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

May 31, 1990

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

WILLIAM J. TEGGART

TIMOTHY GARLAND

LONG-TERM CARE

SUDBURY LAND RECLAMATION

SOFT-DRINK CONTAINERS

FARM TAX REBATE

SEATBELTS

VISITORS

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SENIORS’ MONTH / MOIS DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

RESPONSES

SENIORS’ MONTH

ORAL QUESTIONS

RESIGNATION OF CABINET MINISTER

TIRE DUMPS

RESIGNATION OF CABINET MINISTER

PREMIER’S COUNCIL

ABORTION

RESIGNATION OF CABINET MINISTER

PAY EQUITY

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

WINE INDUSTRY

USE OF HERBICIDE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

CHARITABLE GAMING

PETITIONS

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1990

CITY OF BRAMPTON ACT, 1990

VICTORIA COUNTY RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED ACT, 1990

ONTARIO SKEET SHOOTING ASSOCIATION ACT, 1990

HAREWOOD PARK ASSOCIATION ACT, 1990

SILAYAN FILIPINO COMMUNITY CENTRE ACT, 1990

JABKO HOLDINGS LTD ACT, 1990

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ONTARIO LOTFERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 (CONTINUED)

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (CONTINUED)

ROYAL ASSENT

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mrs Cunningham moved second reading of Bill 166,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Mrs Cunningham: It is with some degree of satisfaction that I speak in this House today about a piece of legislation that I think, if accepted by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, will seek in its own way to prevent serious injuries to young people and any cyclists in Ontario. The request, of course, and the intent of the legislation is that people who are riding bicycles should be asked by law to wear helmets, such as this one.

Two years after my first attempt to do this, we now have a Canadian-approved bicycle helmet with a CSA sticker inside available right across Canada in our own sporting goods stores. We did wait for some length of time so that they would be readily available to families and to people who ride bicycles on our roads and on our streets.

Of course, everyone knows that a bike helmet cannot keep someone from falling off a bicycle, but it can prevent the majority of head injuries that do take place in our province and in our country. If we insist on buckled seatbelts, we should also insist on bike helmets, I think, every time we get on a bike. Both of them are preventive measures. Both of them have been well researched.

There are many studies in our province, in our country and across North America that advise us as parents, certainly as teachers, as citizens and as politicians about the wonderful preventive response by people who wear bike helmets. When someone wears a bicycle helmet, first, the injuries are less severe and, second, there are far fewer of them. We already know that football and hockey players, police and construction workers all keep their heads safe. I think the time has come, certainly in Ontario and right across the world, that there is enough good information that tells us that people who ride bicycles should do everything they can.

We also know that there have been many public awareness campaigns. They are not new, but we are not getting the kind of response we need through the public awareness campaigns -- and I will talk about those in just a little while -- to prevent the many tragedies involving bicycles. More and more people are travelling by bicycle and, if they are sharing the roadways with our motor vehicles, they should be properly protected.

We already have, as part of the Highway Traffic Act, a

section that says, and this is the one that we are amending, “No person shall ride on or operate a motorcycle, motor-assisted bicycle” -- and we are saying “or bicycle;” that is the only change – “on a highway unless he or she is wearing a helmet that complies with the regulations and the chin strap of the helmet is securely fastened under the chin.” It is a rather simple amendment. It does, however, have far-reaching effects. The far-reaching effects are to prevent serious head injuries and to improve the quality of life of many, many citizens in our province.

When I distributed the information to my colleagues in the House, I did advise them that between three and seven million Canadians ride bicycles at least once a year, representing between 15% and 30% of the population. That is a Statistics Canada number. Of the 5,000 bicycle accidents recorded in 1987, 94% occurred during clear visibility, so it was not a matter of people not being able to see clearly, it was not even a matter of poor weather; 88% occurred despite no apparent bicycle defect. Basically, when people are injured while riding bicycles, their bicycles are in good condition.

A study conducted from June 1984 to December 1986 revealed that bicycle accidents were responsible for 25% of the fatalities reported in the trauma unit of the Hospital for Sick Children of Toronto. Imagine, 25% of the fatalities were young children who did not have bicycle helmets on and who were in fact riding bicycles.

A survey of the coroners’ offices in Ontario found that 14% of all paediatric injury deaths in Ontario from 1985 to 1987 were attributed to bicycle accidents. We tried to update these numbers, but were unable to do that. We only have the numbers to 1987. This means that 55 out of 393 accidents, virtually all these deaths, resulted from head injuries.

From January 1988 to August 1988, the Metropolitan Toronto Police reported 754 bicycle-related injuries, and three people died as a result of these injuries. They were between the ages of 15 and 34.

We could go on to talk about what we see around our province with young people with head injuries, and we know in fact that the Ontario Medical Association is very concerned about what it sees, what physicians see in their own offices and the young people they see in emergency wards of hospitals. I myself am the mother of a head-injured son, not because he was not wearing a bicycle helmet but because in fact he did not wear a seatbelt. I know it has taken a great toll on him, and his quality of life has changed significantly to the point that he can never be alone again. I just think we have a wonderful opportunity here to make changes for young people in this province.

In June 1989, just last spring, the OMA was so concerned about this that, in its great interest in promoting bicycle safety, it had a campaign encouraging the public to wear safety helmets when cycling to help prevent head injuries. In June they sent out some 13,000 promotional pieces, large posters which I did not bring, but they did have a very large public forum. They did in fact say that the increasing public awareness on behalf of the professions concerned about the management of our health care system included anything they could do to prevent head injuries.

I think the easiest suggestion they have, and what they have chosen to promote, is the wearing of bicycle helmets whenever anyone is on a cycle. In June 1989, all of us were aware of their press release where they say, “We want to alter attitudes towards recreational bicycle riding so that a proper helmet is viewed as part of a bicycle rider’s basic equipment.” It went on to talk about the same statistics that I have talked about.

We also know that we have in Ontario, and we are very fortunate to have, a group of people, basically parents, educators and people in the health care professions, who do anything they can to prevent head injuries. That association is called the Ontario Head Injury Association. They say: “Remember, accidents causing head injuries can happen anywhere -- on sidewalks, driveways and bike paths as well as the street.

You and your children cannot predict when an injury will happen.” So they put out pamphlets such as this, where they say, “How can I get my children to wear their helmets?” There are many ideas for parents. It goes on to say, “A bicycle is not a toy; it’s your child’s first vehicle.”

I know there will be some concern on the part of my colleagues in this House about enforcement. I would be prepared to go into some detail if requested to do so. There is precedent for this legislation in the province of Manitoba, where they recently required infants to wear helmets. I must say at the same time that the fines vary in our province for people who break the Highway Safety Act. The fine can be anywhere from just a warning right up to not less than $40 and not more than $200 for anyone who contravenes any of the provisions of the act.

These are for pedestrian offences as well, so even pedestrians who break the Highway Safety Act can in fact be warned and then fined. In Manitoba they are not fining people yet. They feel they will phase that in over a period of time.

I would like to close by saying that I would be prepared to answer any questions on the part of my colleagues in this House. My intent was, at the appropriate time, to have this bill referred to committee where concerns can be expressed and questions can be answered, and perhaps we can get our own administration to advise us how it can best be implemented. It is law in Manitoba, it is law in the state of Maryland and I would encourage the province of Ontario to do the same.

Mr Miller: It gives me great pleasure to rise this morning and participate in the debate on mandatory helmet use and standards for child bicycle carriers brought forward in Bill 166 by the member for London North.

First of all, I would like to publicly congratulate the member in her recent campaign for leader of the third party. We have always admired her ability and we would like to wish her well.

I think that bringing forward a bill such as this in this Legislature is another indication that we are all concerned about the welfare of our young people in the province. As a father and a grandfather of 13 -- and I am expecting the 14th, to make it an even number -- I am very much aware of the bicycle and what it does for our young people. It is the first mode of transportation. Even my son does considerable riding. When he comes to Toronto on business he brings his bike along with him. I did not realize he could ride so far within the city limits.

I am responding on behalf of the Minister of Transportation to the introduction of the private member’s bill by the member for London North proposing amendments to the Highway Traffic Act requiring all those riding bicycles to wear helmets and that any young child being transported on a bicycle be carried in an approved child carrier.

