Journal des débats 1985-oct-21 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the members that last Thursday the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) raised as a point of order the suggestion that a remark made by the leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), had been made in respect to an interjection by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and not to the minister responsible for women's issues (Mr. Scott), as Hansard appeared to indicate. He questioned the accuracy of the Hansard report.

The tape has been consulted and the interjectionist's notes have also been examined. While there is some difficulty following what was said in view of the noise level, it appears that while the Premier did make an interjection, there was no break in the placing of the question by the member for York South which would indicate he was responding to the Premier's interjection.

As the members are aware, interjections, being out of order, are not recorded unless they elicit a response. It does not appear that the Premier's interjection elicited such a response. I, therefore, find that the final printing of the Hansard report is accurate in accordance with our guidelines.

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The only comment I would make is that I was not in the House when the member for Leeds raised this issue. As the one who uttered the remarks, I do not even know what remarks are being referred to. As a matter of course, I would be more than happy to assist the chair in trying to interpret what I was trying to say in the course of my participation in the House. I am always available for that kind of consultation.

Mr. Speaker: I suggested to the House I would look into the matter and I have reported.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery today the Honourable Jeremiah C. Scott, Minister of Youth and Sports from St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CANADA GAMES

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I take great pleasure in rising to acknowledge the presence in the gallery this afternoon of a very special group of Ontarians, more than 150 athletes, coaches and team officials who represented our province so well at the 1985 Canada Games in Saint John, New Brunswick. Our athletes won 57 gold, 35 silver and 24 bronze medals at the games. Many of the medallists are among the team members here today.

The abilities our Ontario athletes demonstrated in the competitions were the result of long and hard training under competent, dedicated coaches supported by efficient provincial sports organizations. As well as winning the overall championship for the third successive time, our team maintained high standards of deportment and sportsmanship.

I am sure the more than 370 members of the Ontario contingent have brought home pleasant memories of their experiences in Saint John, of their many new friends from across Canada, of their hosts and of the organizing society, which is represented in the gallery today by its president, Mr. Richard Oland, and its general manager, Mr. George Fraser.

I most certainly have fond memories personally of the enthusiasm displayed by our athletes when I attended both the opening and the closing ceremonies in Saint John. A few moments ago Mr. Oland presented me with the official games flag which flew in Saint John and which bears Ontario's name as champion.

I am indeed proud to recognize our team's achievements and its presence here today. I invite all honourable members to join me in welcoming our team here today.

NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES WEEK

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: As Minister of Colleges and Universities, I would like to offer officially our government's endorsement of National Universities Week. This year National Universities Week will run from October 19 to October 27. It is a campaign designed to raise public awareness of our universities and of the contribution universities make to Canadian society.

During National Universities Week, campuses from coast to coast will mark the achievements of higher education. Since early this year, the national co-ordinating committee representing national, regional and provincial university associations has been active in co-ordinating activities across Canada. Open houses, forums, radio and television spots, displays, conferences, lectures and recitals, as well as an art and writing competition, are just some of the activities planned by our nation's universities during National Universities Week.

In addition to the events planned by universities, governments and the corporate sector have offered support for the week through endorsements and special events. I am pleased to inform the House that my ministry has planned a number of activities, which include two noon-hour performances by local musical ensembles.

The theme of National Universities Week is "Extending ideas into your community," an appropriate theme when one considers the significant contributions made by universities to the development of the community, the province and the nation.

National Universities Week will draw attention to the value of teaching, scholarship, research and cultural and public service activities that are an integral part of the university. Very often the many roles played by the universities in the development of our society are not fully appreciated by staff and students and may never be perceived by the majority of the public.

Ontario's universities perform a major research function for the province and the country. In addition to their crucial work in basic research, universities are active in applied research and development. Through the research activities of universities, new advances are made in forest conservation, computer technology and space research. Furthermore, as centres of medical research universities have made major contributions to treating and preventing disease. The results of the research done in our universities have enhanced and improved the quality of life for all of us.

Ontario's universities offer a wide variety of undergraduate, graduate and professional programs to a diverse and growing university population. In Ontario we have 185,600 full-time students and more than 97,000 part-time students attending universities, Ryerson Polytechnical Institute and the Ontario College of Art, taking courses as diverse as kinesiology, medical illustration and linguistics, as well as the more traditional programs. Universities are committed to developing Canada's greatest resource, its people.

As diverse as are the programs and the people who study there, Ontario's universities offer an environment to suit individual needs -- from the smaller, more intimate campuses, which concentrate resources on the provision of a sound liberal education, to the larger universities with extensive involvement in undergraduate, graduate and professional education and research.

2:10 p.m.

For more than 100 years, universities have been a part of Ontario's history. Queen's University, founded in 1841, and the University of Toronto, founded in 1827, are two of our oldest universities. This year two of our newer institutions celebrate their 25th anniversary. I am pleased to congratulate York University and Laurentian University on reaching this landmark.

I might also add that the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education celebrates its 20th anniversary this year.

As I have said before, our long-range goal is to ingrain in the mentality of the provincial community the importance of the post-secondary system. National Universities Week provides the forum in which both the academic and the public community can discover the vital contribution our universities make to Canada and to Ontario.

I invite each member of this Legislature to explore the university in his or her particular community and to participate in its celebrations.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: My statement today is on the responsibility of choosing good local government.

Choosing good local government representatives is essential to the vitality of every community in Ontario. Nominations for municipal elections close at 5 p.m. today. On November 12, voters will go to the polls in municipalities across this province to elect members of municipal councils, school boards and hydroelectric and public utilities commissions for three-year terms.

Having served the city of Vanier as head of council for more than a decade, I know the influence elected representatives have on their communities and I respect the decisions of local electors. Many municipalities over the past three years have done a great deal to increase citizens' awareness of local government and the work done on their behalf.

Examples of these efforts can be seen in the results of the You Decide campaign of 1982, which saw a significant increase in voter turnout, and in the 1985 Local Government Week program, in which hundreds of municipalities and their citizens participated. Clearly, much has been accomplished through these campaigns.

In this growing spirit of municipal cooperation, I am pleased today to outline for members a program to support local government efforts to inform citizens of the importance of the November 12 election. The You Decide campaign of 1985 is based on the groundwork initiated previously. A resource kit has been sent to every municipality, containing basic materials required for organizing local awareness campaigns.

As part of this effort, I am asking radio stations to air public service announcements for broadcast. I am asking television stations to consider using the You Decide graphic as a station break. The ministry is supplying newspapers with information that might assist them in their pre-election coverage.

MEMBERS' ANNIVERSARIES

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: A point of privilege?

Mr. Harris: A point of order or a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Take your pick.

Mr. Speaker: I will listen carefully.

Mr. Harris: I am sure you will be able to pick up on what it is in a moment.

On a typical beautiful fall day, the same as this fall day today, 14 years ago, a number of members were elected to this Legislature for the first time. I thought it might be in order if I briefly mentioned the names of those members who brought their vision, excitement and enthusiasm, which they have carried on every day of those 14 years, to this Legislature.

They are the members for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor), Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), York West (Mr. Leluk), Peterborough (Mr. Turner) and Lanark (Mr. Wiseman).

I am sure all members will agree that this Legislature has been the better, almost without exception, for every day these members have been here.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On the same point, I thought for a moment the honourable member was introducing the head table at the sore losers' club. I say that only because I cannot add to the list anybody from our own caucus.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, since you were in that election campaign yourself, that the main issue was whether there should be an extension of funding to separate schools. What is now the official opposition was at that time unalterably opposed to it. I am not sure whether that had anything to do with the fact that I do not have a lengthy list of my colleagues to introduce who were elected on that occasion.

Mr. Foulds: If I might reply on behalf of the class of 1971, I would advise the government House leader that some of us were elected in 1971 endorsing the principle of full funding for separate schools. We happen to be in a different party and we remain so today. Whatever else might be said of the class of 1971, considering the list of names, the divergence of talents and representation, one must say we were a mixed and diverse lot.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Mr. McClellan: Go for it, Larry. We're with you.

Mr. Grossman: Not from down there. I do not want that; thanks, but no thanks.

CREDIT RATING

Mr. Grossman: In the light of the upcoming budget, I have a question for the Treasurer. I had an opportunity to read something the Premier (Mr. Peterson), then Leader of the Opposition, said last April 5. He said, "I think we can manage our programs inside of a financially responsible context without altering the credit rating in any way."

In the light of that statement and the fact the new government, the Premier's government, notwithstanding that statement, was put on credit watch about 15 days after it took office, I wonder whether the Treasurer can indicate to us what conversations he has had with the credit rating agencies in New York.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have had no conversations with the credit rating agencies in New York.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: It appears the Treasurer has fallen into the habit of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), not to mention the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter), in not consulting groups, not opening doors and not sharing information.

Has the Treasurer shared with anyone other than the New York credit rating agencies -- he obviously does not want to talk to them -- any details about a program which is being referred to by him and his colleagues in government as Operation Clean Slate, whereby one would arbitrarily write down the assets of many government holdings to $1?

Is the Treasurer prepared to confirm or deny -- no, I do not want him to be able to get out of this; let us make it clear. Will he deny that he intends, without consultation, to write down certain crown assets to $1? Will he confirm that that is under a program he has taken to calling Operation Clean Slate?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have had an interesting summer talking to about 68 or 69 individual groups, I believe, who visited the Treasurer's boardroom. I have usually broken the ice by indicating the presence of the honourable member's picture on the boardroom wall looking down on our deliberations.

Mr. Grossman: Haunting the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: He is the tallest one there; let us put it that way.

I want to say in response to the question, which had something to do with consultation --

Mr. Grossman: No, it had to do with Operation Clean Slate.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: He referred to consultation, I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Grossman: Answer the Operation Clean Slate question.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Let us get to that right away. I am not going to say anything about what is in the budget. Why should I? All the member has to do is to wait until Thursday of this week and he will know what is in the budget. I am definitely not saying anything about it.

However, I do want to say something about consultation, to which the member did refer. I have had a chance to speak to these various groups from all over the province, representing the financial community, the professions, the unionized work force, the universities and so on. It has been a great education to me, and I have the impression that all these people are looking to the new government to implement a program that is going to be better, more sensitive and more meaningful than the program that has been in place during the past few years.

There has been a feeling that the government during the past two years has been relatively inactive at a time when this community has needed desperately the rebuilding of its resources, both in health care and in education at the municipal level, and we as a new government are sensitive and responsive to that requirement.

I am not going to say anything in response to the member's question about what is in the budget, but I am going to tell him that yes, I have consulted widely and that I hope the response to that consultation will be acceptable to the members of this House.

Mr. Grossman: The issue is not the one the Treasurer tried to steer us off on to. The issue is far more serious. There are two issues here, and in my final supplementary I want to ask about each of them.

If Operation Clean Slate does not appear in the budget and if the assets are not written down to $1, we intend to put questions on Orders and Notices that will ask specifically when the budget was sent to press and what the last date of any changes to that budget was. I want to indicate to the Treasurer that if, as of 2:25 p.m. today, the answer to that question indicates changes were made to the budget after it had clearly gone to press, at least in some form, if the absence of Operation Clean Slate turns up, we will believe this change was made because of whatever information is now out and around in the community about his attempt to write down assets arbitrarily to $1.

The question about the New York credit ratings is this: the Premier has given an assurance that he is "far too responsible to drive the deficit up widely." He believes he can do this without altering the credit rating. Now that the Treasurer has discussed consultation, I would ask him to take a moment to explain why he would not bother himself to make a single point of contact with the credit rating agencies to try to find out what their concerns are and to answer them.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sure the member is aware that the Treasury is in contact with the credit raters whenever they require any particular information about the economic status of the province. I am not an economist or an accountant, I am not even a bean counter, as the member was; but I can assure him that the relevant information about the fiscal and economic condition of the province is made available to any public agency that requests that information.

The member is aware that we actually pay the rating agencies for their responses, and we would not be doing our duty if we did not provide whatever information was necessary. They have not requested to see me and I have not asked to see them.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling), which may be understandable given last week's offerings by him here, and in the absence of the Premier, I have a question for the government House leader.

The government House leader will recall that in exchanges in this chamber last week we received a series of rather confusing signals from his colleague the Minister of Housing as to what the government's policy is with respect to the construction in 1986 of much-needed new rental accommodation. As well, he will know that on leaving the House on Friday the Premier indicated the Minister of Housing was not speaking for the government and what he had said in this chamber was not government policy.

Especially in the light of his role as Treasurer, can the government House leader indicate to us in the clearest possible terms what the policy of the government is with respect to the construction of rental housing? In particular, can he assure this House that he will be putting in place incentives to entice much-needed private sector capital back to the rental housing field?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I believe the honourable member is aware that the Premier announced the limit for rent review would be reduced to four per cent. That was supported by the then Premier, now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. F. S. Miller), and by the New Democratic Party. The bill will be brought forward in the near future and naturally it will go into effect as of the date the Premier made the announcement.

I do not think there is any question as far as our commitment to rent review is concerned. The rent review commitment was part of our election platform. We have taken a rather strong stand that goes back to our pre-1975 stand. That was even before the great Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario realized back in those days that it had better get on the bandwagon and save its skin.

As a matter of fact, the mother of rent review was Margaret Campbell herself, a very dear colleague of mine when we used to sit together on the opposition benches. She was one of the most effective spokespersons, if not the most effective spokesperson, for the residents of Metropolitan Toronto and the citizens of all Ontario.

Our policy remains unchanged. To respond specifically to the member, I think it would be appropriate if the budget did contain some reference having to do with dollars and housing programs. I am not in a position right now to say whether it does because of the sensitivity of the member's colleagues to budget leaks. I noticed him going through the green garbage bags outside the building this morning, so I am not making any indication of the budget's contents this close to the budget.

Mr. Timbrell: I hope the minister will provide an autographed copy of his contribution to Hansard today to the Minister of Housing so he will perhaps be a little clearer as to what is the policy of his ministry and his government, because he was not at all clear last week.

The Minister of Housing addressed a ministry-sponsored seminar -- I am sorry; it was not ministry-sponsored; it was sponsored by the Peel Nonprofit Housing Corp. -- on October 3, along with all the senior staff of the Ministry of Housing, and was told on that day by all the leading builders in the area -- Shipp, Arcadia, Bramalea and Pagebrook -- that they will not build any more rental accommodation because of the policies of the government with respect to rent review.

