role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 14, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L046 - Thu 14 Apr 1988 / Jeu 14 avr 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORGAN DONATIONS / DONS D’ORGANES

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

ORGAN DONATIONS

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS

COMMUNITY SAFETY

EDUCATION WEEK

PLANT CLOSURES

ROUGE VALLEY

LE PÈRE GEORGES-HENRI LÉVESQUE

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RETAIL STORE HOURS / HEURES OUVRABLES

RESPONSES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

PHYSICIANS’ LIABILITY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

EDUCATION FUNDING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ONTARIO CREAM QUALITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

ACID RAIN

RETAIL STORE HOURS

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

THERAPY FOR ABUSED CHILDREN

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

RETAIL STORE HOURS / HEURES OUVRABLES

TRUSTEE REPRESENTATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS / HEURES OUVRABLES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

The House met at 10:01 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORGAN DONATIONS / DONS D’ORGANES

Mr. Kanter moved resolution 17:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that organ transplants constitute a cost-efficient medical practice that has saved lives and improved the quality of life for thousands of Ontario residents, and recognizing further that hundreds of

Ontario residents wait desperately for organs that could give them a second chance at life, physicians should therefore be reminded, through their routine procedures, to consider whether a person who dies in a public hospital is a suitable organ donor and whether it is appropriate to approach the family of the deceased for consent to the transplant of any of the organs of the deceased, therefore the government should amend the regulations under the Public Hospitals Act to require every public hospital to include questions similar to the following in any form required by the hospital to be completed by a physician to record the death of a patient in the hospital:

1. Has the patient been considered as an organ donor?

2. Are the wishes of the patient regarding donation of his or her organs known?

3. Are the wishes of the patient’s family regarding the donation of the patient’s organs known?

4(

a) Has consent for organ or tissue donation been obtained?

(

b) If so, what organs or tissue have been donated?

Mr. Kanter: I would like to explain this item. It is a resolution asking the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) to amend the regulations to the Public Hospitals Act to implement a procedure which will increase the number of organs donated for transplants in Ontario. Every time a patient is declared dead in an Ontario hospital, the attending physician would record whether that person was a suitable donor. This procedure is known as recorded consideration. It will help remind doctors to think about organ donation and to approach the families of the deceased, where appropriate, to ask for consent to donate the organs of the deceased.

Many people believe that organ transplants are a novel, experimental, perhaps high-risk procedure. It was only 30 years ago that the first experimental kidney transplant was performed. Many members of the House will recall in South Africa quite a while ago when Dr. Christiaan Barnard transplanted a heart. I can recall, as many members will, that people watched day by day, hour by hour. The operations were experimental, and unfortunately the first recipients of organ transplants did not live for a very long period of time.

We continue to be fascinated by news stories. For example, this week there was a heart transplant done to a 23-month-old baby in London, Ontario, at University Hospital. In fact, I consulted, among others, Dr. Calvin Stiller, who is the director of that multiple-organ transplant unit, in preparing my resolution today. The transplant in London was newsworthy because it was an innovation, but we do not hear as much about other transplants. There were 184 heart transplants performed in Ontario last year, 155 liver transplants, 20 lung transplants, 13 heart and lung, and more than 1,700 kidney transplants performed in Ontario in the past six years.

The reality is that many types of organ transplants have become a relatively routine medical operation, in fact the best treatment for final-stage organ failure. With better surgical procedures and more appropriate matching of donors and recipients and the development of antirejection drugs, such as cyclosporine, organ transplants are very successful. The five-year survival rate for heart transplants exceeds 85 per cent. For kidney transplants it is over 90 per cent. These success rates are better than the results for many other types of surgery done on those same organs.

Organ transplants are cost-effective. In 1985, the Ontario Task Force on Kidney Donations estimated that the cost of treating kidney failure by dialysis each year is about $40,000. A kidney transplant costs about $20,000 with about $5,000 worth of follow-up care.

We have, with Ontario’s multiple-organ retrieval and exchange program, a very good transplant system in Ontario. The Minister of Health recently provided $3 million for a central computer system which co-ordinates information on organs that are needed or available at Ontario’s nine transplant hospitals located in Ottawa, Kingston, Toronto, London and Hamilton.

I recently had the very rare privilege of visiting the University Hospital, London, multiple-organ transplant centre. It is a very impressive facility, but the real stars are the patients. I was amazed to see people who had received a heart transplant 10 days before I spoke to them who were in very good health, who were active, who were on treadmills. It was absolutely amazing to me to see the tremendous recovery that these people had made in a very short time. It was a dramatic improvement, a dramatic return to their quality of life. I think that is the real miracle of organ transplants.

I would have to say that my visit to London also had its depressing moments. It is really depressing seeing people who have very little alternative other than to wait, day by day, in very weakened condition, for a donor to become available. I am sure all members of this Legislature agree that these people waiting for organs deserve the same second chance at life as those who have been fortunate enough to receive organ transplants.

I have tried to look at what we can do to help those who are waiting for organs. I think there are basically two things we can do. The first is to increase public awareness of the success of organ transplants and to develop an appreciation among the public for the need for organ donation. There has been quite a lot of work done in this area by the Ministry of Health, the coroner’s office, the Ontario Medical Association and a nonprofit organization, Transplant International, and its president, Bill Brady.

Many of the members in the House attended an information session breakfast sponsored by Transplant International for members of the Legislature in December. It was that session that really got me interested in this issue.

Part of this public education must focus on reassuring the public about the stringent safe-guards to protect a would-be donor. Under the Human Tissue Gift Act, post mortem organ donations will occur only after a diagnosis of brain death by two physicians who are not associated with any transplant team. This fact must be made better known to answer the fear people have that doctors will not do everything possible to save a patient before asking his family to donate the deceased’s organs.

There are publications, such as Organ Donation: The Greatest Gift of All, produced jointly by the Ministry of Health and Ministry of the Solicitor General, that discuss these matters and concerns in an honest and straightforward manner. Most important, this brochure contains an organ donor card similar to the one found on the back of one’s driver’s licence to encourage everyone to sign the organ donor card and to make his or her wishes known to the family.

Fortunately, there appears to be considerable public support for the idea of organ donation. A 1984 survey revealed that 66 per cent of people would agree that their organs should be donated after their death. It is also interesting that another statistic in that same survey shows that 88 per cent of the same sample would agree to donate the organs of a family member under appropriate circumstances. This does say something, perhaps, about family relationships or relatives or the old adage, “You can pick your friends but not your relatives,” something like that.

However, it does appear that those families who have actually consented to the donation of the organs of a family member are happy to do so. I have heard some of them remark that they are relieved that some good has come out of the circumstances of the death, in some cases a sudden death like a car accident, the tragic death of a loved one.

The second problem in the area of organ transplants, the one I really want to focus on in the rest of my time this morning, is the fact that there are too few organs available for transplant in Ontario and in Canada. Health and Welfare Canada estimates that as of December 1987, 51 people were waiting for new hearts, 12 adults and 11 children required livers and over 1,000 adults and many children in Canada were waiting for new kidneys. These statistics are based on the most-active-transplant list, those individuals who most urgently need transplants to survive. Others could benefit from the procedure or may be able to do so in the near future.

Many potential donors do not become actual donors. Of the 34,000 deaths in public hospitals in Ontario in 1981, about 1,200 were judged to be suitable to be potential donors. Less than 10 per cent of these potential donors, or about 110, became actual donors. The situation has not improved in recent years. In fact, organ donations dropped last year in Ontario. The task force on kidney donations, an Ontario government task force, concluded that was the result of the reluctance of the medical community to approach families of the deceased in appropriate cases to ask for permission to donate the organs of the deceased.

It is quite understandable to me that many doctors are reluctant to undertake the sensitive task of asking grieving families for organ donations. The improvements in technology which have made transplants so successful technically have caught many people, including most doctors, by surprise. The technology has overtaken the essential social problem of encouraging physicians to ask.

To its credit, the medical profession is beginning to respond to the problem. The Ministry of Health, in conjunction with the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Hospital Association, has conducted seminars in over 80 hospitals in this province. Topics such as the need for donation, determination of brain death and approaching the families of potential donors are now incorporated into teaching programs in hospitals and medical schools.

The Canadian Council on Hospital Accreditation will seek, effective January 1, 1989, to require all hospitals seeking accreditation to have organ donation policies. It is hoped that each hospital will develop organ donation and transplant policies that meet the needs of that hospital and its staff.

In some cases in a hospital it might be a chaplin or a nurse rather than a doctor who discusses organ donation with the family of a potential donor, but no donations will occur unless the attending physician makes the critical decision that a patient who has just died is medically suitable as a potential organ donor.

That is where my proposal for recorded consideration comes in. The same attending physician will have to complete certain routine hospital records immediately upon the death of the individual. I am proposing that the records include a few short questions for the physician to complete. Those are the questions that are found in my resolution, which I read at the beginning of this morning’s session.

Asking physicians to complete these questions on the routine records which they already complete each time there is a death in a hospital will reinforce the notion that asking for organ donations where appropriate should be routine medical practice, not the exception in the case of a doctor who is particularly interested in organ transplants.

Hospital organ donation committees should be established and they will benefit from this information recorded by physicians. For the first time, we will be able to assess the effectiveness of various organ donation programs.

Mr. Speaker, you might be interested to know that some hospitals such as University Hospital in London and the Toronto Hospital have already initiated such a procedure. It has been quite effective, but my view is that this problem is province-wide, it is significant, and therefore, if my resolution were adopted, this procedure would be put into effect by regulation throughout the province.

I think this is an idea whose time has come. I think it ought to be hospital policy across the province. The multi-organ retrieval and exchange program has endorsed this proposal. The Ontario Medical Association is studying the proposal as part of its ongoing consultation with the Ministry of Health. The idea is consistent with other initiatives now under way to increase organ donations and I believe it has considerable support because it respects the professionalism and independence of the medical profession and it is based on a voluntary approach.

I am not aware of any other jurisdiction which has adopted this precise approach. Some countries, such as France or Belgium, have adopted an approach known as presumed consent, where it is presumed that the medical profession can take one’s organs unless one specifically asks otherwise. I think this approach would be going too far for people in Ontario.

Recorded consideration: I believe this idea has a better chance of working because it is based on co-operation with the medical profession rather than coercion. There appears to be a great deal of goodwill to make this approach work. It is not a panacea to the problem of too few organs, but in conjunction with other initiatives that the Minister of Health and the medical profession are taking -- public awareness campaigns, medical education programs, the creation of hospital organ donation committees, improvements in the multi-organ retrieval and exchange program -- I believe it will really make a difference.