Let me begin by assuring the member for London North, as well as the rest of my colleagues in this House, that bicycle safety is and has been of the highest priority for the Ministry of Transportation. Bicycle riding has become very popular in Ontario and recent trends indicate that it will continue to grow in popularity by both adults and children. The safety of these riders is extremely important and can be enhanced by riding their bicycles properly, following the rules of the road and protecting themselves from serious injury by wearing a helmet.

I might add that in the last couple of weeks we had a couple of grandsons who could not handle their bikes and they did fall off and end up with some scratches on their foreheads. Those accidents can happen.

The ministry actively promotes the use of helmets by cyclists. Last year the ministry co-operated with the Ontario Medical Association in a province-wide campaign to educate bicyclists about the benefits of wearing a helmet. This campaign was prompted by recent studies in the United States of America that showed that 75% of bicycle fatalities are due to head injuries.

As well, to educate Ontario’s bicycling population the ministry has stressed helmet use in all its bicycle safety informational literature that has been distributed to the general public, schools, police forces and bicycling associations across the province.

Last week we had a Lions Club Ride for Sight, where 100 bicyclists left Courtland and rode to Fort Erie. They raised $35,000. It was headed up by one Dennis Craddock, a member of the Jarvis Lions Club, and was very, very successful. They were stressing the fact of safety and they were looking forward to next year’s participation and enforcing and protecting the riders who are going to be riding in that particular event.

At the moment, no jurisdiction in North America or Europe has made bicycle helmet use mandatory, and Canadian bicycle helmet standards for children and adults are, so far, incomplete. The Canadian Standards Association has recently published a cycling helmet standard for persons over the age of five and is planning, in the near future, to amend this standard to be suitable for very young children.

Before considering legislation in the area of bicycle helmet use, the Minister of Transportation would like to first monitor the effects of increased public education efforts by his ministry and other organizations. He would also prefer to await the development of uniform acceptable standards for the design of bicycle helmets for riders of all ages.

On the subject of bicycle child carriers, the ministry has been carefully studying this issue as well. The ministry does not promote or recommend the practice of carrying children in a child carrier due to the potential danger of children, since there is presently no Canadian standard for child carriers either.

The ministry is aware that the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has been distributing information to the general public on the safe use of child carriers for those parents wishing to use them, in recognition that the proper use of child carriers requires education and, I might add, practice in riding with those young children on the back of the bike. The adult cyclist has to be aware that the addition of a child carrier on a bicycle will create a change in the load distribution and will affect steering.

Studies have shown that accidents involving bicycles with a child carrier are primarily due to cyclist error caused by the additional weight of the child, as opposed to faults with the actual carrier.

In discussions with the medical profession, the ministry has been informed that the injuries resulting from accidents involving bicycles with carriers tend to be head injuries. Therefore, we feel the preferred approach is to focus on head protection initiatives as opposed to the development of carrier standards.

In closing, we can assure the member for London North that the Ministry of Transportation will continue to promote bicycle safety with an emphasis on head protection. Before considering mandatory helmet legislation, the ministry prefers to monitor the experiences of other jurisdictions, the effects of increased public education and the progress of the Canadian Standards Association certification program.

With those comments, we would like to congratulate the member for London North for bringing the bill forward, but we perhaps will not give support for bringing it into legislation, for the reason I have just given.

Mrs Grier: I am very pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate today. I approach it strictly as a private member because when I was asked to participate in the debate, I had not made up my mind, and I am still not sure that I have. So it is very refreshing to have an opportunity to listen to the arguments and then decide in 40 minutes which way I am going to vote. At this point I may say to the member for London North that I think I am more on her side than on the other, but there are arguments to be put in both directions.

I guess one of my reservations is that I am concerned we are into regulating everything. I say that because every time I ask the Minister of the Environment to regulate protection of the environment, he says: “Oh, you’re always wanting regulations. That’s the socialist approach.” I think he is quite wrong in his ideological and rather doctrinaire approach to what socialism is. In my version of socialism it is our obligation to create the conditions that make it easy for individuals to assume responsibility for their own lives and to make their own decisions.

I come to bicycling with somewhat the same approach, that I wish one did not have to regulate everything and require perhaps the wearing of helmets on all cyclists.

As someone who cycles occasionally and casually, I know that when I pull out my bicycle on a bright spring day and decide to go and buy the paper or a jug of milk on my bicycle instead of walking or by car, I am going to consider it somewhat of an inconvenience if I have to put on a helmet. By the same token, when I see my young grandson beginning to learn to ride even his tricycle I am very relieved that my son, his father, has bought a helmet and is requiring him to wear it. I must confess it never crossed my mind when my three children were learning to ride a bicycle that they should wear helmets, but living in a city today, it is required.

I learned to ride my bicycle on a country road, because I remember being unseated into a large patch of brambles on my first attempt. Well, I guess if two cars passed per day, that was all that ever happened. Certainly in wartime Ireland there were no more than that. Today’s conditions are entirely different, so perhaps we come to the point where it is required that we begin to regulate.

I have been interested in cycling ever since, as a casual cyclist, I got my front wheel caught in a storm sewer grating on a busy street in Etobicoke and was very pleased thereafter to be able to get the works department to design its gratings in such a way that my front wheel no longer did get caught in the new gratings because they were on an angle. Those are the kinds of changes that make it safer for cyclists. Perhaps we have to begin to look at what can be done in the broad context to recognize that cycling is an appropriate way to travel, not only on country roads but in the cities, and at what can we do in the general context to make cycling safer.

I introduced a private member’s bill requiring cyclists to identify themselves to the police when they are stopped for a violation of the Highway Traffic Act; a private member’s bill, I may say, that was prompted by the policeman in 21 Division, the division in my constituency, who came to me and said: “We have this real problem with cyclists on sidewalks, be they children or adults. When we ask them their name and address so that we can hold them accountable for knocking someone down if they are riding on a sidewalk, as has happened, they do not have to give it to us. They can give us a false name, and there is nothing we can do about it.”

So I introduced my private member’s bill and, as I say, I am pleased that the minister incorporated that into his new legislation and regulations regarding cyclists. Perhaps the same thing will happen to the bill from the member for London North if it is approved by this House today.

I think that the amendments the minister introduced, as well as my amendment, contribute to what I think is necessary in the way of a broader system of safety for cycling. The fact that “bicycle” is now clearly included in the definition of a vehicle and that bicyclists are not permitted to ride their bicycles across the sidewalk or a pedestrian crossover and must walk their bicycle across the road, helps to improve safety.

There are now in the regulations clear indications that a cyclist should give when changing direction, that he may indicate a right turn by extending his right hand and arm horizontally, which is safer than the system that was permitted before that and easier to recognize. Also, bicycles must now be equipped with a proper braking system. This enhances bicycle control and provides the police with the power to charge bicyclists who drive without proper brakes, because lack of brakes is a very real safety hazard.

That a person walking a bicycle along a highway without sidewalks may walk on the right side of the highway not facing the traffic, provided it is unsafe for the person to cross the highway, is again a safety measure that I applaud. I agree that these new requirements will help make the bicycle safer to ride and more visible.

I think, in addition, we ought to be really encouraging municipalities to look at the provision of bicycle paths, not necessarily as a separate lane on a busy street, but as an alternative route. If we can begin to have throughout our cities routes that are designated as bicycle routes and where drivers will recognize that there are going to be more than the occasional bicycle, then that will contribute to drivers realizing that cyclists have a right to share the roads with them and put more of the onus on drivers to watch out for cyclists rather than constantly having it the cyclist who is worried about the car.

This is an unequal contest if the two collide. I think there has to be some onus put on the driver to take responsibility for the way in which he drives with respect to cyclists.

Cycling is environmentally desirable. It cuts down on the pollution from automobiles. It cuts down on traffic congestion. It increases the livability of our cities if more of us can cycle, and it is interesting to see that over the last decade even our winter climate has not deterred many people who ride their bicycles downtown.

I certainly have no qualms in suggesting that bicycle couriers are required to wear helmets, and we should all perhaps be given safety protection from bicycle couriers and the way in which some of them ride. But at the very minimum, I have no hesitation in supporting the requirements that those riding bicycles as a commercial operation ought to be required to have the safety features, both of their bicycles and in their personal wearing of helmets.

I applaud the educational efforts that the member opposite has said are being undertaken by the government. I hope that we can perhaps see an evaluation of how those are working in the short term rather than in the long term, because I think education of pedestrians, drivers and cyclists will all contribute to the recognition that bicycling is a legitimate mode of travel and one that we encourage and want to legitimize as much as possible.