Will the minister tell us how his government is going to either change those policies or ensure, without large government grants and/or subsidies, that the private sector will build housing in 1986 for the rental market and provide much needed employment in that sector? How is it going to do it? Tell us who is going to build in 1986.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I suppose the companies listed by the member may have had their confidence in governments in general shaken somewhat when they were persuaded to vote Progressive Conservative before the 1981 election on the hidden promise that rent controls would be abandoned if the Tories won a majority. In 1981, no doubt with the heavy financing of all these people, the Progressive Conservatives did win a majority, and the only difference was that the Premier of the day reduced the review level to four per cent.

I suppose they are disillusioned with the Tories and are looking to the Liberals for the sort of leadership that will provide the concepts and the money for a housing program that I am confident will meet the proper needs of this urban community and of all Ontario in the next five years.

Mr. McClellan: There were a number of questions rolled into one there, but I want to ask a supplementary about the intriguing phrase used by my colleague the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) in his first question when he asked the Treasurer whether there would be incentives to entice private developers back into the housing market. I do not think I am misquoting.

I want to ask the Treasurer whether he understands, as I do, that the member for Don Mills is probably talking about ripoff schemes such as the Ontario rental construction loan program, which was a $90-million giveaway program by the previous government that provided interest-free mortgage money to private developers with no strings attached to provide a number of very interesting luxury apartments.

I want an assurance from the Treasurer that he will not accept that kind of foolish advice and that there will be no measures in the budget coming Thursday which will provide cash giveaways to the private developers, but rather that he will institute a program of housing supply in the nonprofit sector.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I think I can assure the member for Bellwoods and the House in general that I do not intend to recommend any spending programs I do not feel will be fiscally responsible and in the best interests of the community at large.

Mr. Timbrell: Is there already a St. Robert, or is the Treasurer vying for the position?

As the Treasurer very well knows, with limits of $2,000 per year and $4,000 in any given election year, there is no way any single corporation or individual heavily finances any of the parties, his own included. So that earlier allusion was completely misplaced.

Let me say too, I was not offering the kind of advice offered by the member for Bellwoods. I would not do that. I want an absolute assurance that the Treasurer, in this budget and in the coming months, is going to pursue policies that will entice the private sector to build, finance, own and operate rental housing, as opposed to more government financing where the government will put itself out to be the sole source of capital for rental housing in Ontario, because that is the direction its policies are taking this province and they are going to create a major economic crisis.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: With regard to housing, I ask the member to recall the contents of the most recent speech from the throne brought forward by the Miller government, of which he was a part, and I give him a further assurance that the programs put forward by this government in the budget are going to be aggressive but sensitive, effective and fiscally responsible in a way that probably he and his colleagues have forgotten about in their latter years of administration.

Mr. Rae: We are all a lot wiser after that exchange. I really appreciate that.

EXTENDICARE LONDON NURSING HOME

Mr. Rae: I would like to return to a line of questioning I began last Thursday with the Minister of Health. The minister will know that as a result of the outbreak, we now have a 19th victim who died over the weekend.

I remind the minister that this is the most serious epidemic of its kind in North American institutional history, certainly in the 20th century, and that the mortality rate of those affected by it is 37 per cent, which is amazingly high.

He will also know that the doctor who was the expert in food handling, who was sent in on September 20, 1985, to look at what was going on in the home in the middle of the outbreak, said, "It is inconceivable that the above conditions" -- that is, the conditions he found on September 19 and 20 -- "existed so long after the occurrence of a probable food-borne disease outbreak of such magnitude."

Those are the words of Dr. Styliadis; they are not my words or anyone else's.

In view of the seriousness of this outbreak and in view of the seriousness of the findings of Dr. Styliadis and, indeed, of Dr. Korn and others, I ask the minister again, why the reluctance to establish a public inquiry now rather than wait for the coroner's inquest in January? I am sure the minister appreciates the public concern. Why the delay?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I again thank the honourable member for his question, and again I must confirm that we have a well-established inquiry system which is now being undertaken by the coroner. An investigative team under the jurisdiction of the coroner is going through the task of putting together all the information we need.

In reflecting on all the comments made by the member's colleagues and by others, I have to say that to launch into a second investigation now to prepare for an inquiry and perhaps even to go further in trying to come up with the same information among a number of institutional branches would cause more delay than we wish to have take place.

As the member knows, the coroner has called the inquest, and the information is being gathered. In addition, I have established an independent review to look into the operation of the nursing homes branch inside my ministry, and I have taken the necessary steps to safeguard the health of the people who are now residents of nursing homes.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister saying that despite the three-day delay by the nursing home in informing the medical officer of health in London at a time when there were 27 cases occurring in the home, despite other possible infractions of the Nursing Homes Act itself with respect to the law regarding refrigeration and despite the findings of Dr. Styliadis with respect to the handling of food as late as September 20, some 12 days after the first case was reported, it is the position of the minister today that he will not lay any charges and that he will not prompt any other inquiry than simply waiting for the results of the coroner's inquest? Is what we are now to understand that there are to be no charges laid?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member is confused about the answer. I said I did not think it would serve the public well to confuse the investigative process by introducing a third or more investigation at this time. I have moved to do some particular things which I think will safeguard the health of the people who are currently residents of the institutions in Ontario, which is what I am mandated to do first and foremost.

The laying of charges, as the member was advised last week by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), will take place when the gathering of information is complete. He has to be concerned, as we all are, that people are not disadvantaged by the operation of the judicial system too quickly.

Mr. Turner: Has the Minister of Health or his ministry made any changes to the reporting procedure as a result of this tragedy? If so, will the minister be good enough to share them with the House?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the honourable member for his question. On a couple of occasions, I have made changes with respect to the reporting required. For instance, we have indicated to those public facilities that they ought to report to the medical officer of health straight away, at the first possible opportunity, when there are two or three cases -- for instance, of a diarrhoea-type infection, which we have come across at the Extendicare agency -- and the medical officer of health is to treat each report of that nature as an emergency even though it may turn out that is not the case. We have decided the reporting mechanism must be updated and upgraded. In addition, we have taken steps to help co-ordinate inspection services between the public health unit and the nursing homes branch inspectors as well.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Does the minister not realize this is an absolutely unprecedented case? There are 19 people dead. It is the worst epidemic of this type of bacteria in North America. At the same time, the two major investigations he has going on are going to be a coroner's inquest, which is rather routine when it comes to deaths in institutions, and an external review of the inspection process without public participation.

Does the minister not understand that is simply not good enough to come to grips with what is a very serious problem in his ministry? Will he not reconsider his decision to reject a public inquiry so that all of us can be assured that the elderly of this province in our nursing homes are going to be properly protected?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have on a couple of occasions answered questions from the honourable member about the welfare and wellbeing of the senior citizens of the province. The reason I moved so quickly to provide the public with the information in the reports by Dr. Korn and Dr. Styliadis and others was to underline and underscore the necessity for those institutions to be adequately sure that their food-handling capabilities were above reproach.

In addition, as I advised the people in the city of London after making it available to the families of the patients who died at the Extendicare Nursing Home, I released the information that I was going to be providing to all of the institutions in Ontario, not just nursing homes, where there are food-handling services and capabilities. I circulated that straight away.

In addition, I have made the announcement, as I had earlier told my colleague the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner), regarding the coordination of inspection capabilities between my branch of public health and the nursing homes branch. Also, I have a reporting upgrading mechanism in place and I think those types of operations have increased the surveillance going on in those institutions.

With respect to the question of whether or not I have refused to call a public inquiry, or reconsider my decision not to, I have not at this time decided not to call a public inquiry. I said I would like to see the results of the coroner's inquest and I do not want to impede the investigation, which could prejudice that operation. A number of things are now in place that will safeguard the wellbeing of the citizens of this province.

SALE OF APARTMENTS

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to the proposed sale of the 11,000 Cadillac Fairview apartments by the receiver, the Clarkson Co. Ltd. The minister will be aware that one of the unresolved questions out of the 1982 flip is who will pick up the tab for the $500 million in the flip.

Is it the minister's understanding that his ministry officials are anxious to recoup some of the costs? I am quoting from the Globe and Mail, July 25: "`We hope they go for a fairly high price so that we could recoup the costs for the taxpayers,' according to Albert Campion, spokesman for the ministry." Is it the intention of the receiver and of the ministry that the sale price to tenants of the Cadillac Fairview apartments will be something in the neighbourhood of the original illegal amount of $500 million in order to cover the first, second and third mortgages? In other words, the tenants are being asked to pay the illegal amount for the privilege of continuing to live in their own homes.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the honourable member for the question. He should understand that the apartments in question are really in the hands of the courts. The receivers are acting for the courts and it is their determination and their decision. As far as my ministry is concerned, we are watching with great interest but we do not have a direct input into what is going to happen with those buildings.

That is something the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp., which is going to have the greatest investment in this issue, will be determining, along with the receivers and with the approval of the courts, as to what happened. It is in their hands and is not in the hands of my ministry.

Mr. McClellan: With respect, the minister has failed to answer the question. I want it to be clear on the public record if I am correct -- and I am not sure I am correct -- it is his understanding that the receiver is attempting to sell these apartments through a process of conversion to condominiums for something approaching $500 million.

Is it a policy that is apparently supported by officials in his ministry that this price tag will be put on the backs of the tenants of Cadillac Fairview who now live in those apartments, and that they will be asked to pay the difference between the first and third mortgages for the privilege of staying in their own homes?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The point I was making is that we have an interest in watching what happens but we have no direct input as to the final resolution. I should point out that all tenants are protected, regardless of what buildings they are in, to a maximum of five per cent for any additional cost incurred in the change of ownership of an apartment. They will certainly be protected from that point of view.

Mr. Runciman: The minister has indicated that his ministry is going to stay on the sidelines on this issue. I am wondering if that is the appropriate course of action to follow.

We are talking about condominiumizing a number of these units. Has the minister given sufficient consideration as to whether, indeed, this is in the best long-term interest of tenants in the city of Toronto? Should he not be playing a more active role and searching out ways and means in which the ministry could be playing a more active role in this issue?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The speculation as to what happens to those buildings is just that: speculation. When it comes to determination of the status of the buildings, whether they be co-ops, condominiums or individual buildings, I would suggest that will be left to the appropriate ministry, in this case the Ministry of Housing. Also, it will be up to the municipalities themselves.

I addressed some of the tenants' associations who are very concerned. A municipality has a direct input as to whether or not a building will become a condominium. The political climate is such that it will be very difficult for that to happen, certainly in Toronto.

Mr. McClellan: The minister is aware the possibility exists that something in the order of 10 per cent of our rental housing stock in Toronto will be converted out of the rental housing market.

Has he been briefed on proposals that were made to his officials prior to the change in government with respect to a proposal from the tenants of Cadillac Fairview that the buildings be sold to the tenants as nonprofit co-operatives on the basis of appraised value; not on the ripoff value from the 1982 triple flip, but on only the appraised value? Has he been brought up to date on that proposal? Can he tell us whether that has any current status with his officials or with himself?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have been fully briefed on the total background of the whole Cadillac Fairview incident.

Again, I can assure the member the reason it went into the courts was so that there would not be any political interference as to the outcome, one way or the other. When the court makes a determination, and it will be up to the court alone to decide whether or not any offer or any proposal is acceptable, then if there is something we must do as a government we will do it, but at the present time we are watching the situation. It would be inappropriate for me to interfere at this point.

2:50 p.m.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Rowe: I have a question of the Treasurer. The central Ontario disaster relief fund was, as he knows, established to raise funds, both privately and publicly, to assist those affected by the May 31 tornado which devastated our area of Ontario. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) stated that his government intended to continue to honour all those commitments of the previous government with respect to the tornado fund. One of the commitments was the assurance to the public that government money would match private donations on a three-to-one ratio. When does the government intend to honour that commitment?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I can assure the member that the government intends to honour all commitments. I would also like to recall to his mind something a number of members will recall. The last time we had this sort of windstorm disaster it was in the county of Oxford and Brant. A tornado started just outside Woodstock and came through into the Brant area and down into Norfolk. The member for the area and myself and others were involved, as is now the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Rowe), in assisting the local fund-raising to the best extent we possibly could.

It happened to be cabinet day and I called the then chairman of cabinet, Lorne Henderson, at 7 a. m. and told him about it. He said he would raise it at cabinet that day. We were very glad that within a few days the then Premier and the appropriate cabinet ministers came up to the area and made the commitment on a three-to-one basis, at least the same basis.

Mr. Harris: It was "up to three to one."

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is the difference. I see.

Mr. Timbrell: If I may help the Treasurer, the commitment at the time was "up to," and in this case it was exactly three to one.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am very glad to have had the assistance of the member who told me the previous commitment was "up to," but he is implying that the commitment under these circumstances was not "up to," it was three to one.

I want to explain my understanding of the circumstance. I thank God I am not in the area that was affected by this terrible storm but I was in the middle of the other one where many citizens, not only in the area but across the country, made large, generous donations. A local committee was established representing the community and guidelines were established that did not pay all the expenses. Recreational vehicles were not covered; I remember there was a question about that. Cottages, if they were second homes, were not covered, and so on.

Mr. Timbrell: Will the Treasurer answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am answering the question. We have 25 minutes and 11 seconds, 10 seconds, nine seconds --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: At the time, the government of the day very properly indicated it would more than match the funds raised to pay the approved expenditures. The same holds true under these circumstances. If we are going to change the approval of the expenditures, I would suggest we would have to go back to other disasters -- one in Sudbury, one in the Nipissing area, and one in the Brant-Oxford area -- and change the whole payout on that basis.

The essential damages were covered. I can assure the member that in response to the local committee which is approving the payout, there will be ample funds to make the payout on the basis of the approvals, which are similar to those in the other areas where the damage took place.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I was Premier of the day when this commitment was made. This disaster, like all disasters, could not be directly compared to any other one. I made a commitment of three to one, not up to three to one.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We have had two questions now and I am confused. I thought the members on this side asked the questions yet those members to my right have the answers. Could you explain to me, how does that happen?

Mr. Rowe: Service clubs, church groups, pensioners and small children, among others, all gave very generously with the understanding that their $1 meant a $4 contribution to those affected by the tornado.

Will the Treasurer give assurance to this House today that any money which might be left over from the three-to-one funding formula will be put aside in a fund and used for future disasters which may strike anywhere in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I can assure the member that future disasters that may occur in this province, God forbid, will be dealt with in the same appropriate and generous way.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Mrs. Grier: My question is to the Minister of the Environment regarding the very urgent public health concerns generated by the finding of dioxin in samples of sediment taken from the St. Clair River.

The ministry first became aware of the presence of dioxin in samples that were taken in the summer of 1984. Extensive testing was done under the present minister in September 1985. No results have been released from either of those samples.

