Memorial Hospital would like the same consideration. I thought she had to wait for the results of the second half of her audit. Process is obviously not applied fairly. It is inconsistent and, again I underline, unfair.

In my home town of London, also the Premier’s (Mr. Peterson) home town, we have hospitals that are very well managed, but they are underfunded and need help with their deficits. I am concerned to think what the minister plans to do with London hospitals. We in London expect fair treatment. The precedent is set. They were responsible and we expect the same kind of responsible decision-making for London hospitals as well.

What hospitals would like, as they attempt to manage in these wonderful economic times for everyone else, is the ability to plan without irresponsible surprises from this government. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is not acceptable for team players. The minister has changed the rules in the middle of the budget deliberations and in the middle of budget planning by hospitals. She is making it impossible for hospitals to plan in a responsible way.

Not funding projected deficits of well-managed hospitals is not fair. It is irresponsible. Freezing leaseback arrangements is equally deplorable. I have been advised by a hospital administrator today that he would really like to plan for equipment on a three-to-five-year cycle. That seems impossible with this government. Year-to-year planning is hardly possible given the policies of this government.

These are bread-and-butter issues. Equipment such as X-ray machines, operating-room equipment, transplant equipment, computerized axial tomography scanners, and MRIs -- magnetic resonance imagery equipment -- is basic bread-and-butter technology as well as the, in quotes, “new technology” that the Premier is encouraging and supposedly the government is supporting.

Everything we say in one arena, we do not support in another. That means in the political arena during election time, as we make public speeches, as we try to win people over. Then the people who are doing the day-to-day work with patients are very much dissatisfied and concerned. They hear the promises and nothing happens.

Leaseback arrangements are innovative, responsible ways of providing technology to hospitals. I heard the minister talk about innovative ways of funding. We sometimes do not like all the innovative ways of funding, basically because we do not understand them, but if we took the opportunity and asked the questions and spent time with some of the hospital administrators and accountants, we would find out that it is not all that bad and that it has been going on for years. Why has it taken people so long to be so critical? Again, in the middle of the game, change the rules.

The minister, as I stated, encourages innovative funding in the House and freezes the same innovative procedures out of the House. The public is not listening to the numbers game and the rhetoric of this government. People are paying more; they are getting less. There are ways for this government to manage the health care system more effectively. Not funding hospitals that are operating efficiently, not supporting hospital boards -- volunteers, I might add -- that are looking for efficient, innovative ways to fund health care in their hospitals, is the wrong way to treat the public.

Mr. Pollock: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I do not believe we have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1615

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. Would the member for London North wish to proceed?

Mrs. Cunningham: Not funding hospitals that are operating efficiently and not supporting hospital boards that are looking for more efficient, innovative ways to fund health care in their hospitals is the wrong way to treat the public, especially those who are urgently ill and waiting for admission to hospital.

The government has no hospital accessibility policies in place for this province. It has not determined how hospitals should be fairly financed. The public is losing confidence in this government, especially as it relates to its nonpolicies in the operation of hospitals.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I appreciate the fact that in his remarks the Leader of the Opposition mentioned budget paper D, which in my view is important in the exercise of reviewing health care. The fact that it has not had much publicity does not hurt my feelings. It does not draw any great conclusion; it simply sets out the facts of how the costs of health care have grown in the last few years.

As a matter of fact, the thing that concerns me substantially is that in 10 years the health budget in Ontario has grown from 27 per cent of the global budget to 33 per cent of the global budget. No one can question for a moment its importance. I think, however, it is worth saying that if we were to add up the costs of our education budget provincially, considering that it is about 45 per cent of the total amount paid for education, and add to it the amount for colleges and universities, we are not far off an amount that is roughly equivalent to health care.

It would bother me if, in this budget, we were spending substantially less on education in this province than on health. It is less, but the two are very close in amount, and I think that is appropriate. But in the last 10 years the health budget has grown an average of over 12 per cent a year.

The Ontario health insurance plan part of the health budget -- that is, the part that goes to pay practitioners and certain other aspects, but mainly the pay for doctors -- has grown in that period of time from 24 per cent of the total to 32 per cent, a very significant growth indeed and one we should all be aware of. In 10 years, the hospital portion has gone from 52 per cent of the global health budget down to 44 per cent. Other than the numbers themselves, there is no way I can make that any clearer, other than to indicate to the honourable members something they already know, and that is, the share that goes to pay the professionals in the system is growing and the part that is going to the hospitals is contracting.

Just in case anyone would fall prey to the oversimplification of the Leader of the Opposition when he talked about contracting health budgets, of course that is totally and patently ridiculous and wrong. The budgets to the hospitals are uniformly growing and this year I have allocated an additional $1.12 billion to the health care budget. Even the increase in revenues, partly based on tax increases which are very large, but much more than that, based on the increase in the economy of the province, will bring us in $3 billion extra this year. Of that, fully 40 per cent is assigned to health care. Anyone who is under the impression that not enough dollars, either formerly or in the new budget, are assigned to health care is wrong, and I believe such a suggestion is unreasonable and misleading.

I want to say that even for hospitals alone this year, and that is the subject of this special debate, the increase in transfers will be over 10 per cent. We have to be aware that the government’s announcement of an $850-million capital expansion from two years ago still applies, and that $850 million is being applied, on a phased basis over three to five years, in a program the minister and her colleagues announce from time to time.

The point that has been made by the Leader of the Opposition, however, is one I want to reinforce, and that is the growing percentage of the health budget applied to our OHIP responsibilities outside hospitals. The average increase in payments being made to doctors over the last decade has been just under 14 per cent a year, but this has in some degree escalated. Since 1982, I believe, the average is a 15.5 per cent increase per year.

1620

I draw the honourable members’ attention to a table on page 77 of the budget statement, budget paper D, which shows the percentage change in the allocations to physicians’ services. In 1981-82, these grew by just about 17 per cent in that year. They gradually decreased until 1984-85, the first year the Liberal government took office. The increase was 7.8 per cent, and in 1985-86, 7.8 per cent. In this past year, 1986-87, there was quite a significant jump, 9.5 per cent. This led to a budgetary overrun, payable to doctors for the services they render in response to patients coming to them, of approximately 9.5 per cent. That translates into dollars as about a $180-million overrun.

This sort of flexibility in the budget was naturally a matter of concern to myself. We certainly do not blame the patients. We do not blame the doctors. There is no blame assignable at this time, other than the facts that the population is ageing, like myself, and that also, and it is often forgotten, that the numbers of doctors are increasing rapidly.

Our own medical schools are turning out some of the best doctors in the world -- the best doctors in the world -- and we are also a centre for the attraction of immigration from most countries of the world, because this is an extremely attractive place for doctors to carry on their profession. This past year, the increase was just under five per cent at a time when the population as a whole was growing by one per cent.

My honourable friend from Fort Frances is shaking his head. I know what his problem is; of these many doctors who come out of our schools and universities and come here as immigrants, not all of them share the member’s enthusiasm for Fort Frances. I share his enthusiasm.

Mr. Hampton: Or Timmins or Hearst or Hornepayne or Ignace or Red Lake.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The member is speaking from his territory. I speak on a more global basis. Unfortunately, the point I was trying to make has now evaporated, but if anybody is interested, we are getting more doctors than the rate of population growth would require. I am not the one to say that we have too many.

The point that is made and has to be understood is that with the situation involving the budget to pay for doctors’ services, which has to be flexible -- which is one word to be used, with new medical techniques, new drugs and many other things that are really substantially not within our control -- it becomes more essential that the hospitals live up to a budget they set and is approved by the ministry.

The ministry may very well roll them back on certain aspects of their budget, but the ministry does have the central planning authority, and the point my good friend the Minister of Health has made repeatedly is that it is not possible to have a full range of facilities at each hospital.

