Journal des débats 1989-janv-10 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mrs. Grier: Tomorrow, January 11, is the 90th birthday of a very distinguished Ontarian. I would like to ask all members of the House to join me in saying happy birthday to Gus Ryder.

Gus is known to thousands as Mr. Swimming and to thousands of handicapped children as the person who made their participation in swimming possible. To my constituents of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, he is known best as the founder of the Lakeshore Swimming Club and as the coach who in 1954 helped Marilyn Bell to become the first person to swim Lake Ontario.

Swimming was not the only sport in which Gus excelled. He played football for the Excelsiors and the Argos’ Intermediates. He rowed for the Argonaut Rowing Club. He represented Canada four times in international handball.

However, it is for his work with handicapped children that Gus is best loved. He was one of the first to recognize that children who could not move with agility or speed on land could swim. In the 1940s, that was a fairly revolutionary concept. Society used to feel that the handicapped should be kept out of sight. To have them exposed to view in a public swimming pool marked a huge step forward in the integration of the handicapped into the community and swimming events showed what these children could achieve, not what they could not accomplish.

Gus has received many awards and honours from service clubs and governments to mark his work. He is a member of the Order of Canada and the Sports Hall of Fame. He received the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship and a senior citizens’ award.

On behalf of this Legislature, I am pleased to join in saying thank you, Gus Ryder, and many happy returns of the day.

TRAINING FOR FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Villeneuve: Both in this House and recently in estimates, the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) has bragged about meeting his mandate to provide skills training.

Since November I have tried to help a group of volunteer firemen to receive funds for some essential training. The course starts tonight.

I must mention that my constituency has no full-time paid firemen. Volunteers of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Mutual Fire Aid Association are the only firemen and provide a very, very essential service.

Our riding has both Highway 401 and Highway 417, with a large volume of truck traffic. There are also three major rail lines. There is clearly a great potential for a wide variety of accidents, spills and fires. But because we have no paid firefighters, Skills Development refuses to provide funds. The bureaucrats say volunteers, regardless of what kind, are not eligible. One ministry letter concluded by saying: “You may, of course, support the training of paid firemen under Ontario Skills -- then they can train the volunteers.” I say again, we have no full-time paid firemen.

This sort of bureaucratic insensitivity and ignorance of conditions outside of Toronto should be viewed with alarm by all members. Back in November when the minister met with the firefighters, he hinted the problem would be solved. However, he has refused to change program criteria and now says that firemen are a problem for the Ministry of the Solicitor General, where there are no funds for this training, while the minister’s program requirements do not meet the needs of rural Ontario.

BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

Miss Roberts: I am very proud to stand in the House today to inform the members of a special accomplishment obtained by the senior girls’ basketball team from St. Joseph High School in St. Thomas.

This year, the girls’ basketball team, coached by Gary Clarke and Jerry O’Brien, defeated Niagara District Secondary School 49 to 45 in overtime to win the Girls’ A Basketball Championship.

What makes this victory so sweet is the fact that this is the third consecutive year that the St. Joseph team has won the Ontario Federation of School Athletic Associations Girls’ A Basketball Championship. It is a very small school in St. Thomas; they have a very small gym, but they have done an excellent job in representing St. Thomas.

The members of the team are co-captain Erin Jenkins, co-captain Hilary Clarke, Denise Perrier, Corinne Kenny, Katie Bottineau, Marcia Beaudoin, Amy Gilmour, Kellie Danaher, Danielle Bottineau, Denise Budgell, Kim Jenkins and team manager Vickie Hunter.

Members of the school are here today in the gallery and I would like all members to join with me in congratulating St. Joseph High School in St. Thomas.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Miss Martel: Recently, a series of articles on affordable housing appeared in the Sudbury Star. Credit for most of those must go to Terry Pender, a local reporter who attempted to see what life was really like for the homeless in Sudbury, a city without an emergency shelter.

The articles came after the joint announcement by the ministers of Housing and Community and Social Services of $1.7 million to be spent on projects to address homelessness.

The situation could not have been more ironic: $137,000 will be granted to Crisis Housing Liaison in Sudbury to develop a central registry and provide staff to assist people to find affordable housing. It is a noble effort and the people involved are committed to helping the homeless, but the government missed the boat entirely. The vacancy rate in Sudbury is 0.3 per cent. There are 762 families and individuals needing affordable housing; 335 of those spend 30 per cent of their income on rent. New spaces are almost nonexistent and there is no emergency shelter for the homeless.

The root of the problem is the lack of affordable housing, and without it, no agency can help the homeless find permanent shelter.

In June, I supported a proposal for an emergency shelter in Sudbury and wrote to the ministers of Community and Social Services and Housing requesting funding. The Ministry of Community and Social Services replied it could provide ongoing funding only after a charitable or service organization provided the shelter. The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) did not even reply.

If this is evidence of the Liberal commitment to shelter and affordable housing, then the homeless in this province are in for a long, cold winter.

SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Mr. Runciman: In February 1987, I announced on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario an eight-point proposal designed to streamline Ontario’s liquor laws.

Today, I am pleased to announce that the Liquor Control Board of Ontario has decided to implement one of the Tory proposals announced two years ago. The LCBO has agreed to increase the use of agency stores, a concept that allows for the sale of alcohol products through privately owned stores.

As a first step, the LCBO intends to establish five new agency stores in eastern Ontario with more to follow. I believe this initiative is a responsible and progressive step in the process of ensuring that Ontario’s liquor laws more accurately reflect current practices, consumer needs and the generally accepted mores within today’s Ontario society.

We commend the board for acting on the Progressive Conservative recommendation and trust it is committed to carefully reviewing the other constructive proposals put forward by this party.

1340

ALZHEIMER AWARENESS MONTH

Mr. Campbell: As January is national Alzheimer Awareness Month, I would ask all members of the House to pause and think about the approximately 10,000 Canadians who will die this year, victims of Alzheimer’s. This insidious disease transforms vital men and women into withered shells, robbing them of their memory, personality and finally, their physical capabilities.

There are 34 Alzheimer society chapters in Ontario, where volunteers help victims function as best they can in day care programs. Their care givers, who must sometimes endure a lengthy and always painful struggle in looking after their loved ones, receive encouragement and support through regular meetings and respite care programs.

In Sudbury, the Alzheimer society is launching this month, with the Sudbury regional police, an identification registry, an important tool in the care of victims. Wandering through the streets is one tragedy of the disease. Any registrant found by police can be more quickly helped and returned to his or her home, nursing home or hospital. This program will be part of the Neighbourhood Watch and school program of the police. I would urge all members to support and encourage the work of the Alzheimer chapters in their areas. Finally, let us remember those who cannot.

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney). He is no doubt aware that January is Alzheimer Awareness Month in Canada. The time has come when he should give serious consideration to a request that I have made on numerous occasions in this Legislature. In case the minister has forgotten, I have urged him repeatedly to consider using the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia to care for those suffering from Alzheimer’s disease.

This facility would also be an ideal place to research a disease that has affected nearly 100,000 Ontario residents. Alzheimer’s disease has a devastating effect on the patients and their families, who currently must travel great distances to visit them.

In some cases, families simply cannot visit because of the distance and expense. I think it would be an ideal time for the minister to announce that the Huronia Regional Centre will be used to care for the Alzheimer patient as well as a research facility where the disease can be studied. It would be a good time to announce it today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMPUTERIZED PATIENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am pleased to inform the House that 38 Ontario hospitals will receive grants totalling $1.6 million to install computerized patient information systems in their emergency departments.

Most Ontario hospital emergency departments now keep records manually, making it difficult to compile and analyse statistics about emergency room care. The development of computerized patient information for hospital emergency departments has been an objective of my ministry for some time.

Our long-term plan is to require standardized data collection and central reporting of emergency care activities in all Ontario hospitals with emergency departments. Last May, the ministry invited hospitals to apply for grants of up to $40,000 to help with the acquisition and implementation of emergency patient information systems.

The selected hospitals will proceed immediately with system implementations and are expected to begin data collection and central reporting by March 1989. These systems will provide hospitals with information they need to monitor and promote the quality of patient care. The information will also enable better planning and efficient management of resources at the provincial and hospital levels.

As soon as the new system is operational, participating hospitals will report to the ministry how the computerized information is being used to assess patient care and emergency department management. We regard this as an important initiative, designed to improve the planning and co-ordination of patient care activities in hospital emergency departments.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I would like to announce today to honourable members a new Workers’ Compensation Board policy regarding the payment of interest on delayed compensation benefits. The workers’ compensation benefits are intended to replace the earnings a worker loses as a result of work-related injury or illness.

When a cheque is late, workers receive less than the full value of their compensation entitlement. It is recognized that these delays can cause serious hardships for injured workers. Under the board’s new policy, interest will be paid for payment delays which occur after a worker is disabled.

Where the disability is temporary, benefit payments are normally paid every two weeks from the date of disability. Where workers are permanently disabled, pension payments are paid once a month after the date of entitlement. In both cases, under the board’s new policy, interest will be paid for all delays beyond those due dates.

The honourable members should note that the new policy will be put into effect as part of a new computerized system of paying worker compensation benefits which will be introduced later this year.

Using the same approach as used by the courts under the Courts of Justice Act, interest will be calculated at a rate equal to the bank rate established by the Bank of Canada, rounded up to the nearest whole number, plus one per cent.

Pending introduction of the new interest policy, the board of directors of the Workers’ Compensation Board has approved interim measures to provide interest on payment delays associated with internal WCB appeal hearings and appeals to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. These interim measures took effect as of January 6, 1989.

The cost of the new policy reflects the fact that in the vast majority of cases worker benefit payments are paid by the Workers’ Compensation Board on a timely basis. Full implementation of the new interest policy is expected to increase annual WCB benefit expenditures by about $16 million. This figure represents roughly one per cent of the total annual benefits paid.

The new policy I am announcing today will make Ontario one of only three jurisdictions in Canada to pay interest on delayed benefits.

RESPONSES

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I would like to respond very briefly to the statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) concerning the Workers’ Compensation Board. On behalf of this party, we welcome the move that has been made by the board in this regard.

Most of us who deal with compensation on a regular basis understand very well the kinds of delays and strains that injured workers are put under because there is a delay in payment. Most of them already experience financial difficulty because they are not at their regular work and because they are receiving compensation which in some cases is very inadequate considering the other payments they may have to make in terms of mortgage, etc. So we welcome the announcement today.

We welcome also the fact that when appeals are won, not only retroactive pay but also the interest on all the money that was lost in the interim when the worker finally decided to appeal to the compensation board, and indeed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, will be included.

The only thing I would like to add in saying this to the minister is that I hope this is a sign of good news to come. Perhaps this announcement today, which we welcome, also indicates there will be some change in his policy on Bill 162, which we would also welcome.

COMPUTERIZED PATIENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Mr. Reville: As I listened today to the statement of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), I found myself wondering just what planet the Minister of Health has been visiting lately and perhaps in what time zone the minister is living.

Here we have an important announcement, theoretically, of some $1.6 million for computerized patient information systems in hospital emergency departments. We are talking about the emergency departments of about one fifth of Ontario’s hospitals.

There is an emergency in this province, but it is not an emergency about patient data. The emergency has to do with people who are at risk on waiting lists in the province, and the emergency has to do with a noble profession that is going to be dealt a mortal blow by the inaction of this government. Of course, I am talking about the nursing profession.

We have seen again today that hospitals other than general medical facilities are closing beds because of the nursing shortage. We are hearing about bed closures at cancer hospitals as well.

I think it is not acceptable at all for the minister to use up ministerial statement time talking about a project that was, in fact, announced last May. Instead, I would like this minister to come forward and say what her government intends to do to solve the nursing problem in this province.

1350

Mr. Eves: I also would like to rise and respond to the statement made by the Minister of Health. While nobody can quarrel with the information in her statement today, I would agree with my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) that I fully expected, as a member of the Legislature, to be in my place today and listen to the Minister of Health describe how she was going to address the critical nursing shortage in Ontario.

We have people on waiting lists for cardiovascular surgery. We have beds closing down in all kinds of hospitals in Ontario due to a nursing shortage. For many months, the minister’s response to questions in the House about the nursing shortage was that various task forces and bodies doing their reports on nursing and manpower had not finished their reports.

We have four of them here now and the minister could pick any one she likes. I fully expect her to respond to the recommendations made in each and every one of these reports. They have been sitting there for weeks, in some cases for months now, and she has yet to respond in a very specific way to any of them or to address the very serious problem we have with respect to nursing, especially critical and intensive care nurses, in Ontario.

I think the minister’s statement today, while I am sure it will help in some small way with respect to emergency departments and hospitals throughout the province, does absolutely nothing to address the most critical and crucial problem facing health care in Ontario today.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Harris: Just briefly on the statement by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), I note that the minister indicates that this will add one per cent to the cost of the total annual benefits. Assuming that the interest rate is somewhere around 10 per cent, this would mean that 10 per cent of the payments that he makes to workers in this province are late. I do not know if that calculation is exactly accurate. I guess if it added one per cent over a year, if they are late for a year, it would be 10 per cent.

I really would be interested in hearing more about this. He used the figure and it sounds to me like it could be that 30, 40 or 50 per cent of the payments are late if it adds that much, because he says it will add one per cent to the total benefits if he were late for a whole year.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: But not one per cent of settlements.

Mr. Harris: I am glad I have lots of time to talk about this, because we can dialogue this for the next two and a half minutes.

If he were late for a whole year, conceivably we are looking at 10, 20, 30 or 40 per cent of the payments that in fact are late, because that is what it would take to impact $16 million in interest payments alone on the total out there.

I note that the minister says, “The cost of the new policy reflects the fact that in the vast majority of cases workers’ benefit payments are paid by the Workers’ Compensation Board on a timely basis.”

“Timely” appears to be “late,” if I read his figures correctly, and I would be interested in knowing how many people do get their cheques late. Is it half? Is it 40 per cent? Is it 30 per cent? What is the average length of time that these cheques are late? Why should any of them be late at all, except in the odd case of a mixup here or there?

I do not know why the minister is so proud of stating, “in the vast majority,” and this is just picking up this little every once in a while when something goes amiss. It appears to me things are going amiss far more often than they are going right.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: Along with a great many other constituency members, my office has been flooded with calls from patients who are affected by the extraordinary delays in surgery. I had a call yesterday morning from a Patricia George, who is the daughter of a patient who is on the urgent list at St. Michael’s Hospital for a triple bypass. He was admitted to the hospital on December 14, scheduled for surgery two days later, it was cancelled and he was sent home. He was supposed to be going in again on January 10 and surgery was supposed to be on January 13. He was called yesterday morning to be told that that also was being cancelled. There are, he has been told, no intensive care beds available for him. He is on the urgent list of Dr. Baker. He is not on some long-term list; he is on an urgent waiting list.

I would like to ask the minister, how is it that she has made no announcement in this Legislature, this past time or at any other time that we have been debating this question of care being provided for patients, on nursing to focus on the nursing crisis as the essential base of this problem --

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mr. B. Rae: -- of the reason 71-year-old Albert George is waiting and --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We have discussed the issue of nursing and the nursing manpower issues in this House on a number of occasions. The Leader of the Opposition is aware of the number of studies and recommendations that have come forward. Many of those recommendations are focused on the profession, the union, the employers and the hospitals as well as government.

He knows full well that I have made a commitment to open the Public Hospitals Act for review and that I am at the present time looking at the potential of draft regulations to acknowledge the important role that nurses play in hospitals and to see that that is acknowledged by their participation under the Public Hospitals Act.

Mr. B. Rae: We not only have older people who are waiting for heart surgery, we have kids who are now on waiting lists that are as long as eight months at the Hospital for Sick Children. When the spokesmen at the Hospital for Sick Children talk about this problem, they come back to the nursing crisis. When the spokesmen for Princess Margaret Hospital, which is the centre for Ontario’s cancer research and cancer treatment, speak of the issue -- when up to 20 per cent of their beds were closed at Christmas and are going to stay closed right the way through, delaying for over a year care and treatment for hundreds of people who are in need of treatment -- the issue comes back again to this question of nursing.

I want to ask the minister, has she personally spoken to the Ontario Hospital Association and has she indicated to them her willingness to go to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and say, “If it is a question of more money which will deal directly with the problem of nursing care, the government of Ontario is ready to act with you” --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. B. Rae: -- “in sitting down with the nurses’ association and finally dealing with this question”?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the Leader of the Opposition is aware, the Ontario Nurses’ Association, the union for the nurses, and the Ontario Hospital Association reached a three-year collective agreement which governs the situation between nurses and their employers, the hospitals.

I would like to see the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Nurses’ Association talk about pay bonuses for critical care nurses in downtown Toronto. I think the opportunity for them to sit down and look at that particular issue together could be productive and helpful. I respect the roles the hospital association and the nurses’ association play as they together discuss the relationships. However, I am very aware of the importance of the collective bargaining process.

Mr. B. Rae: I cannot believe my ears. The minister is saying she is not prepared to pick up the phone and speak to the lead employer, the Ontario Hospital Association. We do not have a collective bargaining issue here. We have a health issue, we have a people issue, and we have a government that is not prepared to exercise leadership on this issue, and that is a disgrace.

Why is the minister not prepared to pick up the phone, talk to the hospital association and say: “Let’s get on with it. Let’s not get bogged down in technicalities. Let’s deal with those kids, those heart patients and those cancer patients who are waiting for care and who are not getting care because there is a nursing shortage”?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: With all due respect, what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is absolute nonsense. Everybody in this province, I believe, respects the collective bargaining process between the Ontario Hospital Association and the nurses’ association. I said very clearly in this House that I would support the two coming together to look at the specific issue of solutions to critical care nursing in downtown Toronto. We are all actively seeking those solutions and I would encourage him to be constructive and helpful in this debate.

1400

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. B. Rae: I think what I have suggested is the most constructive suggestion that has come forward yet. It is certainly more constructive than any --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have a new question to which minister?