What kind of difference will it make? To the person waiting for a new heart or kidney, it will make all the difference in the world. I remember very vividly on my visit to University Hospital in London visiting with a woman -- she was a middle-aged woman, she had four children, I believe she was from Seaforth, Ontario, whose condition had deteriorated very substantially. She had very little energy. Basically, she could get up from her bed to a chair, and the only other energy she had, really, was to return from the chair to the bed at the end of the day. That was the only strength she had left in the world.

A heart transplant would return her to good health, would return her to her four children. I remember that as a I left the room the woman said to me, “I hope you can do something.” She did not know what. She just hoped that I could do something.

l hope that in this modest way this small proposal will do something. I hope it will do something for that woman, for others like her or for some of us who in the future for some reason may be in this situation. I think it is an important problem. I think it is an area where we have to translate our goodwill into action, and I would urge my fellow members on all sides of the House to give this proposal their support.

I found in the preparation for this debate that a number of members on at least our side of the House want to speak to this motion. I would like to yield the rest of my time, and I would also ask that if members on the other side of the House could perhaps be a little briefer in their remarks, we might be able to hear from at least two other members of our caucus who are quite eager to speak to this motion.

The Deputy Speaker: Since we are on the topic of transplants, with all due respect for our old traditional clock, the old clock might be a subject for a transplant in the near future, hence, members will be invited to rely on the electronic clock rather than the traditional clock.

Mr. Reville: I want to congratulate the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) for putting forward this resolution. Some members will know that the member and I had the pleasure of sharing seats on Toronto council over a number of years and, as I have done, he will soon be getting used to the more restricted opportunities to hold forth in this chamber than there were in that chamber.

I am glad he has chosen this particular topic to speak on today, because we all recognize the importance of the donation of organs and we all, I am sure, are committed to ensuring that the barriers to the donation of organs are broken down. All of us are walking inventories of usable organs and, should something unfortunate happen to us, in fact, we can create a condition where another might live. I know we would all want to do that.

The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick has referred in his remarks to a valuable study done under the auspices of the previous government. I would invite anyone who is interested to read the study. It is called Organ Donation in the Eighties. The task force in question was in particular respect to kidney donations, but the material herein is applicable to donations of any kind of organs and, in fact, is a very useful survey of the subject at that time. I think there has been some advance since this report was written. The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick wants us to advance further and I think he is absolutely right.

Incidentally, one of my old colleagues, Dr. Sue Corlett, was one of the consultants on this report and I remember having a number of very passionate discussions with her about the question of organ donation in the early 1980s.

One of the things that would be very useful for us all to do in support of the resolution of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick would be to take our driver’s licences out of our pockets right now and ensure that everybody has filled in the back, which is

section 3, “Consent Under the Human Tissue Gift Act.” Mine is filled in.

I think the other important thing to do is to take the opportunity, maybe this evening, to go home and sit down and discuss this with our families. It is the sort of thing that in a crisis is sometimes difficult to bring up, but it is also the kind of thing that when you are planning your life and perhaps your death, it is a very important thing to have discussions about beforehand with your family and your family physician so that should you be unfortunate enough to succumb, all of those who are near and dear to you know what your wishes are, to ensure that some of the barriers that have traditionally existed to the timely retrieval of usable organs are broken down.

I want to share with the House a story today, and this is a story that was told by Bill Brady, whom people will know partly from his radio show Brady in the Morning and partly from his work in Transplant International. It is a recent story about a man otherwise in good health, 31 years of age, who suddenly collapsed at work in London and was rushed to hospital. The medical team promptly diagnosed the difficulty as being an aneurysm of the brain.

The man’s wife was summoned to the hospital. This was a situation in which the husband and wife had had long discussions about what would happen in this kind of eventuality, an eventuality they of course hoped would never happen. But in this case when it did happen, the wife hurried to the hospital, because she knew that her husband wanted whatever usable organs that could be determined to be retrieved to be donated. Regrettably, the physicians at the hospital decided that the patient was in fact brain-dead. By the time the wife got there, they had disconnected the life support systems.

The wife was extremely angry. She told the doctors that her husband had signed an organ donor card and his driver’s licence to make absolutely sure that another person could benefit from organs he no longer needed. No one bothered to consult the next of kin in time. This is a fairly common happening, I regret to tell the members, and it seems unfortunate that we cannot adequately break down hospital barriers to the timely retrieval and donation of organs.

I do not think it is necessary to speak at length on this matter. I want to applaud the member for bringing forward this resolution and indicate my very strong support therefor.

Mr. Eves: It is my pleasure also to rise this morning and speak in support of this resolution. I congratulate the member on putting forward the resolution. I thought we might talk a little bit about transplant history this morning.

The first organ transplant was performed, as I am sure all members are aware, over 20 years ago in South Africa by Dr. Christiaan Barnard, who transplanted the heart of a 25-year-old woman into a 55-year-old man, who unfortunately died 18 days later of pneumonia.

However, for the 10 years immediately after Dr. Barnard’s historic transplant, most transplant patients died. The drugs used to suppress the immune system to keep the patient from rejecting a new organ were leaving the patient defenceless against infections such as pneumonia. With the advent of the drug cyclosporine in the late 1970s and early 1980s, doctors were able to selectively suppress the immune system, warding off infection yet preventing rejection of the organ. With cyclosporine, transplants became a viable medical option. At present, some 80 per cent to 90 per cent of patients are alive one year after their transplant and most have a good chance of living for at least five years.

However, with transplant patients surviving, a new problem arose of where to get healthy organs for all the dying patients who could be given new life with such a transplant. The demand for transplants will continue to increase as organ transplant technology becomes more advanced and more transplants, obviously, are performed. Today, approximately 5,500 heart transplants alone have been performed, 3,300 in the United States and most of them since 1985. After the United States, Canada, France and Britain are the most active transplant countries.

However, organ donors dropped by some 26 per cent last year. A 1984 provincial task force found that while only 38 per cent of Ontarians sign their driver’s licence, 63 per cent said they would donate their organs and 88 per cent said they would donate the organs of a relative. The organ shortage will continue to grow more acute as people start to realize how successful transplants are. Currently, there are hundreds of people who could be saved. For example, Wilbert Keon of the Heart Institute, Ottawa Civic Hospital, has said that some 400,000 people in Canada have failing hearts and could possibly need transplants.

The problem has been identified by many experts and is not so much a problem of not enough donors as of not enough seekers. Understandably, doctors and nurses have been hesitant to approach a grieving family to ask them to donate organs of a loved one. However, it is reported by many in the transplant field that many families are very receptive to organ donation. For many it is a consolation to be able to help someone live and at least give some meaning to a loved one’s death.

In 1984, a provincial study found that doctors who make the effort to approach relatives of suitable patients are very likely to be well received. The survey found that only 10 per cent of the families refused such requests for the removal of organs.

There are 2,800 Canadians suffering from liver disease, but only 140 liver transplants are performed yearly. As well, there is a continuing demand for kidney transplants, as well as eye corneas to give sight to the blind.

In one recent case, which I am sure all members are aware of, an Orillia family went ahead with the birth of their daughter Gabriel, even though they knew she had a condition called anencephalia, which meant that she would be born with only a brain stem and no upper brain. Fred and Karen Shouten knew that their baby would die shortly after birth. The Shoutens brought their baby to term so that they could donate her organs so that at least one other child would have a chance to live.

Happily, a dying infant of a British Columbia couple received Gabriel’s heart and all indications are that he will lead a healthy and normal life. The Shoutens are indeed to be commended for their caring and unselfish act. A side footnote, of course, to this was the recent death of Fred Shouten at age 36 of a heart attack.

Transplant cases such as this have raised a number of ethical questions. For instance, our current definition of death is that as long as a human is breathing on his or her own, he or she is considered to be alive. Anencephalic babies usually die slowly and their organs deteriorate so that when they are finally considered brain-dead it is too late to use them for transplants.

One argument is that such babies should be declared dead while they are still breathing on their own because their condition is incompatible with life. However, this would mean redefining the definition of death and has sparked much debate, not only in the medical community but indeed in the public at large. Another question about transplant ethics arises as to whether or not transplant donations should be voluntary or mandatory. In some countries such as France, doctors remove organs after death on their own accord without permission.

In Canada, organ donations are only allowable if the deceased has signed a donor card, such as those on the back of driver’s licences, or if relatives have given permission.

In my mind, organ donation should continue to remain completely voluntary, with absolutely no profit motivation. Organ donation should be looked upon as a gift of life. But first we must solve the question of what constitutes death and maintain a balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of society.

As I mentioned earlier, many doctors are hesitant to approach a grieving family and broach the question of organ donation. I believe doctors and the medical profession should be encouraged to take a more active role in considering a patient for organ donation. However, in the final analysis it must be left to the doctor’s discretion as to whether or not it is appropriate or desirable to approach a particular family. The religious and personal desires and wishes of the family must be taken into account.

In encouraging doctors to participate in organ transplant decisions, we must also continue to encourage the public to look at organ donation as a positive and life-saving act. Signing donor cards and licences and making your wishes known to your family and loved ones are just two ways of promoting this concept.

I congratulate the member on his resolution here this morning. I know there are other members who wish to speak so I will not take up any more allotted time and will be pleased to support the member’s resolution.

M. Poirier: J’ai l’honneur d’appuyer mon collègue le député de St. Andrew-St. Patrick (M. Kanter) dans la présentation de cette résolution, pour plusieurs raisons, dont une en particulier. On se rappellera que, lors du dernier Parlement, j’avais été le parrain du projet de loi 91, une loi pour amender et modifier le Human Tissue Gift Act. Depuis ce temps-là, le gouvernement a aidé à mettre sur pied un système provincial pour assurer de la coordination entre ceux qui veulent léguer leurs organes et du tissu, et ceux et celles qui en ont besoin.

J’ai pris la relève du projet de loi 91 de l’honorable Ron Van Horn, qui, lorsqu’il est devenu ministre, comme nous connaissons le Règlement, n’a pu présenter le projet de loi 91, et c'est avec plaisir que j’ai pris sa relève.

Le système en place est une chaîne excellente, mais il y a un petit problème. Un des maillons de la chaîne est faible. Ce maillon-là, c'est celui qui existe entre la famille du décédé et le médecin qui est sur place, souvent le médecin de famille, le médecin qui a vu aux bons soins de la personne qui vient de décéder; ce lien qui permettrait de compléter la chaîne et d’avoir une chaîne complètement forte de tout point de vue. En dépit de tout ça, c’est le maillon le plus faible.

Nous avons d’excellents systèmes en place: des systèmes locaux et régionaux, un système provincial. Nous avons d’excellents spécialistes -- mon collègue conservateur en a mentionné un tantôt, le docteur Wilbert Keon, d’Ottawa -- dont la réputation n'est plus à faire. Nous avons des gens prêts à donner leurs organes et du tissu. Cela, les sondages l’ont très bien démontré, et les collègues qui se sont adressés à la Chambre avant moi l’ont bien démontré également.