We wish we could have open-heart surgery in Brantford, but that is not possible and that hospital board has not moved in that direction. We wish we could have a total range of orthopaedic surgery in every hospital, but it is not possible. For that reason, centralized planning is essential in the community of Ontario if we are going to use this vast amount of money and resources in an effective and efficient way.

If there is a villain in this business, and I suppose there is, it has to be the Treasurer, who must have some reasonable budgetary basis in order to have a tax base that we can say is fair and equitable, and to allocate the money on a community basis that is also fair and equitable. If we were to accede to the demands of the official opposition in particular, and allow the hospitals to have an independent control of their budgets and simply to send the Treasury of Ontario the bill, that simply is not practicable and has to be rejected by any thinking citizen and taxpayer, whether or not he is concerned about his local hospital.

I just want to make it clear that no hospital is being cut back. As a matter of fact, the amount of money going to the hospitals has gone up by an average six per cent, and in most instances, by as much as 10 per cent and more.

As Treasurer, I really have had to insist that the hospitals operate on a preset budget so that we in the Ministry of Health and in the Treasury are going to allocate these dollars on a fair and equitable basis.

We cannot provide the kind of open-ended service the official opposition would like, that in fact I suppose we all would like. But we do make available, on a wide community basis in this whole province, the best hospital and doctor care, in my view, in the world. It is universal. The costs are low. Our practitioners are reasonably satisfied. We are very proud of our accomplishment.

Mr. Wildman: I am happy to participate in this debate. I am glad the government has finally agreed to deal with a major problem we have faced over the last few weeks with regard to hospital funding in this province.

I have listened very carefully to the comments of the Treasurer and his colleague the Minister of Health with regard to their reasoning for the current budgetary approach to hospitals. The Minister of Health seemed to be saying, and her colleague the Treasurer backed her up in the view, that we are calling for an open-ended system. That is not exactly correct.

It is obvious there must be controls on spending. Nobody questions that. The Treasurer, at great length, looked at the increases in the various parts of the health field. He seemed to be saying, basically, that the major problem in the system is the demand on doctors’ services and the number of services on a fee-for-service basis that the doctors are providing. If that is the case, I wonder why the minister is not attempting to take some measure to deal with that problem, rather than just dealing with another aspect; that is, the hospitals.

I note the Treasurer is leaving. I hope he will have the opportunity to read Hansard because I am concerned about the approach the Treasurer seems to take. He seems to be saying the doctors are a problem because they are billing for increasingly high numbers of services, the drug plan is a problem, we have all of these problems; but he is only going to deal with one preset budget.

He does not suggest, for instance, that he preset the budget for doctors’ billings to the Ontario health insurance plan, but he does suggest that he preset the budgets for hospitals.

I would not be opposed to that if at the same time as the Treasurer was saying there is going to be a 4.4 per cent increase for hospitals in this province and nothing more, he and the Minister of Health were also saying they are going to substantially increase the funding for things like home care, nursing homes and extended care.

But at the same time as we have the Treasurer saying there will not be any covering of hospital deficits and there is going to be a limit on increases, we have his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services stating there is no more money for home care.

The Minister of Health referred to the Swedish example and argued that Sweden has a universal health care system that has been the envy of many other countries, many other jurisdictions in the world, and that we have now exceeded in Ontario the expenditures of the Swedes, with approximately the same number of people, the same population.

The thing she did not deal with, though, is that the Swedes are spending on services that cost a lot less than institutional care. You cannot limit the institutional care if the patients in the acute care beds have nowhere else to go. If you have people who are inappropriately using acute care facilities, you have to provide extended care facilities, nursing bed facilities and home care facilities to be able to move them into more appropriate forms of care. But at the same time as we have the limitations on the hospitals, we have the Minister of Community and Social Services saying there is no more money to expand home care services adequately.

1630

The government cannot have it both ways. It has to expand the home care services before it starts saying to patients: “You can’t be in this type of care. It’s not adequate; it’s not appropriate for what you need.” But that is exactly what this government is doing. This government is saying: “Too bad. We’re not going to increase the funding to the institutional care, but at the same time we’re not going to give any extra funding for more appropriate forms of care.”

The minister makes a great deal of the need to restructure and realign the health care system. She stood up with a thesaurus the other day and said, “Realign or restructure: there’s no synonym that says that means ‘cutback.’ “ Really what she needed, rather than a thesaurus, was a dictionary. She should have looked up the word “euphemism,” because that is what “realign” and “restructure” mean. They are a euphemism for cutting back.

If you have a deficit, if you cannot fund the services you already have, and you are told you are not going to have that deficit covered and are not going to get a major increase, you have to cut back.

Mr. Ballinger: Was that before or after the aphrodisiac?

Mr. Wildman: The member for Essex-Kent (Mr. McGuigan) is talking about the drug plan, I believe.

Mr. McGuigan: You’ve got the wrong member there.

Mr. Wildman: The member for Durham something or other, Durham-York.

At any rate, we have a situation where, in northern Ontario, the minister has said we have to have, as across the province, regional planning. The minister has pointed to the efforts made by her ministry to ensure that services which are needed are provided on a regional basis so that we do not have to provide them in every hospital in every community, because, as she says, there is not a bottomless pit.

I want to look at one regional service: that is, the neonatal intensive-care unit at the General Hospital in Sault Ste. Marie. This is not one of the 22 hospitals experiencing chronic deficits; it is not one of the ones under review. It is, however, one of the 90 which have a deficit this year, had a deficit last year and are probably looking at another deficit next year. It is having to cut back because the Treasurer says the government will not cover these deficits.

This NIC unit is a modified level III unit for all of northeastern Ontario. It provides service not just for Sault Ste. Marie but for the whole of the northeast. In the past, in peak periods they have had up to 20 babies in the NIC unit in the General Hospital. Because of the deficit and the need to cut back, the hospital board has decided it is going to limit the number of babies to 12 at any given time.

That obviously means, if there is a demand for more than that, that the mothers are going to have to travel to southern Ontario centres to get the care they need for themselves and their infants. There is nowhere they can go in northern Ontario other than the General Hospital in Sault Ste. Marie.

Actually, they are proposing to cut five beds from the NIC unit at the General Hospital in Sault Ste. Marie. We have already had a couple of occasions where patients -- one from Timmins -- had to be transferred to Sudbury and then, I believe, to southern Ontario because there was not a bed available in the north anywhere.

It is a very valuable and important service that is provided for all of northeastern Ontario, and this is an example of where the Treasurer’s approach is negating the very thing the Minister of Health says we need: regional planning for services in health care.

The government cannot say to the hospitals, “We’re going to cut you across the board; we’re not going to cover any deficits, no matter what the reason you got into them,” without saying it is going to cut back. It means a cutback. If the government is not going to cover the deficit, then they have to cut somewhere.

The General Hospital is cutting in a number of places, but one of the places it is cutting is the NIC unit. It is not acceptable.

We need to provide restructuring in the health care system. We need to provide more appropriate forms of care. We need to be spending more money in areas other than institutional care. We need to limit the expenditures that we are facing with regard to the drug plan, with regard to billing for the Ontario health insurance plan. We need to do all of these things, but we cannot do them without doing them all in conjunction at once. The government cannot say it is going to limit institutional care funding without providing other types of care. It is not acceptable.

That is what this government is attempting to do, and it is what is producing the crisis that we now face. To accuse the New Democrats of being in favour of open-ended funding is ridiculous. It is even more ridiculous to say that we would support any proposal by either doctors or hospitals for extra billing when our position is quite clear on extra billing and user fees, and has been for many years. It is unacceptable.

The government seems to have lost control of this whole problem. It does not know what to do, so its only answer is to say “realign,” “restructure’ when it means cut back. It cannot cut back in one area without providing adequate services in another, and that is what it is trying to do.