Why did it take so long? I recognize that the minister was only part of the delay. Why has it taken so long to get back to do the second sampling? Will the minister undertake to release to this House the results of the samplings done on both occasions?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Our policy is to release them at the earliest opportunity as soon as we get the results of any of these samples. I was consulted, for instance, by a federal member of Parliament in the area who had made inquiries about problems that had arisen. His specific concerns were more in the Windsor area.

As the member would know, monitoring and testing are going on along the St. Clair River on a continuous basis. We did some additional testing and found some examples of forms of dioxin in the raw water. We also wanted to test the treated water in the area to ensure that it had not got into the treated water. Even though we are very concerned about the fact that it would be in small traces per quadrillion in the raw water, we are even more concerned about the drinking water. The member will know that in a normal water filtration plant, because dioxin tends to adhere to particles, it fortunately gets removed, and in this case it did get removed.

I will be happy to provide for the member or for anyone else in the House the most up-to-date results that we have from the tests. I will provide them to her and to all members of the House as soon as possible.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Has the ministry yet determined the source of this black blob at the bottom of the St. Clair River outside Dow Chemical's property, and whether that blob is growing? We have been trying to get the results of those tests, but apparently, even though it has been a couple of weeks, the results are not available yet.

Finally, in view of the evidence of problems in the St. Clair River that has come out during the last number of weeks, and in view of the resulting problems in Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River, does the minister think it is time that there be a system of independent sampling of discharges from the chemical companies instead of relying on the self-monitoring that has been in place?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member makes a reasonable suggestion. I think the concern has been raised for some time. Those of us who sit in this House have been concerned about some of the findings, such as the glob at the bottom of the river. We are investigating the source of that at the present time.

In some cases, as the member will know, we press charges when we feel that we as a ministry have identified the source. In other cases, we are attempting on an ongoing basis to determine what the source is.

I share the concern. I think the members who reside in the area from Sarnia down to Windsor and all along that area have a justifiable concern about the glob, because it was not simply dioxin. As I think the member would appropriately point out, there are other rather nasty chemicals and substances down there as well.

To answer the question, as soon as we get the results of any new testing that goes on, I will be happy to provide them to the House. With regard to independent testing, that is something I am evaluating at present. I think people are looking for confirmation of self-monitoring to be really safe in their own minds.

That is what we are undertaking in this area. It is an area of very high priority and concern to me as the Minister of the Environment, as I am sure it is to those who reside in that area.

3 p.m.

Mr. Brandt: Can the minister comment on the present status of the St. Clair River study team, which was put in place with the specific intent of identifying the kinds of problems that have recently been identified through some of the studies of which the minister is aware?

Is it his intention to continue to leave that monitoring and study team in place in order that any developments, such as the discovery of dioxin or other problem chemicals, will be identified at as early a stage as possible?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That group is one of the tools we want to use.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Earlier on the Conservatives wanted to correct the record. This might have been an opportunity for the former Minister of the Environment to explain why this information was not released in September 1984, when he was the minister.

Mr. Brandt: If opposition members can start to ask me questions, I will move across the floor and answer those questions. I will be more than happy to do that.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am sorry. I did not know whether the member was rising on a point of privilege or point of order.

That is one of the groups that is looking into it. The former minister will also be aware that there are other study groups, from various universities on both sides of the border, looking at the problems along the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair. The group he mentions is one we are relying on as well. I know he will share my concern that last year there was a discovery of some rather nasty substances which have come to light this year. We want to deal with that as expeditiously as possible.

I am pleased to report as well, and I was a little bit relieved by this, that the dioxin found -- and let me make no mistake that any dioxin found, in any minute quantity, is dangerous -- was not the 2,3,7,8-TCDD type we are most concerned about in the raw water supply, although we are concerned about the blob that is down there. This problem has existed for some time, and I am determined that we should take as much action as quickly as possible to overcome the problems that exist in that area.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Villeneuve: This question is addressed to the Treasurer, who made a statement when he was in eastern Ontario not long ago saying the Liberals did not need New Democratic Party aid to beat the Tories. He said that about 13 months ago.

In his deliberations and preparations for the upcoming budget, he made a statement that same evening that a funding level standing at $330 million annually for agriculture was nowhere near sufficient. He also made a statement that he would double that should the Liberals be the government. What can we expect from him?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It still sounds like a very good idea to me. While I am not the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I can assure the member I listen with a good deal of sympathy to the requests that come to me from all the ministers as they see the inadequate programs they inherited from their predecessors.

Mr. Stevenson: The Treasurer will be interested to know that the Alberta government has recently put in place a $128-million program to help the livestock producers out there before they sign the tripartite stabilization program. What sort of funding can we expect for the livestock producers in Ontario prior to their signing that same document?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: My colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) stated last week he hoped to have an announcement soon to deal with the tripartite program. We have many resources here, but we do not have a bank account of $14 billion to draw upon as they do in Alberta. We do have a very rich and resilient province, which is quite anxious to support initiatives put forward by the minister or by the Treasurer in support of the agricultural community, which is obviously facing some of the greatest economic pressures and tensions it has experienced in the last many years.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Allen: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Education on education funding. He will know that in June of last year, in a letter to the Ontario Teachers' Federation, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) called inadequate provincial funding the basic problem in education and pledged that "a Liberal government would restore this level of funding to a minimum of 60 per cent on the average across the province during our first term of office."

During the election, the same promise was made in the magazine Education Matters, of the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario, in which he repeated precisely the same policy. The minister will also know that during the recent hearings on the extension of separate school funding --

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister agree?

Mr. Allen: -- this issue has been the repeated theme of many public school briefs. Will the minister stand in his place today and tell us whether this policy is the actual policy of his ministry? Will he be making some important announcements in that respect in the near future?

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is certainly the view of this minister that as a government we must be committed to a strong and adequate level of financial support from the province to public education. The budget of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) will be introduced in this assembly on Thursday evening, at which time the first intentions of this government in this connection will be made clear.

Mr. Allen: Thursday will indeed be the proof of the pudding. I hope the news is good. May I address a more specific question on the same issue --

Mr. Speaker: I hope so.

Mr. Allen: -- with respect to the announcement the minister made in early September of special grants to the public school boards to compensate them for additional funds required to meet the ongoing higher costs of those boards with students transferring to the separate schools. He will remember that the figure was $720 per student. There is another declining-enrolment grant --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: -- that amounts to substantially more than that on a per-student basis, depending on the board in question. There are boards that are poised to lose anywhere --

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have a supplementary question?

Mr. Allen: -- from $100,000 to $200,000 on that. In allocating that kind of reduced grant in this case, is the minister telling us that this ministry is going to follow the last ministry in subtle and indirect forms of underfunding public education, or is he going to --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister.

Hon. Mr. Conway: There is a difference between the declining-enrolment grant and the special buffer grant on the separate school extension because the two situations are different. The declining-enrolment grant recognizes that school boards are left with both instructional and noninstructional costs over a period of time. The declining-enrolment grant recognizes that larger cost.

The special buffer grant recognizes that instructional costs are going to follow the students across, as the honourable member knows, under carefully worked-out arrangements in the separate school extension plans. Boards of education will be left with noninstructional costs that the Ministry of Education is prepared to recognize to the rate of 22 per cent of the grant ceiling. The grants are different because the situations are different. I think the member understands that.

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Mr. Andrewes: I have a somewhat more specific question I would like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, the self-proclaimed King of the Castle. The recent musings of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) with respect to increases in the so-called sin taxes no doubt will have some impact on a deteriorating situation in the Ontario tobacco industry. Given the rather serious state of decline in this industry that faces many growers, as the minister is well aware, what strategy and what special initiatives is he prepared to put in place to assist in the rationalization of the tobacco industry?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I have had many talks with the Treasurer as he gets ready for his budget to make sure we are not going to put an undue burden on the tobacco growers of this province. I do not know what is in the budget, but when it comes out I think the member will be pleasantly surprised, as will the tobacco growers, in connection with the announcement that will be made.

3:10 p.m.

The tobacco growers have met with me on a number of occasions, as have the leaf manufacturers. Their major concern is the tax imposed by the previous government on their particular commodity. It is safe to say that we are showing quite a bit more concern for the agricultural producers of this province than did the former government and that will come out in the budget.

They also have asked that I give some consideration to agency powers on the provincial level. If I do, it will mean there will be a vote taken among the tobacco growers as to whether they want agency powers on a provincial level. It is an option I am considering at present.

Mr. Andrewes: In spite of the minister's crowing and the comforting words of the Treasurer, I am sure the industry will not find a lot of comfort in that answer. Indeed, neither will the Blue Jays in the minister's apparent disloyalty the other evening. The Treasurer is apparently very receptive to new programs for agriculture and, no doubt, this kind of program would have some local flavour in the Treasurer's riding.

In the light of rumours that Rothmans, the largest purchaser of tobacco in Ontario, may not buy anything out of the 1985 crop, and in the light of the concerns expressed to me by members of our caucus and, no doubt, to the minister by those same members, may I ask the minister, in all seriousness, what specific proposal did he make to the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board last Thursday when he met with them?

What specific proposals did he make to take care of the apparent surplus of 60 million pounds of the 1985 crop and the anticipated carryover of 200 million pounds from the previous years?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The member has not been talking to the tobacco growers because I just told him that, first and foremost, they would like a national marketing agency. Because of the injunction that was put on the report by the tobacco manufacturers, the member can be assured that there will not be a national agency in place this year to deal with this year's crop.

The tobacco growers asked if I would give them agency powers on a provincial level. I have indicated to the member that it is an option I am considering, provided they meet with certain requests I have made of them. After my meeting with the tobacco growers, they went away extremely happy for two reasons, one of which was that the federal Minister of Agriculture has decided to step up cash advance payments to $90 million.

When they met with me and found that I was seriously considering meeting their requests for agency powers -- we have not made a final decision on this yet, but it is a request I am seriously considering -- those were the only two concerns they had at the time and they went away from our meeting quite relieved.

AUTOPSY PROCEDURES

Mr. Reville: My question is of the Solicitor General. Is he aware of and does he support the requirement under the Coroners Act that all autopsies be undertaken by qualified medical practitioners?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: That is my understanding. That is correct and we do accept that.

Mr. Reville: Simple question, simple answer. Since taking office, has the Solicitor General been apprised of an Ontario Provincial Police investigation into alleged improprieties during 1985 in autopsy procedures at the chief coroner's facilities on Grosvenor Street in Toronto? If he has been so apprised, will he make a statement to this House about the results of the investigation? If he has not, will he make it his business to become aware of the situation and report to the House on an early occasion?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I have not been so advised, but I will gladly check it out this afternoon and report back to the House.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Sheppard: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology regarding the Liberals' ever-increasing practice of government by public relations. Does the minister have an explanation for the spending of an estimated $2,500 a week in ministry funds to pay for courier delivery of press releases regarding his ministry to news outlets in the vicinity of his home riding? Does he not agree that this is a shameless misuse of taxpayers' funds, especially since the mail costs only 34 cents a letter? Is this not really just a use of tax dollars for political self-promotion?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Knowing the member might possibly raise that question and feeling he would look into things a little more carefully before he raised such a question, I take it he is referring to an editorial that appeared in the Brighton paper.

Not only is the paper misinformed, but the member is also very misinformed. I have also obtained legal advice, and the figures quoted and the editorial are almost libellous or would be libellous. I will be answering that. A letter will be delivered to them either today or tomorrow setting straight the facts that were put in that editorial.

Mr. Sheppard: The minister has not really answered my question.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sheppard: If it is not $2,500, what really is the figure?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I believe some of the figures quoted in the editorial were that I was delivering these releases by courier all over the province, releases which dealt not only with myself but also with the ministry. It quoted a price of $9 per delivery, when actually it was $1.95 for 15 deliveries.

PETITIONS

NOISE BARRIERS

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I have a petition concerning noise barriers on the Conestoga Expressway. It is signed by 102 constituents who believe they have suffered from excessive noise and dirt as a result of the building of the expressway. They are asking that noise barriers be built from Frederick Street to Ottawa Street at the very latest by the spring of 1986.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Haggerty: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas it is the sincere expectation of more than 500,000 students and staff of the separate school system of Ontario and nearly four million separate school supporters in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas it was clearly the intent of our forefathers to treat both sectors of our common school system equally; and

"Whereas this intent is evident in successive acts of the Legislature since 1841; and

"Whereas the rights of separate school supporters are now protected under the Constitution of Canada; and

3:20 p.m.

"Whereas deviation from past practice has occurred within the last 20 years, whereby trustees of the nondenominational sector of the common school system have been given the right to administer secondary education; and

"Whereas similar rights have not been granted to the trustees of the separate school sector; and

"Whereas the then Premier, the Honourable William Davis, on June 12, 1984, informed the Legislature that it was the intent of his government to empower Roman Catholic separate school boards to operate secondary schools for secondary students, commencing September 1, 1985; and

"Whereas this intent was unanimously supported by all parties in the House;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to implement the policy on the funding of the completion of our separate school system without delay in order that it can be applied on September 1, 1985.

"We further petition that the legislation protect the historic rights of Roman Catholics to maintain the special character of their separate schools."

This is signed by Grand Knight Gerry Groetelaars, Our Lady of Fatima council 3732, and 666 petitioners.

Mr. Guindon: I have a petition with regard to Bill 30. It bears the signatures of many of my constituents in Cornwall, and it is addressed as follows:

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

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

"Whereas it was clearly the intent of our forefathers to treat both sectors of our common school system equally; and

"Whereas this intent is evident in successive acts of the Legislature since 1841; and

"Whereas the rights of separate school supporters are now protected under the Constitution of Canada; and

"Whereas similar rights have not been granted to the trustees of the separate school sector; and

"Whereas this intent was unanimously supported by all parties in the House;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to implement the policy on the funding of the completion of our separate school system without delay in order that it can be applied on September 1, 1985.

"We further petition that this legislation protect the historic rights of Roman Catholics to maintain the special character of their separate schools."

It is signed by Raymond Forget, Sts-Martyrs Canadiens, Knights of Columbus council 8859, 800 12th Street East, Cornwall.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I have a similarly worded petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It contains 19 pages of names, and it is presented by Grand Knight F. L. Prior of council 1124, Lindsay, Ontario. I present this to the assembly.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on resources development be authorized to meet on Tuesday, October 22, and Wednesday, October 23, 1985, to finalize its recommendations concerning the 1984 annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that, unless otherwise ordered, the House not meet in the chamber on Wednesdays.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Shymko moved, seconded by Mr. Leluk, first reading of Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

SAULT STE. MARIE PIED PIPER NURSERY ACT

Mr. Morin-Strom moved, seconded by Mr. Wildman, first reading of Bill Pr8, An Act to revive Sault Ste. Marie Pied Piper Nursery.

Motion agreed to.