Mr D. R. Cooke: Why don’t you propose an amendment to the bill?

Mrs Grier: Why do I not propose an amendment to the bill?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs Grier: I am not sure that it is in order to suggest an amendment, but I think, on balance, what I am saying, as I toss around my arguments, is that I will support in principle the legislation that is before us today. I share with the member for London North the hope that this bill will be referred to committee and that the members on the government side will change their, unfortunately, recently adopted practice of requiring all members’ bills to go to committee of the whole, which means that they are lost somewhere in the void of government, because they certainly never reappear.

Those of us in the opposition, those in the public who wish to have them dealt with, have no opportunity of getting them on the agenda.

If what I am hearing from the members opposite is that they think further discussion of this bill is required, then I would urge them to refer it to a committee so that the concerns and the reservations I have can be canvassed, so that people who have looked at this subject in greater depth and who have very legitimate suggestions to make about cycling can come before a committee and can share those concerns and ideas with us, because I think the principle of needing to assist people to protect themselves is one that I can certainly support.

We have required seatbelts in cars, we have required carriers for automobiles for children rather than the rather flimsy things that certainly 30 years ago I put on my car seat to carry my children around. Perhaps it is, in fact, time that we make helmets mandatory, and discussion before a committee would give us an opportunity to canvass all of that.

I have also the concern that bicycle helmets are not cheap. Riding a bicycle is often something that people do out of economic necessity because they cannot afford to run a car. So I would hope that if we are going to make it mandatory, we would also look at some way of assisting people in acquiring the helmets. I know with child car seats, many non-profit organizations have arranged systems of networks where these expensive things can be shared and while you have an infant you can borrow or rent a car seat at a very low cost.

Perhaps cycling helmets for children could be made available in the same way, so that as a child grows, you are not expending what is now a $50 expenditure every time you need it.

Let me also say, while on the subject of cycling, that I have recently realized that there are not very many facilities around this building for cyclists. There is one bicycle rack on our premises. It is in the northwest quad. It is not very visible and many members of our staff who ride bicycles to work are reluctant to leave their bicycles there for fear of vandalism or theft. They also are reluctant to leave their bicycles out in the open air.

What I was saying, Mr Speaker, was that I hope in this discussion of cycling you might take note of the need on these premises for some edifice where bicycles could safely be left by those who ride them to work. There are a growing number of our staff who come to work by bicycle, and in the north wing there are many members of staff who have been driven to carry their bicycles up and put them in their offices or in the corridors because they do not want to leave a valuable machine out in the elements or in a place where they fear that it may be tampered with.

I hope that if the government is sincere in its desire to increase the safety and the viability of cycling, it will look to putting our own house in order, because I know that would be welcomed by many people.

In conclusion, let me say to the member for London North that I think I have argued myself into certainly supporting her bill in principle. I hope, as I say, that it can be referred to a committee, and I look forward to greater in-depth discussion at that time.

Mr Cousens: I am pleased to participate in this debate that has been brought forward because of the concern and interest that has been given by the member for London North.

Before I begin my remarks, this is my first opportunity to just comment on the magnificent efforts that have been taken by the member for London North in the very short time since this lady has entered the House, and certainly taken such an active role within the Ontario Conservative Party. She has given a tremendous amount of herself, in not only her thinking and her experience but just her commonsense approach to things.

Through the electoral process to elect our new leader of the party on 12 May and for the many months of hard work and dedication, this is one person who will go down in the annals of the history of certainly our party and, I think, over the long term in the annals of the history of the Legislature of Ontario as one who is truly a dedicated, concerned Canadian and who puts others first, and certainly her Legislature and the people of the province at the head of the list.

I begin with these words because I have not had a chance until now to publicly acknowledge the outstanding efforts that have been given by the member for London North.

I am really pleased to participate in this debate. I think it is another reason why we as legislators have to lead the way rather than follow. Very often we are in a position to say, “Well, what does the majority want to do?” Mr Speaker, you no longer participate actively in the Liberal Party, I am sure, because of your independence as a Speaker and the objectivity that you have, but for the rest of the Liberals who are in this House, the way they operate is by reading the polls.

They have probably been reading the polls and saying, “What should we do with regard to this legislation?” rather than being leaders. Instead of being proactive, they are reactive. The member for Norfolk wonders who the dinosaurs are in this world; they are certainly not on this side of the House.

I would like to touch on some of the reasons why people are not supporting Bill 166. I believe there are a number of reasons, some of them having to do with the fact that these helmets look funny by virtue of what in fact people are used to having on their heads. Who knows? I am not just saying members, but I know certainly when I said to some of the young people in my community, “Well, why don’t you wear a helmet?” they said, “They look funny.”

Mr Miller: My grandchildren wear all kinds of hats and they would likely be happy to put one on.

Mr Cousens: That is good. I wore a hat and it did other things to me.

The fact is, the honourable member is saying one thing now, but when it comes to voting time, he is not going to be supporting this legislation. To some people they look funny. I think the same kind of consideration went into it before people started wearing hockey helmets. They said, “Oh, they look funny,” as if that was a reason not to wear a hockey helmet. Or if in fact it seemed to be an inconvenience when they put a seatbelt on, it looked funny to have a seatbelt on. It just did not seem proper.

The fact of the matter is these helmets will save lives. It is one of the things that we can do to protect ourselves for the long term. Looks are not the important thing. What is important is that we have proper protection. It is that kind of protection that could really begin to make a change for someone’s life, who, if he did not have that helmet, could have a fall and the damage could be permanent.

We often do not think enough about the permanency of head injury and the long-term effects it has. There are a number of young people I know who have had head injuries in car accidents and other ways. Their lives and their families’ lives will never be the same as they could have been. Certainly it has had a long-term impact.

I do not think any kind of helmet -- and this is the second reason I would give that people do not support the idea of the member for London North -- is that they are not that comfortable. They will be hot on a summer’s day. They will kind of slide around. The strapping may sort of change. You might have to stop your bike and readjust it periodically. You might have to stop and get rid of the sweat line. But the fact of the matter is, a lot of other things that we do for our own safety are not all that comfortable either, and yet if you really look at what it is going to do for you, that comfort factor is just a small consideration compared to the safety factor.

Some people say they do not work. I really begin to think they have not begun to understand how the Canadian Standards Association has made sure that these work. We are not talking about the design that came together in someone’s kitchen. The strapping is now firm. We are talking about the protection on the head that can withstand a very large blow.

The Canadian Standards Association has approved two Canadian companies that manufacture bike helmets and two models have been approved by the Canadian Standards Association. We are now talking about a range of sizes. The Helmtec is a tour light model that ranges in size from very small. Denrich has another type of helmet that is also approved by the CSA, and it has sizes small, medium and large.

These helmets meet the standards of the Canadian Standards Association. Approval stickers will be visible on the helmet or the liner, so when people are purchasing a helmet they can see that it has gone through a testing process that allows people to know that what they are going to be buying really has been thoroughly and carefully tested.

So when people say, “They don’t work,” I would have to say they do not know what they are talking about. We have a standards association in Canada which has gone through the testing process to see that it is okay.

One of the other reasons, the fourth reason, why maybe the helmets are not all that popular, is someone says, “Well, I didn’t need it, so why should my kids need it?” That logic just does not hold any water when you start to consider the impact it can have.

I thought the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore spoke very eloquently when she spoke of her memories in Ireland, back in the last century or whenever it was, and the safety factors there.

Mrs Grier: I did not say the last century.

Mr Cousens: I am not sure, but back when the member was there. I really respect her wisdom that comes from her years of experience. Certainly, we should all respect anyone who has been around that long.

One of the other concerns why people have not supported this in the past is that human rights are involved, and yet we have got around it. A turban cannot be an excuse for not wearing a motorcycle helmet. Motorcycle helmets are required, they are mandatory. They are there in the Highway Traffic Act for all people who want to drive a motorcycle. So if a person who has a concern because of his religion and has a turban, that does not take away the right of the law to be exercised on that person. If he is going to drive a motorcycle, he must wear a helmet.

For anyone who has a human rights concern, I would say that does not take any kind of importance above safety. Safety would go first; and we have precedents for that in the legislation as it affects a motorcyclist.