Mrs. Marland: As I rise to take part today in this emergency debate on the health care system of Ontario, I think it does bear significance to refer to the fact that it is Canada Health Day. But is it not rather a sad day in Ontario that we have to have an emergency debate on the health care in this province? That is how, in this province today, we are celebrating Canada Health Day.

It is an emergency debate. Why? Because some of us in this Legislature recognize that there is no greater emergency that any of us can face than an emergency to do with our health. Is it not interesting, when those of us who are healthy enough to walk into this chamber today and, indeed, healthy enough to walk out of this chamber, are here -- some of us -- that it is those who are the members of the Liberal Party of Ontario and serve in the Liberal government caucus who do not see that today there is indeed an emergency with health care?

It is very interesting to listen to the Minister of Health compare our system with the British health care system. As someone who grew up in England at the time the health care system was being nationalized, and having been a constant visitor back there because of family relatives with illnesses and severe problems in terms of health, it is particularly interesting for me to hear a comparison.

No one knows better than I do, at first hand, what the British health care system has become. When I say with reverence, “God save us from that kind of health care system in this province,” I cannot mean it more sincerely. In Britain you have to wait two years for major surgery. We are now hearing of examples right here in Ontario where we are talking about anything from nine months to 15 or 18 months for major surgery.

Tragically, our family in Mississauga did have a friend who died while waiting for open-heart surgery. In fact, in this particular case there were so many questions raised about the death of this friend and neighbour, whose name was John Mee, that the local coroner decided there should be a coroner’s inquest into his death, because the question of whether he would have been saved had he not had to face a delay waiting for that particular medical procedure was a question that had to be answered.

1640

When we talk about what these hospitals can do, these hospitals that are being forced -- in fact, by the Treasurer’s own statement, they are actually being forced -- into a deficit position, what are their real options? While the Treasurer is blaming the hospitals for their own deficits, in his own budget statement, and I refer to page 9 of the 1988 budget which was presented on April 20, he clearly indicates that the share of health care costs for the “operation of hospitals has declined from 52 per cent to 44 per cent.”

How can hospitals that are facing an inflation rate of 5.1 per cent be asked to operate without a deficit when their grants in fact are going to be only 4.4 per cent? We have to look at what it is we are asking these hospitals to do.

While we do that, I think it is important to refer particularly to the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, which is the one that seems to be on the chopping block at the moment. It is being chopped at by the Liberal government, and the two opposition parties are trying to defend it democratically.

I would like to quote from the Woods Gordon report on the Cambridge hospital, where, apart from all the percentages and the figures, it actually talks about the very real reasons, such as the increase of costs of drugs and employee benefits and medical and surgical supplies, those kinds of things, that hospital is in its deficit position. All of us who even shop at a drugstore, for goodness’ sake, recognize the increase in costs.

But I think the most important comments in this Woods Gordon report are these. Members should recognize that this is an independent report. This is not a ministerial report; it is not a report by the board itself. It is somebody else from the outside looking inside.

They are saying: “The board is well informed and all their decisions are based on actual, accurate and timely information provided by the administration. The board is dedicated to serving the community and to providing the best possible care at the hospital.” Again, I emphasize this is the Cambridge hospital.

Another comment in this report says, “Administration is a highly capable, hardworking and dedicated group. The hospital is well kept and operated.” And this is the most important quote of all: “The statistical and financial information available for decision-making is outstanding.”

If that Cambridge hospital is outstanding in its record-keeping and its financial information, perhaps the Liberal government will have to explain why it questioned that hospital’s operation and why that hospital is in a deficit. It is a very simple calculation. I would suggest that if inflation is at 5.1 per cent and the government gives these hospitals 4.4 per cent, how can they not have deficits?

The answer by this Liberal government would of course be that they would not have deficits if they chose to reduce their services. What else could they do? I guess they could shut down completely and not have to worry about a budget at all.

How do they reduce services? I would like to ask the Liberal members in this House what they are suggesting that hospitals do. Where should hospitals start to reduce their deficits? Where should they start to reduce their services? Maybe they should start with the elderly first, the elderly people who go to hospital because they are ill, perhaps their lifespan is not as long as that of younger people. Maybe that is where the hospitals should reduce their spending. Maybe that is where the reduction of services should be.

Perhaps if they decide not to start with the elderly, maybe they should start with the most ill. Maybe they think that the least ill patients in a hospital have a better chance of survival, so they will not reduce the services for the least ill, they will reduce the services for the most ill.

The point is that all of this is so utterly unacceptable and it is so utterly stupid for anybody with any kind of mind even to consider. How is it that the Ontario Liberal government is saying to these hospitals, “Cut your deficits”? In fact, it is saying, “Reduce your services.”

My questions about the areas in which reductions of services should take place were facetious, because, in fact, there are no areas, realistically, where hospitals can cut their services. By the time my fellow colleagues and land our families, relatives and neighbours go to a hospital, it is because we are ill; it is not because we “just need medical treatment.” It is not like going into a doctor’s office. It is because we are at the point where we need the kind of treatment that, in the cases that we are talking about, means our survival.

I would suggest, with respect, that we need not worry about housing the homeless, feeding the hungry and doing anything else if we are not going to save the health of the people who live in this province, because if they are not healthy, they will not be hungry and they will not live long enough to be homeless.

This may sound rather dramatic, but I am concerned about a world-class health system that this province has built with a worldwide reputation, to where people come from all over the world to seek the medical treatment and services that are provided by the physicians in the hospitals in this province, a medical health care system that I stand with great pride to speak of.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Marland: I think it is unfortunate that this system is not --

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Nepean.

Mr. Daigeler: Just a comment.

The Acting Speaker: No. No comments are allowed. The member for Mississauga West.

Mr. Mahoney: It is a pleasure to rise on this issue. I do not know how I get so lucky as to always follow my colleague the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), but I hope she noted that I was a gentleman through that speech and did not heckle too much.

The health care system in Ontario is by far one of the most comprehensive, caring and efficient health care systems in the world today. It is indeed an honour and a pleasure to debate with my colleagues in this House the effectiveness, efficiency and overall success of this system.

In my riding I am blessed to have two major hospitals. The Mississauga Hospital has just celebrated its 30th anniversary, 30th year in business, and it was formerly known as the South Peel Hospital. The success of that hospital, under the very capable leadership of Merritt Henderson and the entire board, is renowned in Ontario. The Credit Valley Hospital, clearly the state-of-the-art hospital in this province, provides much-needed help to Mississauga Hospital to deliver a first-class health care system to our community and our citizens.

Just last month, I had the privilege of announcing the approval of the computerized axial tomography scanner for the Credit Valley Hospital, a clear signal from the Ministry of Health, this minister and this government that we are truly committed to a fully modern health care system in Ontario. We now have the finest equipment available in both major hospitals in my city.

Interjection.

Mr. Mahoney: I have got the honourable member over here heckling from the sidelines, but I will just keep rolling right along and hopefully ignore him.

We have the finest equipment available in both major hospitals in my city, and former governments refused to approve these items. In fact, the former Tory government refused to recognize that a basic, necessary and modern facility such as a CAT scanner was and is not a frill.

Mrs. Marland: Which government built the Credit Valley Hospital?

Mr. Mahoney: It is as much a necessary medical diagnostic tool today, the member for Mississauga South will know, as an ordinary X-ray machine.

As in many other areas in this province, such as education and roads, this government has had to make up for decades of neglect, decades of underfunding and, frankly, decades of a lack of sensitivity and understanding in the health care industry.

The motion we are debating today deals in part with a new system of health care delivery in this province, to relieve pressure on existing facilities. Clearly, in my opinion, the future of health care lies in improving on the delivery system, but it also lies in changing attitudes of the public.