POLLS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I want to table another poll. This one is by Environics Research Group Ltd.

Ms. Gigantes: What did it say?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have not read it.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. D. S. Cooke moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the 19 deaths at Extendicare London Nursing Home and the mounting evidence that outbreaks of disease were not reported in line with the Health Protection and Promotion Act and that, as a result, some deaths may have been preventable; further, that evidence shows that on September 20, 1985, the kitchen was in an unacceptable condition, which left residents and staff of the home at further risk, and to date the response of the Ministry of Health has been inadequate.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the members that I received this motion in time. However, in reviewing this motion, I would like to suggest for the benefit of all members' future consideration that an ideal motion would have been just to use the first sentence; the last part seems to be one of the reasons for wanting the motion. However, notice of the motion was received in time and complied with the standing orders, and I will listen to the honourable member or members for up to five minutes.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The incident referred to in this motion is surely one of the most upsetting incidents in any nursing home in this province for all members of the Legislature. Nineteen people have died -- the latest one this weekend -- in an incident that may have been preventable and that surely will be prevented in the future by actions we hope will be taken by this ministry in reforming the inspection process.

3:30 p.m.

The outbreak of this bacterial infection was the largest outbreak ever recorded in North America. We still do not know at this point how the infection started for sure. We still do not know why the epidemic was not reported to the medical officer of health more quickly. We still have not had an explanation of why the food was not properly refrigerated and why no charges have come out of this. We still do not know why the MOH approved the new kitchen, yet, 10 days later, ministry consultants found it had serious deficiencies, deficiencies that have been listed in the Legislature, and we certainly can discuss them at greater length during the debate.

We do know that the ministry feels there are serious problems within the inspection branch. I think the minister will acknowledge that there are serious problems and that this is why there is going to be an external review of the inspection branch of the Ministry of Health. However, that external review will not allow for public participation; it will not be a public hearing process, and there are many people in this province who would like to participate in this review of the inspection procedures of the ministry.

We do know that the Ministry of Health and the MOH are now sharing information on inspections. That is a good step, but we do not know why it did not happen before. It seems like a rather elementary step that the Ministry of Health and the MOH should have been sharing their reports. That kind of communication did not exist.

We know that this home did not know how to handle food and, as a result, this infection took place. We do not know why, on December 10, when 16 more residents became ill and the MOH environmental inspectors were in that home, no one from the nursing home reported there had been an epidemic. That was the second day, and a total of 26 cases had accumulated by that time.

What we have here is a total breakdown of the inspection process, an absolute tragedy that I hope will never occur again in this province. What we are debating now is what happened and how it can be prevented from ever occurring again. We are debating the method by which we can get the facts out to the public and the method by which relatives of the victims can be assured that, while a tragedy occurred, steps will be taken so that other elderly people in our province will not experience such a horrible death as these people experienced.

I am not convinced the external review of the inspection procedures in this province is adequate; I am not convinced a coroner's inquest is adequate, and I think the minister himself is reviewing the possible potential of a public inquiry instead of a coroner's inquest.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I cannot. The coroner calls the inquest.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What we need is some process whereby the public all across this province can become aware of the facts and we can discover the facts to make sure this type of thing does not occur again. The way it is happening now, a coroner's inquest may not be held until January or February, and many questions are still in people's minds.

I do not think an internal review of the ministry is adequate; I do not think the response of the ministry has been adequate. I give the minister full marks for his intentions. I hope that through debating this issue, which is on the top of our list and, I think, on the top of that of many members of this Legislature as a public issue right now, by raising some of these questions this afternoon the minister will be convinced that a public inquiry is absolutely essential to prevent this from ever happening again.

Mr. Turner: I rise to indicate the support of our party in this debate, and I would like to make a few brief remarks on the very tragic situation that took place in London.

On October 3, I issued a press release that raised questions about the seriousness of the matter and asked why what appeared to be some very basic health rules seemed to have been ignored. It would appear from later reports that basic hygiene procedures had not been followed and might have contributed to the very serious outbreak.

The other part of my concern is for the families of the people who died in that nursing home or as a result of infection in the nursing home. A lot of questions are being asked about the delays that took place in the reporting procedure. The minister has already responded to that. I would like to say that I understand and sympathize with him in this very difficult situation. In the light of hindsight, we all have 20-20 vision and that makes the job somewhat difficult.

Having said that, I think it is obvious that as a result of this tragic situation there have to be new procedures and tightened controls. I read something that I thought everyone was taught in grade school, that if someone took frozen fish out of a refrigerator so as to put in ice cream and the fish sat on the floor for an hour and 20 minutes before going back in --

Mr. Philip: Was it tuna, though?

Mr. Turner: I cannot comment on that. The problem is that sort of thing should never happen; it would not happen in the minister's household, and it would not happen in mine or anyone else's. However, in a public facility we see sloppy procedures; I guess that is the best way to describe it.

We support the debate and look forward to engaging in more detail later this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I received a copy of the emergency debate motion from your office with the time 11:58 marked on it; so it really was an emergency. I agree with the previous speakers that this sad and serious situation merits discussion in this House. I am not at all sure an emergency debate is going to lead to the solutions the members on all sides would wish.

Unfortunately, this food poisoning occurred, and the coroner is undertaking his investigations, which will lead to an inquest, but not until January. Presumably these reviews and investigations take a bit of time. It is not clear to me whether a special investigator could investigate any more fully, effectively or faster, because evidently the coroner has that responsibility at present.

The minister responded to questions from the New Democratic Party on Friday and today. Besides assuring the House that the proper procedures were being followed by way of investigation, I thought he indicated the most important response of all when expressing his concern, echoed on all sides, that he wanted to be sure we set in place decisions and attitudes that will mean such a disaster cannot occur again.

The call for a debate is an important one in this House. We cannot say it is not a matter of urgent importance because of the deaths; it certainly is. Notice was given in proper time. There is an investigation under way, but that does not mean it should not be discussed here.

I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, when you consider whether it is in order, that if we do not proceed with this special debate, the regular order of business this afternoon is for the provision of interim supply, which under our rules allows the members to talk on any subject they see fit. That would include matters pertaining to the subject in the motion for an emergency debate. It might be even more convenient in that there is no limit to the debate, whereas a special debate of the type sought by the New Democratic Party is limited to 10-minute speeches and must end at 6 p.m., without anything being put forward other than the development of views.

We do not object to the debate going forward if it is found to be in order.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the representatives of the three parties. They have stated their views that the issue was of important significance and, therefore, should be considered for debate. Hence, I feel I cannot rule it out of order, so the only question I will ask is, shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Because of the coroner's inquest that will take place, I suppose it is within my order -- I hope I am in order -- to caution all members not in any way to prejudice the rights of any person at that coroner's inquest. I remind all members they have up to 10 minutes to speak and the debate will continue until six o'clock if they wish it to last until that time.

EXTENDICARE LONDON NURSING HOME

Mr. Rae: I raised this matter on Thursday, on Friday and again today. I did so because I cannot honestly think of a tragedy that has taken place in the province which has so alarmed me in the sense that the response to this tragedy has been one which, in my judgement, remains inadequate.

One can compare this tragedy to others. We can all think of the awful and still unexplained events at the Hospital for Sick Children. While we are obviously dealing with a very different kind of outbreak, with 19 people who have lost their lives as the result of an epidemic, in contrast to that earlier event, we find this event is still being seen as a tragedy that has required the intervention of the chief medical officer of health for Ontario and that has been referred to a coroner's inquest.

I would remind the House that if there is one death in a nursing home, the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) knows that under the Coroners Act that matter would be referred to a coroner's inquest. My concern is not with pointing the finger of blame at any one individual. My concern in our approach has never been to say there is an easy answer to this problem and that a simple prosecution or whatever will find an instant solution.

By way of background, I will tell the minister that one of the things I did in this House when I was first elected was to go over 15 years of debates with respect to nursing homes in Ontario. I have two folders full of questions and answers, both in committee and in the House. They must be six or eight inches high.

What is disturbing to me as leader of this party is that the issues that were raised time and again are raised again by this tragedy this September. We have had inquests in the past and the minister and others have asked why I am not satisfied with a coroner's inquest as the route to go in this instance. I will give them a simple answer. The answer is that we have had experience with inquests in the past and they have not resulted in the changes we feel are absolutely essential.

While listening to your words, Mr. Speaker, about not wanting to prejudice anyone's rights, it is fair to say there may well be a difference of opinion between people as to what amounts to reporting as soon as possible. When the minister has the outbreak of an epidemic -- admittedly the first case on September 8 was one case, but the next day there were 10 cases and the day after that 16 cases -- I would have thought that in any institution if we have 10 cases of diarrhoea reported on the same day, we would realize right away we have a problem. It is at that point the medical officer of health has to be informed and steps have to be taken.

I am not satisfied with the answers that have been given to the fundamental first question, which is the failure to report. I am not satisfied that we even have an adequate handle on the cause. I am not satisfied that we are aware of what happens to Ministry of Health reports that are sent out, like the one called a Guide to the Control of Enteric Disease Outbreaks in Health Care Facilities, which appear to go unused and unread by people involved in institutions.

We find in the case of this survey that was done and sent out that a document apparently has not been followed, and it is eminently clear that the minister himself has had to take certain steps in an administrative way because he knows perfectly well what was supposed to be happening on the ground was not happening; that the theory of the law and the requirements of the law were not taking place.

The first speech I ever gave in the House as the leader of our party in response to a speech from the throne was a two-hour survey of what we had been able to find by placing people in nursing homes and talking about the realities of the inspection system. What Dr. Styliadis said in his report on September 20 was precisely the kind of problem that I raised in April 1983, that the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) raised in the mid-1970s, that the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) raised when he was first elected to this House and that we have been raising for a long time.

The way in which Ontario cares for its elderly is a scandal. It is something we have to recognize as a scandal. I hope the Minister of Health recognizes it is such. It is something that has to be addressed and dealt with. It is a tragedy of monumental proportions that it takes an epidemic of this kind to drive home what are very real problems in the kind of attention and care that we give to our elderly in institutions in this province. These are words I say with some degree of sadness, but it is true.

It is not good enough to have a medical officer of health or an assistant medical officer of health say it is understandable that it took three days for the information to be reported. We have a clear discrepancy between the information being provided by some officials and the information being provided by Dr. Styliadis. We have the fact that Dr. Korn has stated on national radio 10 days ago that if the medical officers of health had been informed earlier it would have made a difference. That is something that might have made a difference.

It is always difficult and unpleasant to have to ask the questions which are tough to ask. I heard the minister say today that he does not want to do anything that would cause any degree of a problem, from a judicial point of view, with respect to the individuals involved. None of us does, but 19 people have lost their lives.

They lost their lives not simply as a result of eating contaminated food -- food that was apparently not prepared or stored properly and with which there was some problem -- but some of them lost their lives because of person-to-person contact after September 8 because the bacteria was spreading through the institution during that time.

3:50 p.m.

That is what has happened and what has taken place. If this does not deserve an extraordinary response from the government and the public of this province, if this does not demand a full public inquiry, not one parallel to the coroner's inquest but one which would pre-empt an individual investigation under the Coroners Act and which would clearly have responsibility for dealing with all those deaths, with a full examination, then I say to the minister in all honesty that I do not know what it takes to move a government.

I know there is institutional resistance because we have seen it in the past. I know there are those advising the minister who say, "No, we are going to do it the way we have always done it." I know there are those forces which say, "The people raising questions will stop raising those questions and, anyway, they are always going on about this subject." If the minister is getting that kind of advice, he is being poorly advised. An inquiry is necessary and essential, and I very much hope the government will listen to the debate today and come to its senses and understand an inquiry is in the best interests of the administration of justice in Ontario.

Mr. Turner: I join in the debate with a great deal of sadness. The people in this province have a very fundamental confidence in the delivery of health care, particularly to the elderly. All kinds of questions are being asked as a result of the tragic results of this epidemic. As the minister has said, we have to be responsible and very cautious that we do not jeopardize the rights of anybody prior to the inquest being held, but there are some basic questions which have already been asked and will be asked time and again.

As I said earlier, in the light of hindsight, we all have 20-20 vision. We have to pause and ask questions about the length of time it took for the reporting, about the preparation of food, and about the very basic rules of hygiene. As I mentioned in my release of October 3, I would hope the minister in particular, and his staff in general, will pay attention to these very basic considerations. A lot of people are now questioning and, rightly or wrongly, making allegations concerning what is happening in their local institutions.

It would seem that we, or the minister, should not be relying only on the inspectors of the Ministry of Health. Undoubtedly this is going on as well, but maybe it should be going on on a regular basis that the health inspectors of the local health units may have to share more responsibility than they have in the past for the inspection of these facilities. I know what that means. It will cost money, but we cannot compare the cost to a human life. Whatever it costs, it has to be done.

We have to involve more closely the medical officers of health than perhaps we have in the past. They have a very onerous responsibility within their own communities. Most of them are serving a very large area with minimal staff and they are providing many services. That is not to say they should not be providing more services. I feel very strongly that the health units in this province have not been recognized as the important bodies they are and that they can serve a much greater role.

I do not want to go over what has already been said. I do not want to raise concerns for the sake of raising them; neither do I want to be an alarmist. However, I think we all have a responsibility to the people of this province to assure them that health care, and in particular health care provided to the elderly, is second to none anywhere. That is our responsibility as a collective group in this Legislature. I impress that on the minister; undoubtedly he is well aware of it.

This is a tragedy of immense proportions. It has had widespread coverage and widespread concern has been expressed. It is rather interesting that the letters and phone calls that have come in as a result of that question the very things we are talking about today. I urge the minister to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure nothing of this nature can happen again. I am not trying to prejudge the issue, but it seems to me that the basic fundamentals of cleanliness and hygiene may have been a contributing factor. If that is the case, let us involve the people at the local level who have the expertise and the authority to make sure these situations do not arise again.

I do not have to impress on the minister the importance of this matter. Obviously, he is not only well aware but is also very sensitive to the issue. I again urge him to proceed with as much haste as he can to ensure not only the involvement of inspectors of his own ministry but also that the local health units are brought in on a co-operative and day-to-day basis for consultation if need be. I urge him to take the utmost haste in these matters.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: When a member stands in this chamber to take part in a debate, he or she usually says it is with a great deal of pleasure. The only pleasure I take out of joining in this debate is to be able to exercise my political duty. I do not take any pleasure in the topic itself, a topic of considerable tragedy.

However, we are obliged to address the theme. This problem, which has been described in a variety of ways, is one that happened in London within a few blocks of where I grew up as a young person. It is now part of the riding of the Premier (Mr. Peterson). It is almost like home to me, and to see not just one death but 19 deaths happen in this series of events leaves me very sad indeed.