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Financial Institutions. The Ontario Automobile Insurance Board is now playing a version of “pick a number, any number” when it comes to car insurance rates. I want to ask the minister if he can state clearly for us whether it is the intention of his government to invoke section 27 of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board Act, which states clearly that the government of Ontario, the cabinet, can issue a directive on policy to the insurance board before it makes any decision --

Can the minister tell us whether the government is intending to issue a policy directive clearly on rates prior to the decision of the board with respect to rates?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The policy that is being carried out now by the board is one that the government has spent some time putting together with the participation of the hearing process in this Legislative Assembly. What we have said there is very clear. They are carrying out that policy directive now, which is to look at the industry, examine it, study it, see what goes into setting rates and then set a range of rates. They are doing that now.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister is not correct. What I am asking him to state is that he knows full well that section 27 of the act says quite clearly that the superintendent of insurance, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council -- that is to say, the cabinet -- may issue policy statements on matters related to categories of auto insurance, classes of risk exposure and automobile rates and dividends. That policy statement, as soon as it is issued, takes effect on the day it is issued, and in making orders under the act, the board has to have regard to those policy statements.

The board is now playing a game of “pick a number, any number.” One day it is 20 per cent, one day it is 35 per cent, one day they are going to take into account what happened in 1987 and the next day they are going to ignore what happened in 1987.

On behalf of the consumers of this province, I want to know whether the minister is going to issue a clear policy statement, stating exactly what kinds of rate increases are acceptable to him. Yes or no; is he or is he not?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is not correct. He is under some illusion about this being a process of picking a number. It is not that. He should confess his problems to the public and be very clear that this analysis is unlike any other that has occurred anywhere and is a better analysis of how the rates surrounding auto insurance are being considered and then set.

He should come clean with the people of Ontario because it is not fair to categorize this as a pick-a-number exercise. It is to study the industry, it is to put together a full series of parts of the industry’s makeup so that it can come up with a fair and adequate rate for the provision of auto insurance in the province. In fact, that is what they are doing. It is very clear that that is what the policy is. They are following that.

What he is really asking is whether I, as Minister of Financial Institutions, on my own behalf, by myself, am going to set the rates for auto insurance in Ontario. I am saying to him that I am not doing that. It is under the auspices of the board and that is what its mandate is. That is what the hearing process is about, and that is how we will get fair rates in Ontario.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister said he had a specific plan. I am sure the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario will express its gratitude to him at the dinner which it is holding for the Liberal Party caucus.

The minister clearly said he would reduce rates. He has not done that. The act clearly anticipates, under section 27, that he is to issue a policy statement with regard to auto insurance rates if he so chooses. It clearly anticipates that. All I am asking the minister is simply, is he going to issue a policy statement with regard to auto insurance rates; and if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is quite clear that the honourable member does not understand what is going on right at the moment. What is going on right at the moment is an examination of the auto insurance industry in a manner which has never been undertaken anywhere in any other jurisdiction, as far as I am aware.

It is very interesting to note that in times when he thinks we should be consulting widely, he would ask why did we go ahead and make a decision without the consultation and study that was required. When we go ahead and do the most thorough analysis of this industry that has ever taken place, he then says: “You go ahead and do it yourselves. Don’t do anything else. Don’t study it. Don’t understand what you’re doing. Don’t do an analysis of what is a very important commodity in Ontario, auto insurance. Just do it.”

I can tell the member that I will support the exercise which will determine what fair rates are in Ontario. That is being done under this hearing process and we will understand, as consumers and policy-setters, what in fact has to be done with respect to auto insurance in Ontario in a way which will serve us in good stead for future reference of other problems. But right now, I am not going to go out and issue a directive that says that rates, despite whatever the member has heard, are going to be X.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: I will wait till the applause dies down.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier in his capacity as head of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy --

Interjection.

Mr. Brandt: I will wait until the member is finished.

The question I have is to the Premier and it is relative to his position as head of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy. The Premier is well aware that in media reports across the province there are discussions going on about what is being termed, and I believe is in reality, a crisis in health care in the province.

Those media reports are becoming horror stories in the sense that they are increasingly pointing out the failings of the health system in Ontario in being able to deliver what is necessary in terms of the way in which the people of Ontario have expected the system to deliver in past years, the most recent problem being the 40 children at the Hospital for Sick Children who have had their surgery delayed up to eight months. A couple of days ago, there was another story with respect to the large number of Ontario citizens who were forced to go to the United States to get surgical procedures relative to heart conditions.

Surely the Premier is aware that the seriousness of this situation is becoming increasingly evident to even himself and his own members, that there is something wrong with the health system, that there is a problem here that has to be addressed.

I ask the Premier rather than the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) because she will tell us it is a collective bargaining issue or it is under study. That is simply not good enough any more to alleviate some of the concerns that are being raised by people who have real concerns about what is happening to our health system.

Can the Premier tell us how he intends to address this in the weeks and months ahead?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the minister can give my honourable friend as much time as he wants on this question. It is being looked at across the country.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, the opportunity that we have had in this House on a number of occasions to discuss the challenges and changes in health care, I believe, are extremely important. We know there are three irresistible and compelling forces for change, not only the economic reality, the changing demographics and the changing technologies. In fact, there are a number of forums in which short-term, medium-term and long-term strategies are being considered.

The Premier’s Council on Health Strategy has four subcommittees. One is the subcommittee on the health system itself. Another is on healthy public policy. The third is on integration and co-ordination and the fourth is on health goals for Ontario.

I would say to the leader of the third party that in fact we are looking at long-term strategic direction, as well as short-term and medium-term initiatives to face these enormous challenges facing health care, not only in Ontario but across Canada and worldwide.

Mr. Brandt: When the problem of nursing shortages was first raised with the government, the current Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston), a fine gentleman, indicated at that time that “this government has the matter well in hand.” That was his response in connection with the problem of nursing shortages. It was more than half a year ago that he made that particular comment.

1410

Well, the situation has continued to deteriorate since that time. I am sure the minister reads the editorials and the media comments. I am sure she hears the horror stories, as we do. I am sure she is hearing from the health professionals about their attitude with respect to what is happening within the health system.

It is a very simple question about these long-term plans with respect to how the minister intends to clear up the backlog of surgical delays and how she intends to assist the hospital system to respond, as it must, in terms of the bed capacity of those particular hospitals and the nursing requirements of those hospitals. Surely there must be something the minister can suggest to this House that will be done immediately to alleviate the current problem. What plans does she have to do that in terms of a short-term solution?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would say to the leader of the third party that our plans have been well articulated. We know, for example, that when we talk about nursing, it is not a problem that is unique to Ontario; in fact, it is worldwide. It is probably one of the most difficult and complex issues because it relates to a societal change and the changing role of women, to the values and working conditions within which nurses in general are working.

It relates to the recommendations of the Evans, Spasoff and Podborski reports, which talk about a better balance in our health system, a move to community-based services to take the pressure off our hospitals, so we can establish the kinds of facilities where people who do not require inpatient services can be provided with those services in community-based settings closer to their homes, and free up the hospitals to do that which they do best, the primary, secondary and tertiary care that require inpatient services.

Tomorrow, I hope we will have an opportunity in this House, on second reading of the Independent Health Facilities Act, to begin with the legislative framework to allow us to expand community-based services. I believe that will assist us as we rebalance the system.

Mr. Brandt: All too often, the government’s response to what I consider to be an extremely critical problem has been to blame others. The minister has passed the problem on to hospitals. She has expected them to operate with reduced budgets. She has expected them to deliver a service when she has required them to shut down beds. She has not addressed the nursing problem. She has reduced support to the health system very dramatically in this province and expects the same level of procedures, the same level of service to be delivered to the people of Ontario. It is simply unacceptable.

I have had calls to my office from people who are waiting their turn for surgical procedures that are life-threatening, situations that are totally unacceptable in this province --

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Brandt: -- and that I have never heard of except in the last couple of years during the minister’s term as Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Brandt: What does the minister intend to do in connection with the immediate problem, which is to alleviate the nursing shortage, address the problems that hospitals have and bring the system up to the level --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The leader of the third party is incorrect when he says there has been a reduction in any hospital budgets. In fact, since 1985, hospital budgets have been improved by some 39 per cent. This year, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) announced an 8.1 per cent increase to the hospitals’ base budget. Since this government took office in 1985, health expenditures have reached $12.7 billion, up almost $3 billion from the time of the change of government. We anticipate that next year the institutional sector will receive almost $6 billion.

I would say to the member that his categorization of insufficient funding is false, inaccurate and points out the fact that the problems we have in health care require a response other than simply money -- looking at structural change. That is the direction we are taking because all the experts are telling us that the problems we have in health care are not going to be responded to simply with more money.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health as well. I think it is more than obvious that we have reached a crisis in our health care system here in Ontario. A nursing shortage exists that is so acute we have critically ill patients waiting for surgery on waiting lists that in some cases are many months long.

We have been raising the shortage-of-nursing issue in this Legislature at least since November 1987. Yet the minister has never given a straight answer to myself or any of my colleagues on this side of the House as to what concrete steps she is going to take to react and address the nursing shortage in Ontario and especially in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

Can the minister for once give us a straight answer and tell us what exact, specific, concrete steps she, as Minister of Health, is taking to address this very serious issue of the acute nursing shortage in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We have discussed this on a number of occasions in this House and recognized that in fact it is in downtown Toronto where we see a particular shortage of nurses in the area of critical care. This is not the same across the whole province. There are variations and differences. I can tell the member that at the beginning of February, critical care nurses will be coming from Sudbury to help alleviate the situation in downtown Toronto in the short term. As well, a number of critical care nurses are being trained at the present time. This fall, we established through the Toronto Institute of Medical Technology additional training for cardiac technicians.

We believe that in the short term this will help. However, we know that by working together with the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Nurses’ Association, by bringing people together, we will continue to seek solutions to adjust this important problem.

Mr. Eves: The minister is quoted in the media this morning as saying that the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Nurses’ Association should reopen their contract to talk about premium pay for critical care work. She has stated to us in this House on several occasions, and most professional nursing organizations would agree, that there are enough nursing graduates coming out of the system. The problem, as I am sure she is aware, is that they tend to leave the system anywhere between their third and seventh year of experience for the very simple reason that they are not paid for their experience. They are not paid for their expertise with respect to critical care work, for example.

Now, is the minister telling us by her statement this morning that she is going to provide the OHA with the additional money it needs to enter into serious negotiations with the ONA, or is she telling us that she is just passing the buck to the OHA, that she has no intention of providing them with the money they need, which she knows they need, to address this very important issue? Is she going to exercise the responsibility --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has placed the question.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member knows, pay practices are part of the collective agreement. However, I believe that even through discussions outside of the collective agreement, the Ontario Nurses’ Association and the Ontario Hospital Association could come together and seek solutions. I would encourage them to talk about such things as opportunities to solve the problem particular to downtown Toronto, particularly in the area of critical care. I would encourage those discussions.

Mr. Eves: This is not a collective bargaining issue. With all due respect to the Minister of Health, this is a health issue. We are talking about health care in Ontario. We are not talking about a collective bargaining issue. She has four reports here. One came from the ONA in March 1988. That is almost a year old. They have very specific recommendations that are the likes of better pay; salaries increasing with education, experience and/or responsibility; better hours, more flexible, shorter hours; more opportunity for nurses to advance; a better attitude towards nurses from the public, doctors and their co-workers; more staff to reduce workload stress. I would suggest to the minister that every one of those issues affects her very directly as Minister of Health and that only she can address them.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Eves: We have three other nursing reports that I am sure she is aware of.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Eves: The Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario has 14 of them. They are all numbered.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Eves: Would she quit passing the buck to these people and quit passing the buck about it being a collective bargaining issue, assume the responsibility that is hers as Minister of Health --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member for Parry Sound take his seat.

1420

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is clear the Health critic from the third party simply does not understand the jurisdictional responsibility of collective bargaining of the unions, of management and of government. In response to those reports and recommendations, I have taken the initiative, as the responsibility of government, to announce amendments to the Public Hospitals Act.

Many of those issues that are responded to in fact have nothing to do with money but are questions of working life issues that respond directly to the employers. I know that they are being addressed by the individual hospital employers and that the Ontario Hospital Association has shown leadership in helping to assist the hospitals in their membership as well.

The Ontario Nurses’ Association, I believe, has an opportunity to sit down with the Ontario Hospital Association and look at a host of issues, many of which may not include money and resources, to help address some of those recommendations. The problem specifically for critical care nursing in downtown Toronto is, I believe, quite a separate issue, and one I am hopeful, through flexibility and creativity --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning rent review. How does she explain this process to Wayde Guest who lives at 104 Confederation Drive in St. Thomas? His building is jointly owned by two Toronto-based firms. Over the past four years, the rent review system has awarded these two investors a total amount of 58.7 per cent when they only asked for a modest 46.3 per cent. How does she explain to Mr. Guest that her rent review system gives the landlords more than they ask for?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Our rent review system takes information from the landlord, information from the tenants, and calculates the rents based on a number of factors, including capital costs and the costs of managing the building. As a result of those numbers, it comes up with what it sees as the appropriate number justified by the economic facts that are given.

Mr. Breaugh: This is sure a good place to invest, where they give you more than what you asked for.

How does the minister explain to Mr. Guest, who is a pensioner and lives on a fixed income, the sad fact that he has now been ordered by rent review to pay a total of $752 in back rent? This is the adjustment figure that has been used. How is someone on a fixed income supposed to come up with this kind of cash in a hurry on the orders of the minister’s rent review system?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The most important thing about the rent review process is that it is a way of making sure tenants do not have to pay unjustified rent increases. It is not the only answer for people on fixed income who have problems with housing issues. Rent review was never meant to solve the housing problems of everyone in the province, including people on fixed income.

It is because of the problems of people like the one the member describes, who is on a fixed income, that the province has made the commitment, that we have made the commitment, to build more housing that is affordable to people all over the province, to make sure that there is much more nonprofit housing being built all over the province. Rent review is only one part of the protections that we give to people. It is not the only way of meeting the needs of people with economic difficulty, in particular people on fixed income.

USE OF LOT LEVIES

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The Toronto Star says today, New Metro Home is Costing $347,000.” I am sure the minister agrees with me that we have an affordability problem. I am trying to be helpful and I would like to ask the minister if the following scenario makes sense to her.

Let’s take an average community of 20,000 homes, 50 existing homes for every new one built. If new ones go up, say, $5,000 as a result of lot levy, if that is the figure, and they build 400 new ones in this community, lot levies will raise $2 million. But the other 20,000 homes will go up $5,000 as well, so the total impact on the cost of housing in that average community will be increased by $102 million.

Does it make sense to the minister to add $102 million to the cost of housing for an average community for the sake of raising $2 million for education or whatever?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I think the member’s hypothetical case makes very little clear sense. I think the important issue here is that people of moderate income have a lot of choices in the housing that is available to them. It is my concern and commitment that people of moderate income in this province have real choices about where they live and the housing that is available for them.

It is for that reason we put forward our land use policy, in which we say that from now on, in new housing that is being built across this province, we expect at least 25 per cent of that to meet the needs of people of low and moderate income. That, in particular, also was addressed to people of moderate income.

We know that working together with municipalities and the private sector builders, it will be possible for us to increase the supply of housing for people of moderate income in this province substantially, not on a one-time basis and not as a blip, but as a steady stream of production of affordable housing through working together and making sure that municipalities and builders, together with us, meet our guideline for affordable housing.

That is the answer to make sure there will be much more housing available for people of moderate income. The supply of housing for people of moderate income is a significant issue here and that is the one we are trying to meet.

Mr. Harris: Of course it is, and I do want to be helpful.

Hon. Mr Kerrio: Yes.

Mr. Harris: Well, I do.

Mr. Breaugh: I see that. He is trying.

Mr. Harris: I do. I appreciate supply is an important part, but I want to address specifically the lot levy issue.

I contend, and everybody I have talked to, including the industry, everywhere except the minister, agrees that considering there is one new home for every 50 existing, on the average, for every dollar raised by new lot levy, she increases the cost of the total housing stock by $50. That is a fairly understandable and logical conclusion.

The Treasurer suggests he wants to raise an extra $100 million for education or health or something through a new form of taxation, a lot levy. To get that $100 million, the total cost of housing in the province -- I think she would agree affordable housing is a problem -- goes up $5 billion. That is the increase on the total housing stock in the province.

My question is, does it make sense to her as the Minister of Housing to get $100 million from some new tax source so that the municipalities will pay instead of the province? Does it make sense, to get $100 million for something else, to add $5 billion to the cost of housing in the province?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member is well aware that this entire question of how to fund the infrastructure costs of significant growth in the province is one that is being discussed right now. It is my commitment and it is my job to make sure we increase the supply of affordable housing in the province. It is the Treasurer’s responsibility to make decisions about taxation.

In the paper on funding infrastructure costs for rapidly growing areas that was released a little while ago, it was made very clear that the goal of making sure the affordable housing commitments of this province are met is uppermost. It is there.

The other part of making sure housing gets built is also making sure the quality of life for the people in those communities is maintained, and that requires roads, sewers and schools. We have to make sure the housing gets built and we have to make sure the services are there. How to make sure both those goals are met is the purpose of the exercise we are engaged in right now.

I am sure we will get some interesting ideas about how to meet those goals and I look forward to working with every member in the House who wishes to be helpful, like the member opposite, to make sure our housing goals are met.

COURT SECURITY

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Attorney General. I have had a number of inquiries from various parts of my riding about the financial and operational implications of Bill 187. I am advised that back in 1985, when this was contemplated, the government of that time saw fit that there was something like $3 per household allowed for the security the bill was requiring.

At the present time, the town of Bradford tells me that it is looking at an increase of costs to its police force to implement this of something like $85,000 a year. The city of Barrie says that its costs will run several hundred thousand dollars a year. In areas like Simcoe county, the security within the court and transporting or moving the prisoners from the jail over to the court is handled by contract officers who work as they are required.