The people who work in our hospitals will tell members that our health care system is being abused. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition, if he were here -- and he has been propagating a motherhood and apple pie approach to health care -- must recognize that when every scratch and bump winds up in a multimillion-dollar emergency department at a multimillion-dollar facility, then costs can and do get out of hand.

The opposition plays the game of maximize and minimize. Just as they tried to play that same game with public auto insurance, they are attacking our fine health care system. They stomp their feet and they yell “More, more, more” and when this government responds with more, they change their negative course and they cry wolf. We all know what happens when you cry wolf too often. People do not listen.

1650

Mr. Hampton: Did you write that for him, Ballinger?

Mr. Mahoney: No, I wrote it myself.

The people of Ontario know about this government’s commitment to our hospitals. They also know our commitment to fiscal responsibility. As the minister has said, we are talking about a well-planned, well-managed hospital system showing fiscal responsibility as well as a commitment to modern, state-of-the-art facilities.

I would like to talk about community health delivery. There exists in place now a method of taking health care to the people instead of continuing to encourage them to come to emergency departments. It is there now and the honourable members opposite, if they had done their homework instead of carping and harping on the issue, would know it is there. It is there through regional health departments, community health nurses, medical officers of health, a system to educate the public on personal health care. It is through these health professionals that we will ultimately reduce the dependency on emergency departments in our province.

In Sault Ste. Marie, my home town, the community health centre is a model for delivery of health care.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You are driving us all out.

Mr. Mahoney: I am driving them all out. That is good. They can go listen in their offices and they can put it on mute. I will carry on.

The community health centre in Sault Ste. Marie is a model for delivery for health care in the community, and this facility was not built by government. It was truly built by the community, and millions and millions of dollars are raised every year in the community to help build facilities because the people know you cannot pour money into a black hole. The people know that the left-wing, socialist approach is a road to ruin. They also know that the right-wing, Gunga Din tendencies are dangerous.

They also know that health care delivery is a matter of co-operation among local governments, hospital boards, the doctors, nurses and other health professionals as well as this government and the general public. It is truly a partnership that requires understanding. Because of past neglect, it also requires some new approaches.

Our health care system eats up over 40 per cent of our budget. The Treasurer, in an effort to instil fiscal responsibility in every sector of society, has taken a tough stand. The buck stops here and it is up to this government to reform. It is up to us to lead the way and to correct not only the effects of underfunding, but the general laissez-faire attitude of former Tory regimes.

Just as in other programs such as housing and education, our health system has to respond to changing demographics, and particularly the special needs groups. Our population is ageing, which members can see right before their very eyes if they just look around this room.

We just had a member who was coming up fall on the floor, but other than that, my speech was going fine. Our population is ageing and the gentleman is having trouble walking.

The challenged members of our society, and we are all challenged in one way or another, require special attention and they are getting it through nonhospital facilities such as Erinoak, formerly called the Credit Valley Treatment Centre for Children, in my community, and other special-needs communities.

As members know, to be able to continue to provide first-class health care in this province, a review of the fiscal responsibilities of a number of hospitals has been undertaken. It is hoped that the increased scrutiny of rising health care costs -- and I quote from budget paper D, entitled Ontario Expenditure Profiles – “will increase public participation in choices concerning the future design of health programs and services for Ontarians.”

That same budget paper identifies that during the period from 1978 to 1988, health care expenditures have risen from $3.7 billion to approximately $11.5 billion, in a period when our population has increased by almost one million, when our demographics and our expectations have changed drastically.

In my recent householder mailing, I sent out a pull-out section for my constituents to comment on many government programs. While many of the answers are being compiled on the computer, the one message that came through loud and clear, clearly the number one issue on people’s minds, was “Reduce the deficit.”

This has been done by this Treasurer with the lowest deficit in 19 years. He is simply carrying that fiscally responsible attitude to every sector, and the health care sector is not immune. That is not to say that our hospitals are acting in an irresponsible way, but it is important to send a message, clearly, to every organization spending public money and delivering public service that the name of the game today is fiscal responsibility; better, more efficient delivery systems and a clear direction from this government.

That direction is there from our Treasurer and our Minister of Health. The Leader of the Opposition has said today, and I quote: “Working people of this province know two things: one, their taxes have been increased; and two, their services have been reduced.”

They also know very clearly one thing for sure. They know there is no free lunch and the rhetoric that we heard is nothing more than that. They know that this government provides a wonderful health care system, and when people travel out of this country we always hear them when they return home and say how great it is to live in this country and this province. One of the things that they always talk about, especially when they come back from free trade heaven, is our health care system.

They talk about it in terms of confidence and in terms of appreciation, and understanding that it costs a lot of money to provide this system. Most people understand reality. Most people understand that there is no free lunch and most people understand that fiscal responsibility must go hand in glove with the finest health care system in the world today.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: After listening to the last member speak, I think it is fair to say that most people do appreciate the health care system that we have in this province but most people also know about the waiting lists that are developing in this province. If you need cardiac surgery, if you need orthopaedic surgery, those folks may not agree with the member that the health care system is that great in Ontario.

It is not particularly great to have to be off work for a couple of years waiting to have orthopaedic surgery. It is not particularly great, when you are waiting for cardiac surgery, to have ongoing angina pain and be in and out of hospital, not knowing whether you are going to be able to get your surgery before, in fact, you have another heart attack and perhaps die from the other heart attack.

It is not particularly great for one young man in Windsor who contacted me several months ago. He first went on the waiting list when he was 18 years old. Mark Durocher is his name and he needed to have open-heart surgery done in London. He was on the waiting list for two years. The only way that he got in for that surgery was, after inquiries were made by my office, the local newspaper decided to take up Mark’s cause.

All of a sudden, four hours before the paper was going to print, the hospital notified the family that Mark was, in fact, going to be scheduled for surgery and, thank God, his surgery has now been carried out. It was successful, but for two years he could not go to school. He could not work. He could not plan the rest of his life because he was waiting for this world-class health care system to respond to his very critical situation.

Since this government has come to power, there have been three major initiatives in the health care field. There was Bill 94, part of the accord, where we forced the government to ban extra billing in this province, and that was a very significant move by this Legislature and something that my party was very proud of. Bills 54 and 55 were some reforms in the drug delivery system in this province with the Ontario drug benefit plan; and some regulation, as well, to do with cash-paying customers for drugs. There was absolutely nothing in the drug reform area that does anything about the amounts of drugs that are being used in this province, the double doctoring, the extra prescriptions or the overdrugging of the elderly of this province. That issue was not addressed at all.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, from going through the hearings on those bills, it is not because the Ministry of Health and its professionals do not understand the problem. It is because we do not have a minister and a government that has enough guts to take the issue on and to deal with the bottom-line problem. We know the problem. Talk to assistant deputy minister Dennis Psutka. He testified in front of the committee. We spent two months on that committee. We had people coming before us with bags full of drugs that had been accumulated at their homes. We had all sorts of evidence that was prepared. Dr. Psutka spelled it out. He has made recommendations to this government and to the former government, but not a damned thing has been done.

1700

We do not need another task force to study the overuse of drugs in this province. We need a minister who is willing to take it on, to take on the pharmacists and take on the drug companies and try to deal with the problem; but that has not happened.

We had some nursing home reform. Again, there has been absolutely nothing done after that legislation was passed to really reform the nursing home system and the system of care for our elderly in this province. We still rely on institutions almost exclusively for the elderly who need assistance in this province. We still rely on private for-profit nursing homes that are making money.

If we do not have enough money in our health care system. why are we giving money away for the for-profit system in the nursing home sector? Why should that money not be ploughed back into care and into the system for care of our elderly in this province? The amount of money that nursing homes are making in this province could go back into home care. We could provide more home care programs.