Nous avons une très longue liste d’attente de gens qui vont au chevet de la mort dans l’attente d’un organe, du tissu pour survivre, pour continuer à vivre. Nous avons aussi l’aspect urgence. On n’a qu’à se mettre dans les souliers de ceux et celles qui sont dans l’attente, dans l'incertitude, dans les souliers des familles de ceux et celles qui vont dans l’attente. On n’a pas besoin d’en dire plus long à ce sujet-là.

Nous avons toutes sortes d’analyses coûts-avantages qui démontrent qu’un système de dons d’organes et de greffes est économiquement viable. Nous avons toutes sortes de chiffres qui démontrent quel est le coût des soins pour ceux qui sont dans l’attente, des soins à long terme, ceux qui ont presque perdu le courage de pouvoir bénéficier d’une greffe qui leur sauverait la vie.

Je crois, à

titre de parrain de l’ancien projet de loi 91, qu’il est primordial que tous les députés, mes collègues de tous les partis, appuient très fortement le projet de loi de mon collègue. C’est une question de vie ou de mort. Les Ontariens et les Ontariennes, les Canadiens et les Canadiennes ont démontré leur volonté. Tout est en place, et mon collègue le député de St. Andrew-St. Patrick est prêt, avec son projet de lot, à séparer ce maillon qui est le plus faible de la chaîne.

J’ai voulu, il m’a invité et ça m’a fait plaisir de l’appuyer. J’espère que Mme la Ministre et mes collègues nous appuieront. Je m’en voudrais de ne pas féliciter mon collègue de St. Andrew-St. Patrick de l’excellente initiative de cette résolution, et j’invite mes collègues à l’appuyer. Merci, Monsieur le Président.

Mr. Cureatz: I wonder if you would be so kind, Mr. Speaker, or the Clerk, as to indicate the amount of time available, the total time.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, you have nine minutes.

Mr. Cureatz: I know I do, but how much time is totally available for this debate?

The Deputy Speaker: We have until 11:01 a.m. The last person to address the House will be the member for St. Andrew-St Patrick at 10:56 a.m.

Mr. Cureatz: To my colleagues across the House, we have lots of time. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to be here this morning at private members’ hour and to participate in the debate on the resolution of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. I might say to him that I specifically asked in caucus to speak to it on two accounts.

The first is because I have got to know the new member a little bit. I am sure as the years progress we will get to know him better, but in terms of my position as the critic for the Solicitor General’s office and his position as parliamentary assistant to one of the ministers I am critic for, we have had some dealings, I might add, all amicable.

The second reason I wanted to participate was that I too am interested in this very serious field in terms of transplants, and indeed in terms of people dying. It is a little difficult to make light a topic such as this, but I think in the spirit of investigating the resolution before us, we will do our best to try not at all times to put such a serious tone on the matter but to bring it in light of the context so that people across Ontario would have an appreciation of the kinds of issues we have to face here at Queen’s Park.

I might also add, or I should be a little remiss in terms of my support of the resolution, because curiously enough as we all know the process at Queen’s Park, albeit this being private members’ hour and we trust everyone will selectively determine his support of the resolution according to its merits, the reality is that it does not happen that way. You discuss it in caucus and everyone decides in terms of how it affects the party policy as a resolution or bill is brought forward.

Mr. Callahan: We don’t do that.

Mr. Cureatz: Well, the member for Brampton South says that he does not do that.

Mr. Callahan: It is a fact.

Mr. Cureatz: I could almost say he is misleading the House with that statement, but I would never say that.

Mr. Callahan: No, no; we’ll invite you to caucus some day. You’ll see how things have changed.

Mr. Cureatz: I would be delighted to be invited to the Liberal caucus one day.

Mr. Callahan: Well, come on over right now.

Mr. Cureatz: In any event, I want to say to the honourable member that I should be a little hesitant, because I have some problems with the Minister of Health. She very kindly announced last night, through a letter to my hospital, a capital grant in the amount of $8.1 million for the expansion of the Bowmanville Memorial Hospital. Coincidentally enough, to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, she forgot to advise me of the grant after I have spent some six or seven years of hard work trying to ensure that the hospital gets its increase.

You would think, in the name of fairness, after me sitting over there and listening for years to the then Liberal opposition and its criticism of the then Tory front bench for running around the province announcing particular grants without including all members of the Legislature, that there would be a degree of sunshine on the front benches and that they would not play the same games they criticized the Tories for, but lo and behold, they are back at it. They learned well, the Liberals, over in opposition. They really learned well.

Mr. Callahan: Was that criticism appropriate?

Mr. Cureatz: Well, it ties in with the resolution, if we are talking about health problems. I am just saying to the member, notwithstanding my anxiety and disappointment with the Minister of Health, of which he will hear later from me, I have given serious consideration to the resolution before me, and we will be supporting it because, interestingly enough -- and it ties in a little bit -- I had introduced a motion for first reading of

An Act respecting Living Wills. I know the member for Brampton would be most interested in this, being a learned member of the cloth. The purpose of the bill was to protect from civil liability and disciplinary action doctors and other health care personnel who withhold or cease life-sustaining procedures in accordance with the patient’s wishes as set out in a living will.

This is not an innovative idea. Some of the states of the United States have passed legislation in accordance with the living will. That is not to say that we do not have some difficulties in Ontario. There is an organization called Choice is a Quality of Dying and there was a public forum held at the Royal York Hotel, and there are some concerns about dying with dignity and the problems of a living will.

Notwithstanding that, I think it is an issue, especially in terms of modern-day health care systems. The reality is we will all die eventually, and as a result, we should be putting our minds to that kind of situation because there is that possibility of our lives being prolonged to a greater length because of the present system than normally would be the case. That being as it is, then we should have the opportunity of investigating the alternatives that are available to us as human beings, on whether we want to prolong and face the inevitable sooner or later.

We do not have any magic solutions or answers for that in terms of my proposed bill for living wills, but in any event, it is something that we should address.

Likewise, I feel comfortable that the honourable member who has brought forward this resolution is attempting not through a dictatorial process to tell the medical community what it should or should not do in terms of transplants, but more as he indicated in his address, he stated that he wanted to have an increase of public awareness of the success of organ transplants and develop an appreciation among the public for the need for organ donation.

I am of the age, as I know he is, that I can think of Christiaan Barnard and the first transplant and the kinds of criticism that he encountered, but the innovativeness of the idea has, of course, now taken hold and we almost take it for granted. But taking it for granted, I say to the member for Mississauga West (Mr.

Mahoney) does not necessarily mean the general public has an appreciation across the board of how it should or should not take place, and I think anything that allows the openness, allows some shedding of light into the system so that the medical community would be drawing to its patients’ attention -- not only the patients’ attention; I guess it goes one step beyond that, to relatives and friends of the patient -- the possibility of an organ transplant.

I am taking a look at his four points of the resolution:

“1. Has the patient been considered as an organ donor?

“2. Are the wishes of the patient regarding donation of his or her organs known?

“3. Are the wishes of the patient’s family regarding the donation of the patient’s organs known?

“4(

a) Has consent for organ or tissue donation been obtained?

“(

b) If so, what organs or tissue have been donated?”

I just quickly spoke to the member before I rose in my place, and he indicated to me -- of which I have a copy -- what takes place at the University Hospital: notification of death with the inclusion of those kinds of questions.

The problem I do have on a practical basis in terms of the medical profession and the business that they do have in terms of looking after their patients, I can see the system bogging down with another bit of paperwork. I say to the member for Peterborough (Mr. Adams), notwithstanding the paperwork, I think it would be worth while to address our attention to this topic so that we could give some encouragement that the donation process should be encouraged.

I can think of Lorne Maeck, a former minister of the crown and a colleague of mine when I was first elected, from the Orillia area, brought in the legislation in terms of the driver’s licence, one of the first pieces of private members’ legislation that was ever passed in the House, brought in the aspect of the donation card, signing the licence, which I have signed myself, I might add.

There seems to be a gap between that signing and then the real process about organ donation and I have to admit that I think this kind of resolution would fill in that gap a little bit so that there would tend to be a more orderly process and the possibility of ensuring that the adequate organ that needed to be required in another area can be quickly matched up. Anything that can facilitate that process I think would be worth while and notwithstanding the Minister of Health’s neglect in advising me of the capital grant to the Bowmanville Memorial Hospital in my own riding, because I respect the honourable member I will support that resolution.

Mr. Fleet: I rise to support strongly this resolution and I congratulate the honourable member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick for bringing it forward. I also thank the other members from all parties who generously shared the time allotted to them so that I might speak today. Before commenting on this resolution, tradition requires that I digress momentarily.

Although I have spoken in this House on a number of brief occasions, this is my maiden speech. My election as the first-ever Liberal MPP for High Park-Swansea was a tremendous thrill. I will be forever grateful to the people who had faith in me, who worked diligently for me to be nominated and elected, and who voted for me. I will work hard to reward that faith and to serve well the community of High Park-Swansea. I give a special thanks to two individuals who are with us in the lower east gallery. Without their sacrifice, guidance and constant support, I would not be here today. I speak of my parents, Donald Earl Fleet and Olive Patricia Fleet.

We have before us a resolution concerning human organ donation and a standard procedure in public hospitals to encourage such donations. Of all the members in this Legislature, I may have a unique personal perspective not on the facts or the figures or the technical issues but on the human feelings involved. You see, I am a human-tissue recipient. It is not apparent from my appearance nor is it something I consciously think about very often. Perhaps that is part of the miracle. Yet I have somebody else’s bone in my body in one of my ankles.

When I was 10 years old, I had an accident. The trauma caused the bone in my left leg to crush part of the bone in my heel, leaving a depression. Dr. Donald Gibson and the staff of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto made a large incision half-way around my ankle and inserted living bone as a graft to fill the space. At that time, my parents were informed that this was the first-ever bone graft using the bone bank at the Hospital for Sick Children.

Since that operation, my life has been as full as anyone’s. In athletics I have been active in football, hockey, basketball, baseball, soccer, racquet sports, snow and water skiing, curling, running, swimming, wind surfing and scuba diving. The only sport I have deliberately refrained from is sky diving, to my mother’s eternal relief.

Who gave me a chance at life? Dr. Gibson and the medical staff to be sure, but also an unknown donor of a bone. Was that donor a man or a woman? Young or old? What nationality? I will never know, and I can never repay that person. When you receive such a gift you are compelled beyond description of words to give of yourself and to contribute back to society. I believe we have a moral responsibility to one another to participate in our society. In whatever world my donor rests now, he or she must rejoice that such a small but crucial gift yielded a miraculous result.

Currently tissue transplants are so advanced that organs such as kidneys, lungs and hearts can be used routinely if available. The only limitation is the number of donors. Now, the gift of a donor is even greater than before. It is the gift of life.