The system seems to be working. I wonder if the minister could give us some idea of the costs that are involved to the municipalities and what was contemplated at the time this was introduced.

1430

Hon. Mr. Scott: In the vast majority of cases in Ontario, there should be no additional costs at all. The province has for many years been funding municipal police forces through the municipal councils in the unconditional grant system, and in 1985 the unconditional grants were increased specifically to deal with courthouse security by $3 per family.

The purpose of this bill is simply to identify precisely what we are funding. What we are funding, so the honourable member will know, is work that is now done by police forces in almost every municipality in Ontario: the transporting of prisoners; responding to threats of violence if they are made at the courthouse; and maintaining a presence, as required, to maintain the safety of the occupants of the courthouse.

On balance, that is done across Ontario by municipal police forces now and is paid for under the unconditional grants. The purpose of this legislation is to clarify the dividing line between that function and the function performed by sheriff’s officers.

Mr. Wildman: Saving you money.

Mr. Brandt: We know what it is for.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Owen: I appreciate that the concern is that we are living in changing times and that the circumstances of our security in our courts 10 or 15 years ago was different than what we are facing today in our courts, so I see somewhat what the Attorney General is saying, but in places such as our county, and I believe Perth is another county which is similar to ours, we have the situation where we have contract staff who are working on an on-call basis. They feel that their jobs are jeopardized. They do not know where they are going. Can the minister give us any indication as to what the future prospects might be for these people in areas such as ours, where they are working on a contract basis?

Hon. Mr. Scott: If the honourable member is telling us that in a municipality in Ontario, funds are being taken under the unconditional grant for courthouse security, which work is being performed by others, I am surprised to hear that. The purpose of the increase in the grant in 1985 was explicitly to allow police forces to do courthouse security; namely, the transporting of prisoners, responding to threats of violence at the courthouse and maintaining the police presence required to maintain the safety of the occupants.

The purpose of this bill is to clarify the nature of that responsibility. Anybody who has been taking the money and not providing those services and looking to others to provide them will, I am sure, be prepared to provide the service in the future.

DEATH OF PIERRE POULIOT

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Solicitor General. On June 28, 1988, Pierre Pouliot was killed at the Copper Cliff smelter of Inco, just outside of Sudbury. I asked the minister about this on Thursday of last week. Can the minister tell us if there is a date set for the inquest into the death of Pierre Pouliot?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: A date has been tentatively set for March 6.

Mr. Mackenzie: That is a tentative date, I take it. Is there any information then, or can the minister tell us if it is not a fact that in a mining death, there is to be an automatic inquest? Why have we waited from June 28 until now to get a tentative date for this inquest, when the family has been trying to get answers that the minister herself says cannot be given while we are waiting for an inquest?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Like so many other cases, this case was being investigated, as indeed the member would agree it should have been as it is this type of industrial death. Unfortunately, one of the people involved in the investigation himself became ill, which caused some delay, and some of the information was difficult to come by, further delaying it, but the date has now been set and they are proceeding as planned.

PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question for the infamous Minister of the Environment; I know he will be taking his seat momentarily. My colleague the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), who of course is the critic of his ministry --

Interjections.

Mr. Cureatz: I see that the Liberal backbench sheep are bleating again.

Mr. B. Rae: Can’t they open up a small claims court on Tuesday as well as on Monday?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a question?

Mr. Cureatz: The member for Mississauga South wanted to discuss with me some policies of the ministry -- and what better place to discuss the government policies than the garbage site in the minister’s own riding?

We had the opportunity of visiting the site in his riding. His ministry claims that if a garbage site is operated correctly, there should be no seagulls. Now I have a picture here that shows thousands of seagulls in the garbage site in the minister’s riding. I think it is thousands. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) could send out some Liberal backbenchers --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Did they follow you home, Sam?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Seagull Sam.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: That is our official bird you are talking about.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: Fly like a butterfly, sting like a gull.

Mr. Wildman: Where’s Dave Winfield when you need him?

Mr. Speaker: The members have certainly wasted a lot of time. We will just wait.

I hope the member has a question.

Mr. Cureatz: My question to the minister is: If the garbage site in his riding to the west of the city of St. Catharines is being operated properly, why are there so many seagulls at the dump site?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: They heard Sam was on the way.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is an excellent photograph of the member for Durham East on this location.

As the members know, there are seagulls all around Ontario. I have consulted with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) on this matter, and he has indicated that at many locations in Ontario, for instance, at several of the beaches that are located in the province, the seagulls will be there if there is any item of food which may at any particular time of the day be exposed for the purposes of their consumption.

For instance, the member would know that people who walk down a beach with french fries, for example, in their hands will notice that the seagulls will come down and swoop down on them.

What I am presuming to the member, on what I consider to be a very serious question on his part, is that at a particular time of the day there might well be some exposed morsel of food or the anticipation on the part of the seagulls that there may be some food under the cover. Certainly even --

1440

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Even though there are a number of landfill sites in the province --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have already taken over five minutes.

Mr. Cureatz: As the minister well knows, Metro Toronto is planning to make a land grab in my riding of Durham East for a landfill site. I happen to have a seagull here which I call Bradley Seagull or BS for short. I want to tell the minister --

Mr. Speaker: By way of question.

Mr. Cureatz: -- that I do not want this seagull, I do not want seagulls from his riding and I do not want Metro Toronto seagulls in my riding of Durham East if they make a land grab for a garbage site.

Will the minister promise this assembly that if Metro makes a land grab, he is going to guarantee a full environmental assessment hearing so we can discuss, among other things, infestation of seagulls?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Thank you kindly. I appreciate this very much. That looks like a tie I have seen before.

I am informed by one my colleagues that there is no such thing as a seagull. He says you can have a gull, a beagle or an eagle but there is no such thing as a seagull. The member for Peterborough (Mr. Adams) told me that.

The member will recall that on his visit to the site in St. Catharines, where he thought he had an issue, along with his colleagues, all he found out was that the city of St. Catharines was extremely pleased, because his leader, when he was the Minister of the Environment, granted an exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act for the purposes of any potential expansion.

What I have indicated to the people in that specific area is that if there were a major expansion that would go over a number of years, for instance, and would be of a magnitude that would call for it, there would certainly be an environmental assessment.

In regard to the issue the member brings to me in his supplementary question, I can indicate to him that there have been a number of potential proposals which have been forthcoming. Some of his colleagues suggest that something should be in one place. One day they get up and say, “Well, of course, you shouldn’t apply the Environmental Assessment Act,” or “It’s too tough,” or something like that. The next day somebody else gets up and says, “You’re not going to put it here.”

As members know, these proposals are developed by the municipality. When I receive, as the Minister of the Environment, and our ministry receives a proposal from any one of the municipalities, we will look very carefully at that and determine the regime under which it would come and determine the course of action to be followed. I would be happy to share with the member for Durham East who has a sincere interest --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. A new question.

NONPROFIT HOUSING

Mr. Offer: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Many are concerned about the federal government’s recent decision to impose a financial cap on the federal-provincial nonprofit housing program for 1988. In my riding there are two projects which have been put in jeopardy. One such project, the Mississauga Seniors Village, comprises 58 homes for seniors and is the first nonprofit senior housing project in the community of Meadowvale. The other project, Forum Italia, comprises 93 homes and meets critical needs not only in Mississauga but also in surrounding areas.

My question involves the current status of the minister’s discussions with the federal government on this matter.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I have had several conversations with the federal minister on this, and he has indicated to me that the financial caps will remain. They will affect 19 projects, including the two the member has mentioned in his riding, despite the federal government’s promise that was made explicitly about a year ago in a press release that we released together, despite a very significant need for housing that people can afford, and despite the very significant work that has been done in this community and all over the province, by large numbers of volunteers who worked very hard to bring forward projects for nonprofit building all over the province.

Mr. Offer: By way of supplementary, these projects have taken many years of work, they have involved thousands of volunteer hours and considerable expense. Notwithstanding all of that, there are hundreds of families and individuals who have intended to move into these housing projects.

By way of supplementary, I am asking the minister whether these very important projects can be saved?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: As members know, this is an issue that I have been very concerned about. I also know how hard people have worked to bring these projects to this point in their development. I am going to be calling the federal minister to fund these projects out of the 1989 allocation. What that will mean is that the projects which are named will proceed if the federal minister agrees to do that.

If we do that, and if the federal minister does that, it will still mean a significant loss because the previous commitment to the federal government was to fund about 7,000 units jointly with us every year to build nonprofit housing together.

If they go forward with what I hope they will do, which is fund these out of the 1989 allocation, it will still mean a significant decrease in 1989 from around the 7,000 units which we were preparing to do together to about 3,200 units under the federal-provincial program. That is a significant loss, but I am prepared to ask the federal minister to do this carrying forward of the funding because the projects really should go forward.

The people involved with them have done an enormous amount of work. By the time we are at this point, they represent literally hundreds of hours of work done by volunteers to bring them to this point. They have commitments in their communities and they are ready to go.

I hope the federal government will agree to do that, but let us not underestimate the impact on our future plans which would cut from 7,000 --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. New question.

NORTHERN AIR SERVICES / TRANSPORTS AÉRIENS DANS LE NORD DE L’ONTARIO

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development with regard to air services to northern communities now that the minister has put off his plans to sell norOntair’s Dash-8 planes to Air Ontario.

The minister must know that Air Ontario’s plans to take these planes and the jobs out of northern Ontario, with totally inadequate routing proposals, certainly would not have provided the enhanced services that the minister promised to the north last June.

Given that the government has reasserted its control over norOntair by the purchase of Air-Dale in Sault Ste. Marie, which has been operating the Dash-8 planes, what specific plans does the minister now have to maintain that operation in the north and to improve the quality and the effectiveness of that service to the north’s smaller communities?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Je voudrais rappeler au député de Sault-Sainte-Marie (M. Morin-Strom) que la vente des avions Dash-8 a été remise à la fin de novembre 1989.

As the member just mentioned, we are in the process of taking over the service of the Dash-8 from Air-Dale, but that does not mean we will not sell the Dash-8.

I just said in French that this sale is put off until November 1989 and it will proceed as if there were no sale. We are running the two operations and I think we are running them well. I do not see any problem. I do not see any problem for the jobs either, because we are going to repair all the airplanes in Sault Ste. Marie. I do not know what the member is talking about.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am talking about a service which is vitally important to smaller communities in northern Ontario, and that is the norOntair operations, which are under the auspices of the ministry.

Last June the minister made promises to improve the quality and cost effectiveness of its services to the north’s smaller communities. He has gone around the province making promises with regard to new Dash-8 services and new routes that were going to be added in northern Ontario.

The minister knows that the Dash-8 operation has not been fully utilized because of planes being out of commission for long periods of time. Those planes are now available to the minister and his ministry in the north. Is he going to live up to his commitment to add routes and to provide services to more communities with those Dash-8 planes now that they are fully under his control, owned and operated by Ontario?

1450

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First of all, I would like to tell the honourable member for Sault Ste. Marie that he is not a mechanic. He should know that at times we have to repair the planes if we want to fly them safely. That is what we are doing. Sometimes there is one missing. I can assure the member for Sault Ste. Marie that we are applying to fly from Winnipeg to Fort Frances and Thunder Bay. This will be done in the next few weeks.

As to the other planes that we are flying, I think we are trying to fly what we have. We have some planes that are 20 years old and we have to repair them at times. That is what we are doing. If I can sell those Dash-8s, I will take that money to buy new planes, but that will come at the end of this year. Right now I have no money to buy new planes and we will keep operating as we are. I do not think there are too many people talking about our service, norOntair. They are talking about other services, not norOntair.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions and it is related to the decision of more insurance companies to pull out of the auto insurance business in Ontario. I wonder if the minister can tell us the approximate percentage of drivers in Ontario required to secure insurance through the Facility Association and whether it has been increasing over the past 10 months.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not have an accurate answer for him at the moment, but I will get back to the honourable gentleman with that number.

Mr. Runciman: That is a similar answer to the one I received yesterday. I want to remind the minister that we brought to his attention and to the attention of his government some time ago the striking similarities between the Massachusetts program and the program that this government has initiated in Ontario.

What is happening in Massachusetts is that 60 per cent are in Facility versus what we used to have in Ontario, two to three per cent in Facility. Premiums are $77 higher than the national average, there is very poor availability and companies are simply abandoning the market. I would like to know if the government has made this decision to take the Massachusetts route. I am sure consumers in this province would like to know what the minister is doing to ensure that we do not repeat the Massachusetts mess.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I would like to thank the honourable gentleman and remind him that I gave him a very direct answer yesterday with respect to his questions about the types of things that he wanted to know. I have gone back and said that we were getting public input from all around the province. The member knows that.

Although the specific numbers were not available on exactly how many presentations were made in front of the board, I can tell the member that I have looked at a number of pieces of information that show there has been input from right around the province, from Flesherton, from Navan in eastern Ontario, from Kenora, from Fort Frances and from other places. From all over the province people have had access to the board and its hearings processes.

I said to the honourable gentleman yesterday, just so he does not leave the mistaken impression with the people of the province that I did not answer his question, that the public of Ontario has had access to these hearings, they do have and they will continue to have.

The interesting thing is that I have to remind him day after day of the answers just so he does not forget. His memory is very good, except that it is very short. I can tell members that I answered his question yesterday, and I will answer his question today, that the study and analysis which we are doing in Ontario with respect to the setting of rates for auto insurance is the type of thing that ensures two things: (1) it will give the consumers of this province the information they need to make intelligent choices about which company they access for rates and (2) the companies which are participating in the market will understand what they have to do to be competitive and the work they have to do to be continuing players in this particular province.

I will tell the member that there is in this province the basis on which sound automobile insurance coverage can be obtained now and in the future. We will continue to work towards that as a goal.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS / HEURES D’OUVERTURE DES MAGASINS

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

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

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

Mr. Pouliot: I have a petition addressed 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:

La pétition est adressée au « lieutenant gouverneur de la province de l’Ontario.

« Je/Nous soussignés demandons la permission de présenter la requête suivante au parlement de l’Ontario:

« Nous demandons instamment au premier ministre Peterson de ne pas aller de l’avant avec le projet de loi qu’il a annoncé, mais de renforcer plutôt la protection pour tous les travailleurs et travailleuses qui ne veulent pas travailler le dimanche; de ne pas se décharger de sa responsabilité sur le dos des gouvernements locaux sur cette question; et de maintenir un jour commun de repos pour les travailleurs et travailleuses, ainsi que pour leur famille dans la province de l’Ontario. »

J’ai apposé ma signature a cette pétition. Merci.

Mr. Speaker: This might be the appropriate time to inform all members that they may rise in their places and speak in English or French. It is not necessary to repeat the same thing in both languages.

M. R. F. Johnston: J’ai une pétition.

« À l’honorable lieutenant-gouverneur et à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario,

« Nous soussignés demandons la permission de présenter la requête suivante au parlement de l’Ontario:

« Nous demandons instamment au premier ministre Peterson de ne pas aller de l’avant avec le projet de loi qu’il a annoncé, mais de renforcer plutôt la protection pour tous les travailleurs et travailleuses qui ne veulent pas travailler le dimanche; de ne pas se décharger de sa responsabilité sur le dos des gouvernements locaux sur cette question; et de maintenir un jour commun de repos pour tous les travailleurs et travailleuses, ainsi que pour toute leur famille en Ontario. »

Mr. Philip: I have a petition from constituents in the riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale which reads 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:

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

Mr. Farnan: 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:

This is signed by some 13 petitioners, and I have attached my name to same.

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition addressed 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:

“That action be taken to ensure a day of pause for enjoying family and friends.”

This petition is signed by five residents of Ontario, and I have also signed it.

1500

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

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

That is signed by two constituents who reside in the provincial riding of Nickel Belt. I agree with them and I have affixed my signature to their petition.

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

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

I support this petition and I literally have thousands more of these to present over the next several months.

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition. It is addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

I support this petition and have affixed my signature thereto.

Mr. Reville: I have a petition, which reads:

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

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day, so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This petition has been signed by 14 residents of Essex South. I have affixed my name thereto and I agree with this petition.

Mr. Mackenzie: 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 stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act, or other legislation related to retailing on holidays, should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intentions, on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them, by reducing their ability to spend time together;

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue, and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

This petition is signed by 26 residents of my own city, the great city of Hamilton, and I am pleased to add my name to it.

Mr. Philip: I have petitions from some 35 petitioners:

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

« Nous soussignés demandons la permission de présenter la requête suivante au parlement de l’Ontario:

Mr. Speaker, would you like me to repeat in English so that my French colleagues in the Legislature will know what I have said before they read the English translation?

Mr. Speaker: I believe the honourable member was here when I made a comment earlier.

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

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercialization of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This petition is signed by seven residents of the Windsor area, and I have affixed my signature to the petition as well.

Mr. Wildman: 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 as follows:

“That action be taken to ensure a day of pause for enjoying family and friends.”

This petition is signed by five residents of Ontario. I have added my name to it and I support it.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition as well; it reads:

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

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I support this petition. I have affixed my name to it as well.

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This is signed by residents of Belle River, Tilbury, Amherstburg and Windsor, and I have also fixed my signature thereto.

Mr. Farnan: 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:

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I agree with this petition and I have attached my name to it.

1510

M. Allen: J’ai une pétition de Mme et M. Caron de Chelmsford (Ontario).

« Pétition à l’honorable lieutenant gouverneur et à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario,

« Nous soussignés demandons la permission de présenter la requête suivante au parlement de l’Ontario:

« Nous demandons instamment au premier ministre Peterson de ne pas aller de l’avant avec le projet de loi qu’il a annoncé, mais de renforcer plutôt la protection pour tous les travailleurs et travailleuses qui ne veulent pas travailler le dimanche; de ne pas se décharger de sa responsabilité sur le dos des gouvernements locaux sur cette question; et de maintenir un jour commun de repos pour tous les travailleurs et travailleuses, ainsi que pour leur famille en Ontario. »

C’est un plaisir de vous soumettre cette pétition, à laquelle j’ai apposé ma signature.