We have not done that. We have not extended the home care programs in this province. The integrated homemaker program is still in pilot projects. We do not have that across the province. We have that in something like 20 communities. Metropolitan Toronto is not covered. My home community is not covered.

If this government were serious about community-based alternatives to institutions, which would in fact alleviate some of the difficulties in our institutions and in our hospitals across this province, then the one thing it would look at is extending the program across the province and paying the people that work in the integrated homemaker program a decent living wage comparable to that in the institutions, so that we clearly would send the message out that home-based programs and community-based programs are as important or more important than the institutional programs across this province.

But nothing has been done. We still have about 20 per cent of our active treatment beds in this province being inappropriately occupied. We do not need more hospital beds in this province. We are not saying we do. What we need to do is ensure that the ones that are being inappropriately used are properly used.

That means that for the 20 per cent that are being used by people who are waiting for home placements with home support programs, in proper nursing homes or in other alternatives, those programs have to be put in place. Those 20 per cent of beds can be freed up and people who need to get into hospital will have the proper access. But that has not occurred.

It boggles my mind to hear the Treasurer, to hear the minister, to hear the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) just a few minutes ago say, “We have three basic areas where we are spending lots of money: we have the drug program, we have the institutional program, we have doctors.”

“We cannot do anything about the doctors,” says the government. “We cannot do anything about the drug program, so we will pick on the hospitals.”

That is absolute silliness. Half a billion dollars was the cost overrun on doctors last fiscal year. What did we do when we passed Bill 94 in this province? We got our $52 million or $53 million back from the federal government because we had stopped extra billing and the next day they wrote a cheque to the doctors and gave all the money to the doctors.

Absolute silliness, absolutely poor planning and the wrong message to the doctors of the province. They wanted to buy peace and they bought peace with a $50-million-plus cash settlement, with increases in the fee schedule that have given money away to the doctors and have limited our options for change in the health care system across this province.

If we want to get serious about changing our health care system, we have to start looking at some fundamental changes. No one would get an argument from me, even though it is very unpopular, to start talking about hospital amalgamations. In my community we have four hospitals. It is absolutely silly in my view to have four hospital boards, four hospital administrators, four computers and all the other duplication that exists. There is absolutely no reason there should be four hospital boards and all that duplication in a community like mine.

We could save millions of dollars by looking at some rationalization in terms of the administration of some of these hospitals. We could save millions of dollars by having more accountability by the hospital boards to the community. It seems to me that if we are able to have one hospital board in a community like mine, we could even take a look at things like direct elections to hospital boards.

Those types of things would save money. The only area where that has occurred to a significant degree in Ontario is with the amalgamation of Toronto Western Hospital and Toronto General Hospital. It really did surprise me when the representatives from the administration of those hospitals came before a committee in the last parliament and told us the kinds of money they save by buying on a bulk basis for the two hospitals, by eliminating some of the duplications and by rationalization. They are able to plow back into service in those two hospitals literally millions of dollars now under the Toronto Hospital corporation.

Mr. Reycraft: Could have contracted out some of those services.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: There were certainly some problems that we raised during the committee hearings on those bills, and the government decided that it was not appropriate to have extensive public hearings and extensive consultations with the unions. If you are going to amalgamate hospitals, it has to be done properly, and there has to be consultation and involvement with the people who work in the facilities.

If we think we have a problem in our health care system in Ontario today, and I do -- and I think the measure of that problem is not whether the government House leader believes there is a crisis or an emergency; it is a matter of what the folks out there think, and the folks out there think there is a problem and the crisis is building -- if this government does not take the bull by the horns and start dealing with the problems in our health care system, the emergency and the crisis that we have today, in 1988, will look minimal compared to what we are going to have. The crisis is coming, the costs are escalating, and I beg the government to act before this system collapses.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to talk today a little bit about this government’s record with regard to health care, particularly with regard to the Ottawa-Carleton area. The Ottawa-Carleton area is unique in a lot of ways, because in the past we have provided a number of health care services for our friends in Quebec, and some changes in Quebec have altered the situations with regard to some of our hospitals in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

Before I do that, Madam Speaker, as a member from an area that is involved in the production of tobacco, you may know of my long-standing fight with this government -- and I see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) at your side at this time -- to do something with regard to the whole habit of smoking and the addiction to nicotine.

I guess when you look at a problem dealing with financing of hospitals and you get a government which says it is going to enter into some preventive health care measures, this government has shown such a sorry record in terms of preventive health care that it can only expect a crisis in its hospitals.

It has not done anything with regard to the number one preventive health care measure that it could deal with in this province. As far back as 1975, the World Health Organization said the best thing any industrialized country can do is attack the problem of the addiction to nicotine.

This government has done nothing over the last three years in terms of that, in spite of the fact that statistics have shown that the addiction to nicotine is rising, among our young people in particular. It has risen from about 31 per cent to about 37 per cent. I think it is absolutely two-faced for this government to talk about health care and the wonderful health care system that it has and not be concerned about what is causing that increase in tobacco use. It is illustrated by the fact that today 35 people will die prematurely by about seven and a half years if they have been addicted to tobacco.

1710

That will happen tomorrow and that will happen the day after and that will happen as each day passes, unless this government finally takes the bull by the horns and does something with regard to the addiction to nicotine.

But we have a government which has done nothing in that regard. The Globe and Mail has said the Premier is in the pocket of the tobacco industry. We know that is true. He has been bought off by them. The Premier does not care about the general health of our people. That is the conclusion you have to come to.

We have a federal government that has brought forward strict advertising and labelling legislation and has taken leadership in terms of dealing with smoking in the federal workplace. This government has done nothing. They have not done anything. Again, the statistics are so overwhelming in terms of this particular ill health-causing problem that it defies logic that a government would not look at it and do something to stop it.

Our hospitals are being filled with people. I talked to an anaesthetist who works at the Ottawa Civic Hospital, which is the largest hospital in Ontario. She works basically in the Heart Institute, dealing with people who have bypasses in that institute. Her guess is that 90 to 95 per cent of those people are smokers. I guess it is one of the things that continues on and on. I think each of those heart bypass operations costs in excess of $20,000 or $25,000 for the taxpayers out there to provide that service, if one can get that service. Many have to wait a long time now and it seems to be getting longer as the days go by.

Not only is this government not trying to manage the money it is providing for the health care system -- it just seems to write out a cheque and does not know where it is going -- but it is making no positive efforts to cut down on the number of people who require those services.

I want to talk specifically about one hospital in Ottawa-Carleton that is near and dear to my heart because I had to take my son there one year ago.

He suffered an accident in a hockey game and his spleen ruptured. If I had not taken him to hospital, he would have died within an hour after the accident. I took him to the Riverside Hospital of Ottawa and the chief surgeon there, Dr. Liberty, had a chance to talk to me on a personal basis on a number of occasions as we visited back and forth at the hospital. So I have very much a special interest in the Riverside Hospital.

The Riverside Hospital has in the past been exemplary in terms of running its own ship. They had never projected or had a deficit until the 1987-88 year. This hospital was one of the hospitals reviewed under the ministry’s deficit review plan. They welcomed the review, as did the Perley Hospital in Ottawa -- it was quite willing -- and the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario. All three institutions wanted the review to take place so they could justify their operations.

But what has happened in the Riverside Hospital’s case? This is by Touche Ross, the consultants that were involved in it. The summary of this was that the major increases in costs were caused by uncontrollable factors.

There were two chief factors. One was the loss of patients from the province of Quebec. The Riverside Hospital used to provide a great number of patients from Quebec with health care services. The remuneration for those services -- and this was true of the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario as well -- was greater than the remuneration they would have received if that particular patient was an Ontario resident.