4 p.m.

Conversely, let me point out that during this series of events, I have had very close contact with the Minister of Health and have had a very different view to what I might have had some months ago. I am now the minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs and, as such, I have thrown myself into the work of reviewing the services available to seniors in our community and the problems within those services.

It has been my responsibility to travel about the province to talk with people who provide service and use service from all levels -- from extended care to hospital, chronic hospital and acute hospital, to people who are dealing with items such as transportation and housing and any other services a senior might use or need.

Without trying to excuse any of the actions of this new government of ours, let me point out that we are addressing ourselves to all the problems that seniors face. To that end, there are people here in the gallery of the chamber today who have been working hard with me to enable me to present a complete report to the Premier and my cabinet caucus colleagues. This report will lay bare those areas of shortfall and will present, along with those areas, recommendations for improvement in the delivery of service.

We are working hard to that end. I do not want to be an apologist. I am simply pointing out that at the very beginning of its tenure, this new government realized the need out there for seniors and it is addressing itself to that need. If one were unkind, one might submit that the previous government, which had 42 years of opportunity to resolve problems, did not do a very thorough job.

Sure, it can take a bow here and there for this program or that program, the drug benefit program and the guaranteed annual income system for the aged. But let me submit that in the course of 42 years the previous government really did not address itself to all the needs of seniors in this province. Here we are as a new government --

Mr. Ashe: How does the minister know?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: We have done more in three months than the previous government did in 42 years.

Mr. Ashe: You have not done a damned thing. That is a lot of gobbledegook.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: The gobbledegook to which the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) refers is a figment of his imagination. The member is more wind than substance.

In the issue we are addressing today, the Minister of Health, to the very best of his ability, kept track of the events. Not only did he visit the community on a variety of occasions, but he and I together went through the Extendicare nursing home about the second week of the major part of the outbreak. He has directed his staff and used the resources available to him to the very best of his ability to try to resolve the problems.

The members of the New Democratic Party are seeking not just an explanation, but a complete public inquiry. In the more than eight years I have been in this House, that party has consistently attacked the government, as we did as members of the opposition, but it has consistently addressed the shortcomings of the government and has spoken for those people in the community that have been short-circuited by inadequacies, particularly the inadequacies in the seniors' care system. So I do not have a problem at all with their seeking this inquiry.

On the other hand, I do have to rely on my colleague the Minister of Health and his judgement in this instance. A minister without portfolio has no direct authority in any specific area of government responsibility. As I have indicated, my responsibility is to review the service system for seniors and make recommendations to the Premier and to my cabinet colleagues.

The member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner) has made references to sloppy food handling. I am sure he would agree that when the inquest comes about, it will make whatever references have to be made to the procedures that went on, and not only on that particular day. I assume they will broaden it out into general procedures as far as extended-care nursing homes are concerned.

I submit that if one wants to examine an inspection report, one has to be mindful of the fact that it is a one-shot picture of a situation that existed at a point in time. What concerns me is that the inspection service on any report would have to admit that it sees no more or no less than what is in front of it at that time.

We have to address ourselves to some system wherein the inspection becomes much broader in its context and much more complete, so that we are assured that those things we expect to see as good, positive features of the operation of a facility, which can be properly commended in a report, can be encouraged to be there on an ongoing basis. In addition, the items that fall short, which are referred to in inspection reports, can be eradicated and removed on a very permanent basis.

I am going to conclude by reminding the members present that this government is addressing itself very sincerely to the needs of seniors in our community, not only those in institutions but also those in their own homes and those who are healthy and happy in the community, but in need of some support from government. We are addressing those needs, and I submit that we have done more to meet those needs in three months than the preceding government did in its 42-year tenure.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I appreciate the comments of the previous speakers this afternoon, but I think the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) should understand that nobody here is questioning the sincerity of anybody in dealing with this issue. We are trying to look at the best avenue by which we can come to the facts of what happened, how it happened and how it can be prevented, not only in an extended-care nursing home in London, but in the province-wide system of care for our seniors.

Out of this tragedy arises an opportunity for a public inquiry that will specifically look at deficiencies that I believe the Minister of Health understands exist within the inspection process and that the member for London North also understands exist within the inspection process of the Ministry of Health's nursing homes inspection branch.

4:10 p.m.

If we take this tragedy, set up a public inquiry and come to grips with it in a public way, in a public forum, and recommend to the ministry substantial reforms in the inspection process, some good can come out of what has to be the most serious and sad tragedy that has occurred in Ontario in an institution since I have been a member of the Legislature.

I do remember back in the 1970s when there were problems in children's mental health centres, child abuse cases, etc. Many good recommendations came out of public inquiries, which resulted in changes in the system that have reformed, to some extent, the method by which we take care of our children in need.

I am not making an accusation, but there is a perception that when it comes to the elderly in our province, some people in our society view the elderly as a group of people who are getting old and frail and who are eventually going to die and, therefore, a tragedy such as this need not be dealt with in the same way as with other groups.

I am not trying to say that is the attitude of the government. I am saying that is an attitude that exists in our society. All one needs to do is talk to people who work in the system, or those who have talked to people who work in the system or deal with them on a daily basis, to find that is an attitude we are always fighting.

It is very important for this tragedy to be dealt with in such a way that there is no impression left that we are saying these were residents of nursing homes and, therefore, it really did not matter. It does matter. I know it is the government's opinion, and certainly the opinion of this party, that these 19 lives were just as important as any other lost life in this province.

We have to look at what happened in this particular circumstance. The ministry went in and did its annual inspection. It found a serious deficiency within the kitchen and made its orders. There were plans approved for the new kitchen floor and this temporary kitchen was used. When they were moving back to the regular kitchen, there was an infraction of the Nursing Homes Act, an infraction of the act that may have -- we do not know -- resulted in this disease occurring in this nursing home.

A few days later the first case of diarrhoea occurred. The next day, September 9, there were 10 more cases; on September 10, there were 16 cases. Then the medical officer of health's environmental inspectors came in and inspected the new kitchen. They said everything was up to snuff. Nobody reported that to this point there had been 27 cases of epidemic diarrhoea. It was not until the next day when there were more cases that finally this matter was reported to the medical officer of health.

At this point, it seems to me that two pieces of legislation had been broken, the Nursing Homes Act and the Health Protection and Promotion Act. From September 8 to 13, a total of 51 cases of epidemic diarrhoea occurred in this nursing home, but it was not until September 16 that the MOH put isolation procedures into this nursing home.

Last Thursday the minister released a variety of reports, and I am thankful he released those reports. They help us deal with the issue and come to grips with the facts of the case in this nursing home. However, one report from a consultant who looked at this kitchen again points to the problem. The medical officer of health's environmental inspectors went into this home and approved the kitchen. Then, a few days later, ministry people went in and found 25 serious violations of the methods by which food was being handled in this nursing home, after an epidemic had already occurred.

I am going to read some of these violations into the record because they are very important. "In the walk-in freezer, ready-to-eat products, salami and ham, are stored with raw meats with possible cross-contamination." Raw meats may carry salmonella in addition to other pathogens. "In the coolers, raw eggs in soiled trays were stored with ready-to-eat foods. This is a possible area of cross-contamination.

"In one cooler, raw meats were stored with the cooked meats, with possible cross-contamination. The counter where sandwiches were prepared was dirty. The can-opener was very dirty.

"Various cooking utensils, such as wooden spatulas, beaters and spoons...were dirty. The steam tray was very dirty. The telephone receiver in the kitchen area was heavily soiled. The automatic toaster was dirty. All measuring utensils were dirty.

"The scale and all the measuring weights were dirty."

The list goes on and on. In addition, when he returned a few days later to do a follow-up inspection, he still found that there were problems in the methods by which food was being handled. There were still problems a few days later when this gentleman from the ministry went in to do follow-up reports.

What is the response from the medical officer of health's office? Last week the assistant medical officer of health for the area said the report from the consultant from the Ministry of Health was incorrect, that they had done their inspection of the kitchen and that everything was adequate. Somebody is incorrect.

Even the administrator of this nursing home said he supported the findings of the ministry, that there were serious problems in the methods by which they were handling food and that there was a lack of cleanliness within the kitchen. This whole matter raises some very serious questions about the medical officer of health's handling of this situation in the London-Middlesex area.

There has never been a more serious incident of this particular epidemic in North America. To date, the ministry has indicated through its investigations that there is going to be an external review of the Ministry of Health's inspection procedures. While I think that is an important step, we need a public review of the inspection processes in this province, because the problems not only exist in London, they exist right across the province.

Documentation after documentation has been presented in this Legislature, question after question has been asked in this Legislature that shows clearly that the inspection process of our nursing homes is not working for the residents of the nursing homes in Ontario. This is an opportunity to have a public inquiry into the matter so that we can have some firm recommendations to clean up this process in order to avoid this type of tragedy ever occurring again.

There should be co-ordination between the inspections of the medical officer of health and those of the Ministry of Health. The mere fact that the minister himself and his staff had to order that co-ordination and sharing of information points out that there were some very serious problems, that information was not even shared. The fact that the staff are going to be trained in handling food again points to the fact that the minister has recognized that there were indeed problems that went way beyond what would normally be expected in a nursing home.

My time is running out, and I just want to make one final plea to the minister. Some good can come out of this tragedy. I would simply ask the minister to make sure he recognizes the dimensions of this problem, of this tragedy, and that he orders a public inquiry so that some good does come out of the death of these 19 people in the Extendicare London Nursing Home.

Ms. Fish: I am going to follow on some of the points made by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) as he was speaking in this debate because, in my view, he has raised some concerns I think are extremely important to emphasize.

The member has spoken about the problems that were identified in the reports that were filed with respect to this particular nursing home. I think we should pause for a moment to think about a couple of things.

4:20 p.m.

First of all, food handling in any institutional setting is among the most sensitive of the activities that are undertaken in those various institutions. The potential for contamination or cross-contamination, the outbreak of disease, particularly in epidemic form, and the problems that relate, as was noted by the member, to the storage and handling of the food are brought into very sharp focus when we realize that in this case and in others involving nursing homes or homes that deal with children or those who are not competent, we are talking about food handling being undertaken by people in trust for those who are the residents of the homes.

We are talking about something that is rather more than simply a job in a restaurant around the corner or a convenient luncheonette. We take food inspection in those areas, health standards, standards of safety procedures and cleanliness and hygiene, very much to heart when we are dealing with those operations.

The question before us is how we could find ourselves in a circumstance where, with repeated inspections, repeated orders to comply and repeated plans to comply submitted, we none the less had a series of circumstances reported in this nursing home coincident -- I will leave it at that today because the question of cause is yet to be determined -- with what is surely the worst outbreak of E. coli bacteria and diarrhoeic epidemic we have seen in this province.

The member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) suggested that any such inspection is deeply flawed by virtue of the fact it takes a single snapshot in time. Yes, it is. So also is it only a single snapshot in time when contamination is past. So also is it only a single snapshot in time when incorrect procedures are used. So also is it only a single snapshot in time when deeply unhygienic procedures are followed that may result in mysterious contamination, not of one but of many, and the deaths that follow.

There is a problem. It is not that there is a snapshot but that a series of snapshots were taken in this case that told a very sad story that resulted in massive deaths.

I do not think the reports are to be dismissed in quite that fashion. I do not think one should simply say it was only a snapshot in time implying, as I inferred from the member's remarks, that if only the inspectors had been in on another day and on another occasion everything might have been tidy and lovely.

We must look here and in other cases at a series of work inspections and at a series of findings that seem to point in the direction of repeated problems, repeated laxity and repeated failure to attend to the various requirements that are put upon such operations by the Health Protection and Promotion Act, the Nursing Homes Act and a variety of other regulations that come into play, quite apart from the prudent and sensible handling of food materials on the one hand and waste materials on the other.

I would like to read into the record a couple of more findings of the report that my colleague read in this House a few minutes ago. I note that he made reference to one of the findings: "Various cooking utensils, such as wooden spatulas, beaters, spoons (strainers), potato masher, dough roller, large pots, pans, salad bowls, trays, etc., were dirty." The key is that the finding was specific; namely, "There was an evidence of coagulated protein and scale on food-contact surfaces." It is the protein, the waste products, the leftover food material that is the home, if you will, of the sort of bacteria that have been found in this epidemic.

It is not simply that something was dirty with dust or might have been dirty with a little bit of newsprint or a bit of mud. It was dirty with the filth and waste that comes from used and unclean food-handling operations. That is a very different kind of dirty than the simple circumstance of being concerned with household dust.

I go on to look at another one: "The paddle of the Hobart mixer was not properly cleaned after use." Listen to this: "The purée blender was unwashed, with evidence of mould growth." One does not have to spend a lot of time in a kitchen to know that mould does not grow in 10 or 15 minutes. It takes a long time and a repeated practice of overlooking that particular dirty utensil to get to the point where mould will eventually grow in unwashed material.

It goes on to say that serving trays for food were dirty, the meat mixer was dirty; attachments were dirty and many were in poor condition.

Perhaps most telling, the reports raised the question of the training provided to those who work in these sorts of nursing homes and other institutions. One point in the report states that kitchen employees were wearing disposable gloves. That is an appropriate and correct procedure. However, the gloves remained unchanged, even when employees picked up items from the floor.

It raises the question of the point at which employees are trained properly in food handling and in safe procedures in dealing with such matters. It also raises the question about the degree to which the employees not only have been told what is correct but also are encouraged and supported in undertaking what is correct.

For example, they should have it made clear that if disposable gloves are being used and something has been touched that should not be touched, those gloves are disposable for a reason, they are worn for a reason. They should be disposed of when something that should not be touched in food handling is touched.

In all the elements that come forward in this tragedy, perhaps the most telling is found in comments that I know have been referred to before but I would like to refer to them again. Very simply it said -- and this is based, I stress again, on repeated investigations, repeated inspections, repeated orders to comply and repeated filing of plans to comply:

"It is inconceivable that the above conditions existed so long after the occurrence of a probable food-borne disease outbreak of such magnitude, e. g. , the use of the meat cutting blocks for cutting raw and cooked meats without at least being washed and sanitized between the two activities."

I heartily agree that the tragedy which has come before us should be viewed as an opportunity to correct problems in inspection and to correct problems in training those who handle food and who care not only for our elderly but also for all those who look to the operators of such institutions in trust because they are unable to handle themselves.

It is my firm wish that the minister, in considering all these matters, will move to have a full inquiry to ensure proper training and inspection procedures are brought in; and will move to ensure this kind of tragedy does not happen again, either here with our elderly, elsewhere in group homes for those who are mentally retarded or for any in our society who find themselves in an institution where they place themselves in the trust of those who run it.