There are many precedents where people have previously looked at this kind of legislation. The Highway Traffic Act in Manitoba has been amended, where it is now required that infant passengers on a bicycle must wear a helmet. This bill was recently proclaimed, on 19 March 1990. Another instance where there is a precedent for helmet usage on cycles is in Maryland, where they have a bylaw that has an effect on county roads and bicycle paths. It does not have an effect on state or federal roadways, but it would appear that there is now an effort, certainly in that state, to get things going.

I have not had a chance to follow research through into other states, but there is the beginning now of other jurisdictions saying “We are prepared to bring out progressive legislation that is going to have the long-term interests of people on our highways and our roads, and therefore there is an urgency to have something in place to have a helmet there.”

It would appear that the ministry of the Ontario government has not done much research. Probably they are saying, “Well, it is not important because it has not been fully researched.” The fact of the matter is, all the signs are coming in now that there has been research. Just one example that came across my desk was of a physiotherapist -- I am rather sympathetic to physiotherapists; I am married to one and happen know that they deal an awful lot with people who are recovering from accidents and other situations.

This lady, Martha Somerby in Thunder Bay, has completed a year-long study on the use of bicycle helmets. Her findings show a significant decrease in the incidence of severe head injury when a proper helmet is worn. Again, that is another example of research being done and I am sure there is a lot more happening that begins to say, “If you use the helmet, it is going to benefit you.”

Is the Ontario Medical Association just sending out a request to municipalities across the province of Ontario suggesting that helmets be used because its members want to be good people? No. They are making the suggestion because they happen to know that you reduce the leading cause of injuries in young people by the use of helmets.

I guess another reason why people do not support this legislation has to do with the need to study it more; and that seems to have been the reason given by my good friend the member for Norfolk this morning, where in the Legislature he is saying, “Well, we need to still look at it more.” This government keeps studying things to death and nothing is ever going to happen. They are going to call another quick election shortly and they will say “Well, we will study it again.” They studied automobile insurance and look what we have got now; the more they studied it, the worst they did on it.

I am sure that if you take this as an example of their study ability as a government -- not you as an individual, because anyone with 14 grandchildren or thereabouts really has to understand what studying is all about; you have studied people for a long time. But studying this is just not a good enough excuse to say that you are not going to do something about it.

I believe the member for London North has done us a favour today in this Legislature. It is obvious that the government is not going to support this bill. They may come along and a have a whip vote to vote against it. We never know what they are going to do, but what we are beginning to do is educate the people of the province of Ontario on the importance of having proper safety gear when they are doing different things. Certainly, if you are riding a bicycle there is a tremendous benefit to the rider, to a child that is being carried on a bicycle, to have the proper equipment.

We require the bicycle to have brakes and other things on it. Why not protect the driver who cycles with such a thing as this? I think the member for London North is to be congratulated.

What we have to do now is to break down some of the prejudices that are part and parcel of the objection to helmets. By virtue of having a discussion on this, I would venture to say that among our pages, who are grades 7 and 8 young people -- and I am not going to ask for a show of hands because that is not done in the Legislature and I know the rules well enough -- there is not one who has a helmet; but maybe anyone who does could come and talk to me about it. I would hope that within a few years we are going to see more and more young people having helmets.

I truly respect the fact that it is something they need to be educated on. Everybody needs to be educated on it. Why not begin that process here in the Legislature? That is why I commend the honourable member for London North in bringing forward this bill to give us a chance to discuss it further.

Cycling is a more and more popular sport. More and more people are taking to the bicycle paths and the roads in the neighbourhoods on bicycles. Let us encourage that, but while they are doing it, we are going to see an increasing incidence of the possibility of accidents. Why not encourage people, if they are going do a sport, to do it safely and do it right? Oftentimes the accidents are caused not because they are being foolish. An accident is an accident. Some of the worst accidents happen when someone runs into a parked car. They think the car is moving and, bam, they are into it. Suddenly, they are into an injury as well, and so damage is done.

I am seeing more and more people in my community wearing helmets. I see this as an example of them respecting themselves and taking care of themselves over the long term. All the excuses on why a helmet is not a good idea -- it looks funny, it is hot and uncomfortable, it does not work, I have not done it before, I did not need to do it before and there is no precedence for it -- all those to me do not make sense. The real thing that makes sense is that each one of us has to do more to protect ourselves, to protect our rights and by looking after oneself we are in a position to really have a long-term carriage for ourselves.

I would hope that the government will look at this bill. If it has to go to committee and it is amended there and changes are made to it, let us do that. But let us at least begin to be leaders in our community and in government by having some way in which we can do it.

Mr Reycraft: I am pleased to participate in this debate this morning, and I want to compliment the member for London North for having introduced Bill 166 and having it placed before the Legislature.

Bill 166 provides us with an opportunity to focus public attention on the very important issue of bicycle safety and on one way in which we can reduce the number of serious injuries that result from bicycle accidents. Every year in this province there are thousands of accidents involving bicycles. The member for London North sent a letter to all members of the Legislature indicating that in 1987 there were 5,000 bicycle accidents in the province. I assume that refers to the number of reported accidents in the province, because I suspect the number is much, much larger than that.

Whatever the number is, many of those accidents involve serious injuries and some of them involve death. One thing that is certain is that some of those serious injuries and some of those deaths could have been avoided if the bicycle rider had been wearing a proper helmet. Many of the people in this province who ride bicycles are unaware of the statistics on accidents and serious injuries and deaths. Many of them are simply not aware of the risk they are taking when they attempt to ride a bicycle without a proper helmet.

I did some consultation on this bill last evening. I phoned my resident expert on the subject, my 14-year-old son, Nathan, who is in grade 9 at the high school in Glencoe, and I asked him how many of the students at the elementary school that he graduated from last year wore helmets when they rode bicycles. He indicated that none did. I asked him how many of his fellow students at Glencoe District High School wore helmets when they rode bicycles. Again, he said that none of them did. I asked him how many adults he had seen wearing helmets when they rode bicycles in the village of Glencoe where we live.

Again, he indicated that he had seen none. The only helmets that he has seen on people on bicycles are the helmets on babies or young children who are being carried as passengers on bicycles.

I suspect that the situation in Glencoe is not unique or unusual. I suspect that similar situations exist in most small towns and most rural parts of this province. The use of helmets by cyclists in those places is very limited. Certainly, in large urban areas like Toronto, even like London, the use of helmets by cyclists has increased significantly in the last few years. One needs only to look around to know that, but the risk exists everywhere. Accidents do occur in those small towns and rural areas just as they do in the large cities.

Riders are seriously injured in bicycle accidents in those places and some of them, unfortunately, are killed. There is no doubt that the use of helmets would make cycling safer, not just in heavy city traffic but wherever people ride bicycles.

I support the wider use of helmets by cyclists and I also support the recent amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, which will make it safer for people who ride bicycles, and I compliment the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for her involvement in those legislated changes.

Let’s get to Bill 166, which has been proposed by the member for London North. Bill 166 would make it mandatory for anyone riding a bicycle on a highway to wear an approved helmet and would also make it mandatory for children who are being carried as passengers on bicycles on a highway to wear those helmets. Just to clarify things, the Highway Traffic Act defines “highway” as including “a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle.” We are talking about all public roads.

The Highway Traffic Act establishes a penalty for those who do not observe its provisions and in the case of

section 88, which Bill 166 would amend, the penalty there is a minimum of $60 or a maximum of $500, not the lesser amount as I believe was stated by the member for London North. That means anyone riding a bicycle on a public road without a helmet would be subject to a fine of from $60 to $500.

A lot of the people who ride bicycles in this province are younger than 12 years old. I suspect that half of the people who ride bicycles in this province are younger than 12 years of age. Under the Provincial Offences Act of the province, people under the age of 12 cannot have charges laid against them. As a result of that, the provisions of the Provincial Offences Act, half of the people who would be affected by this legislation would not be subject to its enforcement. That means we would have obvious violations of the legislation but a police force that would be powerless to enforce it. In my view, that makes Bill 166 impractical.

Some might suggest the law should be changed so that charges could be laid against kids who are under the age of 12. I think that is problematic as well. First of all, I do not think $60 to $500 fines against nine-year-olds or 10-year-olds are appropriate. I also think there is a real problem in trying to collect those fines should the violators decide they did not want to pay them. With infractions involving automobiles and other vehicles, because they are licensed there is a mechanism whereby those fines can be collected. But bicycles are not licensed so there is no mechanism to allow for the collection of those fines.