I repeat the excellent suggestion made a few minutes ago by the honourable member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville). This is an Ontario driver’s licence. A donor consent card is attached. For those of you watching on television right now I urge you to take it out, check it, fill it out if you have not already and sign the card. I believe you will find it not only easy, but you will feel good about doing that.

In this House members can do their part by passing this resolution to enhance hospital procedures with potential donors.

I will conclude by recounting memories of over 20 years ago. In preparing this speech, it raised emotions in me that I had not felt in all that time. I recall the pain of the initial injury as well as the pain when lying in the hospital bed. It was hard to sleep at night in the hospital because of the cries of the other children in the room. But the boy in the bed to my right never cried and I soon learned that he was not going to leave the hospital alive.

You are afraid when you are 10 but you do not really know why and you do not know what is going to happen next. Never once in all the time I had the cast on did I let on that I was worried about what it was going to be like when it came off. After two long months the cast did come off.

My mother took me from the hospital to a restaurant so we could celebrate. I had a shoe on my right foot but I remember I could not wear one on my left foot. All I was allowed to wear at that point was a sock. All through the meal I walked around the restaurant with kind of an up-and-down motion because I only had on one shoe. Mostly I was just going around in circles for the pleasure of walking, with a huge grin plastered on my face. I kept repeating one sentence: “I can walk. I can walk. I can walk.” It was such a gift.

I urge all of you to help make such miracles possible.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I will be very brief because I know there are a couple of other members who wish to speak.

I would like to start by saying that I very strongly support the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick on this resolution and congratulate him for bringing it forward.

I took the opportunity to take a look at my driver’s licence card and I had not signed the consent form, so I did so and dated it today. I would suggest to the members that maybe we should encourage some of our constituents to take a look at their cards as well.

I would like to point out one concern that I have with the proposed resolution, and that is question 3, “Are the wishes of the patient’s family regarding the donation of the patient’s organs known?” I wonder if that will create a problem. I fully respect the fact that there are some religions -- I believe orthodox Jews -- who are very concerned about organ transplants.

I wonder if this would not be a delaying factor in the hospital. It is easy to say you can consult with the family and with the family doctor, but many accidents occur far from home and I am wondering if we could not in some way take a look at this

section and see if it could not be addressed so that we would not have good potential organs not being able to be made available to needy people because of that section.

Miss Nicholas: I never thought I would have the opportunity to get up and speak on this particular resolution which my honourable friend has put forward today, but I too have been touched many times by friends who have had transplants.

One that comes particularly to mind at this time was brought to light the first time I ever filled in my driver’s licence about eight or 10 years ago when they started putting this on the licence. I remember going to my mom and dad and telling them that I had filled this out and the bit of scepticism they had that I was willing to donate my organs.

One thing in particular though, I did say I would donate all organs except my kidneys because I felt that my kidneys had failed me during my lifetime. And why should I give my kidneys, which I had never been happy with, to someone else?

I soon changed this exception on my form when a dear friend of mine was stuck to a dialysis machine four hours a day. While other children were out playing and I was swimming and going to school, this person was attached to a dialysis machine each and every day. I know the excitement this person felt when finally, a kidney became available. Now this person is living a free, happy and fulfilling life going around with this new kidney that someone, luckily enough, had donated with his or her death.

So I, too, want to join in supporting this resolution of my honourable friend. I will support it, as I see many of my fellow colleagues will as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick please wind up?

Mr. Kanter: Before I comment on some of the comments of members opposite, and they have been very kind in general, I would like to point out to all members of the House the presence of Dr. Calvin Stiller. Dr. Stiller is in the gallery. He is the director of the multiple organ transplant unit at University Hospital in London, Ontario, and has been one of the pioneers in this area.

It was at that hospital that this week’s heart transplant into a 23-month-old baby was per-formed, a first for Ontario and for Canada, and I certainly want to commend him and the work done at his hospital. That was the hospital I visited which gave me much of the inspiration for this resolution, which I am very pleased to hear seems to have the support of all members of the House, at least all of those who have spoken.

I am very pleased that this idea, which I certainly acknowledge, the idea of recorded consideration, which is not original with me, seems to have won approval from all sides of the House. I was particularly touched, as I am sure most members were, by the comments of my colleague the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet) who has had such immediate, personal experience with a transplant, not of an organ, in this case, but of a bone in his ankle. I found that extremely moving, as I am sure all members did.

While all members expressed support in principle for the resolution, for which I am very appreciative, there were several concerns raised. I wish to comment very briefly on those. The member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) was concerned about the additional paperwork created for the medical profession. I was quite conscious of this concern. It seemed that, of the alternatives, it was, quite frankly, the least intrusive into medical practice. It was the least coercive. It was, quite frankly, a very small increase in paperwork for a very large social and medical benefit.

It is my view that incorporating this request into an existing form, a form that doctors already have to fill out at every public hospital in Ontario, is maybe not a perfect way, but the best way of achieving this very desirable social objective.

I want to comment also very briefly on the comments of the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) who did raise a question about the wishes of the patient’s family. It is my view that it is important to consult with the members of a person’s family. There are individuals, some of whom are members of various groups -- the member opposite mentioned members of the orthodox Jewish faith. I understand Seventh-Day Adventists and some other groups have religious concerns about this procedure. I think those concerns have to be respected. I feel quite strongly about that.

The numbers that I indicated suggest that what we need is not a huge increase in the number of organ donors in Ontario but rather a modest increase which would be of substantial benefit to people involved. The figures that I read, which were provided to me, suggest that there were about 34,000 deaths in Ontario and that we might be looking at a number of potential donors, as high as perhaps 1,200. I think there would be considerable room, if I can phrase it in those terms, for the views of those who do not feel that organ transplants are appropriate.

There would be considerable room for their wishes to be scrupulously observed, and I still think -- and I am, indeed, quite convinced -- that we could solve the problem of the shortages as they now exist and as they might be foreseen in the future.

I want to conclude on a very positive and a very appreciate note. This is not the lightest of subjects, as the member for Durham East said. It is one that is deep and heavy. It is difficult for some members of this House, not only some members of the public, to address. I think it is important, I think it is essential and I think this will be a small step towards adding life to citizens of Ontario, something that we can do in a positive and constructive manner.

I thank members in this House for their support and I ask the Minister of Health to pursue this support by changing the regulation to the Public Hospitals Act as I have requested and as all members of the House have supported.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

Miss Martel moved resolution 16:

That, in the opinion of this House, this Legislature condemns the government of Ontario for its failure to establish the northern Ontario heritage fund as outlined in the budget of May 20, 1987, and in the speech from the throne of November 3, 1987, therefore this Legislature strongly urges the government to: immediately establish the northern Ontario heritage fund; ensure that northerners, through committees representing northern communities, labour, native groups, women’s groups and local small businesses, control the disbursement of the fund; and provide substantial funding to help ensure long-term economic growth and diversification of the region.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for her presentation and may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Miss Martel: I do intend to reserve several minutes at the end to respond to colleagues’ concerns which I am sure will be raised during the course of this debate.

As a new member and as a member from northern Ontario, I am proud to move this resolution in the House today. I should point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members of this House that my only regret is that the resolution itself is not half as strong as I originally wanted it to be. Unfortunately, when we sent the original draft to the Clerk’s office, it came back and forth several times because I was assured by the Clerk that if I moved with the original wording, I would be quickly ruled out of order here today.

So while the resolution does condemn the government, it certainly does not go half as far as I wanted it to go in expressing my outrage at this government for its complete lack of action concerning the northern Ontario heritage fund.

We on this side in the New Democratic Party, and I can assume my colleagues, especially from the north, in the Conservative Party, have waited and watched and wondered when this government was finally going to come good on its commitment to northern Ontario. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, 11 months later, we are still waiting and we are still wondering when this government and when the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) are actually going to establish the fund promised some 11 months ago.

I want to say in particular to the Liberal members that we in the north are not asking for charity. We do not view this fund as once again our hands out at the trough in order to help our economic development. We in the north have particular structural and social problems that are inherent in northern Ontario which southerners do not experience. We require leadership and we require a fund in order to ensure that we have a pool of money in place that can be used for economic development in northern Ontario. That is why the question of this fund and of the money in the fund is so important to us in the north.

That is why I am angry and my colleagues are angry at the inexcusable delay on the part of this government concerning such a fund.

For those new Liberals who are back there -- I see a couple of them in the corner over here -- who may be under the illusion that the northern Ontario heritage fund was a product of the Liberal front bench -- and this is in particular to the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) -- let me assure them that the idea of a fund is neither new nor Liberal. In fact, the idea of a fund is not a creation of the Tory party either. It was in fact --

Mr. Black: Now you are getting negative.

Miss Martel: It gets worse, let me tell the member.

Over a decade ago, during the debate on the bill to establish the Ministry of Northern Affairs, it was the NDP and, in particular, the former MPP for Sudbury East who moved in that debate that a northern Ontario heritage fund be developed. In an amendment to the act, Mr. Martel moved as follows:

“The ministry shall establish a fund, the Northern Ontario Tomorrow Fund, to consist of moneys derived from natural resources taxation or an assessment on the value of all nonrenewable resources extracted in northern Ontario which will be used to guarantee future economic activities.”

Unfortunately, over a decade ago, the Tory party, which was in power at that time, did not see fit to move those amendments to make the Ministry of Northern Affairs stronger and to actually provide a fund in northern Ontario. Let me say for the benefit of the Liberals back there, that the Liberals voted against the amendments too in committee.

This party indeed has talked about this fund for a long time. We have not stopped talking about it. We in this party by nature are a patient group but we have continued to hammer out the theme of the northern Ontario heritage fund, or a tomorrow fund for northern Ontario. Let me tell members why, because it is very important that they understand why we are committed to this.

Those of us who are from the north have watched in resource towns and single-industry towns, every time a problem hits that industry, there is devastation in single-industry towns. There is massive unemployment which is double and triple that which people in southern Ontario ever experience. There is a massive relocation of entire families to look for work somewhere else and there is a mass exodus of young people who move from northern Ontario to southern Ontario and never return.

After watching that, and some of us have watched it for years, we came to the conclusion that we in northern Ontario needed the economic tools to provide for our own development. We believe that if we are given those economic tools and if they are put into the hands of northerners, we best can provide for stable, long-term economic development and diversification in northern Ontario. I do not think it is too much to ask and it certainly is not charity.

Finally, in recent years, successive governments and some commissions and committees have finally moved and have finally seen the light and have finally seen the benefit of the idea that this party raised over a decade ago. In particular, in 1985 for example, the Tory-appointed Fahlgren Royal Commission on the Northern Environment adopted the idea of a fund for northern Ontario for development.