4:30 p.m.

Ms. E. J. Smith: As a person who for the whole of my political career has been involved in representing the people in the Extendicare home in London, I have a particular interest in speaking to this matter today. From the beginning, I have visited in the home, seen the people and known some of them and their families personally. Therefore, the House may be sure that I in no way take lightly the circumstances in which these people have died.

The questions are and remain: what did happen and how did this occur? The minister has promised that no efforts will be spared to get the answers to these questions. These are very serious questions that have been read into the record and presented to the public by the minister.

The methods of reporting the outbreak when it first occurred must be investigated. The treatment of the sick patients and of the staff must be investigated. The conditions in the home before, during and after the outbreak must be thoroughly investigated. The noted discrepancy between Dr. Tuttle and Dr. Styliadis must be clarified to see what the conditions are and what must be done to ensure these conditions never occur again.

The fact our minister made all this public immediately assures us all he is taking these things very seriously and that he will follow down to the bitter end to get the answers to all these questions and to ensure they do not occur again. If sloppy health care has contributed to this tragedy, then appropriate procedures must proceed to correct that; however, sloppy legal proceedings and yet unsubstantiated facts will not bring back the dead or comfort their families.

We must proceed with caution simply because these matters are so serious. We know we will proceed and, because they are so very serious we must proceed, in the appropriate and proper way. The Attorney General spoke to this matter on Friday and reminded us that charges cannot be laid until the facts are in.

I was interested that the member for York South (Mr. Rae) referred to the Hospital for Sick Children situation and to how seriously that matter had been taken. I remind the honourable member that it was taken seriously but that proper procedures were not followed in the legal sense. As a result, we have recently settled for something less than $200,000 with the nurse who was charged too fast and without enough proof.

Mr. Foulds: That had nothing to do with the calling of the public inquiry, though.

Ms. E. J. Smith: That is correct. My comment has to do with the fact that it was suggested on Friday that charges should be laid.

There is no question. The minister has assured us that once he gets the report from the coroner he will do what is necessary in the way of a public inquiry. I have no doubt, nor do any of the members who know the Minister of Health, that he will follow through on this matter. In the city closest to this tragedy the people have no doubt that he will follow through. I will read into the record from this morning's editorial in the London Free Press:

"Ontario New Democratic Party Leader Bob Rae has good reason to be alarmed over the death of 18 elderly residents of the Extendicare London Home on Waterloo Street, but his colleague David Cooke was way off base to tell the Legislature last week that Health Minister Murray Elston should lay charges against those responsible for the epidemic.

"That suggestion is irresponsible unless Cooke has specific evidence of criminal or civic wrongdoing in this tragic affair. It has already been announced that a coroner's inquest will examine the Extendicare deaths and police are gathering evidence. If charges are warranted, they will surely be laid in due course."

The editorial ends up: "How all these issues underline the causes of the Extendicare tragedy and how any recurrence might best be prevented should be the subject of a thorough-going review at the coroner's inquest and, if necessary, at a supplementary public inquiry."

The letters to the editor have also put this kind of confidence in the process.

We are not questioning in any way the need to look at all these very serious matters in a most serious way, but the emergency motion before the House is suggesting that the minister has not done what he should do; that is, that the response of the Minister of Health has been inadequate. What is inadequate here is the motion before the House.

The Minister of Health is providing appropriate steps to be taken in the appropriate way. When steps are taken by him they will have been taken in an orderly process with the facts in front of him, in front of the Attorney General and in front of the people. I have every confidence, as do the people in London, that he will follow through and that he is taking the proper steps at this time in that process.

Mr. McClellan: Let me start by saying that I do not think my colleague, whom I respect, understands the issue at stake. This is not a routine nursing home death we are talking about. This is obvious, perhaps, but it needs to be said: this is the worst institutional tragedy in North American history.

The method of dealing with a routine nursing home death is a coroner's inquest. What kind of signal is the government sending out by dealing with this tragedy through the vehicle of a coroner's inquest? This is not a matter of routine; this is not in any way an ordinary problem. This is an extraordinary catastrophe that has happened at this nursing home.

Second, this is not the first time there has been a problem in a nursing home in Ontario. I am sure the minister is aware, even though he may find it difficult to say this in public, that he has inherited a bad system, one that is riddled with problems. Some of these problems are so serious they kill people, and the minister's charge is to break the cycle.

Many of us have been involved in these debates before in this House. I served as Health critic for the New Democratic Party when we initiated our investigation of nursing home problems in 1983. We have been on the coroner's inquest path before. Without making any reflection on the competence or qualifications of the gentleman who has been appointed to conduct this coroner's inquest, I must say that coroners' inquests in the past have proved to be singularly ineffective in dealing with some of the problems that have existed in the past and still exist.

I raised the problems of the Ark Eden Nursing Home in this assembly, and I know the minister is familiar with the details of that situation. I have here the coroner's finding from the Ark Eden Nursing Home. All it says is that this poor young man died of bronchial pneumonia. That is what the coroner's inquest discovered about the problems at Ark Eden Nursing Home, that a young man had died of bronchial pneumonia.

We all know the history of that place and of the involvement of the Ministry of Health and the passage of the Health Facilities Special Orders Act to permit the Ministry of Health to take that place over and to rescue the people who were incarcerated in the Ark Eden Nursing Home. Again, the coroner's inquest was simply inadequate to deal with the problems there. A whole series of other measures had to be taken. A coroner's inquest in that instance was almost irrelevant.

We had a coroner's inquest recently in another case, the Irene Brad case. Without going into the details, I am sure the minister will have heard the concern expressed that the coroner instructed the jury to disregard the results of the coroner's investigation. It is simply not good enough.

4:40 p.m.

The kinds of questions that have to be looked at in this instance are so broad and extensive that we jeopardize a successful discovery of answers by relying on a method of inquiry that is not designed for this kind of an enormity.

Many of the questions have been alluded to in question period or during the course of this debate. Why did the reporting break down between the staff and the medical authorities in the home, between the medical authorities in the home and the medical officer of health, and between the medical officer of health and the Ministry of Health? The entire reporting system broke down. This is not the first time this has happened.

The document my leader referred to, entitled A Guide to the Control of Enteric Disease Outbreaks in Health Care Facilities, came out of a crisis that was raised in this House, the same kind of failure of reporting, the same kind of breakdown in communications at the hospital in Peterborough in 1982. We have gone down this path already a number of times.

It is not the first time questions have been raised about the adequacy of Ministry of Health inspections. How on earth was it possible for that place to stay so dirty for so long, apparently right under the noses of the ministry officials? Let me ask, rhetorically I am sure, but let me ask the question at any rate, why was the Health Facilities Special Orders Act not invoked when it became clear a major epidemic was breaking out?

The ministry has taken over nursing homes in the past in order to safeguard the residents. We passed that piece of legislation to give the Minister of Health the power to exercise his responsibility of care. Did nobody ever suggest there was such a crisis in this nursing home that the Health Facilities Special Orders Act should be invoked? Is there such a difference between an Extendicare nursing home owned by the Extendicare chain and the Ark Eden Nursing Home owned by a little mom-and-pop operation? Is that what is at stake here? Or is the system just fused out?

I do not understand how a coroner's inquest is supposed to grapple with some of these problems, all of which have been on our plate for 10 or 15 years. I also think the minister is going to have to look at the broader questions, and perhaps an inquiry now is as good a time as any to start. How much longer are we going to rely on this kind of institutional care? I am tempted to say it is institutional incarceration.

Let me say to the minister, I do not ever want to live in a house with 170 bedrooms. I do not ever want to live in that kind of a place. I do not see why in 1985 we cannot devise a system that makes it possible for our elderly to live in dignity and comfort with six, seven or eight other people in something approximating a normal home environment.

Until one is an elderly person in this society, the only way to end up in an institution with 170 beds is to break the law and get sent to jail or, God help us, to get sick and have to go to hospital. That is how to get institutionalized, to break the law or get sick or get old.

It is not beyond our capacity as a society to devise a system that does not mean that when there is an outbreak of infection of this kind it kills 26 people because there are 170 people living in the building. We can do better than that. I hope the minister will start to look seriously at some of the broader issues involved in how we provide care for elderly people in this society. The old, 19th-century model of institutional incarceration simply is not civilized. It is not adequate and we do not have to do it. We have the resources to do a better job.

In conclusion, I hope the minister will take a sober second look at his proposal to rely on the coroner's inquest route because it simply is not adequate.

Mr. Eves: I would like to join the other members of the assembly in their concern over the way the tragic events at the Extendicare Nursing Home in London were handled and in looking for assurances that this kind of incident cannot and will not happen again. The events of the past few weeks call into serious question the procedures the Ministry of Health has in place and the judgements that were made by many people involved in putting these procedures into operation.

While the first case of this outbreak was discovered on September 8, it was not until September 24 that the minister ordered a special team of provincial and federal medical inspectors to look into the outbreak. That is an unconscionable delay that is second only to the fact that we have to wait four months from the start of the outbreak until a coroner's inquest is held.

While I understand this represents the procedures that are in place for dealing with this type of situation, I must in all honesty agree with those who have suggested this is no ordinary occurrence. Perhaps under these circumstances the ordinary procedures are just not good enough. We know now this has been the worst outbreak of its kind in North America, with the 19th victim recently dying. That fact, combined with the suffering of all those who contracted the illness and those who died as a result, provides a strong argument for doing more than just following the ordinary procedures.

The relatives of residents of Extendicare have already indicated that in spite of ministry assurances they were kept informed of events as they happened, they feel both angry and frustrated. They do not believe they know enough about how their relatives died. Understandably, they do not believe they should wait four more months to find out.

While I applaud the minister's announcement that new measures will be taken to improve the reporting system and information flow from ministry officials and health officers, I am not so sure his assurances about these new policies are good enough in the light of the total breakdown of the system in the Extendicare case. The ministry has promised that all health officers will have a special responsibility to communicate, interpret and explain the nature of an outbreak to the public and that all such outbreaks in nursing homes will be treated as an emergency. That is all fine and well, but it fails to address the key question of how the system went so far wrong in dealing with the Extendicare emergency in the first place.

More important, the minister's new measures do not reflect the fact that this tragedy was caused by more than inadequate procedures. It was also the result of poor judgement on many fronts, a problem that cannot be resolved by simply having more new procedures. Without question, Dr. Styliadis's report of October 4 is appalling in what it found in the Extendicare facility, even after the outbreak was widespread enough to be considered an emergency by anyone. In reading his report, I lost count of the number of items in the kitchen that he noted as being "dirty." He went on to note 25 separate cleaning and sanitation procedures he found to be totally inadequate.

Frankly, in the light of this report, done several days after the outbreak had started and after many of the residents were affected, I fail to see how anyone with a loved one in this home could have any confidence in the current approach to the issue. Furthermore, with outbreaks in the Sun Haven Nursing Home and the Meadow Park Retirement Home as well, it seems to me the need for measures beyond ordinary procedures in conducting this investigation is imperative if we are to assure the public, and especially those with relatives and loved ones in our provincial facilities, that we will do everything in our power to safeguard the residents of these facilities.

4:50 p.m.

One important step in assuring the public this kind of thing will not happen again is the minister's inquiry and operations in the nursing homes branch of the ministry. Again, though, as is the case with the coroner's inquiry, no public input will be involved. In the light of the extraordinary and terrible nature of this situation and the outrage of those whose relatives have died, I ask again if this procedure will be good enough to answer all the public concerns raised by the mishandling of the epidemic at Extendicare. On the one hand, the member for London North agrees with the request for a public inquiry; on the other hand, he waffles on that commitment.

To me, the most important concern we have before us when examining this issue is whether or not we will have done everything in our power to assure the public this will not happen again and that all conceivable measures have been taken into account to make our system of inspection and reporting as foolproof as is humanly possible. If we have not done everything humanly possible to ensure this and to allay the understandable public fears the Extendicare tragedy has raised, then we, as members of government, will not have done enough.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to address the resolution this afternoon, the question about a public inquiry into the fatalities in the Extendicare London Nursing Home.

I share my concerns with other members concerning the 19 deaths. I look at it across Ontario and ask, will it happen again? I suppose that is a question we should be addressing ourselves to, and what caused it in the first place.

I think we can go back -- and I am thinking about the Niagara district now and the area I represent, the riding of Erie -- and look at the government restraint program over the last three or four years, in particular as it relates to the district health unit in the Niagara region. I can draw a parallel to the situation in London, Ontario.

I am from the old school, I might say. I was opposed to regional government. When I look at the situation in the Niagara region, particularly in the Fort Erie and Port Colborne areas, a year ago we had a problem of the closing down of the beaches. It was done by an order of the medical officer of health in the region. It was great to close beaches down, but the order did not indicate the cause or the reason for the closure. What bacteria and what contaminants were found there, nobody knows to this day.

In the Niagara region, in the restraint program over the last four years they closed down the regional offices and facilities of the Niagara district health unit in Fort Erie and in Port Colborne. Personnel looking after health problems in the area, looking after the school children and the restaurant inspections with regard to handling of food, spend half their time travelling from where they live locally in Fort Erie over to the Niagara regional headquarters and then have to come back and make their inspections. We talk about restraint. Let us just take a look at that. Is this one of the reasons this event happened in London, because of government restraint, cutting back on the number of inspectors who are required to do sufficient and proper inspections of these institutions?

I can think of an instance in the Niagara region where the recommendation is to accommodate another 100-odd beds in Fort Erie and Niagara Falls, nursing home beds or homes for the aged. The previous government put more importance on the value of that bed than on providing sufficient health care to the residents in these nursing homes.

Ridgeway had 21 beds. Orders came from the Ministry of Health that some improvements had to be made in that institution. Some member mentioned the small, older home with 21 beds. There was a value put on each bed. I think they sold eventually. Instead of getting in and remodelling the building and putting in the safety requirements, the beds were sold at about $10,000 to $12,000 per bed. I have done some research in that area and I am told beds now can go for as much as $20,000, $25,000 and maybe $30,000. That is the whole thing. When we centralize these nursing homes, the interest is in the value of the bed. It is like picking up a taxi licence in Toronto. It is $90,000 for a taxi licence. In a sense, it is building an empire.

An administrator from the Niagara region, Doug Rapelji, has been an advisory counsellor for the elderly, for senior citizens in Ontario. I have often listened to him comment that we are moving in the wrong area, that the government should be looking after the care of elderly people who require extended care and nursing home care.

There was an incident not long ago at Crystal Beach where there is a shortfall in accommodation in nursing homes and homes for the aged. There is a movement going across the province. The next thing is rest homes for the elderly. In the instance in Crystal Beach, the place was nothing but an old boarding house at one time. A number of people were there.