The Riverside Hospital, in essence, was making money from the servicing of the Quebec patients. When the Gatineau hospital came on stream, more and more Quebec residents went to their own hospital in Gatineau, which is quite understandable. An uncontrollable situation arose whereby their revenues from those particular patients dropped off. That is one of the reasons for the fact that they are operating with a deficit; their first deficit as I mentioned before.

I guess the other reason is that the average stay for a patient in the Riverside Hospital has become longer. Again, you cannot get rid of a patient who is old, chronic and has a serious health ailment. The problem is that in the Ottawa-Carleton area, we do not have enough chronic care beds, so the active hospitals like Riverside have to fill up their active care beds with chronic care patients. The way the economics work out is that the hospital is not providing as many services to those chronic care bed users and therefore does not receive the same kind of revenue as it would if they were acute care patients.

The Riverside Hospital has been operating at about 93 per cent of its capacity. This is an extremely heavy use of all the facilities in that particular institution. I only wish this government would look at it, manage their particular --

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Durham-York.

Mr. Ballinger: As the member for Durham-York, I am pleased to participate in this emergency debate on health care for Ontario. I want to take this opportunity to publicly disagree with the opposition member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) on this issue. In fact, I find myself in opposition to the member for Riverdale on almost every issue that is discussed in this House.

I would like to say that as a back-bencher in this government, I appreciate this opportunity to speak. With the number of members on this side of the House, it is very difficult to have an opportunity to speak, so I would like to thank the member for Riverdale for giving me the opportunity to rise.

Let me begin by saying how proud I am of our government’s commitment to health care in this province. Ontario now spends 8.5 per cent of the gross provincial product on health care. This amounts to over $1 million an hour each and every day of the year and places Ontario first in the world, hardly a frivolous attempt to serve the people of the province with the very best.

Residents of Ontario expect and are willing to pay for an effective and efficient health care system. However we are a province of unlimited potential, we are not a province of unlimited resources. We cannot continue to expect that health care can consume such a large piece of our provincial Treasury, especially when one considers all the other competing needs for government funding.

The future does not look any rosier: growing numbers of elderly requiring more sophisticated and constant attention, new advances in technology and clinical procedures and the growing utilization of health care services. The question on most people’s minds is, how long can our health care system continue to absorb these rapidly increasing costs without the government taking fiscal action?

The answer is that things are going to have to change if we are going to maintain the quality and accessibility of all the health care services in the province. That is why the Minister of Health is setting the course she is.

1720

In December of last year, the Minister of Health announced the hospital operational review focusing on the 22 hospitals that have incurred repeated deficits. The minister was only doing what should have been done some time ago. She was simply requesting those 22 hospitals to be more accountable for their actions.

This morning, the member for Durham Centre (Mr. Furlong) and I had the opportunity to meet with a newly formed body of health care specialists in the Oshawa General Hospital. This group was made up of the hospital administrators and the board chairmen of five of Durham region’s hospitals: the Oshawa General Hospital, the Whitby General Hospital, the Ajax and Pickering General Hospital, the Port Perry Community Memorial Hospital and the Uxbridge Cottage Hospital. It was really interesting to sit around that table this morning and listen to all of those people discuss what is happening with hospitals in Ontario.

If one thing came out loud and clear this morning, it was the fact that this government has recognized the need for all of us to fiscally look at what we are doing in health care. These hospitals have set up for the first time organizations where only the chairmen and the administrators from these five hospitals meet to discuss mutual concerns as they relate to their hospitals. Three of those five hospitals are operating at a deficit.

The consensus this morning and the gist of the conversation was, “What can we do as a fiscally responsible body of people to get a handle on the expenditures in the hospital?” and, “How can our local members of provincial parliament contribute with us and work with us in making sure that we are providing the excellent care we have been furnishing to the people of Durham region as well as keeping the politicians involved on a day-to-day basis?”

I found that exercise, quite honestly, to be very fruitful, especially from the point of view of being a new member here in the Legislature. Because I have only been here since September, and considering the wide range of issues that we have dealt with, it really is a very unique opportunity for me to learn and understand precisely what we are doing.

I really do believe the Minister of Health has set the proper course. Most of the hospitals now among themselves and among their board members are discussing the position this government has taken when it comes to hospital funding and the deficits. I guess I live in a very unique situation because my riding is split between two regions, both very fast moving, York region and Durham region.

One of the interesting things that came out from the York side of my riding last fall was the York County Hospital wanted to purchase a new CAT scan. Now, they did not run to the government for permission and they did not run to us to ask for money. What they did was set up a special committee called the CAT scan committee, for raising funds. Since the fall of last year, that hospital raised $1.7 million for a new CAT scan that is up and functioning in the hospital. Not five cents of that money came from the provincial government.

One of the things many hospitals out there should be doing is taking a page out of that book, looking to their community for resource people, volunteers who have the ability and have the interest in their hospital to go out and raise money on such worthwhile projects. This project was really unique because it covered the whole broad spectrum of the community, right from the little kids who were selling cookies or apples to the high school students who ran car washes, to Whipper Watson, who was the chairman, who put together a very effective team and initiated the telethon that ran one entire weekend when pledges came in.

The point here is that particular hospital set an example that I believe other hospitals in Ontario could follow. If we really want to be fiscally responsible and if we need things for our hospital that maybe we cannot get from the provincial government, just maybe we should take our own initiative and do that.

York region just recently has decided to set up a district health council as well. It is something that has been a long time coming in that particular part of the region. The member for York North (Mr. Beer) and I have had many discussions. My riding is split between Durham and York and I have had the opportunity to watch the Durham District Health Council function over the last seven or eight years, watch how effective it has been in terms of long-term planning and policy, and watch the interaction with the local hospitals and with the Ministry of Health to ensure that the type of health care that is being conducted in Durham is one that suits the needs of the majority of the people who live there.

In the case of York, hopefully within a very short period of time, the York region district health council will come into effect and we will have a good cross-section of all kinds of people who represent all walks of life within York who will establish this committee and help to advise the hospitals.

There are three hospitals in York region that, because it is high growth, are struggling with the issue of deficit funding. Because of the position our Treasurer has taken and because of the position our minister has taken, I think it is a very worthwhile exercise for these particular hospitals to start the process of innovation.

Between both sides of my riding, which is very fast-growing, I find myself in the very unique position of having to discuss on a regular basis what our government is doing and how we are supporting these various projects, where a lot of these particular organizations feel there is a shortfall on behalf of the government.

A lot of members here have spoken today about fiscal responsibility. If I have learned anything since I have been here, it is that the people out there want the services of the government, but they also expect us to show some responsibility.

The main reason for the budget -- the “budget grab” as the opposition members call it -- was to try and compensate for the many, many years of underfunding and the rapid growth central Ontario is experiencing. Again, my riding is split between both Durham and York, and as the member I am very much aware that all my communities are suffering from that as well.

I have appreciated the opportunity to speak here today and I want to thank the member for Riverdale for giving me the opportunity.

Mr. Philip: When we look at the debates in question period in the House during the last few days, or indeed during the last few weeks, we see that there is fairly evidently a breakdown in communications and consultation between the Minister of Health, the hospitals and the people who are working at the grass-roots level.

On any given day, there is an average of 80 patients in the Etobicoke General Hospital who should be more appropriately placed in extended care, chronic care, rehabilitation facilities, and to a lesser extent long-term psychiatric facilities. It is not uncommon for people waiting for chronic psychiatric facilities at the Etobicoke General to wait for two years. The waiting period for extended care facilities is about nine months and for chronic care facilities it is about two years.

While in 1982-83 there were 12,486 patient-days of waiting for other facilities, this has now risen in 1987-88 to 25,441 days. In other words, 25,441 days have been taken from active treatment placement for the use of chronic care and extended care patients.