In 1986, the all-party standing committee on resources development recognized the idea and recommended the same. Also in 1986, the Liberals appointed the Rosehart Advisory Committee on Resource Dependent Communities in Northern Ontario, which my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) sat on. The Rosehart commission looked at problems in northern Ontario, in particular single-industry towns, and it made this recommendation.

I am sorry the Minister of Northern Development is not here, because last week he was off on a tangent about how wonderful the funds in northern Ontario were at present and how we had benefited from all these wonderful funding programs in the north. Let me tell members what the Rosehart commission said about all the great programs in the north at present. The commission said this:

“At the present time a variety of government programs exist both federally and in Ontario that can be used to stimulate development of new business and industry. Such initiatives, although laudable, have failed to create a significant long-term focus for development in the north. It is the belief of the committee that the opportunity exists and the political will is present in Ontario to provide such a focus for development.” I do not know about the political will, but we certainly know that the need exists.

The Rosehart commission went on to recommend a second thing, one of its many major recommendations and one very important for us in the north. That was: “That there be established a northern Ontario fund for northern Ontario.” That says it all. We have had successive governments look at it since the NDP introduced the idea. We have had successive commissions and committees who have looked at it. Finally, Rosehart pointed out that it had to be done because the programs that were in place were not working and were not serving northerners.

On the basis of that, a former NDP MPP, this time the member for Port Arthur, moved in a resolution in this House in November 1986, that the government move to establish a northern Ontario economic diversification fund. Mr. Foulds moved its creation and he said at the time, and I quote, “The moneys to establish the fund would come from a consolidation of existing northern development funds and programs and, in addition, through an earmarked percentage of provincial revenue from resource industry taxation.”

I want to point out to the new members who are here that the resolution passed, and it passed unanimously, in November 1986. A year and a half later, we are still waiting for the government to come clean on its commitment in terms of this fund.

Mr. Black: In the fullness of time.

Miss Martel: Well, we could go on for ever. What we are waiting for is another election.

I have reviewed the history of the fund to point out to members here and to prove that we in the north have really waited a long time for this initiative. Our patience continues to hold. I said before we are a patient lot but, quite frankly, the fiasco surrounding this fund has got completely out of control, and I do not see why we in the north should have to be patient much longer.

I want to continue because the members should recognize this fact. The new members would not have been here but the old members will recognize this next portion that I want to quote from concerning the fund. It is this:

“For decades, many northerners have believed that a larger share of revenue derived from their resource heritage should flow back into the region.

“We are establishing a northern Ontario heritage fund to help ensure long-term economic growth and diversification in the region. The fund will have an initial allocation of $30 million.

“The heritage fund will operate under the guidance of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. He will be assisted in his decisions by a heritage fund advisory council with representatives from each of the northern development councils.”

This is not another example of Liberal rhetoric. This is in fact the budget of May 1987. I ask the Liberal back-benchers, are we on this side not to believe that when their government commits money to and announces a program, that indeed is what it is going to do, and in the near future, not 11 months, 12 months, 13 months down the road? I say to the Liberal back-benchers again, is it not unfortunate that the government was unwilling or unable to establish the fund before the September 1987 election?

But it really did not matter because it gave all the northern Liberals a chance to run around across northern Ontario talking about this fund, about the great Liberal commitment to this fund, and I am sure a number of them were elected on that premise. Just in case anyone missed it in the budget or anyone missed it during the election campaign, the government reiterated the promise again. In the throne speech, in November 1987, the government took another kick at the can of the northern Ontario heritage fund. They said this, and I quote again:

“We recognize that the issue of northern growth and development is one that will require ongoing attention.

“In addition to our existing northern programs, such as the northern development fund, we have been receiving input from northern Ontarians, and particularly northern development councils, on the role and mandate of the northern Ontario heritage fund. An advisory council will be established to help identify priorities in the distribution of the fund.”

A decade later, after numerous promises on this fund, is it any wonder that northerners have become impatient? Is it any wonder to the members of this House why we cannot believe that the Liberals are going to move on this promise? I say to the minister -- it is too bad he is not here -- where is the advisory council promised in November 1987? Who are the members? Where is the money? We have not seen the heritage fund. We have not seen a dime of that fund put to work in northern Ontario yet, and the commitment was made almost a year ago.

Surely the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Minister of Northern Development have had more than enough time to name a council. There are thousands of northerners who are willing and would be able to advise this government on northern development. In fact, the Premier has had two conferences on northern development in the north and there have been a number of approaches put forward on how this kind of money can be spent.

Since the minister has not seen fit to name a council and the Premier has not seen fit to do the same, I am going to point out to the minister that there are a number of groups who have to be represented on this council in order to speak for the north. Those committees have to have members from northern communities, labour, native groups, women’s groups and small local businesses, and they must control disbursement of the fund. It has to be in northerners’ hands and northerners have to have the control.

We in the north are more than capable of providing intelligent strategies for development, so I have to ask the government: What is the problem? Why the delay? Why the insult to northerners, who have waited so long, who have believed in this promise and who have yet to see the government deliver?

We are in a position today where I have to use my private members’ hour to put forward a resolution in the hope of embarrassing this government into some type of action in northern Ontario. I say quite frankly to the members of this House that this government has misled northerners by recycling the same promise over and over again. I would like to know why the government is stalling. After all, the budget commitment was not excessive. It was a mere $30 million; inadequate at best.

That is why we in the New Democratic Party proposed that adequate funding had to be put into the fund in order to ensure long-term development. That is why, during the election campaign, we proposed that at least $500 million was going to be required over a three-year period in order to put into place an adequate fund that will continue over the long term. Ongoing funding, we said, would come in part from resource companies, particularly from stumpage fees and particularly from mining profits tax.

I find it most distressing in fact that after almost a year the northern Ontario heritage fund, which was firmly committed by this government and firmly committed by the Minister of Northern Development, has not yet been put into place. We in the north and we in this party are left to ask: Where is the money? There has been no shortage of proposals. There has been no shortage of interest or of identification of priorities by various groups and committees. There has been no shortage of prodding and pleading by members on this side to urge the government to put this fund into place.

Frankly, as a northerner I am appalled, but more so I am offended, by the insensitivity of this government on this particular question. How much longer does this government expect to pay lipservice to people in the north? How much longer do they expect this charade to continue? How many more election promises will have to be broken? Perhaps the government is waiting for another election, yet another one, so the Liberal members can tromp off across the northern part of the province again and tell everyone about this great fund that is coming.

The government spent more money locating the Toyota plant in southern Ontario than it has provided for all the north. Yet we still have not seen a penny of it. I must say, when I look at the comparison between the amounts of money the Premier has spent in southern Ontario, whether it be on the Toyota plant or whether it be on the domed stadium, and the paltry sum we are given for all of northern Ontario, I have to ask: Is there not a double standard operating here?

Perhaps an 11-month wait is not too long for this government. We in the north have been waiting for over a decade for this type of funding anyway, but I think we have come to the point where we are sick and tired of waiting and we are really sick and tired of being patronized by this government. We are tired of being deceived and we are sick and tired of broken promises. The delay and the contempt that this government has demonstrated to northerners on the question of the northern Ontario heritage fund deserves the unanimous condemnation of members in this House. I urge all members to vote with me on this resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: May I bring members’ attention to the presence of the former member for Sudbury East in the members’ gallery, Elie Martel.

Mr. Eves: It is my pleasure to rise and speak in support of the motion of the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel). We should go back to a year ago today. It was on May 20, 1987, that this announcement was made in the last budget. I think it is somewhat appropriate that next week, on April 20, 1988, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) will again be rising in his place and introducing a budget without having delivered on the promises or commitments he made in the last budget.

The government missed the opportunity, in my opinion, to make any real inroads into equalizing disparity between the economies of northern and southern Ontario. In the 1985, not 1987, Liberal election campaign, tax credits for northern Ontario residents were promised. They have been ignored for three years now. As well, last year’s budget did nothing to lower gasoline prices or hydro rates in northern Ontario, even though a private member’s resolution calling for a lowering of northern hydro rates was unanimously passed by all members of the Legislature last May.

Interestingly enough, when this resolution came to a voice vote, some government members in the House voted against it. But when a recorded vote was called for, these same members apparently changed their minds or had to use the washrooms because they voted for it when a recorded vote was asked for.

The budget did nothing to address the fact that the government has yet failed to deliver $35.9 million worth of promises made over the two years between 1985 and 1987 to the northern development funds, small business development corporations and the community economic transformation agreement. Northern Ontario has been further deprived of the promised $30-million softwood lumber rebate and has been paying, through higher gasoline taxes, in the neighbourhood of $150 million a year in gasoline tax alone.

The government last year spent $35 billion in its budget, $8 billion more than in 1985, when it assumed office. The government’s answer to helping northern Ontario is to add some $26 million in its highway budget last year which, if it knows anything about highway construction in northern Ontario at all, will build exactly 13 miles of highway in the north, and to create a northern Ontario heritage fund, which it still has not delivered on and which is the subject matter of the private member resolution of the member for Sudbury East here today.

Even if it has delivered on that commitment, the government is merely returning to northerners the sum of $30 million, a very small percentage of moneys extracted by this government from the north as a foundation for a fund. Last year this government had a $1.3-billion revenue surplus over its projections. Compared to its surplus revenue alone, the northern Ontario heritage fund is exactly 0.023 per cent of the government’s surplus revenue left over at the end of the March 31, 1987, fiscal year. They cannot even deliver on that minuscule commitment in the period of one year.

I find it somewhat disturbing that the Minister of Northern Development is not present in the House this morning. I do not know what more pressing matter he could have anywhere than to be here for this debate this morning and to be accountable for his lack of action, and his government’s lack of action, on this commitment made by this government over a year ago.

Mr. Black: Where have you been for the past 42 years?

Mr. Eves: I am not even 42 years old. I do not know where the member has been for 42 years.

The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) had a question, number 93, on the order paper:

“Would the Minister of Northern Development indicate the costs incurred in establishing the northern heritage fund, which was announced in the April 1987 throne speech, a list of all projects approved for funding under the fund, the amounts for each project and the administration costs to date of this program?”

The date of that question was February 9, 1988. The response from the minister was:

“No identifiable costs have been incurred since development work for the fund is being carried out within the regular public service. No projects have been approved for funding as yet. No identifiable administrative costs have been incurred.”

I think that says it all. I think that says a lot about this government’s and this minister’s commitment to the northern Ontario heritage fund: one year of inaction.

I have a bit of a stake with respect to northern Ontario as well. There is the small issue of whether or not the district of Parry Sound should be included in northern Ontario for the purposes of all provincial government ministries.

Mr. Black: And Muskoka?

Mr. Eves: I do not believe that the regional municipality of Muskoka, answering the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, is a territorial district. That was the original definition of what was supposed to be northern Ontario. When the Ministry of Northern Affairs was established in 1977, the member would know that ministry acknowledged the district of Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario, and always has. As a matter of fact, we have a northern affairs office in the town of Parry Sound itself and it serves our constituents very well.