The information I obtained was that during the cold winter months last year small electric heaters were plugged into the wall with old wiring. An elderly person could trip on that and there could be a fire. I think some improvements have been made. However, there are people today who are looking to make a fast dollar. One way to do it is to get into rest homes because there is a shortfall.

One problem in the area of rest homes is the matter of inspections. There is nothing under the Ministry of Community and Social Services and nothing under the Ministry of Health. It is left to the local municipalities. They have enough on their hands now without providing inspections in that area. The only area of inspection they provide is done through the local fire inspection officer. Very little is given to the need for medical attention or the matter of providing good, nourishing and safe food.

We can go back and look at the previous government and its restraint program. No doubt that is one of the reasons we have had the situation in London. It could happen in other places in Ontario until there is sufficient staff.

We need to decentralize the health units in the Niagara region and put them back at the local municipality. We could even go back to the old medical officer of health who had complete control. Every month the matter was referred to a local council that looked after the health and welfare of the community. The health nurses used to report to council every week. Now nobody ever sees a report except once a year. Nobody knows what goes on in some of these cases. Perhaps decentralization would bring much of this to the surface before an accident happens. I suggest to the minister that he should take a hard look at this situation.

We find the same thing in ambulance services in Niagara south. It is great to say we should have regional government, but Niagara south has been short-changed in many areas such as ambulance service, police service and health care services.

Ms. Gigantes: Before I begin the main part of my remarks, I would like to follow up on a couple of comments made by the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty). As usual, out of his long experience he has been able to give us a kind of backdrop for an issue that confronts us. However, I would like to suggest he might think of the difficulties that surround the problem of money and care for the elderly these days in Ontario in 1985, and give a bit more thought to his proposed solution of decentralization of services for the elderly and decentralization of control for services to the elderly.

5 p.m.

We know, and it is well documented, about the amount of money contributed by private profitmaking firms in the nursing home business to political parties in this province. It is documented because it has to be documented under the rules of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses. That is not true at the local level.

If the member for Erie is suggesting we decentralize the administration and move the responsibility back to the local level of government, I hope he will propose a reform of election expenses accounting at the municipal level at the same time, because he is opening another big door for more of the practices we have seen at the provincial level, which we know of because they are documented.

The main point of our discussion this afternoon is to try to discover why there should be a public inquiry in the case of the deaths that have occurred in the Extendicare London Nursing Home.

We have to go through it item by item. There are 170 beds in that Extendicare home. By September 26 there were 69 cases of diarrhoea in that home and 19 people died. That is not a small occurrence. It means that among the people who are residents there and the people who work there a very major proportion became infected.

It seems to me that a coroner's inquest is an appropriate forum, as set out in our legislation, to determine (1) the cause of death and (2) whether there is any criminal responsibility for those deaths. But I do not think it is an appropriate forum in which to look at this case when we are dealing with 19 deaths that occurred during a period of six weeks. There were, in contradiction to what I was told by the minister last week in a private conversation, at least two rounds of infection that went on at that nursing home.

I quote from the London Free Press of September 26 Dr. Korn, the Ontario medical officer of health, who said, "I think we are just a little disappointed that we are seeing the cross-infection in staff." This was not one infection; this was one infection rounding into another infection and we do not know how many infections.

Further, it was not just any diarrhoea. This is known technically as haemorrhagic diarrhoea, haemorrhagic enteritis. It is a most violent, most painful illness, and it has led to death. It is a serious illness.

We need a public inquiry because we need to know the role that was played by the ministry inspection branch before the occurrence of this illness; that is number one. We need to know the reporting that went on, both internally within that home and externally to public officials, to outside doctors. I think a public inquiry is necessary to look into that.

Further, we need to look at the role of physicians in this whole matter. A lot of physicians were involved in this matter. There is a nursing home physician. I do not know who that was. There should have been one on call at that nursing home. Who is the nursing home physician? What role does that physician play? There were family doctors involved, called in by families to assist in the treatment of elderly relatives.

Then there are the doctors who were employed at the Middlesex-London District Health Unit, who have disagreed with the implied and asserted seriousness of the described conditions that Ministry of Health consultants found on investigation on September 20, and seemed to downplay the seriousness of those conditions.

This is a difficult matter to address, but I suggest one of the main reasons we need a public inquiry is to understand the role of all these physicians in their various functions in this event and to understand how physicians work within the nursing home system. There is a lot that bears looking at in the context surrounding this case. We need an inquiry with enough mandate to examine all the relevant evidence of how the nursing home system operates so as to allow 69 cases of a violent and dangerous infection and 19 deaths over six weeks.

The minister has suggested to us we should wait for a coroner's inquest which, according to newspaper reports, will not come before January. I suggest there will be a lot of people who might add valuable information to an inquiry who will have lost their recollection before January and lost faith that the whole effort is worth while. I feel very strongly that the minister should be saying a coroner's inquiry is not adequate, that he has enough evidence now to call a public inquiry that will be commenced and pulled together starting next week.

There are a couple of other points. The minister has said he is reluctant to lay charges, that somehow this would be an interference with the system of justice and how it must engage in this matter. The member for London South (Ms. E. J. Smith) made the same suggestion, quoting from a local newspaper which attacked my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke).

Both of them fail to understand that what we are talking about here is not the laying of criminal charges. There is absolutely no relevance in bringing up the case of Susan Nelles. Susan Nelles was criminally charged for something she did not do and she was criminally charged in haste.

We are not suggesting criminal charges. We are suggesting administrative measures on which the minister must, under existing legislation in Ontario, follow through. It is his responsibility.

He must lay charges under the Health Protection and Promotion Act when he sees glaring deficiencies in an operation. He must lay charges under the Nursing Homes Act when he sees there are failings in a situation such as at that nursing home.

The minister is setting a bad precedent. Suppose we go through a coroner's inquiry, as he would have us do some time in January or February, with disheartened relatives. How far will they be involved? How much will it mean to them? How far can their recollections be brought to bear on what the public needs to know and what the public has a right to expect in terms of their concerns?

The minister would have us wait until January or February for a coroner's inquest. In the meantime he was very reluctant to lay charges for fear that somehow this will impede the justice system as it must operate around this case. I suggest this is a very bad precedent. We do not know what to expect out of a coroner's inquiry. We are afraid it will be of very limited usefulness either to our understanding of the incidents that have occurred in this particular home or to a public unravelling of the nursing home system as it operates in this province and provides a setting for this kind of incident.

We do not wish to see a minister sitting by and awaiting such an airy-fairy possibility as having a coroner's inquest sort out this mess for us in a useful way, sitting by and not taking on his responsibilities under the acts he is called upon to administer.

The Deputy Speaker: May I draw the speaker's attention to the clock?

Ms. Gigantes: How much time do you give me, Mr. Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid you are out of time.

Ms. Gigantes: Thank you. I will just make one further point. Through the 10 years in which I have been in and out of this Legislature, listening to people in the public and members of this Legislature beg for an investigation into the whole system of nursing homes in this province, what we have been dealing with is a problem which now, finally, we have to confront, namely, the cost of contracting out care for the elderly people of the province.

We have to do something about that. I suggest the minister start here and now.

Mr. Lane: Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words in this debate. It is inconceivable that in this day and age a mishap that would take the lives of 19 elderly residents of a nursing home in the province could be allowed to happen. I am not in a position to point a finger at anyone. As my colleagues in the House have said, the cause has not officially been determined.

However, I feel we must pay more attention to the facilities and care we provide for our senior people. These people are the cream of the crop. Through the efforts of our senior citizens, we have a wonderful province in which to live. Now, in the sunset years of their lives, the best is none too good for them. They have earned the best, they deserve the best and we must make sure they get the best possible facilities and care available, regardless of where they live.

Thank goodness we have never before been confronted with a tragedy like this one. It has taken the lives of 19 elderly people. This gives us an opportunity to speak about other fatalities in nursing homes that may happen on a daily basis, of which we have no record. There is no coroner's inquest in connection with these. This is especially true in northern Ontario, where people die from loneliness. These are people who have gone through this world and arrived at the ripe old age of 80 or 85, or whatever, and who would like to be close to the area where they spent their lives, to be close to family and relatives and friends.

In the sparsely populated parts of this province where it would take 75 to 100 units to be viable, this is just not happening. Many of these people in northern Ontario are 150 miles away from their loved ones. Visitation is not possible except perhaps once a year. These people just pine away and die before their time.

This debate this afternoon gives us an opportunity to look at some of the things we should look at regarding the care of senior citizens. I saw this problem seven or eight years ago. I brought it to the attention of my colleagues in government, suggesting we should have what I called a total needs complex. If we put together various facilities, we can have people close enough so they will not be 150 miles from home but within a 25-mile radius of home, and visitation can happen frequently.

There was a lot of effort and disappointment on my part to get this project finally on its way, but we are now counting the days until this facility will be open. There will be 30 rental units for seniors, 30 nursing home beds and a drop-in centre so the people in the institution will not be left alone day after day if their relatives do not show up. The people from the community will be coming in to talk with them about what is happening outside and they will feel very much a part of it.

5:10 p.m.

Apart from my projection, the hospital board decided that it should build a new hospital. In any case they should attach the hospital to this total needs complex. When this is finished, the people in the institution will be able to go any place in the building. There is an elevator for those in apartments, so that anyone in a wheelchair can go anywhere and visit any part of it without having to leave the building.

If you associate with senior people, you will find they do not want to be transferred from one place to another in their old age. They like to have the same environment. This is the only way we can go in northern Ontario. I hope my colleagues will listen to what I am saying and look at what we have been talking about for the last five or six years. We are building this one in Espanola through a nonprofit corporation and through a grant from the Ministry of Northern Affairs and Mines.

I just want to point out that while we are talking about something that is a tragedy of tremendous proportions, if we look at all the facilities we have in this province and all the people who die from loneliness in these institutions, it is probably a greater number.

I want to say in closing that not only do we have to face up to what has happened in London, but we have to face up to the fact that there is a better way to do it and we should all be working towards that better way.

Mr. Warner: At the outset, I wish to offer an apology to the minister. The other day he was the recipient of an outburst of mine which really was the result of 10 years of frustration, 10 years of having to grapple with the situation we have in Ontario.

Like all members of the House, I was deeply disturbed by the deaths which occurred in London. I was not, however, surprised. From my experience, it is simply a matter of time. We have had a little time bomb ticking away in the nursing homes of Ontario for many years. When the deaths occurred, they were tragic and enormously irreconcilable in a way. Unless something is done, there will be a recurrence at other places throughout the province.

The minister has a reputation, which goes ahead of him, of being a very honest and honourable gentleman who takes his job very seriously. The minister is realizing perhaps, if he has not realized it already, that he has inherited a mess of immense proportions. I can offer him our sincere wishes from this side of the House that if there is any way in which we can co-operate in helping him to tidy up the mess, we will do it.

I want to let the minister know a couple of my experiences which, in and of themselves, set the tone and will perhaps give him an idea of the dimension of the problem.

First, the minister is no doubt aware of the tremendous lobby influence of the nursing home operators. These are very powerful individuals with a lot of money behind them and their voice is always very clearly heard in the halls of power. They do not have to go to the minister's office. It was not necessary in the past and it is probably not necessary today. They have other ways.

During one of my previous terms in office, I took up the cause of a couple of nursing homes in which it was quite evident there were very serious problems. In the course of the actions, a gentleman presented himself to me. We met secretly. He gave me the information I was looking for. He informed me that he had been a senior official in the nursing home inspection branch and that, out of conscience, he quit. Ironically, at one time his area of inspection was the London district.

5:20 p.m.

He told me the story of having parked outside a home in the London area at 4 a.m. and watching the lights systematically go on, up and down the hallways. He inquired further to find the residents were being roused for breakfast at 4 a. m. because they were understaffed. Getting along with minimum staff is one of the ways to make money in a nursing home. When one has minimum staff, one wakes up people at 4 a.m. to give them breakfast.

This gentleman, who was a senior official, did his report and followed it through. Because of the dispute within the ministry over actually doing something with the reports, he found himself in the untenable position of supporting the residents against the wishes of the Ontario Nursing Home Association, and thus he quit. I pressed him further for details, and he gave me all the details I wanted, but he cautioned me, "Please, whatever you do, do not reveal my name."

I said: "Why? You are not an official any more." He said: "Yes, I am in private business. I can tell you" -- these words I remember as though they were spoken today -- "that if through your actions in the House they find out where the information came from, the Tories will put me out of business. You do not know how powerful the Big Blue Machine is in Ontario. They will find a way to put me out of business."

He was operating a small private business. Unfortunately, over the next while, although I did not reveal the source, an indiscreet newspaper person, without using his name, provided the kind of description that made it easy for the ministry people to find out who he was. Lo and behold, would members be surprised to learn that within six months he was out of business?

It turns out he required certain bylaw changes, which were routine for other businesses. While other businesses had received the bylaw changes necessary to operate their little shops in a new area, he did not get his. He ended up declaring bankruptcy. Through that experience and many others, I learned where the power lay. It lay with the Tory machinery and with the Ontario Nursing Home Association.

The minister will be aware that there has been an interesting relationship between the senior officials in the ministry and the Ontario Nursing Home Association. If I am not mistaken, one of them was the director of the nursing home association. He left the ministry from a senior position to be the director of the association. It is an incestuous relationship.

The minister is now confronted with a multitude of problems. We have unfolded in front of us, unfortunately, the worst institutional tragedy in the history of North America, as far as we can determine, and certainly in Ontario. The minister has to have a way to deal with that, and he needs some good suggestions and support. Through it all, somehow the minister also has to exercise his authority over the nursing home operators so they are not running the nursing homes branch, so they are not the ones in control of the officials, and it is the minister who is in charge.

This is where I put my faith, to be very candid. I think the minister is sincere when he says he wants to solve the problem. This will be a first. We have never had a Conservative Minister of Health who had any interest in solving the problem. I frankly believe the minister wants to solve the problem, but it means he will have to confront the powers.

That is why, with the kind of tangled web that exists in the nursing homes branch and with the power of that lobby, he somehow has to go outside that. The only route I can think of that will solve his problem, or least get him on the right track, is to ask for a judicial inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act. That is the route.

That is no slight to the coroner of the area. It is no slight to what is quite often a very useful exercise with individual deaths or even in some instances with two or three related deaths. This is a special circumstance, however, and in the long run if the minister has at heart, as I believe he has, the interests of the residents of nursing homes throughout this entire province and is trying to protect them, he has to use something at his disposal to get outside the normal channels; that is, a judicial inquiry.