Mr. Hampton: 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:

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This has been signed by 19 people and I have affixed my signature to it as well.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is a petition addressed 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:

It is signed by several people and I will now affix my signature as well.

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition as well, addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“That action be taken to ensure a day of pause for enjoying family and friends.”

This petition is signed by five residents of Bowmanville, Almonte, London, Toronto and Belleville. I support the petition and have signed my name to it.

Mrs. Grier: 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:

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health.

We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This petition is signed by seven citizens of the province from the Windsor area, and I am happy to sign it as well.

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

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

M. Reville: « A l’honorable lieutenant gouverneur et à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario,

« Nous soussignés demandons la permission de présenter la requête suivante au parlement de l’ Ontario,

Mr. Wildman: I, again, have a petition. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“That action be taken to ensure a day of pause for enjoying family and friends.”

This petition is signed by six residents of Toronto, St. Catharines, Ottawa, Burlington and Espanola, and I support the petition and have signed it.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: 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:

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition addressed 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:

This petition has been signed by a number of residents of Windsor, Ontario, and I am happy to sign it in support.

Mr. Mackenzie: 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:

This is signed by 12 residents of the county of Essex, Ontario. I affix my signature to it and I support it.

Mr. Philip: I have a petition, signed by nine people in the Windsor area, and it reads as follows:

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

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

I have affixed my signature.

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

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This petition is signed by nine residents of the Windsor area and I have affixed my signature as well.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition that reads 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 is the stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in that committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act or other legislation related to retailing on holidays should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its view that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intention on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them by reducing their ability to spend time together, we urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act, to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours and to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue, and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

I support the intent of this petition. I will affix my name to it.

1520

Mr. Farnan: I have a petition addressed 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 stated intention of the Liberal government of Ontario to change the legislation governing the conduct of business on Sundays; and

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they do not want it; and

“Whereas the first of 17 unanimous recommendations contained in the committee’s report was as follows: ‘The primary responsibility for the administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act or other legislation related to retailing on holidays should remain that of the provincial government’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has forcefully put forward its views that leaving the regulation of Sunday shopping to municipalities is not what its members desire; and

“Whereas a very broad array of trade unions, religious organizations, small and large retailers, groups concerned about the quality of life in Ontario, families and individuals have publicly indicated their opposition to the government’s intention on the basis that it will lead precisely to wide-open Sunday shopping, thereby harming working families and working people; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness for them by reducing their ability to spend time together, we urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead we urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act, to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours, to not pass the buck to municipalities on this issue, and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

This petition is signed by 12 individuals and I have affixed my name, agreeing with their intent.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to take this opportunity, as I have on previous occasions, to remind members that petitions are certainly in order, and of course, generally, as the standing order suggests, the material allegations may be put forth; in other words, more simply put. It is maybe not necessary to put all the whereases but the “therefore” is very important.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I think this petition will delight your heart. It simply reads:

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

It is signed by several hundred people from the Kingston area, including Cataraqui, Kingston, Amherstview, Iroquois, Woodbridge, Napanee, Odessa and the various surrounding communities of that region.

I have affixed my signature to it and I certainly support the petition in its simplicity and in its force.

M. R. F. Johnston: Merci. J’ai une pétition.

« À l’honorable lieutenant-gouverneur et à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario,

« Nous soussignés demandons la permission de présenter la requête suivante au parlement de l’Ontario:

« Nous demandons instamment au premier ministre Peterson de ne pas aller de I’avant avec le projet de loi qu’il a annoncé, mais de renforcer plutôt la protection pour tous les travailleurs et travailleuses qui ne veulent pas travailler le dimanche; de ne pas se décharger de sa responsabilité sur le dos des gouvernements locaux sur cette question; et de maintenir un jour commun de repos pour les travailleurs et travailleuses, ainsi que pour toutes les familles en Ontario. »

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition and I will be very brief. It is directed 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:

“That action be taken to ensure a day of pause for enjoying family and friends.”

This petition is signed by five residents of Chesterville, Vankleek Hill and Scarborough. I am in favour of this petition and I will add my name to it.

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

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

This is signed by a good friend of mine, Ron Tranchemontagne of Chelmsford, and I have affixed my name to his petition as well.

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday shopping legislation.”

This petition has been signed by a number of residents of the province and I am happy to affix my signature thereto.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE / COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L’ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE

Mr. Chiarelli from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the report be received and adopted?

Mr. B. Rae: I was standing to speak on the report as the motion was moved, Mr. Speaker. My understanding of the rules would be that if someone moves a motion, that motion is debatable and we are entitled to debate it, and I intended to launch the debate this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: You are perfectly correct, and I just wanted to put the question, “Shall the report be received and adopted?” We can certainly debate it if the Leader of the Opposition so desires.

Mr. B. Rae: I realize that it is not necessarily the case that reports from committees are discussed and debated in the House, but we in our party feel and have felt for so many months that this is a very important issue and an important question and I wanted to put some views of mine on the record, even at this early date in these discussions, and make it very clear to the government and the people of this province why the members of the New Democratic Party, together with hundreds of thousands of people across this province, have been so angry and annoyed with the government for what it has done and why we are going to continue this battle on this question in the Legislature.

1530

De la part des membres de mon caucus et de mon parti, j’aimerais vous expliquer pourquoi nous sommes toujours opposés au Gouvernement; pourquoi nous sommes toujours opposés au projet de loi qui a été présenté par le Gouvernement; et pourquoi nous continuons de penser qu’il n’est pas trop tard pour le Gouvernement de changer d’avis. En effet, il n’est pas trop tard pour le Gouvernement de changer de prise de position et d’accepter la réalité qu’une majorité de la population de cette province a le droit non seulement d’être entendue de façon formelle par le Gouvernement, mais encore d’être considérée sérieusement par le Gouvernement.

C’est pourquoi nous pensons qu’il faut apporter des changements au projet de loi, pour garantir que les gens de cette province auront l’occasion de passer leur temps le dimanche avec leur famille, sans avoir à travailler comme ils le font en semaine.

Eh bien, c’est une question fondamentale, M. le Président. Vous voyant occuper le fauteuil, je tiens à vous rappeler personnellement qu’au cours de la dernière élection, c’était le chef du Parti libéral (Mr. Peterson) qui disait aux journalistes, le 5 août 1987, qu’il était prêt à accepter le compromis de l’ancien parlement, du parlement minoritaire. En vertu de ce compromis -- les gens l’ont dit clairement, avec quelques exceptions, naturellement, exceptions qui sont importantes pour des raisons de convenance pour la majorité des travailleurs, pour la majorité des gens, le dimanche resterait un jour de congé. Comme je le disais au député de Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger): « Un élément essentiel des élections, c’est l’intégrité. »

Naturellement, nous savons très bien que la parole des politiciens n’est pas toujours prise au sérieux. Mais nous avons tout de même le droit d’insister sur le fait que, quand le chef d’un parti dit, le 5 août 1987: « Oui, j’accepte la nécessité d’un jour commun de repos dans la province », alors, si cet homme change d’opinion, d’avis et de position, et si la position du Parti libéral change d’une façon si claire et nette quelques jours à peine après l’élection du 10 septembre, eh bien, la population de notre province a le droit de dire: « Non, ça, nous ne l’acceptons pas. Nous n’acceptons pas un tel changement, une telle rupture de confiance, une telle rupture d’intégrité entre le chef du Parti libéral et la population de cette province. »

M. Pouliot: Le mensonge, le mensonge....

M. B. Rae: On se pose des questions sur l’intégrité de ce Gouvernement. On se pose des questions sur l’intégrité du Parti libéral en ce qui concerne cette question de travailler le dimanche. Ce sont là des questions qui ne vont pas disparaître. Ce sont là des questions qui resteront avec ce Gouvernement.

Hon. Mr. Conway: No problem with a French leaders’ debate for this national campaign.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to say to the House today that if the government House leader is saying that he intends to propose a French-language debate in the next provincial election, I accept and look forward to that.

The simple reason we are on our feet today is that this is first and foremost a question of principle for members of the New Democratic Party. We believe that members’ time with their families, that workers’ time with their families, should be growing and not diminishing in this province as we head into the 21st century.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Have you read Dave Cooke’s speeches on this subject?

Mr. B. Rae: I am fascinated to hear the comments of the government House leader, but I would say to the House leader and I would say to you, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Conway: You’d never guess who shops in Port Huron, Michigan on Sunday.

Mr. Pouliot: You can’t do that to our leader.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Pouliot: What about the government House leader, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Dave Cooke’s speeches do it to me.

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, these interruptions are part of the give and take, what shall I say, the cut and thrust of parliamentary life. I enjoy it. If the government House leader wants to take up valuable time in this House by heckling members with far less experience than himself, let him do that if that is what he chooses to do. I do not mind it.

I want to say there are really two issues here. There is first and foremost, of course, the issue itself. That is a question which, to us, has been fundamental. Many times people say to me: “Mr. Rae, surely you realize this is basically kind of a 19th-century issue. This is tied up with visions of a province that was tied to a particular religion or group of religions. It is essentially a question of observance of the Lord’s day. Surely as we approach the end of the 20th century, you yourself as a member of a progressive party would take the view of asking: “What is so special or different about Sunday? Why should we have any particular laws protecting the rights of people to stay home on Sunday and the rights of people in the retail trades not to have to work and making sure that people are with their families on Sunday?”

I would say the answer to that is quite simple. This is not a 19th-century issue; this is very much a 20th-century issue. It is of course for a great many Ontarians, and this needs to be said, first and foremost a question of religious values. All of us in this House should respect that. But it is also for all the citizens of this province a basic question of how we organize our time together as families and how we organize our time together in the workplace.

I am delighted to see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) here. I say to him that if he looks at this from the perspective of working time and working hours, it makes no sense to me and no sense to the members of our caucus that we would have a bill that would extend the time when people are working, that would extend the time when people have to get up early in the morning and catch the bus, if indeed there is a bus service that operates on Sunday where they live. They would have to spend the time arranging child care and spend the time figuring out what kinds of arrangements can be made for their family, instead of being able to spend time with their family.

That is why I say this issue is first and foremost a question of family time, of leisure time, of time off. It is definitely a step in the wrong direction, a step backwards and not a step forwards. That is the question of principle on the policy itself, but there is also another issue and that is the issue I now want to address very directly with the members.

1540

That issue is the question of the integrity of this government in its approach to this entire issue. We had, as I said in French on August 5, a Premier (Mr. Peterson) who said to the press during the election campaign -- obviously, I was following what the Premier had to say on a daily basis with considerable interest and I had heard, as one always does in this business, not always directly, that there had been for some time a movement afoot within the Liberal Party to abandon the traditional approach to Sunday shopping and in fact to take the view that there should be open Sundays.

There were many comments and asides. We all know in this business that, for example, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) many times in this House when debating this issue, and I do not want to be unfair to my colleagues in the Conservative Party, the third party, but I do recall --

Mr. Brandt: Which party?

Mr. B. Rae: I do not get to say that very often about somebody else, so he will forgive me if I say it occasionally.

I can remember that when the former Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Grossman, floated a kind of balloon saying perhaps the Conservative Party would change its position on the question of Sunday opening, the Attorney General was heard to make some comments across the floor of the House -- I am speaking of the 1985-86 period -- saying: “Why shouldn’t it be a matter for local option? Why should we be making these decisions? Why shouldn’t it be left to the municipalities?”

The Attorney General is a persistent man, if nothing else, and this idea had obviously taken hold of him. I had heard that after the compromise of 1987 had been worked out, there was still the possibility that in the middle of an election campaign the Premier might -- because he would think it would be the yuppie and trendy thing to do and there were those urging him to make those kinds of decisions -- listen to the advice of those in his party who were looking to an issue that would be the equivalent of beer and wine in the corner store, which we all remember with such affection from the 1985 campaign. Instead of beer and wine in the corner store, we thought we were going to have a sort of shop-till-you-drop kind of presentation from the Premier in the election.

So it was with considerable interest that I noted personally on the campaign trail when the Premier obviously said to those advisers: “No, I don’t want to shake the foundation of the province to that extent. I want to keep up with the compromise that was maintained and I don’t want that to be an issue and I don’t want to make that an issue.”

Therefore, the Premier told the voters of Ontario this: “Look, don’t worry. There is no other Liberal agenda out there on this question of Sunday opening. If you support the position that I am taking” -- I am trying to get my colleagues to listen here. It is not always easy, I might add. The leader of the third party knows how difficult that can be.

Mr. Brandt: The which party?

Mr. B. Rae: The third party.

What happened? The Premier told the voters in August that there would continue to be, in this province, a common pause day. That was the Liberal Party position in the election campaign, not of 1887 but of 1987, the one a little over a year and a half ago.

Mr. Speaker, you can imagine not my surprise because --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Nothing surprises you.

Mr. B. Rae: The Minister of Labour said nothing surprises me. I can tell him nothing surprises me about the Liberal Party. Having watched it in its federal incarnation and now its provincial incarnation, nothing would surprise me about what the Liberal Party will do in order to maintain its hold on power.

What I was hit with was a sense of profound disappointment that the government would have so deceived the voters into believing they could still vote for the Liberal Party and maintain that common pause day which is, I suspect, the view of the vast majority of people of this province.

Mr. Ballinger: Amen.

Mr. B. Rae: Thank you, brother. If you want to come up here, if you have something to say, just come here.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Kneel down. I will give you my blessing.

Mr. B. Rae: If I had a ring, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) would not have come close to it, I am sure.

I want to say that this question of integrity lies at the heart of why this issue has aroused the population the way it has. It is basically a question that has not been dealt with in a straightforward fashion by the Liberal Party of this province. They promised something during an election campaign and they did the exact opposite.

The reason I am speaking to this motion now is because we had to fight very hard indeed to get the Liberals to recognize that this issue had to go to committee, that it had to have province-wide hearings and that people had the right to be heard. The Liberal Party wanted to get this thing through last year and hoped everybody would forget about it.

We know full well that is not what happened, but we also know the Liberal Party did not really listen to the people who presented their views. My colleagues who were on the committee are going to be speaking very directly about why they cannot support this reporting of the committee’s report for the simple reason that the Liberal Party said it would listen to people and it did not listen to people.

There were over 400 people presenting briefs to the committee who said: “You have to get rid of section 4 at least or change section 4 or amend section 4. Do something to deal with the incredible powers you have given to municipalities.”

The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) has been such a loyal servant of the administration. I am sure his efforts on behalf of the administration will not be overlooked. In fact, I suspect that if there are ever rumours of a shuffle taking place on that side, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick will be walking around with a portable telephone in his briefcase, waiting for that call. Any call will be answered. I know that and I can see it in his eyes.

This government did not listen to the people who presented briefs. It did not listen to all the groups whose views have been so effectively summarized by the legislative research service and whose views are contained in this brief. We have a list of the organizations and individuals appearing before the committee. That list is 20 pages long. It contains over 400 briefs of which only 26 were, in substance, in favour of the government’s approach to this legislation. If that is not an overwhelming condemnation of a piece of legislation by the people of this province, I do not know what is.

Many people ask me: “What is your approach going to be to this bill? What is the approach going to be from the New Democratic Party?” I can only tell the government this: I said to them when they brought in this bill on first reading that we would fight it. We have fought every step of the way, using the one tool we have in the parliamentary repertoire, and that is time.

We are going to use whatever method we can in terms of time to get this government to change its mind on the issue of substance. The matter of substance has to be listened to. The people of Ontario did not vote in 1987 for a party that said, “Vote for us and you will get wide-open shopping on Sunday.” They did not vote for that kind of party. They voted for a party that said, “Vote for us and we will keep things exactly as they are when it comes to Sunday.”

That is the party they voted for and that is not the party they got. They got a party that changed its colours, changed its tune, changed its policy and changed its commitment to suit the louder voices, to suit the bigger commercial interests that have been pressing back on this government to do what it is doing.

I say this government does not deserve the co-operation of the opposition. Frequently it is asked, “Why don’t you co-operate?” I say this: They will not get any co-operation from the New Democratic Party when it comes to bringing in a bill to open up Sunday shopping across this province. They will not get that co-operation.

1550

We intend to use every opportunity for discussion that is presented to us in this House to put forward our view and to try to persuade, if we possibly can, the government to listen, not to us but to those thousands of people out there who presented their views to the committee and who were ignored by an arrogant, big, fat Liberal Party sitting on a 94-seat majority.

It is on behalf of those people that we are speaking. It is on behalf of the people in my riding, who I know, in the majority, are opposed to this legislation. It is on behalf of the people who we know who have written us, who have petitioned us, who have talked to us, who have come to us and who have said, “Look, Mr. Rae, I work six days a week; I don’t want to have to go to work on a Sunday,” who say to us: “We don’t want to have to see Sunday as a day that’s like any other. We want Sunday to be a special day for us and for our families.”

That is what this fight is all about, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that fight is not yet over.

Mrs. Cunningham: I would like to take this opportunity to speak to Bill 113 on behalf of the many citizens across this province who have relayed messages of tremendous disappointment in the Liberal government to members of our Progressive Conservative caucus.

Bill 113 is an amendment, of course, to the Retail Business Holidays Act. We have learned in the past couple of years that there were some problems, in the eyes especially of this tremendously large Liberal majority government, in enforcing this particular piece of legislation.

We were not aware of them across Ontario, because most towns and villages and cities were more than capable of dealing with Sunday openings within their own jurisdictions, and in fact, if they so chose, they designated their particular municipality or part of their municipality a tourist area, and therefore at particular times of the year were able to open on Sundays.