I think, too, this legislation might encourage kids who are riding bicycles to get off the highway, to get off the public road and on to the sidewalk. That is problematic as well, certainly for pedestrians, particularly seniors. They do not like to see young people riding bicycles on sidewalks and many municipalities in the province have passed bylaws that prohibit that.

There is another problem with the legislation, as the member for London North herself has pointed out, in that there are only two bicycle helmets that are now approved for use in the province by the Canadian Standards Association. That is pretty limited. I understand they have tested some 10 helmets that are now available and of those 10 only the two were viewed as being acceptable. There are also problems with the costs of the helmet and the implication of that cost on the people who would be affected.

The final point I want to make is that I think there is a better way. I think the use of helmets by cyclists is increasing, particularly in urban areas but all across the province. There is much more we can do to educate bicycle riders on the value of wearing approved helmets. I think we should do that. We should continue to promote and educate but not legislate. Encouraging the greater use of helmets by cyclists is something that is very practical: I believe Bill 166 is not.

Mrs Cunningham: Is it appropriate, if there is time available to the official opposition party, that I use that time?

The Speaker: Is there agreement that the member for London North may use the two and a half minutes plus her own two minutes?

Agreed to.

Mrs Cunningham: I will use this time to respond specifically to any questions as I have written them down. I would like to thank my colleague the member for Markham and my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for their support, for their questions and of course for their very positive attitude towards having this bill referred to committee so that we could look at making it work.

I think the time has come when we have to lead the way. These statistics are not new. Many of them have been gathered throughout the 1960s, the 1970s and more recently throughout the 1980s in Ontario. The injuries are becoming greater, not less, and it is time to do something about it.

I would say to the member for Norfolk I was not surprised to hear that the ministry officials are not happy with this piece of legislation. They were not happy with the legislation around the wearing of helmets when it was introduced for motorcycles and they certainly were not happy with the legislation for seat-belts.

Mr Miller: We supported that.

Mrs Cunningham: We supported it, but not with the support of the administration. Of course they are warning us as politicians that there are difficulties with legislation and certainly, as the member for Middlesex has pointed out, with whether or not one can fine them appropriately. I believe we have the opportunity right now to refer this to committee and all of us hear about what these problems from the administration are all about.

This is the wrong time to defeat a piece of legislation that is certainly worthy of more discussion. I will say to the member for Middlesex that those numbers I used for fines were numbers that were used for pedestrians. We do have the opportunity to amend this

section and say

section 2 instead of

section 1. We could make it a separate

section in committee. We could say there would be warnings. We could say whatever we want to say if we want to make it work.

We know that in the Highway Traffic Act itself there are ranges available of both sentences and fines. All we have to do is make the fine suit the breaking of the law and make it work. In this section, when we talk about pedestrians, and I wanted to talk about motorcyclists to wear the helmet, the member is quite right to say that “every person who contravenes any provision of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $500.” I was aware of that. Let’s call this a new

section and make the fine or the warning different. But I certainly think that at this time in the province of Ontario we have a wonderful opportunity to lead the way. To use fines and enforcement as an excuse is just not acceptable to young people across the province. They are prepared to lead the way.

When we talk about helmets, yes, the Canadian Standards Association has in fact approved two new helmets in the last two years and when I first raised this they had not approved any. But you have to remember at the same time that the American Standards Association, of course, has many helmets that have been approved and they have been used in the province of Ontario and across Canada for many years, so we do not have to go with those two. But we know also that the Canadian-owned-and-operated Helmtec and the samples of these sports-safe helmets have helped in the awareness of the importance of wearing helmets.

They in fact have given out coupons under certain circumstances so that people can get $5 and $10 off. They have worked with the Ontario Medical Association.

If we really want something to work, we can make it work. That is what I am here to say today. The time has come in Ontario. We have shown the way; we have led the way.

Manitoba has in its way. Other states, and I used Maryland as an example today, have led the way, and we have an opportunity. Everyone in this House agrees that head injuries caused by bicycle accidents, and especially more severe ones, and all of them by young people who do not wear helmets, are a real problem. I would just like to ask for the support of the House with regard to this matter.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Miclash moved resolution 52:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that fully accessible, quality health care for every Ontarian is a priority of this government and that northern Ontario residents often have to travel outside their communities to receive specialized health care services and that travel costs in northern Ontario are higher on average than in other areas of the province and that some situations, regardless of age, require the assistance of a travel companion, the government of Ontario should reduce the distance criteria under the northern travel grant program from 250 kilometres to 200 kilometres and that any individual requiring the assistance of a travel companion regardless of their age be eligible to receive a grant to cover their companion’s costs.

Mr Miclash: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the Legislature today to bring forth this private member’s resolution, which deals with an issue of great importance to the people not only in my riding but to all northern Ontario residents. The issue is, of course, the provision of health care for northern Ontario residents.

The geography of Ontario has much to offer. We know that it is a vast geography and it provides for a flourishing tourist industry and has many benefits of natural resources across it. But as well, it does have some drawbacks. We know that the geography of northern Ontario, for example, is one of vastness. We know that distances between centres in the north are large, causing a remoteness not only among themselves but also from the larger urban centres of southern Ontario. As a result, the delivery of health care services faces daunting challenges for us in the north.

When the present government came to power in 1985, it made a commitment to alleviate this problem. One of the first actions it took was to implement the northern health travel grant as part of its strategy to ensure that all Ontarians have access to adequate health services. There are other programs also which are available to help northerners. We know that social assistance will provide funding for people who cannot afford travel to get specialized services.

Just last week, actually, the government announced another priority in terms of helping people in the north practise in the north and be educated in the north, and it was an initiative that drew 48 training positions into the north. We know that both Lakehead University and Laurentian University were allotted 24 positions each to bring practising physicians into the north, just one program that has been offered by this government along with many others which try to provide health care in the north.

We know that there is an underserviced specialist program which allows specialists to move in and out of some of the communities that do not have these specialized services, and we know that these services are provided in the communities to the people who need them and that they are best suited to provide them in their home communities.

But let me return to the northern health travel grant. We know this provides coverage for residents of various territories across the north and it allows them money to be used to travel for specialized services. To date, the grant program has been of assistance to 150,000 individuals and we have had some 15,000 travel companions use the grant system as well. Undoubtedly this has been a great benefit to patients in northern Ontario.

When the program was first introduced in December 1985, the minimum distance at that time was 300 kilometres. In 1988 we saw a reduction in that minimum distance to 250 kilometres. That is saying that the distance to travel to a centre for specialized services had been reduced in 1988, but today I have indicated that that reduction may not have been enough. I know of a great number of communities, including three major ones in my riding, that are between the 250- and 200-kilometre range, and we know that transportation over that distance can be quite expensive.

Last year the minister undertook a comprehensive study to take a look at the program and came up with a number of recommendations. They sent out a review team composed of people from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Northern Development to take a look at the program. In order to achieve a wide public response, the team mailed out some 300 questionnaires. As well, they included people who had both used the grant system and who had been refused a grant under the program.

The purpose of the study was to find out whether people were satisfied with the program and what kind of comments they would have in terms of the program. I understand that generally they received fairly favourable comments about the program and about the specialist care that was able to be provided through the program.

I know that the Ministry of Health at the present time is going over the recommendations, and today I bring forth this resolution to let it know about some of the concerns of both myself and my constituents about the program in the Kenora riding and across the north. The provincial government has moved in the past five years in a very responsible manner to address the problems that exist and I feel it has shown a willingness to listen to us there in the north.

I would just like to give a few examples of some of the problems that we have encountered in the Kenora riding, some of the problems that have come forth from constituents of mine. I would like to refer to a young man who had injured his hand and had to travel on a weekly basis for some 13 weeks to Winnipeg to receive treatment. As I indicated before, he was from Keewatin and the travel grant program did not cover his travel for those 13 visits.

As well, I would like to highlight some cases to demonstrate my point in terms of the benefit of a travel companion under this program. One case that was brought to my attention was that the wife of a gentleman from northwestern Ontario had been referred to a specialist in southern Ontario for open-heart surgery. Both doctors who had examined the patient had recommended a travel companion. However, as the patient was over 18 years of age, this was denied.