Only nine ministers over the years have seen fit to include Parry Sound in northern Ontario. Despite the fact that the Parry Sound District Municipal Association for three consecutive years now has passed resolutions petitioning and asking this government to include it in northern Ontario, despite the fact that for three years we have been getting promises from the Premier and whomever is Minister of Northern Development of the day that this will be done and that they will look into it, we still have not had a commitment delivered on that three-year-old promise that this government made.

As a matter of fact, on Monday morning I had the opportunity to speak before the Parry Sound District Municipal Association at its spring 1988 meeting and again the same resolution was passed. I am sure it will find its way to the Premier’s desk and the minister’s desk, and hopefully, some three, three and a half or four years later, they will get around to delivering on the commitment that they made.

I find it very disturbing that officials from this government, ministers and the Premier himself, can make these commitments to the constituents in my riding and turn around and renege on them year after year after year. I think that the lack of regard for northern Ontario is very, very serious indeed. I think my colleague the member for Sudbury East hits the nail right on the head: the time for action is now. A $30-million fund, as far as I am concerned, is inadequate to start with, but the least they can do is deliver on a commitment in a year when they had a $1.3-billion surplus in revenue.

I would like to read into the record some responses I have received from various ministers with respect to the northern Ontario status of the district of Parry Sound.

In response to last year’s resolution by the municipal association, the Premier’s office informed my staff that my letter of December 8, 1987, concerning the Parry Sound municipal resolution was not answered by the Premier because it was considered to be a duplicate of an earlier letter of August 5, 1987, to which the Premier had already responded on November 12, 1987. The Premier’s response of that November stated that he was again looking into the matter.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) has said for two successive years now that he has been reviewing the matter but would be unable to provide a definite answer until a report on the goods and services weighting factor is received from the Ministry of Education. It is the same report that he has been waiting for, I presume, for over two years.

The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) says: “If the district has any recommendations on the administration of the Ministry of Natural Resources programs, I will have my staff work with those involved to consider changes. We can address the issue on a piecemeal basis.”

In February 1986, the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities -- which, by the way, regards the district of Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario -- passed a resolution to have the district fully included for the purposes of all provincial government ministries.

On June 25, 1987, in this House, every single member of this House unanimously supported my resolution to have the district included in northern Ontario. To date, this government has not delivered on that commitment either.

The Minister of Northern Development was recently in our riding, in the town of Parry Sound, and again reaffirmed his commitment to having Parry Sound included in northern Ontario but to date has done nothing.

The federal government regards the district of Parry Sound and Nipissing as being part of northern Ontario with its development fund.

An hon. member: What a surprise.

Mr. Eves: It is not a surprise to me. They are listening to what is going on and they are listening to people in northern Ontario. At least they are trying to do something about it. They are delivering on their $55-million fund. This government has had this commitment outstanding for over one year and to date has not done one single thing; it has not spent one red cent for the people of northern Ontario.

Mr. Kozyra: I welcome the opportunity today to illustrate this government’s commitment both political and financial to northern Ontario, its people and its issues.

Today’s resolution deals with the northern Ontario heritage fund, and as the Minister for Northern Development said last week, he plans to introduce legislation pertaining to the fund very soon; in fact, in a matter of days. Over the last year the minister has consulted extensively with northerners receiving grass-roots input on the shape and scope of this fund.

The introduction of the heritage fund legislation will no doubt generate considerable discussion in this chamber, and I urge the honourable members on all sides of the House, who over the past weeks have indicated a concern that the fund be in place as soon as possible, to ensure that we expedite debate surrounding this historic and significant initiative.

Today I shall take a few moments to review this government’s record of accomplishments in the north. This considerable list of accomplishments will prove to this House that this government is concerned and acting positively on developments in northern Ontario.

Among the first actions of this government was the establishment of the cabinet committee on northern development. Since its inception, its membership has grown to include over 15 ministers. It was established to help guide government actions in the north. Its influence encouraged more cabinet meetings in the north and more visits by cabinet ministers to the north.

This government-appointed committee of all three parties, as well as business, labour, municipal and academic representatives, resulted in the Rosehart report, an early blueprint for government action.

Key recommendations were as follows: the establishment of a long-term development strategy for the north; the establishment of a northern Ontario fund, more familiar now as the heritage fund; the relocation of civil service jobs to the north; the use of crown land as a development tool; accelerated government spending in the north; increased tourist funding; and the establishment of a forest industry in the north. All of these recommendations have been addressed with commendable speed and are showing very positive results.

Perhaps among the most successful initiatives undertaken were the Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay conferences on northern business and entrepreneurship. We are still receiving positive feedback on the highly successful Thunder Bay conference held in November 1987. The Minister of Northern Development has recently finished mailing the conference report, An Agenda for Action, to over 2,000 people.

Under the northern relocation program announced by the Premier in July 1986, close to 1,600 positions will move to the north, bringing with them an annual payroll of approximately $48 million. Eight different ministries and agencies in whole or in part will move to six new buildings in four northern communities.

The head office of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines will find a new home in Sudbury, along with the mining health and safety branch of the Ministry of Labour. Over 525 positions and an annual payroll of approximately $16 million will go to Sudbury alone. Other government ministries will move from Toronto to the north: North Bay, 355 positions; Thunder Bay, 230; and Sault Ste. Marie, 441. Wherever possible, the province intends to use northern expertise and suppliers in both the construction and ongoing requirements of the new buildings.

The northern Ontario regional development program, Nordev, has committed much to northern Ontario. It has assisted more than 900 projects worth more than $160 million and created an estimated 4,000 permanent jobs. It was refinanced in 1986-87 with $20 million from the northern development fund.

Nordev is undoubtedly one of the most successful incentive funding programs, showing a very high rate of return compared to any other deferral or provincial program. Nordev has one of the lowest cost-per-job-created figures at $5,500.

Two million dollars created chairs in forestry and mining at Lakehead University and Sudbury’s Laurentian University. This represents a commitment to northern higher education and the development of more competitive and safer resource industries in the north.

Four million dollars started a northern forest biology institute, currently under construction by the Ministry of Natural Resources at Lakehead University.

Five million dollars will be directed to technology development units to be constructed next year in Thunder Bay and North Bay.

Fifteen million dollars has been dedicated to the northern Ontario tourist information centres enhancement program. This will strengthen the north’s $1-billion-a-year tourism industry.

Six and a half million dollars has been put into television extension to northern Ontario. It will provide cable extension to 85 northern communities not currently served by either cable or TVOntario’s satellite extension program.

Finally, one further example of the northern development fund being put to good use is the $1.1-million high school of science and technology co-operative program of the ministry with Lakehead University and Laurentian University. It provides summer classes in science and technology for secondary students showing exceptional aptitude in these areas. Last summer the school was so successful that it will be continued again this year.

Funded through the northern development fund and the Ministry of Culture and Communications, the $8-million northern native small business development program provides eligible native business ventures with funding for feasibility studies, startup costs and capital costs.

The ministry has also initiated many programs in the education, health and social areas for example, Contact North, the northern Ontario distance education network officially opened in the fall of 1987. It provides for the establishment of learning centres in up to 30 communities across the north. Currently, 700 students are taking courses at all course levels through Contact North.

Bursaries for dentists and medical doctors have been increased from $5,000 to $7,500. The number of these bursaries has also been increased to 48 from 36 the previous year. New bursaries have been added for chiropodists, psychiatrists and psychometrists. The total number of bursaries for health and social professionals has been increased to 190 from 105 just three years ago. Incentive grants for rehabilitation professions have been increased to 59 from 35 last year. The incentive grants have been extended to include occupational therapists and speech pathologists and audiologists.

I am sure most members are familiar with the AgriNorth program which to date has provided 382 land drainage projects, 345 grain storage and handling projects, 281 forage storage projects, 66 technology demonstration projects and so on.

I have already mentioned NOTICE, the successful northern Ontario tourist information centres enhancement program, which is just one of many tourism initiatives sponsored by the ministry. We are involved in ski resorts, information centres and waterfront developments. The ministry currently is funding seven waterfront development projects in the north.

The northern community economic development program has provided funds for the creation of six municipal economic development agencies. Funded over five years, the MEDA officer works within the municipality to develop long-term planning strategies to identify and develop local business opportunities and attract new businesses and investment.

I also want to speak today about the northern development councils, whose main role it is to provide advice to the Minister of Northern Development and, through him, to the cabinet committees for northern development.

There are currently nine northern development councils operating in the province. They have addressed many issues since their inception, including north-south gasoline pricing, norOntair, northern rural land use and creating a recently released document which was submitted to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) on crown land as a development tool. The councils have already submitted a report to the Minister of Natural Resources on the cottage lot study and are continuing discussion on this issue.

There is also the Woodbridge, Reed and Associates report on the forest products industry; the councils here are currently responding to a request from the Ministry of Natural Resources for input on this report.

Each council is also involved with issues within its own region, such as the Kenora-Rainy River council’s involvement with the Atikokan-Minaki waterway and the Timiskaming council’s not-yet-released report on education.

I feel that many members here today are surprised at the breadth of the initiatives this government is responsible for. However, I am certain that after hearing this brief overview of this government’s record in the north, the member for Sudbury East and the members of this House cannot help but be impressed with the commitment and direction this government has taken in northern Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: It is indeed an honour to be able to speak in support of the resolution of my colleague the member for Sudbury East on the northern Ontario heritage fund. I intend to go over some of the things she has mentioned again and also to talk about a few subjects that she was unable to mention.

However, at this point in the debate, I think it is only fair and only reasonable that I respond to the comments made by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Kozyra), because while I may agree with two or three of the things he has said in his speech, there are at least a dozen that deserve a fair bit of critical comment.

First of all, let me say this. As I listened to the member for Port Arthur, it really struck me that I was listening to one of Leo Bernier’s retread speeches from about 10 years ago. Coming from the town of Fort Frances, which is located not far from the community of Sioux Lookout, I had the honour of listening to the former member for Kenora and former Minister of Northern Affairs many times.

Perhaps I should go back and look at one of Mr. Bernier’s speeches and be sure that the member for Port Arthur has not taken it and merely updated it a few years, because many of the things that the member for Port Arthur mentioned were, in fact, things that were begun under the former government. I was never one to compliment that government -- in fact, I was one to criticize it all the time -- but I am surprised that this government that sits here now would try to take credit for some of the things that were introduced by the former government.

Let me just point out a couple of them. The member for Port Arthur mentions the northern Ontario regional development program. The Nordev program, in effect, has been around since 1966. That is really when it got under way and it has been around in various forms and through various changes and alterations of names since 1966. If I remember, back in 1966 the government that is there now might have claimed to be the official opposition, although at that time I do not think it was called the real opposition. The newspapers called the New Democratic Party the real opposition at that time, even though the Liberal Party was the official opposition.