I think the Retail Business Holidays Act in this province is one that we should be proud of and one that has served us for many years in Ontario, and is in fact one that very much supports a common day of pause.

Mr. Ballinger: Talk to some of your former Attorneys General. Talk to George Taylor. He said it was a piece of junk.

Mrs. Cunningham: However, the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) and I both agree that there are some flaws in that legislation, and because the member is so tremendously vocal on these kinds of issues, we listened very carefully to his positions in the committee and agreed that in fact the fines should be increased, although the public did not understand that, because quite frankly, the fines that have been levied in our province are very small ones and we have not used the kind of ammunition we have in this legislation to make it work.

But we did listen and we said, “Well, maybe, just maybe, they ought to be bigger.” Therefore, we came up with an amendment that we all agreed with, that every elected person on that particular committee agreed with, and we have made an improvement to this Retail Business Holidays Act.

The second amendment that everyone agreed with, at the urging, with due respect, of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), was the power that the government felt it needed with injunction procedures. If in fact somebody is flouting the law, we have said, “Close them down.” Therefore, this particular piece of legislation has been amended via the avenue of Bill 113, and we approve of this, to allow for an injunction procedure.

There is a third part that I am not very excited about. It has to do with the public input process that is in place in most municipalities across this province, but in fact the Liberal members of the committee assured us it was necessary and I believe most members probably voted in favour of that, although I do not think we needed to go across the province for public hearings to discuss any one of those amendments. They were a given; they were something that the public of Ontario should not have been charged with. I am talking in dollars. There was no need to go across this province for that kind of input.

The reason that both opposition parties agreed to debate on Bill 113 at all was because of a certain part in the amendments and that was section 4. That is the part of Bill 113 that contains the amendment that the people in the province of Ontario almost unanimously objected to. Of course, we thought that there might be some hope in taking the bill to the people in this expensive public hearings process that we all agreed to. We thought if the people spoke for themselves in their own ridings to the people who represented them, perhaps democracy and good common sense would prevail and the representatives of the people could be persuaded.

It seems to me that over a long period of time, many of us travelling together, the public did really try sincerely to influence their own elected members as well as the members on the committee, all of us. In fact, the government --

Mr. Villeneuve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Could you check if there is a quorum present?

The Deputy Speaker: Please check the quorum. A quorum is present, yes. The member for London North may proceed.

Mrs. Cunningham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about a person’s ability to listen. I just wish the television cameras could move a little bit to my left to see some of the members who have been elected in this House to represent them. They really are not good listeners, although there are some who can listen and talk at the same time.

Mr. Faubert: There are none behind you. Where are they all?

Mr. Fleet: It’s amazing, eh?

The Deputy Speaker: Any and all members who wish to address the issue will have a chance to do so, but one at a time, please. The Speaker recognizes only one member at a time and that member right now is the member for London North.

Mrs. Cunningham: I would like to address the issue of listening because, quite frankly, people are interested in this particular debate this afternoon -- and there are many who do watch the proceedings of this House and carefully monitor the people they have elected to represent them. The one thing I can assure them of is that the committee members were listening; there is no doubt. They did not like what they heard, and I do not expect that they will be voting on this legislation in order to represent the people who elected them.

We have a number of letters that were sent out by the Liberal members of this House to their constituents, in which they are, quite frankly, confusing the electorate by saying they support a common pause day.

Mr. Faubert: Who is confusing now?

Mrs. Cunningham: I am not saying they are doing it on purpose, because many of the Liberal members are confused themselves. When you are confused yourself and have never had to make a clear presentation, then you do not really know just how to present your case. That is the problem really.

Mr. Ballinger: I saw your case. I saw your drugstore case.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Cunningham: It is a very simple issue. If one wants to include as part of the framework of the legislation a common day of pause, there is only one way to do that and that is to make the common day of pause part of the legislation of the province of Ontario. That is part of this framework.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Cunningham: Now it is no longer part of this framework. Section 4 says that the framework now has been delegated to the municipalities. Members should not get confused; it is very simple. As long as a municipality wants to support a common pause day, it can do it. But members should never, never, never go to their constituents and tell them that the amendments to this act, Bill 113, support a common day of pause, because they simply do not. That is very clear.

1600

The election promises of 1987 have not been upheld. Of course, we could stand here today and it would take us some number of hours to go through the election promises that have not been upheld. We are now talking quite simply about class size, about tax increases, about issues to do with the environment, about community health care. We can talk about all kinds of issues that were presented as part of an election platform, and those promises have not been upheld.

But the one we thought would not be a priority of this particular government was changing a piece of legislation that, for the most part, is working. Why would anybody expect to have been elected in September 1987 and to have started that December -- almost a year now; in fact, more than a year -- putting our time and our energy into discussions around a bill that is not needed or wanted in this particular province?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Cunningham: I think it is interesting that when we became members of the committee early on in the deliberations, we really were listening to the Solicitor General and to the Minister of Labour as they told us there were such problems with this legislation in the courts. Not once could they ever show us where this piece of legislation has not been upheld in the courts. I will tell the members that right now.

Where they had shown us there was a problem, we fixed it. Where we do not have a problem is with the municipal option: it is totally irresponsible. Why would this government feel so strongly about aligning the quality of life to the American style? I find it absolutely –

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Cunningham: It is very difficult to understand how a party could be so much opposed to free trade and so much in favour of shopping on Sundays. They do not know what direction to move in.

I wish I were here today speaking about health. That was our plan. We had planned to come here this afternoon to talk to health care, because right across this province right now, there are many people in their homes, waiting for someone to come to help them: help them with their meal preparation, help them with a change in dressing, help them get their hair washed and take care of them. They cannot get that kind of help.

What are we doing? We are in here wasting our time on an amendment that is neither wanted nor required in this province.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. May I ask the members again to respect the member’s right? If other members want to participate, they will have their turn afterwards, not during this presentation.

Mrs. Cunningham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think respect in this province is something which is lacking in some persons and I think people in this Legislative Assembly should be setting a good example starting now.

I would like to continue with this debate, because I think it is an important one and it has a lot to do with the quality of life. Although we talk in terms of a common pause day, to some people that is not a phrase that is taken lightly, as we are seeing this afternoon in this Legislative Assembly. It is a day that is very important to family life in Ontario.

In these busy times, I think people really cherish time together, especially people who have young children, especially people who have elderly in nursing homes, especially people who are very busy during the week, who very seldom get a time to be together and who plan their Sundays as a time of rest, as a time of pause. It is very important and we are very proud in Ontario to be able to say that we have been able to support that kind of lifestyle.

People like to come to our province and they want to live here. We are jeopardizing that particular quality of life. I can remember a few years ago, not many, as a young girl growing up in Toronto, a discussion around our dinner table about stores opening on Friday evenings. As one store opened, another store opened. Then we had discussions around our dinner table with respect to stores opening on Thursday evenings. The big issue in my home was whether or not the teenagers would be allowed to work on Thursday nights, because they had to go to school the next day.

We have lost a lot because of store opening hours, which are with the municipalities now; that is their responsibility. The one responsibility that they do not have right now is the ability to open more stores on Sunday. People refer to it as wide-open Sunday shopping.

At one time, we did enter into a debate in this province around whether or not tourist areas could open on Sundays. We know across this province that for certain times of the year tourism was promoted and retail stores did open on Sundays, and they do now.

With this amended legislation what happens is that those tourist areas will be allowed to stay open -- some of them for as long as they choose to -- up to five years. For the very large tourist operations in northern Ontario, the proprietors of those particular business establishments -- of course we should be grateful to them for having that kind of industry and incentive in the province, as that is what it is all about, tourism being a very large industry -- asked us how they could plan their businesses, if they now had to go to the municipalities to remain open.

Mr. Fleet: Just like they do Monday, Tuesday and every other day of the week. They go to the municipalities every other day.

Mrs. Cunningham: No. It bothers me a lot when we have members of this Liberal government going around this province misleading the public, because they do not understand the implications of these very, very difficult and unnecessary amendments. That is what is happening.

An hon. member: That’s unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ballinger: Unfair, unfair. Outrageous, outrageous.

Mr. Cureatz: Sorry, guys. She’s right. No conscience whatsoever, those Liberal backbenchers.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Cunningham: The fact of the matter is that municipalities can open stores on Sundays or they can close stores on Sundays. They have the right to do that. I think that many of them should have been listening to the members of their own parties who were on the committee and should have taken the time to ask questions, because they certainly understood the legislation.

Mind you, the real problem there was that they also had their marching orders. Their marching order was, “It does not matter what the public says, we will vote for section 4.” As the Premier said on day two of the public hearings, “Section 4 is not negotiable.” Can you imagine? What else were we out there for? Everybody agreed to everything else. This was a sham.

Mr. Fleet: You were out to waste time.

Mr. Cureatz: The public wants to be heard.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Cunningham: As a result, we now have a shoddy Bill 113, which will not meet the needs of the public and which will encroach on the quality of life across this province.

I would like to close with a couple of observations. I would like to go back to the beginning. When I was in a by-election in London during the month of March --

Mr. Cureatz: The Liberals don’t want to hear about this.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Cunningham: -- I was very much surprised to hear that Sunday shopping was such a large part of the public agenda. In fact, on the second day out, as we were knocking on doors, I was quite surprised that people were so concerned. I did not understand this issue as well as I perhaps should have.

In London, Sunday shopping was not anything that ever had been entertained by our municipality. As a result, the issue became a very big one. We are here now representing London North, quite frankly, based on three issues, a procedure or a process around Bill 30 which divided communities on the accommodation problems to do with secondary schools in this province. I am happy to say that the process has never been put in place again since that by-election. For me personally, the people I represent and the many students and families, it has been quite a success story.

1610

The second issue in that by-election was the high taxes, but more specifically, the sales tax. I am sure this government will live to regret that particular decision.

Above all, the issue of Sunday shopping is one that will never be forgotten by the public in Ontario, because this bill will probably be more divisive in its implementation than Bill 30 could ever pretend to be.

New Brunswick has lived for the last two years with a piece of legislation that in fact did give the power and the responsibility to the municipalities to decide what additional retail establishments would be open on Sunday. As a result of many, many divisive community arguments and expenses to the municipality in public hearings, paying lawyers, more transportation, more day care -- because of those kinds of issues and the divisiveness and a bill that just did not work -- that particular government had the courage to retreat from the local option. They now have a process in place that leaves the responsibility for Sunday opening with the government of New Brunswick.

We were in consultation with that particular Liberal government, and it has advised us over a number of hours of its process. We tried to adopt it. We presented an amendment in committee, and it did not take more than five minutes for the Liberals on that committee to defeat an amendment that would have solved the problem for them.

Mr. Ballinger: It would not have solved the problem. Cut it out. You can’t be serious.

The Deputy Speaker: Order please.

Mrs. Cunningham: Speaking about solving problems, I think the only way the people in Ontario will solve the problem of this Liberal government is to defeat it in the next election. I suggest that many of the Liberal representatives in their own ridings will very much --

Mr. Ballinger: That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard.

The Deputy Speaker: Order please, the member for Durham-York.

Mrs. Cunningham: I suggest that I do not have to preach to those representatives. They know who they are. They were singled out quite clearly by the constituents in their own ridings as we travelled across the province.

I suppose I can only say that we do have some amendments that will improve this particular act. We have one amendment, section 4, that is not acceptable, not needed and will not work. It will be extremely expensive. It does not take into consideration the people who are working on Sunday.

I would like to make that the last point in my observations this afternoon as we try relentlessly, and to no avail, to persuade this large Liberal majority government to listen to the people, because that is not what it is doing. It is listening but it does not hear, and there is a difference.

I think we should all be concerned about the real issues here, and the issue is working on Sundays. We know, and the groups that appeared before us know, that in fact the people who will have to work on Sunday in the retail business establishments are mainly women, many of whom are single parents and earning minimum wage. The employers have told us what their problems will be. Employees have told us that they perhaps would seek another line of work.

For different reasons, the nurses are seeking other lines of work; but many times for the same reasons. One has to do with what a person does and how much he or she enjoys it. The other has to do with working evenings and weekends and being away from one’s family for a very poor wage rate. That is where the nurses and the retail workers are the same, and that is why they are changing their professions.

For those people who are born to shop, they will not like what we are saying today. But when we take the time to explain it to them, and I am including seniors, who have more leisure time, they assure us, as representatives of the seniors’ groups did at the committee hearings, that they too are concerned about people who have to work on Sundays.

In closing, I would like to say that this large majority Liberal government has not listened to the input. They have not paid any attention to the hundreds of people and groups who presented themselves before the committee and to the absolutely thousands of people who have written to us and advised us through petitions that they really do value, in this society, a common day of pause. They have advised us that they do not know what to do next. They do not know where to go.

Yesterday afternoon, as we referred some 14 or 15 phone calls just in the process of the afternoon -- we should have sent the phone calls to the Liberal House leader, but we did not, we sent them to the Premier -- as I was on the train back to London to speak on Sunday shopping, I should tell the members that people were really depressed about what to do next. They just do not know how to persuade this Liberal government to back off from an amendment that is not needed, not wanted and is costly and divisive in our communities.

I would like to take the opportunity now to ask the Liberal government to consider, as we have done all along, as part of the strategy around retreating from a piece of legislation that is not necessary and that is not wanted, perhaps what we could do is take the time to look at an amendment that includes what the Liberals consider a bit of a problem for them, and that is the definition of tourism.

It seems to me that if something is a problem, you ask the people in the industry and in the field out there to help you fix it, and so we did. As each of the almost 300 presenters came before the committee, we asked them four questions.

We asked them if they were in favour of a common day of pause, and even Mr. Magder said yes to that one.

We asked them if in fact they thought that a common day of pause was part of the framework of Bill 113, and they unanimously said they did not.

We also asked them if they felt they could assist us with the definition of tourism, since that seemed to be a problem for this government. It does not seem to be a problem out there in the municipalities or in the courts, but it seems to be a problem for the government.

There were only two or three who felt, for different reasons, that they would not be able to make a commitment or to offer us any assistance in that definition; but 267 groups and individuals said that if they were asked -- and of course we would not want a committee of 267; that is almost as bad as having 94 Liberals in the House. We really would not ask that many, but we could go so far as to get a representative from many of the groups. They were very much interested in assisting us with the definition of tourism.

One group that showed a particular interest, of course, was the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which the Solicitor General had stated she had consulted with. It was a very embarrassing moment when we had to listen to the representatives from that association advise us that in fact they had not been consulted. Therefore, no one wants to get in the middle of a public argument around those kinds of petty issues, but if they had been consulted, they were ready to help us again.

1620

I should say that the definition of “tourism” is something we should be working on and something I feel could be resolved. I do not think the Liberal members on the committee were very interested in finding a resolution to the problem. We put forth our amendment that suggested we call the different groups together and over a period, I think, of 30 days -- it was not very long -- we could indeed come up with some kind of a recommendation that would assist the government with its concern around that definition.

I do not think the public should be confused by the fact that the Liberals on the committee were not interested in the input there nor of any assistance, as we had advised the members who were willing to assist us. I think it was a great disappointment to them that they were not asked and the government was not looking for an alternative to a piece of legislation that is not acceptable to the public.

I do know that when we were talking in the committee about the quality of life, I thought a very good example of concern came from representatives who came to the committee from Metropolitan Toronto. Since that seems to be the great concern of this Liberal government, because other parts of the province are not experiencing difficulties with the present legislation, I thought it was interesting to hear a group representing the St. Clair West Business Association.

They were two women who talked about their quality of family life and how hard they work on St. Clair Avenue West in their small business. They talked about their neighbours who also happen to have small businesses along that very busy avenue in this very large city of Toronto, a city we hope we can remain proud of and proud to live in.

With this kind of legislation, I would suggest the quality of life in many parts of the downtown and inner city of Toronto will be very much changed. One only has to travel along Spadina Avenue on a Sunday to notice that. I feel quite badly for the people who live in that part of our community because, quite frankly, it is very busy and there does not seem to be any rest for the people who are working in those small retail shops. We did take the time to visit on Sundays on a couple of occasions and ask those people just how they did feel. They really wish they were not having to open their shops on Sundays.

The people on St. Clair Avenue West described the traffic and the busyness of a six-day workweek. They also described the tranquillity of a Sunday, even living on a busy avenue like St. Clair in Toronto, and they want to keep for themselves that one day of what they describe as tranquillity. They are not interested in meeting the needs of the born-to-shoppers. They are not interested in giving up the one day they have with their families.

What they are interested in doing is being able to continue with a lifestyle that is important to them and is important to their families. I thought they made a wonderful case before the committee. In fact, Liberal committee members took the time to leave the hearing room after that particular presentation to discuss and try to persuade those particular presenters of their case. They certainly did meet a very strong resistance, not only from the two very articulate women who made the presentation but also from their teenaged children who wanted the same quality of life they have had growing up in the middle of a very large city, the city of Toronto, on a very busy main artery, St. Clair Avenue West. They wanted to maintain the quality of life. They wanted to live, as we might say, downtown. They wanted their children to be close to the museums and to the wonderful opportunities that this city has to offer but they also wanted that street to be particularly tranquil on a Sunday. That is not what they are going to get, we can assure members.

We talked a lot in the committee -- certainly, the opposition party members talked a lot -- about the domino effect. I should tell the House that the Liberal members of the committee talked as little as possible about the domino effect, because, quite frankly, they know that is going to be the effect of this legislation.

We have precedent for that right here in this city, and I have already discussed it. We have precedent for opening on Friday nights, Thursday nights and other weekday nights, because that was the responsibility of the local municipalities and they did bow to the requests of retailers. Therefore, they are open in the evenings. What we do not need is an extension of these many hours of shopping to bite into the rest of our time during the week; that is, to take away the opportunity, if we so wish, to stay home on Sundays.