As well, a young lady who had been travelling to a specialist in southern Ontario since she was 14 had the assistance of her parents up until the time that she turned 18. Of course at that point, again, the assistance to the companion by the travel grant was discontinued. As well, we have heard from a blind man from Red Lake, a town in my riding, who was travelling to Winnipeg and again denied the travel assistance program.

So you can see, Mr Speaker, that we can see complications in this program where companions are needed to travel and, the person being over 18, he is not allowed to take the companion along.

There are other reasons that dictate the need for a travel companion, such as medical condition, disorientation due to disease or treatment, or actually the need for moral support of the patient. We know that often the trauma of dealing with a medical condition calls for special care and some special care that can be provided by a companion in travel.

Removing the age restriction could also save money and make our health care system in northern Ontario more efficient. I refer to patients who sometimes, instead of taking an ambulance from centre to centre, could be accompanied by a travel companion and alleviate that very expensive need.

I suggest that the delivery of health care is to ultimately be able to expand medical service in the north through higher technology and more specialists, but in the meantime I think there is a gap, a gap that must be filled, and I feel that the northern health travel grant program has obviously filled this gap and has been of great assistance to us in the north.

I indicated earlier that the government has moved quickly in meeting many of the medical needs in northern Ontario, but unfortunately some people are still falling through the cracks. Therefore, after reviewing the northern health travel grant and reviewing what it is doing for the people in northern Ontario, I have proposed that the government of the day reduce the distance criteria under the northern health travel grant, as I indicated earlier, from 250 kilometres to 200 kilometres.

As well, I mentioned a number of cases where it was obvious that individuals were in need of companions to travel out of their centres to major centres where they would receive specialized medical care treatment, so I have also indicated that I feel we should be taking a look at any individual who requires the assistance of a travel companion, regardless of age, that he be eligible to receive a grant to cover the companion’s cost.

As you can see, Mr Speaker, I have indicated two ways that I feel we can take another good look at the travel grant program in northern Ontario and ensure that it helps meet the needs of people who must travel to other areas of the province or even into Manitoba to receive these specialized treatments and the specialized care that they need.

Mr Hampton: I am very pleased to be able to take

part in this debate, because my constituency is right next door to the member for Kenora’s, so he and I have experienced many of the same bureaucratic hassles with the northern health travel grant. In fact, I can even recite a few more, and I would, just for the benefit of making the record complete.

The bureaucracy that is involved with the northern health travel grant is even more absurd than the member for Kenora suggests. Let me give an example that I encountered. If you live in northwestern Ontario, the northern health travel grant allows you to travel either to a centre like Thunder Bay or Toronto in Ontario for service, or allows you to travel to Winnipeg.

However, if your doctor sends you to Winnipeg you have to be very, very careful that the doctor you are going to see in Winnipeg has all of these neat little letters after his or her name and is in fact recognized as a specialist by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, because if he or she does not have all of these neat little letters after his or her name, even though you receive specialist services from him or her in Winnipeg, you may not qualify for the northern health travel grant.

Let me give members an instant example. Dr Jerry Wilson in Winnipeg is one of the most renowned knee and orthopaedic surgeons in the world. He is the consultative doctor for the Winnipeg Jets hockey team. They have hockey players they have invested $1 million in and they are very concerned about their knees, so they send them to Dr Wilson.

When people in my constituency are referred to Dr Wilson for surgery or for specialist attention, they go, under the impression that they can recover northern health travel grant funding for the travel. When they get back, the Ministry of Health tells them: “No, no, Dr Jerry Wilson, even though he is recognized around the world as a leading orthopaedic surgeon, does not have all of the necessary little initials after his name. You don’t qualify for the northern health travel grant.”

How ridiculously absurd and stupid, that someone who is recognized around the world as providing specialist services, the Ministry of Health in Ontario will not recognize him.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Hampton: That is just one example.

What is at stake here is a fundamental principle of medicare within Canada. Medicare states that recognized health services should be, shall be, universally available. Whether you are rich or poor, old or young, disabled or abled, health services should be available to you.

What has happened in northern Ontario is this: You have to be wealthy, or you have to be able to acquire some money from someone, either through charity or through a loan or service group, because in many cases you are in fact cut off from health services. That is the fundamental of it.

I want to give credit to the member for Kenora, because he deals with one small aspect of this problem, but the fact of the matter is that the situation goes much beyond what his resolution is dealing with. People from all across northern Ontario are put into situations where, as I said, they have to deny necessities for their family in order to get medical care because their travel costs are not fully covered or even partially covered, which to me goes completely contrary to the principles of medicare, and I would argue, therefore, completely contrary to the principles of OHIP.

I just want to show again the double standard. When local health care services were not available for cancer patients from Toronto, the Ministry of Health paid the full bill to send them to Thunder Bay, to Windsor, to Ottawa. Our information is that something close to 500 patients from Metro Toronto and area received full costs of return air fare, full costs of hotel accommodation, taxis, meals and so on. Not only that, but escorts also received this funding.

None of that happens for people in northwestern Ontario or northern Ontario. You have to beg and plead for an escort. The maximum you can receive is $250, even if the cost of going to see a specialist in Toronto or Winnipeg runs into the thousands when you take into account air fare and hotel accommodation.

There is a great inequity here. While I give credit to the member for Kenora for bringing a small piece of this forward, it is only a small piece. Under this government that inequity has continued, and it is getting worse. So while I say to him this is a small piece, it is not nearly enough.

Mr Eves: It is a pleasure for me to rise and partake in this debate here this morning. I will be supporting the member for Kenora’s resolution, but I must say that I am doing so partially -- not only because I believe that his resolution is a worthwhile one, but if I had my preference, I would be going even further than he is going, for reasons that I am about to explain.

The distances for eligibility for the northern health travel grant program are outlined in regulations and there are two different distances. There is travel within northern Ontario, or in the case of the Kenora area of the province to the province of Manitoba, and this distance was changed from 300 kilometres to 250 kilometres on 1 April 1987. I am sure that most members will be aware that the northern health travel grant program was announced in December 1985 by the Minister of Health.

There is also another regulation with respect to travel from northern Ontario to other parts of Ontario, namely, southern Ontario. That distance still remains at 300 kilometres. I note that the member for Kenora’s resolution does nothing to address that distance in his resolution.

The northern health travel grant program has long been an issue of concern for me because of the problems it creates for my constituents. As 1 said, the then Minister of Health, the member for Bruce, created the program in December 1985. Specifically excluded from the program was the district of Parry Sound and everything in the district of Nipissing east and south of North Bay.

On 1 April 1987, as I said, the minister changed the distance eligibility requirements for travel within northern Ontario from 300 kilometres to 250 kilometres. The district of Parry Sound, despite my pleadings, was still not included because at that time it did not have northern status. For those unfamiliar with the Parry Sound riding, it includes the entire district of Parry Sound and literally everything in Nipissing district east and south of North Bay, which includes all of Algonquin Provincial Park among other areas of the district of Nipissing.

At that particular time, before northern status was granted, and now -- it still exists -- there is the ridiculous situation where there are people who reside in the Nipissing portion of my riding who live farther south than many residents in the Parry Sound district part of my riding. They qualify for northern health travel grants because they live farther south, and the people who live farther north in the district of Parry Sound do not qualify. It does not make any sense to me whatsoever and it is causing tremendous hardship, literally, for hundreds of my constituents.

On two separate occasions in this Legislature I have brought forth private members’ resolutions calling on the government to uniformly designate Parry Sound district and all of Nipissing district to be recognized by all ministries in the government as being part of northern Ontario. I did that on 25 June 1987 and almost a year later on 28 April 1988. Both of my private member’s resolutions received unanimous consent of this Legislature.

I have continually raised this issue in questions, members’ statements, I have gone to estimates for the Ministry of Northern Development when the Premier was the acting Minister of Northern Development and finally on 9 June 1988 an announcement was made where northern status was given to Parry Sound riding, being all of the district of Parry Sound and all of the district of Nipissing.

In making this announcement, the Minister of Northern Development, the member for Cochrane North, stated, and I quote so there can be no doubt as to what the government’s intention was on 9 June 1988:

“The government has acknowledged that the people of Parry Sound and Nipissing share the special social and economic needs of northern Ontario and that they deserve access to the special government programs established to address them. Official inclusion in northern Ontario will give individuals, institutions, municipalities and organizations access to specific programs oriented to northern needs.”