I think we ought to be quite clear that many of these things are programs that were, in fact, begun by the former government. That illustrates where this government falls down, because even though the former Conservative government put many of these programs in place, the fact of the matter is they were a lot of Band-Aid solutions. They did not address the problems. Now we have this government taking those Band-Aid solutions, dressing them up a little, giving them a new name and saying, “Here it is folks.”

Mr. Wildman: More of the same.

Mr. Hampton: More of the same; exactly.

In fact, I noted with interest that the member for Port Arthur spoke in glowing terms of the Premier’s conference held at Thunder Bay last fall. I was at that conference. Afterwards, I had an opportunity to speak to many of the people who were there: some municipal leaders, some people from the local chambers of commerce, some people from some of the mining companies, even some of the media.

I said, “What did you think of this?” The overwhelming opinion that came back was: “It struck me that this was really a wine-and-dine affair to convince all of us who used to support the Conservative Party to come on over and support the Liberal Party. There was no policy developed here. There were no serious programs introduced here. This was a wine-and-dine affair at the expense of taxpayers to convince us that having supported the Tories for 20 or 30 years, now it is time to get on side with the Liberals.”

That is what it was. It was an expensive party. There was not anything done there in terms of serious policy development. There was not anything done there in terms of serious program development. It was a nice party at the expense of Ontario taxpayers and the Liberal Party hopes it will derive the benefit of it three years down the road when another election is called.

Again, if that is what they call serious northern Ontario development policy, it is sad, it is really sad.

I want to go a little further, because there was some talk here about the relocation of jobs to northern Ontario. So far, we have seen some relocation of jobs to Sudbury. It is long, long overdue that some of the aspects of the Ministry of Natural Resources dealing with mining policy should be located in Sudbury. Some of the forestry policy and programs have, in fact, been relocated to Thunder Bay. That is long overdue.

Mr. Black: Who did it?

Mr. Hampton: I will give this government credit for some of those things, but we must remember there was a minority government there. They have been here now since September and we have not seen a thing on their own initiative; not a thing. Many of these things are leftovers from that two-year accord period.

I will give this government credit for being forced into doing something during the two-year accord, but since then -- we saw it the other day with the Minister of Northern Development when he answered to the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot), “The heritage fund is not there yet, but maybe it will be there;” and the Treasurer, even later on, saying, “Yes, we do have this softwood export lumber tax.”

Mr. Wildman: He threatened me.

Mr. Hampton: Yes, and he also threatened the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman). When the member looked at him and heckled him for the disappearance of the northern Ontario heritage fund, he had the gall to threaten the member for Algoma and to say, “If you do not quit criticizing me, I will make sure that none of this fund gets into your riding.”

This sounds very much like the Mulroney government.

Mr. Callahan: You cannot compare that government to anything.

Mr. Hampton: I have to respond here to the heckling of the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan).

Mr. Callahan: He should not do that.

Mr. Hampton: -- because really the Mulroney government, I think we would agree, is known for its capacity to say that white is not white, grey is not grey and blue is not blue, but this government is equal to that when it insists that everything should be a local option. There is an example of subterfuge at its best. Everything is a local option.

Mr. Wildman: A heritage fund local option.

Mr. Hampton: Yes, a local option on the heritage fund; that is what we will be talking about next, no doubt.

I want to refer to the relocation of the offices of the Ministry of Northern Development. It is true now that some of these offices are being moved into the Sudbury area, but really this amounts to taking what the former Minister of Northern Affairs, Mr. Bernier, established in Kenora: taking it out of northwestern Ontario and moving it to northeast. That is what this government calls progress. Do not develop the north; take it from the northwest and give it to the northeast. That is what this government calls progress.

I want to go just a bit further, though, because there was some mention here about the under-serviced area program for medical practitioners, the fact that the tax-free grants for doctors who will practice in northern communities have been increased. There again is an example of the out-of-touch, out-of-place policy of this government. At this very moment there are nearly 37 communities in northern Ontario which either do not have doctors or do not have sufficient numbers of doctors.

That problem has existed over the last three years. The increase in the grant structure has not had an effect and is not going to have an effect because it is not a question of money. Any doctor who goes to northern Ontario can make enough money out of his or her practice that the additional $10,000 a year in grants is not going to assist in any way whatsoever. The problem is not money. The problem is that the medical schools we now have in Ontario, five of them in southern Ontario -- count them -- with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, do not train doctors for northern Ontario. They just do not provide the kind of training you need to practise there.

I say, after having listened to the member for Port Arthur, that all the initiatives he has mentioned do not meet the needs of the communities of northern Ontario. What will meet the needs of the communities of northern Ontario is a northern Ontario heritage fund which will let us do the development ourselves and not be dependent upon piecemeal government hand-outs that do not meet the needs of all our communities.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing, for I think up to about six minutes.

Mr. Harris: It is a pleasure for me to rise and support the resolution. Let me say that I am delighted to see, finally, after my time in the House, a positive, meaningful resolution come from the member for Sudbury East. Listen, I say that with tongue in cheek, only to acknowledge the presence of the former member for Sudbury East in the gallery. I do compliment the present member for Sudbury East.

Six minutes -- of course now five and a half -- is not nearly enough time to talk about the tragedy: what this government has said it would do for northern Ontario, the image it has tried to present for northern Ontario versus what it has actually done.

I do want to acknowledge one thing, the northern relocation program. I want to say two things about it. First, we support it. It is the one new thing they have done. We support it, but I will tell the members, there are some problems with it. There are problems of equity of benefit throughout northern Ontario, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, throughout the northeast and the northwest.

Second, this government now has in excess of 6,000 new civil servants and 1,000 of them are being relocated to the north. That is our share. Let us not think this is something that dropped right out of the sky. I acknowledge that the former government was trying to restrain the growth of the civil service. It was trying to deliver programs more efficiently. It was trying to cut back. In spite of that, it still relocated some jobs to the north. So we have 6,000 new ones, 5,000 more in the south and 1,000 in the north. We think that is our share. It is not very much more than that.

I tell members, and I serve notice right now, that the Provincial Auditor is going to have fun when he looks at the cost of some of these buildings and the cost of what is going on here. We are not saying there are not going to be some costs in relocation, but I will tell the government that stories are coming out now about $200- and $300-a-foot construction costs for, in many cases, land that was donated or the government owned that was free.

An hon. member: You supported the program.

Mr. Harris: I am in support of delivering programs efficiently. I said I supported the program.

There are rumours now in North Bay of the costs of construction there, which never went to tender, being double -- or perhaps even triple by the time you are finished -- what it is supposed to cost. I just serve the government notice on that right now.

About a year ago, we had an emergency debate on a motion that I moved. It talked about seven things.

First, the government’s failure to propose in its speech from the throne any solutions to deal with the serious problems of unemployment. This was a year ago and it was before the budget. In that budget, one thing came that was new for the north. That was the northern Ontario heritage fund of $30 million. The tragedy is that not one cent was spent over the year.

Second, the government’s failure to deal with the problems of the forest products industry. There is about $30 million that this government has in softwood lumber tax on which the Premier personally made commitments in northern Ontario that that money would go back to help laid-off workers in the forest industry, would go back in support of the forest industry. Not a cent was spent. There is $60 million, just like that.

Third, the government’s failure to provide direction to the northern regional development councils. Everybody knows they were a joke and they are still a joke but we still have not heard anything since they were set up.

Fourth, the government’s failure to follow through on its promise to equalize gasoline prices between northern and southern Ontario. The government promised that in 1985. Surely, if it could not dream up anything for the $30 million, it could have used it towards reducing gasoline prices in northern Ontario. That would have benefited tourism, it would have benefited travelling, it would have benefited trucking, it would have benefited all the industry. That was not difficult to do.

Fifth, the government’s suspension of plans to create four-lane highways in the north. It could have added $30 million to the transportation budget. It could have said: “Look, I know we announced it. It is more difficult than we thought. We cannot seem to get something in place that we think is going to work. The former Tory programs are working so well that we cannot find a niche for the $30 million. The northern Ontario regional development program is working well, thanks to Leo Bernier. The Northern Ontario Development Corp. is working well, as is the EduCap program.

All the things the government talks about were all in place. You guys had it covered so well, we cannot find anything new to spend the money on.” It could have put more money into highways. We wished we could have.

Sixth, the government promised in 1985 to follow through on an election promise of a $100 rebate to northern taxpayers. That is a program where -- the government has covered all the bases -- we will just give $100 back because it costs more to live in the north. I did not think it was the greatest program; but administratively, what does it cost to put into place? I would take the cheques back. There would be no cost at all. We would do that. I mean they would be very minimal. So the government did not do that.

Seventh, the continued delay in providing equitable health care for northern Ontario. We have had some discussions and some have talked about that.

The government has done nothing from this emergency debate resolution of a year ago and it is a travesty that the government continues to advertise all the good things it has done in the north when it could not spend one cent of this $30 million.

Miss Martel: I want to thank my colleagues in the Conservative Party for the support they are going to give me on this resolution. I do want to make a couple of comments to the Liberal Party. I know my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) has responded for the most part.

Let me go back to the programs that were in place, which the Liberals have made so much of a comment about. Let me go back to Rosehart -- and this is why the heritage fund was then re-announced -- who said:

“Such initiatives, although laudable, have failed to create a significant long-term focus for development in the north. It is the belief of the committee that the opportunity exists and the political will is present in Ontario to provide such a focus for development.”

Clearly, what was in place was not working, or not working well. That is why we need a specific fund run by northerners to be put in place so that we determine our own economic destiny.

Second, he made a comment about the northern development councils, how they were meeting and how the minister was meeting with them to determine some kind of priority and some type of order. Let me tell the House how many of those councils had even met by June 1987: Kenora-Rainy River, no public meetings, one meeting of the agricultural committee; Thunder Bay, two public meetings, one meeting of the agricultural council; Algoma-Manitoulin, no public meetings, two meetings of the agricultural committee; Cochrane and area, no public meetings, one public meeting of the agricultural committee. The list goes on and on of the nine councils.

So I say to the Liberals, I cannot believe that they are meeting. If they are, we are not hearing about it and we do not hear what they are saying. In terms of the minister meeting with these types of people, we do not know what is happening and, quite frankly, I cannot believe that anything is happening.

I talked about the two economic conferences we heard so much about. My colleague said it was just a big party for all the former Tories who are now going to be Liberals. I would call it a Liberal love-in, and that was about as far as it got. The minister would have been better off taking some of the proposals put forward by my colleagues in Sault Ste. Marie, the 10-point plan for economic development in northern Ontario. Had he taken that and put that into place, he would have been a lot further ahead than he has been after two conferences in northern Ontario.