I chose my words carefully: “if we so wish.” I think it is an absolute joke that this Liberal government, which has hired over 8,000 new bureaucrats to help it make decisions, and no one could possibly believe that the high-priced help around here could even write a bill such as Bill 114. We will get our chance in committee to talk about that, so I do not want to waste the members’ time. They accuse us of wasting their time, but I would like to say that I wish there were some way that we could help this large Liberal government out of its dilemma.

We tried during the fall of 1988 to be not quite as high profile on this particular piece of legislation. In fact, many of the communities across the province wondered just what was happening to Bill 113. When they phoned and asked us, I said, “I really think the Liberals understand the mistake they have made, and they are probably contemplating taking the bill away and withdrawing the legislation or just letting it fall between the cracks.”

On the first day in this House, April 12, 1988, when I came here to represent the citizens of London North, the Premier advised me that perhaps I would come to understand the genius of this bill. I have never heard anyone say that since. There is no genius in this bill. The only genius in this bill would be the withdrawal of the bill. Quite frankly, that is what should happen.

I am a little bit surprised to hear from a couple of municipalities that are telling me right now that they have been put on hold for public meetings around Sunday openings. They happen to be within greater Metropolitan Toronto. I was very surprised, given the position of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the most recent election in this province -- I am now talking municipal election -- that anybody would consider going before any municipal council in this province for a period of time.

I was rather thinking that the Liberals might just pass this piece of legislation and hope that nothing changes, because most of them say nothing will change, if anyone can imagine going to this expense to pass a bill where nothing will change.

I was rather hoping that we would not be presented so quickly with these kinds of situations where municipalities will have to go through a public hearing process, which will cost money obviously. When one puts ads in newspapers, one takes up the expensive time of staff. When one takes up the valuable time of the public, which I happen to cherish. When people come before committees, they do so having given what they are going to say a lot of thought. Having the responsibility of often representing laypersons in the public is an extremely serious occasion for them.

1630

I will close by saying that this legislation is expensive in two ways. It is costly in dollars to the municipalities, the province of Ontario and ultimately the taxpayers. It is costly in a way that is even more important to all of us, and that is it will affect the quality of life of families in this province, and very negatively.

Because of the health crisis and the nursing shortage, I think we should put off this further discussion on Sunday shopping until tomorrow. Therefore, I move adjournment of this debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): If I could deal first with the motion to adjourn by the member for London North, I have had a chance to confer with the table officers. A motion to adjourn at this stage in the proceedings of the House is contrary to the standing orders until such time as we reach orders of the day and cannot be entertained without unanimous consent. I will ask, is there unanimous consent to adjourn? There is not unanimous consent. Accordingly, the motion by the member for London North is out of order.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Given that you have ruled that the motion is out of order, I would ask this under standing order 38(a).

We all think Sunday shopping is very important. However, it has been debated for some eight months and it will be debated perhaps for another eight months. As far as our party is concerned, that may very well be the case, but I would indicate that as important as Sunday shopping is, it is not as important as what we consider to be an emergency. People are dying every day because of a nursing shortage. We are looking at some 40 cancellations of surgery of young children at the Hospital for Sick Children now.

In light of that, I would ask for unanimous consent to allow this debate on Sunday shopping to adjourn for today so that we may get on to what we think is truly an emergency and truly an issue that should be debated today.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Certainly this caucus would have no objection to unanimous consent to move on to the emergency debate, obviously, on the understanding that the motion dealing with the report on Sunday shopping would not be dealt with at this time, so that this debate that we are now engaged in could continue at a future time in the Legislature.

On behalf of this caucus, I must say that we did feel uncomfortable not being able to proceed with the health care emergency debate. We have been raising questions and statements in this House literally for months. It is because of that that we have filed an emergency debate on this subject for tomorrow so that if there is not unanimous consent from the government to proceed with the emergency debate today, we will be dealing, I would hope, with the emergency debate tomorrow afternoon at the latest.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would just like to make a couple of observations. I came here today and indicated before we began at 1:30 p.m. the government’s willingness to entertain the emergency debate, the request standing in the name of the leader of the third party. We, as a government, are quite willing to discuss that matter. Quite frankly, I had come here today expecting that that is what we would be debating.

I also want to indicate, on behalf of the government, that we expect a good, vigorous debate on Bill 113 and Bill 114, the first of which is being reported here this afternoon. I want to say to my honourable friends opposite and to the House generally that the government is quite prepared to move forward in a consultative way.

In fact, I might make a suggestion, as I had tried over the lunch hour but it was not possible, for a number of good reasons, for the House leaders to have a brief meeting to discuss matters, it might be perhaps useful if this debate were to continue for a few moments longer while the three House leaders could repair to one of the adjoining rooms to see if we cannot very quickly decide this matter and organize the business of the House for today and perhaps tomorrow.

I want to co-operate. We want to get on with the business of the province and I think there is a way to do that. I would suggest that perhaps if the House leaders could take just a few moments, and this debate were to continue for a few moments, we could come to an understanding and I would hope move on this afternoon to the emergency debate that had been sought by the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt).

The Acting Speaker: Could I just interject here? We now have two proposals. One is an effort to reach unanimous consent on a motion to adjourn the debate, which has failed for lack of unanimous consent and which I have ruled out of order.

Now we have another proposal for a House leader’s debate, which is not pertinent to the matter which is before the House at this moment. What we have before us is a motion by the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli) that the report of the standing committee on administration of justice be received and adopted. I want to recognize the next speaker with respect to that motion, after having first asked if there are any comments or questions on the speech by the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham).

Hon. Mr. Conway: If I might, Mr. Speaker, just on that previous point, I want to be clear, just so there is no misunderstanding. The government is quite prepared to grant the consent required to adjourn this debate to move on to the emergency debate which had been sought by the member for Sarnia. I can quite happily give the assurance that we will try, at the earliest opportunity. I am just anxious to have a House leaders’ meeting so we can sit down and come to an understanding of how we will proceed beyond that. I just want to be clear on the government’s intention.

Mr. Harris: If I might, very quickly, Mr. Speaker --

The Acting Speaker: Well, this could go on endlessly.

Mr. Harris: This might clarify something. The member for London North has not relinquished the floor. She is a long way from being finished her remarks. She asked for adjournment. You ruled that out of order. Now we have asked for consideration of unanimous consent, which I think might be able to be found. We now have a suggestion from the government House leader: Let’s just adjourn for two minutes. I suggest you take that advice from the government House leader, which I would support, and we will come back and I think things will fall into place.

The Acting Speaker: I therefore request that the House leaders meet privately rather than here in the chamber. The chair recognizes the member for London North, to continue her address.

1640

Mrs. Cunningham: I think it is interesting to note that across Canada there are many Sunday closing laws. In the province of Newfoundland, they do not talk about Sunday shopping. They talk about a Shops Closing Act. Obviously, the priority of that particular government is to close stores on Sundays and not to open them.

I think it is most important also to look at Prince Edward island, where we are talking about a Days of Rest Act. I noticed when the Liberal government brought forth Bill 113, it did not call it an act in support of a common day of pause at all. In fact, “a common pause day” is not to be found in Bill 113, nor is it referred to, but in Prince Edward Island we have a Days of Rest Act.

In Nova Scotia we have a Retail Business Uniform Closing Day Act -- the incentive there.

Let’s talk about British Columbia. They call it a Holiday Shopping Regulation Act. You can all shop on holidays in British Columbia.

That is exactly what this act is: a holiday shopping act. You can shop on any holidays you like and you can shop on Sundays if the municipalities think it is okay, the problem being that if one municipality says it is okay we know by precedent in both Alberta, as we have heard, and certainly in British Columbia -- and, more important, also in New Brunswick -- that is exactly what happens.

If you have a holiday act, you shop on holidays. If you have a Sunday shopping act, you shop on Sundays, unless you have a province where the leadership and the government says: “Uh, uh. No way are we going to support a Sunday shopping regulation.” Therefore, basically, except in British Columbia and Alberta, we have Sunday closing laws across Canada.

I should take just a few moments to get back to what this is all about for people who have just tuned in, as they are starting to prepare their dinner, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to take a look at the greatest soap opera of all, which is free for people who would like to come down here and watch the people who represent them here in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The hours are 1:30 until six o’clock, and if you want to come and listen to your Liberal representative speak in favour of Sunday shopping, I would suggest that you should phone that person. Pick up your phone and ask them when they are coming down to speak in favour of Sunday shopping. We will not hear it. We will hear a bunch of rhetoric that has nothing to do with the real issue, and the issue is people working on Sundays.

As you know, we do have a few members who really do not understand the implications of this legislation but try to the best of their ability, which I respect. I can understand their position if, number one, your government never said it was going to do anything about the Sunday shopping act when you decided to run for the Liberal Party in Ontario in September 1987. If you did not know you had to deal with it, if it was not an election issue and you came down here believing the one statement that the leader of the Liberal Party made at that time, “No, we won’t fiddle with that piece of legislation; we have more important things on our plate,” then I suppose you would come down here expecting, as I did, to deal with issues such as health care, education, the environment and just a few other important things that the province should be most concerned about, meaning making policies instead of reporting things to death and studying things to death.

I would suggest that if you are watching this show, you should really phone your Liberal member and tell him or her that you understand why he or she was confused about this legislation being introduced, because who would have guessed that the leader would have done such a thing.

After having done that, the next question ought to be, “Are you going to vote in favour of Bill 113?” If you are watching, make sure that you ask that question.

If they say yes, remember that they were not listening, not only to yourself but to your neighbours who have, over a long period of time and many, many months, advised us in the hundreds of thousands that they do not want to work on Sundays unless it is absolutely necessary; they do want to spend the time with their families. They thought the Liberals were in favour of a common pause day. So ask, “What the heck are you doing voting in favour of the bill?”

That is what they should be saying. Mr. McGuinty especially should be listening, because we were up in Ottawa, where everybody came and said --

Mr. Cureatz: It was wild.

Mrs. Cunningham: And Mr. Chiarelli, as well. He is not here right now. It was wild. You could not believe it.

I should say that the one thing I can say about the standing committee on administration of justice which travelled this summer is that all of the members respected each other and worked well together, including my colleagues.

Mr. McGuinty: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for London North has used my name and also the name of my colleague the member for Ottawa West, the implication being that we are friends and familiar, from which she might gain a certain credibility. I ask her to withdraw both names, please.

Mr. B. Rae: What name would you like to be called by, Dalton?

The Acting Speaker: All members are reminded that they are, by tradition, expected to address each other by the riding which they represent, rather than their personal names. The member for London North.

Mrs. Cunningham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do apologize. I should have known better, but I am sure that the member for Ottawa South would not want me to misquote him, so I will read the letter that he did write.

This was on February 18, 1988, to Tom Ross, chairman of the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping, 1231 Yonge Street, Suite 209, Toronto, Ontario.

“Dear Mr. Ross,

“Thank you for your well-written and thoughtful letter, dated February 10, 1988.”

If I can interject. I am very impressed with the member for Ottawa South, I really am. I note that he received the letter on February 10 and responded on February 18, and that is terrific. I just have to say that. However, he goes on to say:

“Many others have raised the same concerns and you have my sympathy and understanding.

“I can assure you that your views will be forcefully expressed when this matter comes up for debate.

“Yours truly, Dalton McGuinty, MPP.”

I would challenge the member for Ottawa South to forcefully express the views of Tom Ross, the Coalition Against Open Sunday Shopping, when he has the opportunity to do so in the House. I would not normally have read that letter into the record, but I can understand that the member was concerned about me.

I am not sure whether another member would like us to read a letter which he --

Mr. Cureatz: Yes, let’s hear some more. More, more.

Mrs. Cunningham: I really am trying to make an impression here on the elected Liberal majority government in the province. I do not want to upset them, and although I have mentioned the member for Ottawa South, he did express himself well on the committee and, although I did not agree with him, I very much enjoyed the contribution that he made.

What I did not enjoy was the abuse he took in Ottawa South, because I do not think that the public should be electing people to represent them based on just one issue. I should say that. But the public of Ontario will have a choice, because I think the real issue here is broken promises. They will have more than one issue. They will have Sunday shopping. They will have --

1650

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe the House leaders have come to some understanding and I would move again for unanimous consent to allow the member for London North to adjourn this debate.

Hon. Mr. Conway: If I could speak to that point, Mr. Speaker, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) is quite right. The House leaders have just met and we have agreed that it would be timely if the House adjourned this debate. I want to give the indication to the House very clearly that this would mean it will appear in Orders and Notices tomorrow as a government order to be called by me at some time, when we can arrange it in the normal course of events.

I give a commitment on behalf of the government that this will be done. Recognizing what members have said on all sides, the request from the member for Sarnia to then proceed this afternoon with the debate concerning the nursing situation in Ontario is something the government would be quite prepared to proceed with immediately.

The Acting Speaker: I would therefore ask the member for London North if she would make the request of the House for unanimous consent.

Mrs. Cunningham: I would be pleased to make that request of the House.

The Acting Speaker: For the record, therefore, is the House in agreement that unanimous consent be given to introduce a motion to adjourn the debate?

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

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Brandt moved that pursuant to standing order 37(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, that being the critical shortage of nurses, the serious imbalance in the delivery of health services and the resulting inability of the health care system to provide adequate and equal accessibility to required health care services, in particular, the government’s inability to address the serious problem of the growing number of patients waiting for heart surgery in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: I am advised that notice of the motion was received in time and is in order. I will listen to the honourable member as well as representatives from the other parties for up to five minutes each.

Hon. Mr. Conway: If I might, Mr. Speaker, the House leaders have had some discussions this afternoon. It is my understanding that it is agreed on all sides that this debate proceed, so I would seek the unanimous consent of the House that we waive that five-minute rule and proceed immediately to the substantive debate on the 10-minute cycle.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to waive the five-minute arguments by each of the parties?

Agreed to.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: Let me first thank the members of the House for their consideration in connection with the emergency debate we have called for this afternoon in connection with health services in Ontario. I appreciate the consideration of the House leaders in making this time available.

Certainly, I want to say to the members of the House that there is no issue, in my view, that is more sensitive, more critical or more important to the people of this province than the quality of care they receive from a health care system which, in the minds of many, is perceived to be deteriorating in terms of the quality of care the people of Ontario have come to enjoy over the years.

It is particularly frightening when one looks at some of the information with regard to the role nurses have been playing in the health care system and when one looks at the circumstances surrounding the very real shortage in the nursing field that is occurring in this province.

It is estimated that at the current rate of nurses leaving the profession, over the course of the next 10 years there will be some 6,000 nurses who will leave the profession of nursing for various and sundry reasons in Ontario. This is leading to a circumstance that is causing, in some hospitals, an inability to respond to surgical demands. It is causing hospital beds to be closed down and a very real reduction in services, which was headlined very recently in some of our media reports, where it was indicated that 40 children at the Hospital for Sick Children had to have surgery delayed for up to eight months as a result of problems, many of which surrounded the whole question of nursing.

Not only is it frightening when you take a look at the number of nurses who are leaving the profession, but as well, it is very disconcerting when one looks at the cost of replacing a nurse in that profession today. It is estimated that the cost is something in the neighbourhood of $28,000 for every vacancy that occurs. That takes into account such things as the cost of educating and bringing a nurse fully up to speed in terms of the kind of in-house training that is necessary when a nurse becomes part of a hospital system.

When you take a look at what we are being told, why we think this emergency debate is so important today is that a series of problems is causing this kind of outflow of nurses from the profession to occur here in this province. Many nurses, as an example, are suffering from stress. Many nurses are suffering from what they perceive to be poor pay. They also are extremely frustrated over the inability of their profession to have any input in the decision-making process of the health system in the province.

What has resulted is a province-wide shortage of nurses, which is about 3.5 per cent of the total complement of nurses on a province-wide basis and a very frightening figure, over seven per cent, in the Metropolitan Toronto area. That is why most of the problems are occurring right in the Metro area, certainly not all, but a great many of the problems relative to the cancellation of surgery and the closing of certain beds on occasion because of nursing shortages.

We presently have an annual shortfall of nurses in this province of some 1,400, and that shortfall is continuing to go up because of the number of graduates that are coming into the system, against the number of nurses leaving the system. This leaves us with a net reduction in the total complement of some 80,000 that is required to look after the nursing needs of the citizens of this province.

The problem is most serious and has to be addressed by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) in terms of long-term care, nursing that is required in that particular category, psychiatric care and also in critical care. These are three of the many areas of nursing in which real concerns have been identified that have to be addressed by the ministry in terms of how those nurses are being treated and how their work environment is being developed for them.

It is most stressful when you are working with long-term care patients who can at times be difficult, and certainly psychiatric patients require a great deal of sensitivity and understanding on the part of nurses. Tremendous pressures exist for nurses who are in the area of critical care.

One of the concerns that comes back time and again when you talk to nurses about their frustrations is that when you ask them why they are leaving the profession, after years of study and working to prepare themselves for a career in the service of patients and in health care in this province, many of them will tell you there really is not a great deal of appreciation for a new nurse, a novice if you will, coming into the profession, and for the difference in pay, the number of categories when one steps up to the top level of pay, between a new or novice nurse and one who is at the top end of the pay scale.

There are approximately eight different levels a nurse can go up over a period of time, but the actual pay differential is quite insignificant. When the nurses move up at a relatively modest pay scale in terms of levels 1 through 8, they are expected, in many instances, at their own expense, to upgrade and improve their education, their knowledge and also their ability to handle the new technology that is being introduced into the health care system at this present time.

1700

There is in fact very little incentive. There is very little reward for a nurse who wants to better himself or herself in that profession and therefore the frustration sets in. It is not just a question of my standing here saying it. It is a question of the numbers proving it to the minister and to every member of this assembly. When you get 1,400 people leaving a profession annually and you have a serious problem in terms of trying to provide the necessary manpower to cover all the requirements of the health care system, something is very wrong.