At that time the government made a commitment to the people of Parry Sound riding that on 1 April 1989 the entire area of Parry Sound and Nipissing would be considered part of northern Ontario. They would have access to all programs oriented to the needs of northern Ontarians. The government must live up to its commitment to the residents of Parry Sound riding. Despite northern status for Parry Sound riding, some 75% to 80% of its constituents are still ineligible for the northern health travel grant program because the distance requirement of 300 kilometres for travel from northern Ontario to southern Ontario for medical treatment does not include the residents in Parry Sound riding.

I would suggest, as I have suggested to the Minister of Northern Development, the Minister of Health and the Premier on many occasions, and again I am doing it here this morning, if there is any validity to the commitment that the Minister for Northern Development made, that that distance be changed from 300 kilometres to 200 kilometres as well as the change that my friend the member for Kenora is making on behalf of his constituents, which I fully support, I might add.

My constituents have another problem, and that is because another part of the regulation specifically defines what territorial districts are northern Ontario for the purposes of this program. It specifically excludes the district of Parry Sound and it specifically excludes the part of Nipissing that lies east and south of North Bay, ie, the Algonquin part of the district of Nipissing. That regulation has to be changed as well if the government is going to give any meaning whatsoever to the Commitment that it made to the residents of Parry Sound riding.

I have the ridiculous situation where many residents of mine who must travel to Toronto for medical treatment, a lot of whom are cancer patients to Princess Margaret Hospital, do not qualify for the northern health travel grant program, despite the fact that this government claims that Parry Sound riding now has northern status. It is a sad, sad joke for the people of Parry Sound riding. I think it is about time that this important issue was addressed in a sincere and forthright manner by the Minister of Health, the Minister of Northern Development and the Premier.

When I queried the Minister of Northern Development about this, he said, “If I do it for you, I am going to have to do it for the people of Kenora.” Well, I challenge him to do it for both. Not only should this private member’s resolution be addressed and adopted by the entire Legislature, but also the changes should be made to those distances so that my constituents as well can benefit from the northern health travel grant program.

When I asked the Minister of Health about it, she said it is not a northern program. The northern health travel grant program is not a northern program? Do people in Windsor qualify? She claims it is based only on distance and not whether you are in northern Ontario. She has told me that several times. She has written me letters saying that.

I cannot believe anybody could be so ridiculous and represent the Ministry of Health in cabinet and not know that the northern health travel grant program, which defines northern Ontario as certain territorial districts in northern Ontario, is indeed a northern program for northerners. Maybe she should go up past Highway 7 once in a while and realize that she will not fall off the end of the earth and that another world does exist out there. I find that absolutely ridiculous.

I suspect the real reason is that it will cost money and that the government does not want to live up to its commitment. To show how ridiculous this really is, the officials at OHIP in Kingston have been holding on file since 1 April 1989, the day that we were supposed to become part of northern Ontario, applications for the northern health travel grant program, because they fully expected that their minister would be directing them to process these applications and give the people in Parry Sound and Nipissing districts the northern status that they justifiably deserve.

I will be supporting, as I said, the member for Kenora’s resolution. I would also urge the government to address the issue and the concern that I have expressed here today for all residents in Parry Sound riding as well.

Mr Kozyra: It gives me great pleasure to stand and also indicate my support for this resolution from my colleague the member for Kenora. I believe it is an excellent resolution that takes a look at a program that has had outstanding success and looks at ways of further improving it.

The program’s success speaks for itself. In the years 1988 and 1989 alone, 55,000 patients and over 3,000 companions were helped and assisted through this northern health travel program. The member for Kenora addresses two distinct points that do need improvement: the reduction in distance criteria, one of his proposals, and the companion eligibility that would increase the access to this by companions, no matter what age, and certainly age should not be a barrier in this.

So while we recognize on the one hand the success of the program, which speaks for itself -- in the four and a half years almost 150,000 people have taken advantage of it -- I am a little disturbed that the member for Rainy River from the official opposition took the opportunity not to praise the benefits but once again, in overanxiety to discredit the government, to mix apples and oranges, to talk about the northern health travel program but cloud the issue by mixing into it the program being administered by the cancer society under totally different funding and totally different criteria.

Mr Pouliot: Sick people are sick people.

Miss Martel: It just shows the inequities between north and south, Taras.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Kozyra: The deliberate fuzzy thinking to cloud the issue --

Mr Wildman: There is no way that the cancer society should be having to contribute money to chauffeur people around this province.

Mr Kozyra: They fail to recognize --

Mr Pouliot: That is a cheap shot, a cheap shot. A sick person is a sick person.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Kozyra: The truth hurts, Mr Speaker.

Mr Pouliot: A buck is a buck. A sick person is a sick person.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Le député de lac Nipigon, s’il vous plaît. If members want to have an opinion, they can choose their own time to make it. Please, standing orders.

Mr Pouliot: I came here seeking --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Port Arthur.

Mr Kozyra: The truth of the matter is, as the Minister of Health explained, that whether the person is travelling from Kenora to Toronto, Thunder Bay to Toronto or, as in the latter case that sparked the issue, Toronto to Thunder Bay, the support from the cancer society remains the same. There is no special treatment as the members from the opposition party have tried to make.out.

Mr Wildman: They shouldn’t have to pay for it.

Miss Martel: How come we don’t get full costs when we go to the south, Taras? How come we don’t get full costs when we have to travel to the south?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please, la députée de Sudbury-Est.

Mr Kozyra: It was a deliberate attempt to discredit this other program by mixing these medical apples and oranges. This program, the northern health travel grant, is a very good program. There are points for improvement, but we are addressing those.

On a more personal note, I had an opportunity seven years ago to experience some of the inadequacies of northern health care. At that time I was more physically active and involved in a northern Ontario broomball provincial tournament. At that time, when on a breakaway early in the morning -- I think it was an 8 am game -- I dove for the ball, the goalie dove with his broom for my teeth and knocked in three of them substantially and cracked one so that the bottom portion fell off. Here we were in Hornepayne, a small northern community 300 miles from Thunder Bay, and I went in search of proper health care.

By this time it was 9 in the morning, a cold winter morning. I found a wonderful dental clinic, but it was closed. When I asked about it, they said, “Well, we built this clinic to attract medical people, but as yet we have been unsuccessful.” Hopefully now, seven years later, they have been successful, but there is a case of the dental aspect. I then went to the medical facility, a doctor.

They said, “Yes, there will be a doctor here” -- this was 9 am -- “but he will be here at 12 and you are 18th on the list.” I thought my situation was rather critical, so I decided to drive back to Thunder Bay, a six-hour drive. I did not have a companion, so I drove alone and got attention there. But that was my experience with the inadequacies of northern health care.

Mr Wildman: Getting good health care in the north is like pulling teeth.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Kozyra: One of the arguments used is that maybe we should not improve this package -- I have heard this used and it is faulty logic again -- because it deters health improvements in the north. Because it is making it so easy to have access to specialists in the south, maybe it will just take care of our pressing need in the north. I would like to speak against that. The government’s record in continuous improvement -- and granted, I will be the first to say there is room for improvement and that is why it is a gradual process, but we are moving in the right direction.

There was a recent announcement in Thunder Bay of the residency program that will eventually incorporate 48 medical doctors, family practitioners, as residents in the north, with the basically solid idea that if they work in northern communities, there is a greater likelihood they will stay there. Most people who have been in the north for a little while appreciate it and do decide to stay there. I think this is an excellent program, a big step in the right direction.

About six months ago in Armstrong a clinic was opened. A large amount of funds came from the Northern Development ministry, but in addition, that clinic replaced a little tin shack, one of these mobile trailers, that up to that point had been the temporary and permanent kind of medical facility. Thunder Bay recently got announcements of $3 million for a cancer unit expansion and to help in the operating, and soon will get $1.5 million for an improved, expanded perinatal unit.

This does not take away from the concerns we have. We know that part of the problem in the north is not the lack of total number of doctors in Ontario, but it is a distribution problem. We have to continue to strive to improve this so that the north gets its fair share. Especially, we do have a critical problem in specialists, which is in an ongoing concern. But that does not take away from the validity of what the member for Kenora has put forth in his resolution.