The average number of patients waiting for placement in these facilities has risen from 40 in March 1983 to 78 in March 1988. The annual average has changed from 34 waiting placement in 1982-83 to 70 in 1987-88. There is one patient who has been waiting for two and a half years for placement in an extended care facility and three patients at the Etobicoke General who have been waiting in excess of two years.

The government can talk about fiscal responsibility, but in not providing the adequate, less expensive spaces where people can be given care more appropriate to their needs, it in fact is wasting tax dollars rather than saving them.

I want to talk about the communications process because I think it shows exactly where that has broken down with this government and the providers of health care services. When one considers that there is a high mortality rate of patients in the groups that are waiting placement, particularly in extended care, one realizes that the average for people who get placed is much higher than the average based on days alone.

1730

In 1985-86, there were 1,599 patients who had to stay at least one night in the emergency wards on stretchers, waiting for placement in a ward. In 1987-88, these figures rose to 3,186 persons at the Etobicoke General Hospital. On any given day, there were nine patients waiting in the emergency wards of the Etobicoke General overnight for one or more nights, as compared to four as an average in 1985-86. While nine is the average for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, the average for the month of March was 17.

In the summer of 1986 the government promised 560 chronic care beds for Metro. The hospitals in the west Metro area submitted a joint submission for a 300-bed facility as a regional geriatric facility serving the northwest corner of Metro. The condition that the government considered for such a submission was that each individual hospital had to cancel its local submission. The hospitals did this and the following hospitals made a joint submission:

Etobicoke General, York-Finch General Hospital, Humber Memorial Hospital, Northwestern General Hospital and West Park Hospital.

Individual and joint submissions were made by the hospitals in other parts of Metro, but we combined and met the requirement of the government. The government allocated beds to the central-north of Metro, to Metro east and to the southern part of Metro and totally ignored the northwest part of Metro.

When one considers that the northwest part of Metro has more Liberal MPPs than any other part of Metro, one can only suppose that the government is obviously taking those ridings for granted. Indeed, when one considers that there is not one Liberal west-end Metro member who has spoken in this debate, one has to say that those Liberal members are taking their constituents for granted.

We now have the absurd situation that senior citizens living in Rexdale are being forced to visit their spouses in Scarborough, at the Runnymede Hospital facility or even as far away as Greenacres Home for the Aged. Many of these people are not able to drive their own cars and they must rely on relatives or on the good works of volunteers, such as the Caring Etobicoke group, to take them to visit their husbands and wives.

The Etobicoke General has made an application for a 36-bed extension of active treatment beds, and this will probably be the lowest cost of any bed facility in the province since the facilities are already available on the 10th floor and therefore there would be very little capital expenditure required.

The administration at the Etobicoke General admits that there has been, more recently, a larger staff turnover in the emergency ward of the hospital, and it is simply caused by stress and burn-out of the people who are serving there, such as the nurses.

Only recently a nurse who had served for 12 years in the emergency ward of the Etobicoke General and another who had served 15 years simply had to leave because of what they considered to be a burn-out. This has required additional cost in terms of professional development as new, inexperienced nurses -- inexperienced to the emergency ward -- must be trained and indeed conditioned to the new kind of surroundings that they face in an emergency ward of a hospital as distinct from other types of nursing.

Whereas in the past the hospital was able to use revenue generated through parking and from our medical building for the replacement of equipment and upgrading of equipment, under the business-oriented new development program all this revenue must be pooled in with the revenue obtained directly from the Ministry of Health. The bottom line is that the Ministry of Health is actually contributing less now than in 1981-82, when 85 per cent of our revenue at the Etobicoke General Hospital came from the Ministry of Health. This has dropped to 81 per cent in 1987-88, or a decrease of $2,000,174.

Not so long ago, I toured the Etobicoke General Hospital ward by ward and spoke to the staff and patients. I spoke to the relatives of patients who felt that it was just impossible for their loved one who had suffered from a stroke or from some other illness which incapacitated them to get the kind of support they needed because of the overwork of the staff at the Etobicoke General Hospital; and indeed because, as an active treatment hospital, it is not equipped with the kind of chairs, washing facilities and other things like that which chronic care and extended care facilities are provided with.

We have a situation where the people who really could receive less expensive but better, more appropriate care, are not receiving that and instead are occupying active treatment beds in hospitals. You have the situation where nurses are spending a great amount of time feeding patients, time that is taken away from patients who require active treatment and who are in there for shorter terms.

So both suffer. The taxpayer suffers because an inappropriate, more expensive form of facility is being provided for about 80 patients on any given day. The people who should be in those extended care or chronic care facilities are suffering because the facility of an active treatment hospital is not appropriate to their needs. Those waiting for active treatment care are suffering because they cannot have access to those beds which are being occupied by people who could be more appropriately placed in other facilities.

Etobicoke General Hospital is in a crisis situation. Our staff, who are dedicated and who are trying to work hard, are getting burnt out in this situation. It is clear that this government has not kept its promise to the people in the northwest end of Metro, and it is clear that this minister seems no more intent on keeping the promises made than the former Liberal minister was. I ask that the minister look at the situation, see what is happening in the northwest end of Metro, and I hope that the Liberal members from the northwest who are not here would at least read my speech and ask their own government to do something about it.

Mr. Pollock: I am pleased to take part in this debate. There are a few things I would like to put on the record. One of them, of course, is the fact that I would like to see the Minister of Health divvy up the money just a little better.

For instance, I questioned her in the House the other day about the fact that in the Quinte area they committed so many extended care beds: Belleville was to get some, Trenton was to get some and Bancroft was also to get 11 beds. Belleville did get its beds, Trenton got its beds, but Bancroft has not got its beds yet.

I asked the Minister of Health if she would commit those beds to Bancroft and some funding for an extension of the North Hastings District Hospital or if she would actually commit the funding for a new hospital in Bancroft. I know this would be in the long term. Neither I, nor I am sure the people from the Bancroft area, expect any miracles, but I would just like her to actually make a commitment one way or the other: commit those extended care beds at the present; or if she feels the time has come to actually have a new hospital in Bancroft, actually commit the funding for that.

There have been several additions placed on the Bancroft hospital, and as I say maybe the time has come to actually commit the funding for a new hospital in the Bancroft area. I do not want to say that I expect that money or the funds to be there this year or in the next two or three years, but in the long term at least make the commitment on what she intends to do.

There are some other things I feel should be addressed in that particular area, too. There seems to be a major concern with the dispatching of ambulances in the Bancroft area. They used to dispatch the ambulances from Bancroft. Now the ambulances are all dispatched from Renfrew.

That means phoning Renfrew; Renfrew in turn phones back to Bancroft and dispatches the ambulance. Well, people have been playing games; and it is most unfortunate that people do that, especially with the ambulance service.

1740

I know of a situation where I was approached in the provincial election and this fellow was extremely upset. His father had taken a heart attack. The mother went to phone the ambulance. The ambulance dispatcher was asking all kinds of questions: when he took the heart attack, had he been sick before and all this sort of thing. The wife got so frustrated that she could hardly talk. If it had not been for the fact that the son was there, took control and actually got the message across to this dispatcher, I do not know what would have happened.

As I say, the son was telling me about it. He was very concerned and very upset over the fact that there was such confusion. Basically, it was because somebody had actually called an ambulance just for the joke of it. As I say, it is most unfortunate that people play games with the ambulance service, but it happens.

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Ray Krock. Ray Krock was the administrator of Belleville General Hospital for quite a few years. He is going to be retiring at the end of May. I think he has done an exceptionally good job. Any time I have had the opportunity or needed to call him for advice, he was most co-operative. He got back to me quite promptly and we tried to resolve a situation. The new gentleman who is going to take over is Brian Steinberg. I have already talked to Brian over certain concerns and I wish him well in his new endeavours. I am sure that he will continue filling those big shoes that Ray Krock filled.