Let me talk about the relocation of offices. I want to say that finally we do have some movement. Some of those offices should have been in northern Ontario a long time ago, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the opening of those offices will be in conjunction with the next provincial election so we can have another fanfare and some more hoopla in the north by northern members.

The minister stood in his place last week and said: “Wait until next week. We are going to have some legislation and tremendous movement for northern Ontario.” Let me just tell the minister what the Premier said in North Bay. In March he was having an interview with the North Bay Nugget, and the reporter asked him, “Any specific plans for northern Ontario?” The Premier said: “No, I have no specific plans for northern Ontario this year. I realize the position you are raising and I would love to give you a big scoop but I am not in a position to do so. “ Well, is that not a commitment for northern Ontario?

Is that not wonderful? Maybe the Minister of Northern Development knows something the Premier does not.

I want to say in concluding that we have waited long enough in the north for this type of fund. The Liberals promised and repromised and announced and reannounced this fund so many times that we cannot even remember any more how many times. We have waited 11 months. We have seen no movement by this government. That is why I say this government deserves to be condemned for that, and I expect that my colleagues, and at least my northern colleagues in the Tories, will vote with me on that question.

ORGAN DONATIONS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kanter has moved resolution 17.

Motion agreed to.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

The House divided on Miss Martel’s motion of resolution 16, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

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

Nays

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Brown, Callahan, Carrothers, Cleary, Collins, Cooke, D. R., Daigeler, Dietsch, Elliot, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Kanter, Kozyra, Lipsett, MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McGuinty, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Offer, Owen, Pelissero, Poirier, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Sola, South, Sullivan, Tatham, Velshi, Wilson.

Ayes 26; nays 47.

The House recessed at 12:09 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS

Mr. Pouliot: I have a message from the citizens of the Big Trout Lake Indian band, a translation from the Ojibway language:

“The people are our people, the children are our children, the resources are our resources, the land is our land. PCBs are yours. PCBs are destroying our people, our children, our fish, our land. We demand action. We want protection for our children, we want preservation for the future, we want our fish and animals to live free of PCBs, we want proper medical care and we want PCBs cleaned up and we want it done now.”

I would also like to present, on behalf of the children in the community of Big Trout Lake, located some 1,200 miles from Toronto, a donation, which represents considerable savings, to the tune of approximately $50. I would like to make the presentation to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to initiate the cleaning up of that dreadful substance.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Eves: I rise in the House today to remind everyone of the double standard of this government. When a number of incidents arose where public safety was threatened by residents of halfway houses under the jurisdiction of federal parole boards, this government demanded that the federal government launch an immediate inquiry into the system, which it has done and completed. Yet when an incident equally as devastating happens in the Premier’s own back-yard, an internal inquiry will be sufficient, according to this government.

I am talking, of course, about the brutal attack on a 14-year old London girl. Two inmates of the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital have been charged with the attack. This government is awaiting the outcome of an internal review of the case. It is ignoring the public calls for a public inquiry into the procedures and practices of the Lieutenant Governor’s Board of Review. They claim it is out of their jurisdiction. Yet when the federal parole board cases came to view, this government demanded a public inquiry.

Lieutenant Governor’s warrants are recommended by a provincially appointed board and approved by this province’s Lieutenant Governor in Council. Patients are covered under warrants. This government changed that procedure. It repealed

section 34 of the Mental Health Act during the debate on Bill 7. This was included in Bill 7. Nobody bothered to point it out. This was repealed by this government. It used to be the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and now they pass it back to the Lieutenant Governor. When are you going to launch a public --

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired. Order. Would the honourable member take his seat?

EDUCATION WEEK

Mr. McClelland: As members of this House will know, we are drawing to the conclusion of Education Week. In Brampton, the Peel Board of Education and the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board have organized activities that include seminars and special opportunities for the community to be involved in the schools and for people of the community to be involved generally with education. I have had the opportunity and privilege of being involved in some of these activities and want to take this opportunity to pay special tribute to the young people and students of Brampton North.

In our society, where we all too often hear about problems and the activity of that very small segment or that very small portion of students and young people who get into trouble, I want to draw attention to the very positive young kids we have in our community, indeed across this province. My ongoing interaction, and I am sure the interaction of all members with young people, is a source of encouragement, and their vitality and contribution are very much appreciated.

I want to say to the students of Brampton North, and indeed to the students across this province, but more particularly to the students of Brampton North, thank you for your contribution in a very positive way and for all the good things that you do. Thank you for what you do for us.

PLANT CLOSURES

Mr. Mackenzie: Just recently, a small plant in Toronto, Trigild Ltd., copper products, closed down, just one of a whole series of plant closures we have had recently. In this particular case, the plant has since gone into receivership. There are 13 employees in this plant who end up getting three days’ pay rather than the two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice and have no possibility of collecting from the receivers, or so they are told, because of the bank’s prior claim.

The reason I raise this again is that it is an issue we have been raising for about 10 or 11 years in this House now, and over that period of time we have had a number of indications that the government might be prepared to look at changes in the bankruptcy legislation so that legitimate wages and benefits of workers are considered a priority rather than the payment back to the banks.

Nothing has happened, and we have these cases coming up on a monthly basis, sometimes more often than that. I guess the question the members of this House have to answer for people like the 13 families involved in this particular small plant is: where is the justice for those employees? When is this government going to take a look at changes in the bankruptcy legislation so that workers’ wages and benefits are recognized as a priority?

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs. Marland: I would like to take this opportunity to offer my party’s endorsement of the city of Scarborough’s decision to amend its official plan, allowing the Rouge Valley to be saved for recreation, wildlife preserves, hiking trails and research farms. I would also like to congratulate our federal Minister of the Environment, Tom McMillan, for expressing his concern for the Rouge Valley and committing his support for a joint federal-provincial park to be created at this site.

In the past, I have asked our Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to make a commitment to the preservation of the Rouge Valley, but he has lacked the courage to come forward with a firm response. It seems that when it is politically convenient to throw responsibilities to the municipalities, this government is quick to move. However, when municipalities have shown leadership and have made a strong commitment, the province wants to wield the sceptre of power above them.

In the past, the province had said it wanted to consult with Scarborough on the use of the land. Scarborough said it wanted recreational uses, and now the province is indicating it may not even listen to the citizens of the area as it has, to quote the government, “a larger constituency to answer to.” Today I am calling on the government to accept the decision of the city of Scarborough to preserve the Rouge Valley.

LE PÈRE GEORGES-HENRI LÉVESQUE

M. Poirier: À la veille de la Semaine de l’éducation en Ontario, j’aimerais informer les membres de l’Assemblée que ce soir, dans la ville de Québec, se fera la remise du premier Prix du mérite canadien Jeunesse-Éducation. Ce prix sera présenté au révérend père Georges-Henri Lévesque au cours d’une cérémonie qui aura lieu au Château Frontenac.

Le père Lévesque a eu 85 ens en janvier dernier. Il est né à Roberval, dans la province de Québec, et il a étudié à Chicoutimi avant de se joindre à l’ordre des dominicains, à Saint-Hyacinthe. Son ordination a eu lieu à Ottawa, en 1928.

Le père Lévesque a enseigné à Lille, en France, ainsi qu’à Ottawa et à Montréal, avant de fonder, en 1938, l’École puis la Faculté des sciences sociales et politiques de l’Université Laval.

Il est également cofondateur de la Société d’éducation des adultes de l’Université Laval et de la Commission canadienne sur la jeunesse. Le père Lévesque a fondé l’Université rationale du Rouanda en 1963. Il est Chevalier de la Légion d’honneur de France, Compagnon de l’Ordre du Canada et « Pater Patriae », ou Père de la Patrie, au Rouanda.

Le père Georges-Henri Lévesque a consacré sa vie à l’éducation de la jeunesse et ce, au Canada, en Europe et en Afrique. Il mérite pleinement que le premier Prix du mérite canadien Jeunesse-Éducation lui soit décerné. Il est un exemple dont pourront s’inspirer tous les éducateurs durant la Semaine de l’éducation, qui débutera ce dimanche-ci, en Ontario. Merci.

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am sending you a copy of an announcement made by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert). This announcement was released on April 11. It states, and I will read it in part: “According to the recent Comay report, this site has the potential to be developed for office-commercial, limited ancillary retail or government uses.” The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere made this announcement two days prior to the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hosek) announcing that this same site was now being made available for housing proposals. There is obviously some confusion.

I tried to sort this out last week by means of a map, so that the government House leader would know where these announcements ought to be made. I did not envisage it would have to include Scarborough.

I believe there is a privilege matter involved here. I believe that announcements of this kind should be made in this chamber by the minister. They should not be made previously and add to some confusion by means of having ordinary members make similar but contradictory announcements in their own ridings.

Mr. Faubert: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a matter of privilege? On this correspondence, I would ask this House to refer the matter to the Speaker, because it is the second time that a piece of correspondence which was taken from my garbage from my office has been used in this House. I suggest I would like to have this matter referred to the Speaker for a judgement on it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: Just a small point of privilege: I know nothing about the member’s garbage. I do know that I have here a letter that was addressed to residents of his riding. That is the matter that I raised. What he does with his garbage is his own business.

Mr. Cousens: The outrage that we feel on this side of the House for members opposite having information given to them in advance of other members of the House is that it is, in fact, an insult to the whole process of this government.

It is a failure of this government to live up to the openness that it promised. It is a failure of this government to respond to written order paper questions. I had a written question in Orders and Notices as of December. I was promised a response on March 6 and did not get it. This member had the information and was sending it out to his constituents in advance of this House receiving it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter has been drawn to my attention. I have just received a copy. I will take a look at it and report back to the House.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: If I may, I would like to inform all members that we have a special guest in the Speaker’s gallery today. I would like to introduce to all the members His Excellency Ziad Shaw-waf, Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency.

Mr. Pope: I believe we also have another distinguished guest in the government members’ gallery. Some of us knew him as the ex officio chairman of Ontario Hydro. Others knew him for his rigorous adherence to the rules of procedure of this Legislative Assembly, but the former member for Grey-Bruce, Eddie Sargent, is among us.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RETAIL STORE HOURS / HEURES OUVRABLES

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Mr. Speaker, as legislators --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Where’s the applause?

[Applause]

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Why, thank you.

As legislators, we know that society cannot function fairly with legislation that cannot be fairly administered. It is up to us to review the laws that are not working, identify the problems and fix them in order to ensure that people of this province have fair, enforceable standards to guide their actions.

The Retail Business Holidays Act has long needed such a review. Its history is a catalogue of abuses, especially in our larger cities. Stores have been roped off and barricaded to meet size regulations; department stores have billed themselves as drugstores; the same street purports to be a tourist attraction on the west side, while, on the east side, it remains closed.

These instances may be within the letter of the law. They are not within the spirit of th