One of the things the nurses are asking for and one of the things that would bring about some improvements in the health care system, and I think would be of assistance to the minister in terms of finding solutions to what I understand are very difficult, expensive and complicated problems, is that the nurses would really like to have the minister look at the opening up and reforming of the Public Hospitals Act with a view -- I am trying to be of assistance in areas that are not necessarily expensive -- towards having the nurses assist with policy development.

They are professionals. They are people who work in hospitals, when you put it on a per-hour basis, far longer than most physicians do. They know what is going on. Nurses would like to have a little more flexibility in terms of the scheduling of their hours. They would like to have a little more input into how the health system actually operates, and particularly for their own part of the health system. That seems very reasonable.

Before my time runs out, I want to get a couple of other things on the floor in connection with how seriously and how concerned I am about this particular problem. The minister should look at the registrations of new nurses coming into the field, We know many are leaving the field. If there were enough new graduates coming in who were registering in that profession, I guess the concern could be offset to some extent, but that is not happening either

Back in 1971, as an example, we had 6,600 registrants in that profession. In 1986 that went down to just under 4,000, so the actual number of new nurses coming into the field, coming into the profession, is going down. There is a pattern developing that is very troubling, and that is that we have fewer nursing graduates and we have more nurses leaving the profession. That has to be stopped. That is why there is a shortage of 3.5 per cent in terms of requirements across the province and more than seven per cent in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

I recognize that health is not only a very sensitive area for all of us to be discussing in terms of the level and the quality of care, but it is also an economic matter. I say to the minister to look, as an example, at delays in the area of provision of children’s services at the Hospital for Sick Children. Look at the cost, which is estimated to be something in the range of $750 a day -- if I could just take about 30 seconds I will conclude my remarks -- with some children delayed up to eight months waiting for surgery. I realize they are not all in a bed in that hospital, but some of them are there for a matter of days or weeks. That cost is a tremendous burden on the health care system.

There are ways we can improve on the flow-through, on the speed with which some of these procedures are being handled, if we improve on some of the areas of concern surrounding nursing.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Members of the Legislature, I think, all know that the Ontario government has no higher priority than to protect and to enhance the health and the health care of the people of this province.

This year the total expenditure of my ministry will represent approximately $12.7 billion or nearly $1,500 per capita; $1,500 for every man, woman and child in this province. Health care now accounts for fully one third of the entire provincial budget. By all means of accountability and importance, this reflects a major commitment on the part of our government to see that the people of Ontario have access to the health services they need and require.

Any discussion, any debate about the integrity of this government’s commitment to health care in Ontario, must take into account the developments that have occurred in this province since the change of government in June 1985.

It was this government that introduced Bill 94, the legislation banning extra-billing and thereby making access to physicians’ services free of any financial barrier in Ontario for the first time.

It was this government that introduced sweeping reforms to the Nursing Homes Act, giving nursing home residents their own bill of rights and making nursing homes more accountable to the ministry and to the general public.

It was this government that introduced the northern travel grant program, a program that, once again for the first time, made access to necessary health services a reality for the people of northern Ontario.

It was this government that expanded the assistive devices program to people of all ages so that no one in Ontario, no Ontario citizen, would have that kind of financial hardship caused because of a physical disability.

It was this government that agreed to cover 75 per cent of the costs of dental services for children with cleft lip and palate problems and thereby relieved hundreds of Ontario families from the expenditure of sometimes up to $20,000 for the care of their children.

It was this government that agreed to provide drugs to cystic fibrosis and thalassemia patients for a cost of over $5 million annually.

The list goes on. We expanded community mental health programs with program funding increases from some $47 million in 1985 to $121 million for this current fiscal year.

I could begin with discussions of many of the special initiatives, but one I believe worth mentioning is the funding of the Heart Institute at the Ottawa Civic Hospital, at a cost of over $10 million. I could mention the government’s most progressive acquired immune deficiency syndrome education and treatment program. I would say we have shown leadership, not only in Canada but also in North America.

It was this government that recently introduced the Independent Health Facilities Act, an act designed to give us a legislative framework for the expansion of community-based services, the kinds of services that will allow people to receive treatment as close to home as possible and in a manner that is effective as well as cost-effective, in response to the changing technologies and the fact we can do more in a community-based setting outside the traditional institutional environment.

That is only part of the record I have been referring to, and I believe it is an important and a very outstanding record of achievement. I believe we have honoured our commitment and we intend to continue doing so.

Having said this, let me address a number of the issues that seem to be the focus of our attention here in this House and have been in the media for the last few weeks. First, I am going to deal with the current nursing shortage in the province.

Within the past few months, the ministry has received a number of reports relating to nursing manpower concerns, and while the reports have been carried out by different sponsoring agencies -- the Ontario Nurses’ Association, the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto, my own minister’s Advisory Committee on Nursing Manpower and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario -- they all point to a number of common issues that I believe we have all agreed must be addressed.

As the reports point out, the issues are complex; they are societal issues and they are interrelated. The concerns now challenging the nursing profession really are challenging for all of us. They go beyond the borders of this province. In fact these are worldwide concerns and issues in most jurisdictions of this world, particularly North America, which are facing similar challenges.

1710

The questions relate to the working environment for nurses, the workload and organization of hospitals, job satisfaction, pay differentials, flexible hours of work and the need for continuing education in a changing profession and a changing health care environment.

I have said publicly on many occasions that I am prepared to work in all these areas of concern, to use my office as minister to help bring parties together who have a stake in the resolution of these matters. I am prepared and am doing my part to the extent that my responsibility and authority permit. I have also said there are many issues to resolve and that it is crucial for the nursing profession itself and for the hospitals where many of those nurses work to come together, to discuss and to negotiate in a spirit of flexibility and adaptability to these changing times and to these important and difficult challenges.

Part of the difficulty, I say -- and this is only part of the difficulty -- is the work environment. Patient care requirements which nurses are expected to fulfil, as I said, are changing rapidly and dramatically. This means that hospitals and nurses must come together and establish new protocols, new procedures and look for new opportunities that will meet their mutual needs. The hospitals are the employers of the nurses. The nurses’ union is the Ontario Nurses’ Association.

To facilitate this process I have told nursing organizations that we are drafting changes to the Public Hospitals Act, I am pleased to hear from the leader of the third party his support for what I believe is a long-overdue look at an act that is some 40 years old and which does not reflect the environment today. I have made that commitment because I believe that this legislative framework is extremely important in acknowledging the changes that have occurred and that will occur in the future.

In my view, the changes in the legislation may perhaps to some degree be dealt with in the interim by some regulatory changes. We are looking to see what we can do by regulation in the interim, so that we can meet the needs not only of the nursing profession but of other professionals working in the hospital environment, of the hospitals and of the patients who are served by those hospitals.

As we move forward with a full review of the Public Hospitals Act, it is my aim and hope that we will have ready for introduction, perhaps as early as next fall, amendments to that legislation. A consultation process will be announced shortly and nurses will be invited to participate in the updating of the public hospitals legislation.

That is a short overview of the nursing manpower issue. As I said, it relates to the changing role of women within our society, to more opportunities that are available to women, and I believe as we move forward in health care, we have to look at some of the specific issues that come from that.

The focus of concern in recent weeks has been primarily on the downtown Metropolitan Toronto hospitals, because they have had some difficulty in staffing particularly their critical care and intensive care units. I believe this concern is related to the fact that the situation in Metropolitan Toronto and downtown Toronto is different from other parts of the province. Sometimes it is the availability of child care, transportation or flexible working schedules. I am confident that the hospitals, along with their nurses, will work to resolve many of those issues. If I can assist by facilitating those discussions, I would be pleased to do so.

As well, ministry officials have been holding regular meetings with the Ontario Hospital Association, its representatives and the nursing associations. I am quite confident that together, in a spirit of co-operation, we will meet the challenges as we lead health care. Notwithstanding all the challenges, if we view those challenges as opportunities, we will lead health care successfully, safely and proudly into the next century.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York South.

Mr. B. Rae: I am delighted to participate in this debate. I think, having heard the minister, we all have a sense of frustration. I want to convey to her very directly my own frustration in this regard. I have personally been raising with her this problem for well over a year, since she became the minister. In particular, through the fall of 1987 and through the winter and spring of 1988, this question was very much a focus of our concern in the House, a focus of work by my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) and the subject of many questions and other emergency debates in this House.

There are some things that I think need to be said, that the minister has said, which are true. It is true that Ontario is not alone. It is true that we are part of a secular trend across the western world in looking at difficulties in recruiting nurses and difficulties in keeping people in the profession, but I will say very directly to the minister that having said that there are very deep structural reasons for the problem, that does not absolve the minister, her staff, the ministry or the whole government in recognizing that this is an urgent problem that requires intervention by the government in order for it to be solved.

It also requires money. I say very directly to all members of the House, and indeed to the public, that if anybody thinks there is a solution to this problem that does not involve more investment and a greater commitment by the government of Ontario to spend what is necessary to keep nurses in the profession, then they are deluding themselves.

Frequently, when I hear the minister, I know there are many technocrats in the Ministry of Health who think there is some sort of planning solution to this which will miraculously solve the problem without any increase in the appropriation for nursing and for nursing care that comes from the government of Ontario, and I want to say very directly that it cannot be done.

Yes, there need to be changes in the Public Hospitals Act. Yes, we need to recognize that nurses need to have a role in the administration of health care greater than the role they have now. Yes, we need to recognize politically their role in the health care system in a way that has not been true up until now.

This came home to me with a vengeance, as it did to all the citizens of the province, during the ordeal of Susan Nelles. As we watched the Grange inquiry, it came home to me with such force. We all came to know the names of every one of the nurses on that ward in the Hospital for Sick Children, but I would suspect there is not a member in this House who can off the top of his or her head say who the doctors were on that ward. That is because it is the nurses who have the day-to-day, hour-to-hour responsibility for care in our hospital system. They are at the foundation of care in our hospital system and yet, nothing has been done to match that work and that responsibility with real recognition by the people of this province, the government of this province and the hospitals that are their employers.

I would say to the minister that there really is no excuse this far into her term as minister for her not addressing very directly the issue that is in front of us, which is a nursing shortage that is, yes, concentrated in this province in Metropolitan Toronto, but by no means confined exclusively to Metropolitan Toronto. It is that shortage which lies at the heart of all the other issues that we have been dealing with when it comes to hospital care.

You look at the delays in cancer surgery. That is a product of the decline in the number of nurses in Princess Margaret Hospital, Sunnybrook Medical Centre and other cancer hospitals. You look at the crisis affecting heart patients, and obviously because of the nature of their illness and because of the severity of their illness, these are the cases that we have been having to deal with most immediately in this House. That is a product of a nursing shortage.

As Dr. Salerno quite rightly points out in his comments to the media, it is not just a product of a nursing shortage. It is the fact that the nurses who are available are not on the staffs of hospitals; they are on the staffs of agencies. The agencies are charging more than hospitals are willing to spend, and there has been a bargaining war going on between the agencies and the hospitals. It is the patients who are caught in the middle of this bargaining battle.

1720

When I was in hospital last June, I was amazed and struck by the number of nurses at the Princess Margaret Hospital who were not on staff. Just routinely, the nurses you saw and asked how long they had been working there would say: “I don’t work here all the time, I work for an agency.” That is not unusual. That, in fact, has become part of the pattern of how nurses, as individuals, respond to a structure that does not make sense to them any more and to which they have to respond in the way that they have.

The debate we have had in the last couple of days has focused on one single issue. There is a three-year collective agreement that is one year old. That collective agreement has obviously not succeeded fully in maintaining the level of staff that we need in the critical care units in our hospitals. The Ontario Nurses’ Association has said that is the case, and it is willing to reopen the agreement in order to address that subject.

I want to say very directly to the minister, there is no way that is going to happen unless she talks to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the Premier and she, the Premier and the Treasurer come to an understanding that there has to be an enrichment of the salary going to the people who are providing that level of nursing care. It has to be done on an urgent basis, on an intelligent and planned basis, but it has to be done.

I say to the minister, if she does not believe me, this issue is just not going to go away. It is not going to go away because the problem is built into the system.

There are those who will say there are too many people who are getting these heart operations, but I say to the minister that she is not the one to decide that and she is not in a position to say, “You should get the treatment and you shouldn’t.” I am not in a position to make that judgement and neither is any health economist, no matter how much we might respect his policy skills and other skills.

We are left with a situation where, essentially, patients have to rely on the medical advice of doctors who say: “We think you need this treatment. It’s the most effective treatment to treat the illness you have. The only way we can treat the illness you have is by means of an operation.” None of us is in a position to second-guess that judgement.

I say to the minister, if she wants to launch some long-term studies on how cardiology care is being provided in the province, that is fine, but that does not address this problem, any more than suggesting that people who are having hip replacement operations should not be having them. That is not a judgement for me to make. It is not a judgement for her to make. I say, with the greatest of respect, it is also not a judgement for her deputy or anybody else to be making. It is a judgement that needs to be made by physicians. That is the way our whole system operates, and I suggest that is the way it should operate.

I want to come back to this issue. The one thing I am glad about is I genuinely believe that, as opposed to when we began raising these issues some time ago, there is now greater awareness in the public that when we come right down to it, the problem is nursing, nursing, nursing. That should be the focus of attention when we talk. With all the abstractions about long-range planning in the health care system, we have to come back to nursing, nursing, nursing.

The government can announce every spectacular new technology that it wants. Unless it has nurses who are trained and able to provide the care that the technology now makes available, there is no point in our discussing all the capital plans which any government might have about how it is going to spend X, Y, and Z on new technology. We have to come down again and again -- nursing, nursing, nursing; people, people, people.

That is why I say to the minister I know the advice she is getting from the technical experts who will say: “Look, there is a collective agreement. It lasts for three years. You can’t have reopeners unless both parties consent. That’s the way it is. That’s the law. That’s the technical way in which this thing works.”

As I wind up, I say to the minister with the greatest respect that it is not a matter of that technicality. It is a matter of recognizing that unless we pay these people more, more of them are going to leave. We are going to have longer waiting lists and more people are going to get sick and will not survive long enough to get the operations they need.

Mr. Eves: It is my pleasure to rise and partake in this debate. I might say that I am glad we are finally having a serious discussion about the nursing shortage in Ontario. I fully concur with the leader of the official opposition that we have been raising it in this Legislature since the fall of 1987 at least.

It was with interest that I noted the minister spent the first five minutes of her remarks talking about things that have absolutely nothing to do with the nursing shortage, outlining programs in dollars and cents that her government has spent in the last few months and years to try to improve the health care system in Ontario.

It is not that we have anything against those projects and those programs. It is just that I thought we were talking about the nursing shortage in Ontario, particularly as it relates to the waiting lists for cardiovascular surgery in this province. I think all of those things need to be done by any government that hopes to keep up to date with health care in Ontario.

During the last five minutes of her remarks, she indeed did touch upon the issue of nursing shortages. She cited all kinds of things that possibly could be done. She talked about a worldwide problem with respect to shortages of nurses. It is kind of strange that this is the same government whose Premier always says: “We in Ontario have world-class treatment. We have world-class facilities. We are the best in the world.” Are we to take it from the minister’s remarks this afternoon that we are happy to be part of the lowest common denominator with respect to the nursing shortage throughout the world? I do not think we should accept that. I do not believe the minister really believes that in her own mind.

I would like also to speak to the subject of staff nurses, because this has been a contention with the Ontario Nurses’ Association and any nursing body; the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. Whenever they talk about the problem with respect to nursing in Ontario, one of their common complaints is that nobody in the government seems to want to talk and have representation from staff nurses, the people who work in the trenches day in and day out, who experience these problems as nurses day in and day out, who are not administrative staff or educators but rather the people who have to go in there and do this and slug it out in the trenches every day.

It is also interesting to note, in connection with the recent problem at St. Michael’s Hospital with respect to cardiovascular surgery and talking about Dr. Salerno, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) did, that I had occasion a few months ago and a few weeks ago to talk to Dr Salerno about waiting lists for cardiovascular surgery in the province and in Metropolitan Toronto in particular.

St. Mike’s has had to cut back the number of hours that surgeons are able to use the operating rooms at St. Mike’s due to the fact that there are not enough highly skilled and trained nurses to deal in critical care in Ontario, in particular, in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

The other day I tried to read into the record during question period, but was cut short, the number of instances we have had -- these are only the public instances -- in the last few months. We are all quite aware now of Mr. Pitcher, who died last March. The Leader of the Opposition brought his case to the forefront. A few days later, I spoke of Mr. Thornton, a constituent of mine who had his heart surgery postponed five times. Unfortunately, he died as well. He had a heart attack on the operating table.

We can rhyme off the others, but I think the media are all quite aware of them by now. There are eight to 12 public cases that have become very public. Then today, of course, we come up with the story in all the media about the 40 children who have had their heart surgery postponed at the Hospital for Sick Children in the last few months because of a nursing shortage.

There are four different bodies, as the minister acknowledges, which have done studies on the nursing shortage in Ontario. The first was put out by the ONA. Goldfarb Associates did a survey and came up with some suggestions. The minister has had this report since early March 1988. That is almost a year now.

1730

The key issues to be addressed, if I have to summarize them for the minister, are: better pay; salaries increasing with education, experience and/or responsibility; better hours; more flexible, shorter hours; more opportunities for nurses to advance, upgrade themselves and encourage ambitions; better attitudes towards nurses from the public, doctors and other co-workers, and more staff to reduce workload and stress.

I think those are fairly specific recommendations. I would like to know what specific plans of action the minister has taken to address each and every one of those. She has had them for 10 months. This is 10 months later, and we are addressing the very same issues. We have the very same problems and from what we can see on this side of the House, the minister has not addressed any one of those issues specifically and she will not tell us what she has done about any of them.

We have the report of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario. Theirs is a little bit more recent. Their recommendations came out in November 1988. There are 14 very specific recommendations that the RNAO outlines in its summary for the minister. It is nice and handy. They are all numbered. They are in capital print. The minister can read them. It is nice and easy reading.