The member for Durham-York mentioned the fact that they had a fund-raising drive to actually purchase a CAT scan for a hospital in his area. I appreciate what he was saying but I can tell him that the people from Peterborough and area did that three years ago. They raised the money to actually purchase a new CAT scan. The former Minister of Health, the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston), was down there to officially open the new wing where the CAT scan was to be placed.

Mr. Philip: You cannot run a CAT scan on cookies.

Mr. Pollock: That is right.

There seems to be a lack of nurses too in Ontario. Here are some of the statistics: 35 per cent of the trained nurses work part-time and another seven per cent work on a casual basis. Another 18 per cent of trained nurses have left the profession. According to the Ontario Nurses’ Association statistics, 45 per cent of the 1987 membership was working part-time. In 1973, the founding year of the Ontario Nurses’ Association, 28 per cent of the membership was working part-time. Ontario is short at least 1,143 nurses, with 812 of them needed in Metropolitan Toronto alone.

I was surprised to hear the Treasurer mention the fact that there were all kinds of doctors in Ontario. In one way, I am certainly glad to hear it because of the fact that recently the local family doctor in the village of Marmora announced he was retiring. He announced this rather suddenly, and this did not give the municipality a chance to actually apply for another doctor through the system that we have for getting a doctor in these particular areas.

The family doctor who had practised there for quite a few years -- his name was Dr. Parkin -- at one particular time, I believe, was the coroner for the area. He was a highly respected man in the Marmora area, and of course, he is certainly going to be missed. I hope that before too long we can actually get another doctor to come to Marmora and take over there.

I just hope that the Ministry of Health can resolve some of its differences and get things back on course so that we can get back to that good health care we had three or four years ago in Ontario.

Mr. Campbell: I am pleased to rise as the member for Sudbury and take part in the debate today. As a former member and chairman of the regional health and social services committee in Sudbury, I am concerned about some of the perceptions that are being left. I realize that the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) wants to return to the good old days of health care. Let me cite in opening my portion of the debate some words from the present Minister of Health in a speech she recently gave.

“The people of Ontario place a high value on their publicly financed, publicly administered health care system. They believe that, whatever its flaws, it is an excellent system. They believe it serves them well and they want to keep it that way. I know that you are committed to the same goal. Our challenge as a government is to secure that future in co-operation with everyone in the health care partnership in this province.”

Later on in the speech, though, she mentions that in Ontario we now spend over $1 million an hour, every day, on health care; nearly one third of the total provincial budget. We have seen today the amounts of moneys which have been spent on hospitals and the amounts of moneys we commit to health care generally.

I am concerned that the very excellent work our hospitals do is being left open to some very serious questions in this debate. I know the opposition has stated in the past, certainly, that it is against extra billing. I think the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) tried to clarify that position, but I think the perception is there that runaway health costs are acceptable.

For a number of years in northern Ontario we have suffered from a lack of the previous government’s action in funding hospitals. That was perpetuated the other day when the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) talked about cardiac care in Toronto, not the rest of the province. Perhaps he does not know, and I would point out to him, that Sudbury Memorial Hospital in 1968 pioneered heart work, cardiac thoracic medicine, in this province and continues today to do a very fine job in the field.

It is not only in Toronto, being the centre of Ontario, that health care of this kind -- the other hospitals can do that kind of work.

Mr. Eves: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The member opposite is alluding to the fact of what I know and what I do not know. For the record, the cardiac units in Ontario are in Ottawa and London. They also have a small --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat, please? That is not a point of privilege. It is a point of information.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please show respect for other members who wish to speak.

Mr. Campbell: I think the member for Parry Sound doth protest too much. If he would like to listen, I can lay out some of the things his government did not do when it had the chance. He will see momentarily in the speech.

What I would like to do is continue along that vein, because in spite of all of the excellent work that Sudbury has done -- I am happy the member for Parry Sound can read from briefing notes and notes he has about other cardiac systems. It just shows the number of hospitals that perform that excellent surgery. If he had said it the other day, perhaps that would have cleared up the record.

1750

Mr. Black: He just thinks about Toronto, that’s all.

Mr. Eves: What has your mother got against Toronto?

Mr. Campbell: Again, as a former chairman of the regional health and social services committee in Sudbury, I had the great duty of dealing with a number of sod turnings at Laurentian Hospital.

Mr. Wildman: A number of sod turnings?

Mr. Campbell: A number of sod turnings -- I am going to get to that in a moment -- for the new cancer treatment centre in Sudbury. The former Premier, one William Grenville Davis, came to Sudbury to help the member along in his re-election plans and turned the sod.

Mr. Black: Did he get re-elected?

Mr. Campbell: Well, actually he did get elected, but he had to wait for the next election again to talk about a preconstruction meeting with the local member in attendance.

Mr. Wildman: Sods and sods, you are talking about?

Mr. Campbell: Sods and sods of sod turnings; I want to tell members that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Campbell: In any event, I had the pleasure of attending at a number of these functions, and yet it was this fall that our government blasted the rock, turned the sod and laid the foundation for this very excellent facility, which the members of the third party might realize did not materialize but was announced on a number of occasions. I use that illustration by way of demonstrating how we in this government have to pick up all the time after the neglect in capital funding of the previous government.

Mr. Black: Years of neglect.

Mr. Campbell: My colleague the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) mentions years of neglect.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the member for Parry Sound.

Mr. Wildman: Where is Frank Miller?

Mr. Campbell: Well, now that you mention Frank Miller, as a matter of fact, when he came to Sudbury to close Copper Cliff Hospital, he was pelted with snowballs. As a matter of fact, that was the only hospital that ended up being closed; a number of other hospitals remained open after the closure. So it was in northern Ontario that this all happened, and I want to say to the member for Parry Sound that we are picking up after that kind of problem.

The whole thing that can be dealt with is community health centres. We would hope that in Sudbury that concept can be improved on and dealt with, because I think it goes a long way in dealing with the serious doctor shortage that we have in northern Ontario, and it is recognized that that is the case. But in spite of the amount of money that is going into hospitals and that is being dealt with in the capital part of the hospital construction, I think it is very important to know, by way of all of these illustrations, that the capital is being spread around this province by this government, and I want to make sure it is understood that northern Ontario is part of that partnership.

Earlier this week, St. Mary’s hospital in Timmins was dealt with, and St. Mary’s hospital demonstrates the kind of evenhanded look at the hospitals’ needs. The hospitals, correctly, had hired the prerequisite doctors for a regional health centre in Timmins, and in fact the funding was there for that approved need by the Ministry of Health. I think it is also important to know that those kinds of things are made up for, again, because of the lack of funding by the previous government.

Let me talk a bit about the ministry objectives that are currently set up, and I quote --

Mr. Pollock: You have only 38 seconds.

Mr. Campbell: Thirty-six seconds. “Caring for chronic sufferers, the aged and mentally ill, in or closer to their own homes and communities” is one of those goals and objectives.

I think it is important to note that Sudbury has just received approval in building these chronic care needs. We look forward to making representation on behalf of our hospitals in Sudbury to continue on, because it is a great need that exists as a result of the neglect of the former government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Pursuant to standing order 13, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, May 16; Tuesday, May 17, and Wednesday, May 18, we will consider legislation in the following order: second reading of Bill 125, trustee representation; Bill 108, rental housing protection; Bill 130, the Waterloo region; Bill 116, northern heritage fund.

On Thursday, May 19, in the morning, private members’ business standing in the names of the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) and the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague); and in the afternoon, second and third reading of private bills standing on the order paper, followed by debate on the budget motion.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.