It is a good route and the minister will have some comfort in that route. Maybe through this process, for the first time in Ontario and once and for all, seniors and others can have some guarantee of civilized care when it is necessary for individuals to be institutionalized. Maybe for the first time there will be some justice in those homes. Maybe the moneygrubbers will not get their way.

In closing, I urge the minister to opt for a judicial inquiry. I can tell him very sincerely that should he decide to do that or to take any other prudent course of action, I and my colleagues in this party will stand beside him heartily and assist him in whatever way we can, so the people of Ontario can get better care in the nursing homes in this province.

Mrs. Marland: I am not happy to have to rise to speak on this issue. In Mississauga South there are three nursing homes. Interestingly enough, one of them is run by the region of Peel and the other two are private nursing homes. One of the reasons I am not happy to have to rise on this issue is that it immediately brings history to mind.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) is incorrect in one of his statements. He said, "This is the worst institutional tragedy in Canada or at least in Ontario." I believe those were his words. I would like to remind him and any other previous speaker on the subject in the House today that the worst tragedy in Canadian history in an institution took place on July 14, 1980, in Mississauga. On that day in that year, we had 25 deaths and, regrettably, I have to refer to the fact that those 25 deaths did take place in another Extendicare facility. That in itself is a regrettable statement to have to place on the record of this House.

It may well be that some of the criticism of the Minister of Health in this House today has been directed at procedure, but I have to make personal note of the fact that whether or not it is a matter of procedure, we are dealing in both cases with a private nursing home operated by Extendicare.

5:30 p.m.

The other regret I have is with regard to a statement made this afternoon by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke). I feel it is necessary to set the record straight when that speaker stated that this tragedy reflects the attitude to the aged in this province. That is a very serious statement for anyone to make, and it is a particularly serious statement when it is made by someone who is elected to represent the interests of people of all ages.

It is true that the aged people in this province require special consideration, but I am proud to say that I believe the aged in Ontario have received and are continuing to receive special consideration, and a statement such as was made in a sweeping, general way is very much a smack in the face of volunteerism.

In Mississauga South in Sheridan Villa, with which I am very familiar, we have individuals who have volunteered in excess of 1,000 hours to serve the needs of the people who are institutionalized in a home for the aged, which has now evolved into a nursing home simply through the years it has been in existence.

I want to make very clear that I am proud of the record of the volunteers in this province who continually dedicate and commit their time to the wellbeing of the people in these homes and these institutions, and if anyone would like an example of how that works and how effective it is, I would be most happy to have him tour Sheridan Villa.

I would also like to set the record straight about what happens after these tragedies occur. In the case of the Extendicare fire with the 25 deaths in Mississauga, the provincial government of that day -- which, as we all know, was a Progressive Conservative government -- immediately brought into action the Ministry of the Solicitor General with the Ontario fire marshal. As a result of that tragedy, we had intensely escalated requirements for the operation of all nursing homes in this province, be they private or government-operated, with respect to fire protection. I look forward to the current Minister of Health coming forward with his proactive proposals to ensure that the kind of tragedy being addressed in the House today will not recur.

I would like to question why this report of Dr. Styliadis is marked "Confidential." I do not know why a report of this kind on any institution in which the public is housed would have to be marked "Confidential." It is rather curious, I suppose, that I am even able to have it, since it is marked "Confidential." I hope that in the future a report of this gravity will not be marked "Confidential." I also notice that the report of Dr. Styliadis points out that his degree is in veterinary medicine. I hope there is no significance in that.

If there is one emphasis I would leave with members today, it is that I hope we will not continue to look at history but will look at the future. I hope that in looking at the future we can assure the people within our public and private institutions in this province that they will never have to fear having this kind of tragedy recur.

In looking at the problems, I would like to ask the minister to consider looking closely at the profit margins between private and public nursing homes. It is obvious that a government-run institution, at least with today's budget restraints, is going to run an institution as efficiently as it possibly can from a financial point of view without jeopardizing the safety, health or comfort of those residents. It would be great if we could have, after the minister's investigation, the assurance that a private nursing home will meet the same requirements and the people who are residents of a private nursing home will have the same assurance and security that their care will be commendable and comparable to that of public nursing homes.

The public nursing homes in the region of Peel, with which I have been familiar for the past 11 years, do not run at a tremendous deficit. I know of a government-run nursing home in Parry Sound which actually runs at a profit. If that can be done in a government home without jeopardy to the residents, then I think the profit margin in a private nursing home can still be equitable from a business point of view while providing the care that is needed. I would go as far as to say that if the care is not acceptable in its standard and in the delivery of service, then there is no way any of those institutions that are privately run should be licensed in this province today.

I look forward to the report by the minister. I hope that in the short term --

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member's time has expired.

Mrs. Marland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am finishing at this point. In the short term, while the investigation is going on, and I recognize the need for time to do a thorough investigation, I ask that the ministry consider hiring additional inspection staff to introduce higher standards.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr. Foulds: I rise to participate in the debate for a couple of reasons. One of them is that as a person who lives far away from this place and far away from London, I am surprised, a little bit shocked and puzzled that the tragedy at this nursing home has not received wider attention and generated wider concern.

We have a situation in which 19 people have died. That is a bald, cold fact. We have a situation in which 19 people need not have died; but for whatever reason, they did. There seems to be no sense of urgency, no sense of outrage and no sense of trying to determine responsibility. I submit that there should be. After all, more than 10 per cent of the population of that nursing home died.

If 10 per cent of the population of this institution, the Ontario Legislature, died from some unknown cause, members know there would be an outrage and determination on the part of the people of this institution to find the cause and find it damned fast. If 10 per cent of the population of any institution in this province died and need not have died, there would be a strong sense of outrage, urgency and immediacy.

5:40 p.m.

The minister is, I believe, a decent and sincere man and I believe he wishes to get to the bottom of this matter, but so far he has not displayed that to us. I regret that. A coroner's inquest that is held three or four months after the event is not sufficient, as my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) pointed out so well a few moments ago.

Nursing homes have been a problem in this province for some 10 years. This tragedy has a twofold aspect: the immediate tragedy of the immediate home and the immediate deaths, and why it took so long to report the instances of infection and diarrhoea. Why did it take so long, even after Dr. Styliadis did his report for the nursing home, to rectify some of the situations he outlined?

I have been going through his report and I have outlined in yellow the words "dirty," "not properly cleaned," "very dirty," "very soiled." They occur more often and more shockingly than should occur in any institution in this province. Where were the Ministry of Health inspectors? Why was this situation at this point 12 days after the first outbreak? Even four days later, when Dr. Styliadis went back on September 24, situations were still happening that he had outlined and taken note of in that report. That is simply unacceptable in a public health institution in this province in this day and age.

The minister says: "Maybe we do not need a public inquiry. Maybe we can do it through other channels."

I have a list of the public inquiries that have been conducted in this province from the beginning of time. There have been: an Ontario Commission on the Dehorning of Cattle, in 1892; a Royal Commission on Forestry Protection in Ontario, as early as 1897; a Royal Commission on the Question of Prices of School Books, Royalties, etc., in 1897; a Commission to Inquire into the Seizure of a Railway Car of Whiskey at Chatham, in 1920; a Commission on the Prices of Gasolines and Oils sold to the People of Ontario, in 1925; an Inquiry into Ownership of the North One-Half of Lot Number Seven, Ninth Concession, Township of Glenelg, County of Grey, in 1931; a Royal Commission re Purchase of Parts of Lot 23 in the Township of Niagara by the Niagara Parks Commission and the Subsequent Resale to Mr. A. A. Schmon and purchase by Mr. Charles Daley, in 1960; a Royal Commission to Investigate Allegations Relating to Coroners' Inquests, in 1967; and a Royal Commission Appointed to Inquire into the Use of Pesticides in the Death of Waterfowl on Toronto Island, 1969, with the cover title, Did Pesticides Kill Ducks on Toronto Island?

If we can have a royal commission to inquire why or whether pesticides killed ducks on Toronto Island, I submit in all seriousness that we need a royal commission to investigate the deaths of senior citizens, the elderly, in an Extendicare nursing home in Ontario.

We have had royal commissions on serious matters and, as I pointed out, perhaps not so crucial, but they cannot say we call public inquiries into only matters of great importance. I submit that if we could have a public inquiry into the deaths at the Hospital for Sick Children, it is necessary to have a public inquiry into this matter.

If the minister will give us an update of the investigations that are currently taking place and if he will give us a commitment that there will be an early inquest, we might be willing to take a look at a public inquiry subsequent to that, but it is very important that the trail not go cold. Nineteen people in this province have died. Some responsibility must be accepted and some responsibility must be demonstrated. We must find out how and why this tragedy occurred.

I submit that coroners' inquests, for all their value, have not been able, by and large, in this province to get to the bottom of those questions. I submit that, as a person who lives a thousand miles away from this place and a thousand miles away from London, I do not know why this has not captured the outrage, the curiosity and the interest of the public of Ontario more widely than it has. I submit that, in the words of Linda at the end of Death of a Salesman, "Attention must be paid." These people deserve no less.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It has been very helpful for me as the Minister of Health to hear from the members who spoke in relation to some of the issues at hand here.

When I review the concerns that have been raised by a number of them, however, such as the leader of the third party (Mr. Rae), the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner), the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms Gigantes), the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner), they have refused to recognize the fact that this minister has done some things considerably differently from the way they were done before.

First and foremost, there has been the release of information at a very early stage. In fact, the report by Dr. Korn was released by me on the very day I received it in my office. That was done for a particular reason, because I felt it was necessary that there be a very open dissemination of information that this minister received with respect to this tragedy, and it is a tragedy.

Some people have said I have not moved quickly enough. Some people are assailing the way they rule that hygiene may have been abused. Many have indicated that this is not an ordinary or routine situation that has occurred. I would say that is right, and my response has been neither ordinary nor routine in terms of what has transpired in the last 10 or 15 years, as has been outlined by some of the members opposite. I have, in fact, moved very quickly to do several things to deal with the hygiene problems and to deal with some of the concerns about the co-ordination of the inspectors from the public health units and the Ministry of Health nursing homes branch.

I have done something else that is considerably different. We are authorizing the external review of the nursing homes branch, but at no time -- will the member for York South (Mr. Rae) hold on? -- has there been any indication that it will be a closed review and that there will be no time for the people who have some concerns about the manner in which the nursing homes branch operates.

5:50 p.m.

I am looking for a thorough analysis of the question of the inspectors, as raised in some of the questions by members opposite. The member for St. George, for instance, was concerned about several snapshots, but I am looking at an analysis of our ministry to tell me if there are areas in which errors were committed. I am doing a very thorough analysis of the results of the public investigation which is now ongoing under the auspices of the coroner of this province.

I will be a very keen observer of the process and of the information laid at the feet of the coroner. Although one member indicated there were instructions during one coroner's inquest that certain pieces of material be given little effect or impact by the jurors, the people watching the proceedings will take note of all the information which is put on the public record.

I have been assailed recently by the people who operate the nursing home for putting forward the reports so the public would be able to analyse what had been found by the people who went there with the medical officer of health for Ontario. I made the reports public so the people of the province will understand that if there are transgressions of food-handling rules, or other areas in which people have charge of the care of the elderly of this province, they will be made public. If those people understand that this minister will not stand by while violations of guidelines and programs developed for the care of the elderly occur, we will have a much more responsive system.

I took those steps for particular reasons. I have a mandate and duty to ensure that the people in our system who are occupants of nursing homes, homes for special care, homes for the aged, hospitals and other facilities, understand full well that the guidelines which I have mandated to be sent out will apply to all those in public institutions and will be guarded by this minister.

I appreciate the information given to us by several people about their dealings with inspectors. I can understand some of the concerns that have been expressed. I thank those who have expressed their confidence in my integrity and desire to get to the bottom of this. I find that reassuring.

In line with the desires of most of the speakers here today, I have taken steps which will go a long distance to alleviate some of the difficulties set out in the reports I have received and which are now public information. I have not dwelled on the past so much in the early stages of our investigation but look to the future to ensure that your concerns are addressed as my concerns were, so that people can have faith and confidence in the food-handling abilities of our institutions.

With respect to some of the more general comments made, we have now a very thorough and ongoing analysis of the manner in which we provide care to senior citizens in Ontario. Those questions have been raised. The member for Ottawa South --

Ms. Gigantes: Ottawa Centre.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am sorry, the member for Ottawa Centre -- the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) I am sure would be very happy reading this Hansard and the comparison which would take place. The member for Ottawa Centre, and others, questioned the mode of delivery of care to our seniors.

The member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) also questioned how what she called public nursing homes, which I presume would be homes for the aged, are operating. It turns out we have two types of private nursing homes, private for-profit and private not-for-profit homes.

We have the review of the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) going on right now. Reports are being finalized and brought forward for study and scrutiny with respect to the reactions to be obtained from myself, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and others. We will be answering some of the questions raised around those. That has been a very public forum. Then there is the concern of the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) who spoke of not wanting to be a resident in a house of 170 bedrooms.

There are a number of things ongoing at present in a very open forum which will deal in general with those broader issues. The broader issues with respect to this problem are being addressed and have been addressed since we took office on June 26. This is one reason we can be assured this minister will go on and will go forward with the reforms I have already spoken about in other forums.

For instance, there is the question of looking at how the ownership of licences for nursing homes is determined. There is the calling for proposals from various sectors of Ontario about whether they be allotted to private for-profit or private not-for-profit operators and whether there should be a municipal involvement in nursing home bed allocations.

All these things have been looked after in terms of some policy guideline changes which I, as minister, have put in place. We are doing a lot of things to address the broader issues which would have had these people standing on their feet and applauding, I am sure.

However, so far, I think these people have not been able to look at the broader operation of my time as the Minister of Health.

Mr. McClellan: The minister is missing the big picture.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member has not taken a look at some of the indications I gave about the changing mode of operation of the nursing homes branch, the emphasis I have placed on the nursing homes branch and the quality-of-care items I have been addressing.

I am going to be doing that and I will continue to do that as we proceed to reform the system. The components of that system are the detailed review by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Van Home); my changing policies with respect to the allocation of nursing home beds; my continuing monitoring of the way in which food is handled in facilities; the inspections that are carried out, and how we co-ordinate those inspections among the various inspecting branches within the Ministry of Health. I will continue to safeguard the health and welfare of the citizens of this province through those efforts.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired. There are still two minutes left.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Perhaps I might advise the House on the business for tomorrow, arrived at after consultation with the House leaders of the other two parties.

I would like to proceed with interim supply tomorrow afternoon, followed as soon as we can get to them by Bill 38 and Bill 27 standing in the name of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), and bills 1, 7, 8, 11 and 14 standing in the name of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). Those can be carried on in the evening.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

21 octobre 1985