I would like to know what she has done about each and every single one of their 14 recommendations. Many of them do involve the minister. She cannot just pass the buck and say, “It’s a collective bargaining problem between the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Nurses’ Association,” because we know that 80 per cent -- everybody knows that and surely she does -- of every hospital budget in this province is labour-intensive.

We also know that the large majority of that is nurses’ salaries. Surely the minister cannot expect, for one moment in time, the OHA to go back to the ONA and renegotiate their agreement and address some of the very important concerns that they have for experience and skill, without her being able to say to the OHA that she has found the funding for it to go back and do this. To say otherwise is just making a mockery of the whole process. If she expects the hospitals to do it out of their existing budgets then she, as Minister of Health, should be directing these hospitals as to what services to the public they should cut so they can provide this funding and financing to the nurses.

I could go on for much longer than 10 minutes about this, but I think it would be well to read into the record part of the ONA’s report, An Industry in Crisis, a release that the Wellesley Hospital nurses released in November 1987. That is some 14 months ago.

“At our hospital we are desperately short-staffed. Staff nurses, particularly in the intensive care units, are working 16 to 24 hours in a row, which is unsafe for patients and destructive to nurses’ morale and health. The operating room, the recovery room and critical care areas are especially short-staffed. At one point, our operating room was short 19 nurses out of 48. As a result, operating room time, already less than adequate from the surgeon’s point of view, has been restricted again.

“In an effort to compensate for this, many surgeons are operating in the middle of the night and through the weekend, which means that the already very limited number of operating, recovery room and intensive care nurses must also work these hours. At the same time, we are called upon to do so much overtime. We must work evenings, nights, holidays and weekends. In the midst of this, we must constantly upgrade our skills, take courses and be recertified. We receive no financial compensation for our advanced skills. In fact, we do not receive any kind of recognition for these courses.

“A nurse who has worked for 25 years, no matter what her education or experience, receives only a little more than $4,000 a year more than the new graduate. The result is that staff turnover is very high, with new graduates constantly being hired and few nurses remaining long enough to develop real expertise.

“The result of all of this is an unnecessary lowering of the quality of nursing care for our patients. Those of us who work in hospitals have no difficulty understanding why so many nurses leave the hospital work and others are leaving nursing all together. It is not so difficult to turn out new nurses, but under these conditions, it is very difficult to keep them working in the hospital area.”

I think that says it better than just about anybody could say it. The problems are there. They have been identified by four different bodies. The four different bodies are almost unanimous in what has to be done. All we need now is a minister and a government with the will to do it, to accept some of the responsibility that is properly theirs as leaders in government.

We look to them for leadership. The ONA certainly has. The nursing profession in general and the residents of Ontario in general are right in looking to the Minister of Health for direction. She cannot just say that this is the OHA’s problem, the ONA’s problem, the Ontario Medical Association’s problem or the pharmacists’ problem. It always seems that it is everybody’s problem but the Minister of Health’s problem.

I thought the whole purpose of having a Minister of Health was that the minister would lead and give direction to try to tell the hospitals, the medical profession, the pharmacists, the nurses and indeed the people of Ontario what direction health care is going in and what she and her government are doing to take it down that road and to address the critical shortages that we have in the nursing profession today.

Ms. Hart: I rise today to participate in this debate on the issue of nursing shortages, particularly as it affects Metropolitan Toronto and those of us who live here, because the problem seems to be more centred in this area than anywhere else in the province.

First, it would be misleading to blame any shortage strictly on monetary matters. The issues are much more complex than that. I refer the honourable members to three excellent reports reviewed by the Ministry of Health. Those are the report of the ministry’s Advisory Committee on Nursing Manpower and the reports by the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario and the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto.

Because of the demanding and very emotional nature of their work, nurses need job satisfaction, perhaps more than any other profession. Hospitals need to have a flexible approach in such matters as scheduling and other parts of the job which affect the nurses’ quality of work life. This is particularly true for those dedicated nurses in critical care units, surely among the most demanding of hospital jobs.

The reports indicate that the quality of work life is the issue that needs to be addressed. That is in accordance with common sense. Why would you choose to work in a downtown hospital in Toronto, where housing is most costly, child care is problematic and parking is exorbitant, unless you feel yourself to be a valued, consulted member of the health care team?

Surveys revealed great dissatisfaction among nurses, but they also discovered positive aspects of nursing which employees can build on. Many if not all of the findings hold equally true for registered nurses in acute care and registered nursing assistants in long-term settings. While patient contact was identified as the most positive aspect of nursing, over half of the hospital nurses surveyed would not recommend a career in nursing.

A strong correlation exists between job satisfaction and hospital working environment, according to the reports -- something we should not be too surprised at. The opportunity to use skills and abilities correlates highly with job satisfaction, and only one third of the nurses surveyed ranked their own situation as positive in this regard.

It comes down even to the simple things. For example, my riding’s own hospital, Toronto East General Hospital, is to be commended for involving its nurses in the design of its new emergency and critical care wing. I understand that it is almost unheard of to consult with those people who spend the most time in the facility, namely, the nurses. It is hard to imagine that would be so. Clearly, the onus is on the hospitals, the associations and those representing nurses and doctors to set their houses in order, if conditions are to improve for nurses in Metropolitan Toronto and elsewhere.

I would like to commend the minister for her decision to open the Public Hospitals Act, which will include giving consideration to allowing nurses more of an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process in the province’s hospitals.

As has been pointed out, the principal nursing shortage is in Metropolitan Toronto. There are a number of complex reasons for that as well. The cost of living for one thing, something we all deal with here in this city. Why should a nurse with some mobility work at a hospital in Metropolitan Toronto when she or he can earn the same amount of money with less stress in some other location?

1740

I know the minister has said she is not opposed to premium pay for those working in critical care jobs, and it is something that will have to be considered if we are to sustain the high standard of nursing care we need today. That is a matter of negotiation between the ONA and the OHA, and I am pleased at the efforts of the Minister of Health to get the two sides together to discuss mutual concerns. As all members know, when you are getting parties together to initiate a new way of working together, it takes time -- a lot of time -- and that time is necessary time to bring about the good result.

It is, of course, a grave concern to all of us when great hospitals such as Princess Margaret and the Sunnybrook Medical Centre have to close beds because of a shortage of nurses. Nobody, certainly nobody here, wants to see that.

I know that many of the issues raised in the reports that I mentioned earlier, and in the media as well, are not within the Ministry of Health’s jurisdiction or within the jurisdiction of the Legislature, but as members know that has never stopped us talking about them before. This is a matter we are all concerned about. We all have nurses in our riding; we are all concerned about the health care of our constituents, and we know how important the nurses are in the hospital setting, in the home care setting and in all the settings where they work for us.

Again, I commend the minister for showing leadership in attempting to help the parties resolve some of their differences and in her efforts to help alleviate the evident shortage. We know that this shortage will not be alleviated overnight. It would be wonderful if we could snap our fingers, if the Minister of Health could say, just like that: “There will be more nurses. There will be more beds. We will never again have anyone in need of nursing care that is not available.”

Unfortunately, as with all very complicated issues -- and we only deal with complex issues these days, it seems -- it is not that easy. It is something that requires a lot of talk, a lot of thought, a lot of reports and a lot of consideration; and people do not come together to find solutions to complex problems overnight. We all know that does not happen.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I am happy to be able to join this debate today. However, I would obviously prefer not to have to have this type of debate again in the Legislature. I might point out that we have been talking about these problems of waiting lists for surgery for not just many months but for a number of years now, not only with this minister but with the previous minister as well.

I remember raising the statistics, when the hospitals used to more readily share the statistics of the number of people on waiting lists for this type of surgery, with members of the Legislature. On a regular basis, just a couple of years ago, I used to call the hospitals down London way to get the numbers of people in the groupings of urgent surgery required and more elective surgery required.

If I remember correctly, the urgent surgery was, in the view of the doctors, bypass surgery, open-heart surgery that should be carried out within two weeks of the diagnosis. That would probably mean after the angiogram had been carried out by the doctors in those hospitals. Regularly at that time the waiting lists were six to eight weeks, and things have only got worse.

I can tell members from personal experience that when our family went through this just a year ago -- I think it is a year next month that my father had his bypass surgery -- when he was on the waiting list it was incredibly scary. It was absolutely inhumane to put not only the family members through that -- obviously, we can cope -- but also the person who already has physical problems and has a heart problem. That kind of treachery, that kind of worry, that kind of fear for life is absolutely inhumane in Ontario in 1988 and now in 1989. I have had many cases, as I am sure you have, Mr. Speaker, as have other members of the Legislature, of families who have called who are going through this.

I cannot understand the economics of it either. When we talk about a problem with budget and a problem with money, I do not see how it is a saving of government money when we tell people they are on a waiting list and they can go into emergency in a cardiac care unit on a regular basis with acute angina, which is what happens with many of these cases, at $400 to $500 per day for a CCU bed, in that neighbourhood; an active treatment bed is well over $300 per day now.

We say to these people, “You’re on an urgent list for open-heart surgery and, as taxpayers and as a government, we’ll spend to have you go into emergency and into the CCU while we’re having you wait for your bypass surgery.” It is absolutely insane. I do not understand the economics of it at all, why we would be willing to spend that kind of money and at the same time say, “We understand that you have to have the surgery, but we can’t accommodate you for the surgery.”

The surgery costs $2,000 for the doctor’s Ontario health insurance plan fee, and then there is, of course, the hospital stay coverage as well. When my dad was on the waiting list, going in on several occasions on an emergency basis, he spent at least 10 to 14 days in the local hospital CCU. At $500 per day, that would be $7,000; not to have the surgery but to be put in a CCU while he was under emergency care to bring the angina under control so he did not have a heart attack while he was awaiting the surgery to prevent a future heart attack.

I get cases like this all the time in my office. I am not sure the minister understands. I thought she might have, but I remember when I talked to her last year about not only my family case but some of the cases in my riding, the answer I got from the minister was that the family should make arrangements to have the cases moved from Victoria Hospital or University Hospital in London to Toronto, because the waiting lists in Toronto are much shorter.

If the waiting lists are much shorter in Toronto, and people in Toronto are dying because they cannot get their surgery quickly enough, as cases have been documented in the local papers, then I do not know what that says about London, where the situation was in even more crisis last year than Toronto or Ottawa or Hamilton or the other teaching hospitals across the province.

The minister’s constant response to this problem has been to study the issue, to set up a task force, to receive reports, but to do virtually nothing in terms of acting on those recommendations. I do not think that is good enough any longer. The constant responses we have been getting from this minister in the House have been delay: “It’s not my responsibility. It’s the responsibility of the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Nurses’ Association.” That simply is not adequate when we are in a crisis.

There is no way this can be described as anything other than a crisis. It has to be described as a crisis when there are people dying, when there are people suffering and when there is acute panic by anyone who requires this type of surgery but cannot access it.

I can also say that I understand entirely the situation that nurses go through who work in this type of situation. Last year when I visited the facilities at Victoria Hospital in London, I obviously went into the trauma centre where heart patients go after they have had their surgery. As a family member, before the surgery takes place there is all sorts of education that is available. They give you books to read that are supposed to properly prepare you mentally for what you are going to see after the surgery takes place, but the patient is actually brought into a trauma room where there is a critical care nurse who, on a one-to-one ratio, spends the first 24 to 48 hours with the patient, one nurse per patient in this hospital, monitoring every aspect of that person’s life -- blood pressure, obviously, heart and everything else that can be measured by today’s modern equipment.

Obviously, the responsibility for that person’s life and his recovery in the first several hours after this very traumatic surgery is in the hands of that critical care nurse. Most of the time these nurses work 12-hour shifts, but as has been documented and presented to the Legislature today and on many other occasions, these nurses, who are under incredible pressure, are asked to work hours of overtime because there are shortages of these nurses.

1750

As one of the doctors said to me when I spoke to him last year: “We could do more surgery on the weekends. We could get access to the operating rooms and do some more surgery,” but there is absolutely no way that they could ask for that additional burden to be put on the nursing staff. There is no way they could physically or emotionally cope with additional patients and the pressure it would put on them.

So it clearly lies with the responsibility of trying to find out how we are going to deal with this crisis of the shortage of nurses, and critical care nurses in particular, in these units.

I hope the minister will begin to take this matter seriously. It is no longer adequate for the minister to come into this House and give answers that have been fed to her by her bureaucrats that might wash with her in her briefing meetings but do not work at all with the people who are on these waiting lists and suffering and the families who are suffering.

Quite frankly, I do not know how the minister gets up in the morning and looks at herself and deals with this issue and says that she is dealing with it in all good conscience when she gives the kinds of answers that she has been giving in the House. Perhaps it is time for the minister to say that she is not going to accept the arguments that have been used by her bureaucrats time and time again and that it is time to look at those reports from the nurses, from the people who are on the front line, and demand that these solutions be put in place.

Obviously, one of the solutions could be done very quickly by the minister agreeing to get the Ontario Hospital Association together with the Ontario Nurses’ Association to work out a deal where some of the problems, the lack of incentives, the lack of adequate pay, are dealt with during the term of this contract. That could be done, and if the minister was committed to finding that solution, she would do that now.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is also a pleasure for me to participate in this debate, in spite of the fact that quite a large number of young children are awaiting specialized surgery, cardiovascular surgery, and many adults are waiting up to nine, 10, 11 months for surgery that is critical to their survival, as we move into this debate and as we discuss the critical importance of the nursing profession to the delivery of our health care system here in Ontario.

As an issue for provincial legislators, nursing has been growing in importance in recent months. The Tory party stressed the importance of the nursing profession in two task force reports, on palliative care and on care for the elderly, in 1986, and recent attention is due to reports of shortages in the Toronto area hospitals. They have certainly been very well documented. The media is very well aware of them and I believe our public, those who are not involved in knowing someone who is waiting very patiently and traumatically, in some instances, for medical attention, are now very well aware of what is happening.

It is a shame that we have to wait for a crisis in the Toronto area before attention is paid to such an important issue, but what is important now is for nurses’ organizations to get their message across to the politicians so that there will be support for all the necessary restructuring.

There are a number of issues confronting nurses right now which have to be looked at seriously and imminently. The major issue of political importance is finding a solution to the problem of the nursing shortage -- a severe, serious shortage that is limiting the use of our very expensive facilities in some of our high-profile hospitals throughout Ontario. This problem has been and is being studied by various organizations, including the nursing associations and others, the Advisory Committee on Nursing Manpower and the Ontario Hospital Association.

Even before these reports are made public, it is already obvious what the problems and some of their causes are. Ontario has more than enough trained nurses. However, many of them -- 18 per cent of registered nurses with the College of Nurses of Ontario -- are not employed in nursing. Further, fully 35 per cent of working registered nurses are working part-time and seven per cent are working on a casual basis. With those statistics, we have fully 50 per cent of the qualified nurses in the province of Ontario not being utilized to their full potential.

Data from the College of Nurses of Ontario shows that younger nurses in particular are more likely to leave the profession. The CNO points out that this problem is not confined to nursing alone. When a shortage or even a perceived shortage of nurses occurs on a province-wide basis, it very quickly becomes not just a medical or hospital administration issue, but a political issue as well.

The health issues field is one where a great many provincial concerns involve money. If members have been following the news, the Treasurer reported that Ontario health insurance plan payments have risen considerably over the past year even though the fee schedule went up by only four per cent. As a result, the pay issue is a likely one for examination.

Many people have illusions that Ontario’s nurses are among the highly paid group of professionals. That is certainly not the case. I think the fact that we are discussing and debating that very issue today, the real dire shortage of nurses, emphasizes that they are not as highly paid as many people seem to think maybe they are.

The major problem is always with personnel and manpower shortages in the nursing profession, specialty areas in particular. The inability to obtain specially trained nurses -- in the operating rooms, for instance -- limits the availability of these very specialized operating rooms and also the medical profession.

Nurses have to work shifts and weekends for less money than they would get in industry where the conditions of work would not entail the working of shifts and the working on weekends.

Health care systems have grown in bureaucracy but not where the real need is, which is at the professional nursing end of the medical spectrum. This affects access to the hospital, access to the special care units and indeed it has caused some Ontarians to die when their time could possibly have been extended had they been able to make use of some of our facilities which are in place.

The problems do not end with long hours and stress in the nursing profession. There is also the long-standing problem of how some doctors treat nurses. That, of course, is another story altogether.

However, we did have a long debate on Bill 94 in this Legislature. This government, for whatever reasons, has always seen the political side of things whenever it was opportune for them to polarize the different people and make some political points. I certainly hope this is not the case, that the nursing profession will indeed have to be polarized in order to provide this government with what it feels is required for it at the political level.

Some doctors have the attitude that the nurse is there to be a servant rather than an experienced, knowledgeable medical assistant. That is changing and it has to change, because our trained nurses are the ones who really make the system work and work well.

Today, female nurses are not prepared to take the abuse they have in the past in order to remain in the profession. I think the statistics I quoted a bit earlier bear that out when indeed 50 per cent of our professionally trained nurses are not being utilized anywhere near their full potential within the health delivery system.

I believe the time has elapsed for the emergency debate on the health care system in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: The government House leader has indicated he wishes to make a business statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: In light of what has occurred here this afternoon, I thought it would be only fair to share with my colleagues what it is the House leaders have agreed to as the business for tomorrow, Wednesday, January 11, the birthday of the late great Sir John A. Macdonald, I might add, and Thursday, January 12.

The business statement for tomorrow and Thursday is simply the statement that members have before them today. Tomorrow we are going to proceed, I expect uneventfully, to the orders of the day and we will proceed through the second reading of the education bills, not necessarily in this order, but we will discuss this among the critics and the House leaders tomorrow: second reading of Bills 69, 70, 186 and 199. Assuming that business is completed tomorrow, on Thursday we will then move back into the justice bills, beginning with the adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 4.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

10 janvier 1989