I must say the other reason I am somewhat disappointed with the members of the official opposition in their attack on this, to give fair credit, is that it was one of their members, my predecessor for Port Arthur, Jim Foulds, who was one of the driving forces for this excellent program, and I give recognition for that. I think they should be speaking well of the program rather than harping and carping on picky little points.

Mr Pouliot: I too would like to commend the member for Kenora. It is not a courageous move. It is a private member’s resolution. It is a piecemeal way of addressing problems, but I remind myself and my distinguished colleagues that every journey starts with a single step. In some cases it starts with a very, very small step. It is a policy of gradualism; it is a policy that is incremental. At this rate we shall never get there.

If someone is sick in Thunder Bay and is referred to a specialist by the family practitioner and asked to go and seek services in Toronto, the minimum air fare costs $464. What the ministry will pay is a maximum of $300. So that person, he or she, is already $164 behind the eight ball. Supplementary is the cost associated with lost wages, meals and accommodation, so you are looking at around $1,000 to pay a specialist in Toronto the compliment of your visit.

If you have a sickness and if you live in Dryden, you are looking at $618. That is the minimum air fare. You cannot take the train. Forget about Via. They forgot about us. With Greyhound you will never get there. In this case, if you are in Dryden, $350 is the maximum you will ever get. You lose your wages. You have no accommodation. You are over $300 in terms of air fare alone. I have a great deal of concern.

Mr Speaker, you will recall vividly the case of the 38-year-old blind person from Red Rock who was referred to an ophthalmologist in Winnipeg. Because of his condition, because of his difficult trip, he requested the service of a companion, an escort to help him make the trip. The blind person’s application for an escort, believe it or not, was turned down.

Ironically, by a twist of fate, a 17-year-old hockey player in the neighbouring community, fully six feet tall, the picture of health and some talent, sprained an ankle -- it was after hours -- was sent to Thunder Bay and was given the opportunity to have an escort, the reason being that if you are 18 years of age and you sprain your ankle at a hockey game, well, you bring your escort. Rightly so. There is the human dimension; they will pay. But if you are 38 years of age in this Ontario of ours in 1990 and you are blind, you do not have the right to have an escort because there is no provision.

On that basis, I salute and applaud the efforts of the member for Kenora because he too recognizes, “Let’s correct a situation that has been allowed to go on for far, far too long.” The member is giving us a drop and, if not an ocean, certainly the recognition factor has to be there: People shall not be penalized by virtue, on account of, because they are less fortunate because they are sick.

Mr McLean: I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words in support of this resolution. It is related to the Ontario health care system. I would like to read the resolution again just to familiarize some of the members who have just come in. As they are no doubt aware, this resolution states:

“Recognizing that fully accessible, quality health care for every Ontarian is a priority of this government and that northern Ontario residents often have to travel outside their communities to receive specialized health care services and that travel costs in northern Ontario are higher on average than in other areas of the province and that some situations, regardless of age, require the assistance of a travel companion, the government of Ontario should reduce the distance criteria under the northern travel grant program from 250 km to 200 km and that any individual requiring the assistance of a travel companion regardless of their age be eligible to receive a grant to cover their companion’s costs.”

I believe the people of northern Ontario should have easy access to a full line of quality, specialized health care service. They have the right to have fully accessible health care in the north, just as every resident in central and southern Ontario has the right to these services. Perhaps the hospitals that already exist in Sudbury and Thunder Bay could be the regional health care facilities that offer specialized health care services and a full line of medical equipment that is currently found only in southern Ontario.

This could mean that patients requiring hospitalization and specialized treatment would not have to travel such great distances, thereby cutting down some of the costs. Failing this, I am in complete agreement with the idea of reducing the distance criteria in the northern travel grant program and providing a grant to cover a travel companion’s costs. Travelling can be a traumatic experience and we should make this experience as pleasant as possible. If that means providing a grant for a travel companion, then so be it.

Mr Speaker, you will note that I agree with this resolution in principle, but I have some serious doubts when the member for Kenora includes the phrase “recognizing that fully accessible, quality health care for every Ontarian is a priority of this government.” We all know this is simply not the truth. We know this is not true, because the deterioration of Ontario’s health care system demonstrates once again the failure of both the Premier and his Minister of Health to manage this province’s health care system.

For instance, the day before the last election was called in 1987, the former Minister of Health promised $30 million for the development of Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital. That was three years ago. To date, no one has seen that $30 million, and we do not anticipate seeing it for a while, if ever.

Another example occurred during the election campaign three years ago. The Premier declared that, if elected, his government would allocate $850 million for 40,400 new acute and chronic care beds in Ontario, but his Minister of Health admitted last year that only 300 of those promised beds would be in place by the 1990 target date -- failure all along the line in the health care system.

My constituents in Simcoe East are just as concerned about the state of our health care as I am. More than 500 of my constituents felt so strongly about this issue that they took the time to complete and return my spring questionnaire. Of those who responded, 60% indicated that the state of health care in Ontario has worsened, 33% indicated there was no change and 7% said it was improved. As well, 35% indicated that the Health minister should place a greater emphasis on providing more home care, 30% said more outpatient services are required, 25% said we need more hospital beds and 10% said the nursing home beds are their priority.

This is an indication of what the people of Simcoe East are saying, and I think it is a pretty clear reflection of what the people of Ontario are also saying, but this government continues to do nothing. I am afraid that if this situation continues, the government will still be just providing lipservice to us all.

It is hard to believe why this member was so adamant about bringing this bill forward. Why could it not be changed in a regulation? Why could the minister not make the announcement to have it changed? Why not have a voting bill before this Legislature that, if it were passed, would save many, many lives in this province? The government does not see fit to bring that bill forward. Do members think the government is going to see fit to bring this resolution to a conclusion that would be satisfactory to those people in the north? The health travel grant in Ontario has been so important over the years that it must be continued and expanded upon.

There was no need of this resolution; the government could have done it without it.

Mr Campbell: I am pleased to rise to support my colleague for Kenora because I know of his very strong concern for the kinds of programs, the kinds of medical problems that we have in the north. Before I was here, I was pleased, as the chairman of health and social services committee of the region of Sudbury, to have supported through our regional council a resolution for precisely this kind of program. I am pleased to have seen it evolve and continue on, but I want to deal with some of the problems that we felt we were going to have in the program.

We felt that a program such as this would more clearly cause patients to overfly Sudbury. Part of our strategy in Sudbury, of course, was to have a very excellent medical centre for northeastern Ontario, and we have gone a long way to achieving that in a number of specialties.

But to demonstrate that there are still people being referred to other facilities outside of northern Ontario I refer to the Ombudsman’s report in the case of Mr K. Mr K, a resident of northern Ontario, was referred to a specialist in a city in southern Ontario in order to undergo open heart surgery. Due to his precarious health situation and upon the advice of his general physician and specialist, Mr K’s wife accompanied him to southern Ontario for the surgery. Mrs K’s application for a companion travel grant was denied because her husband is over the age of 18.

The key to that whole phrase was “southern Ontario,” when Sudbury has one of the most magnificent centres for cardiovascular specialties in Ontario -- not just in northern Ontario, but in Ontario. I am pleased that we do have such an excellent specialty, but still people are being referred to southern Ontario. I am concerned about that. I think that, along with these kinds of evolutionary steps, we can in fact have that recognized, that some specialties are still overflying the very excellent centres we have in northern Ontario.

Along that vein, I am very much concerned that my colleague for Rainy River would ask that perhaps -- and I do not say, in that case, the knee surgeon. I am sure the knee surgeon is a specialist and I am sure that he is well recognized, but then it opens the way to people with unproven treatments in other areas to be funded. Where do you draw the line?

I know in northern Ontario, certainly, there are a number of orthopods who are highly qualified and who can provide specialties, so I would ask that sometimes when we are dealing with this issue that we recognize the fact.

I think, as well, that it is a good program to have, certainly the companion grants to this point, and I would hope that the member for Kenora is successful in making the change for companions to travel because I think it is important for the patient’s wellbeing. A number of physicians would recognize that and in fact would recommend it.

One small point of course that constantly bothers northerners, and it is a little bit of an aside but related, is that when you fill out the form to get the money, the northern health travel grant address is PO Box 1292, Kingston. Now, I think it should be in northern Ontario, and our government has announced more jobs that are going to be decentralized in the budget program. The budget has announced that a number of these kinds of offices are going to be diversified throughout the province.

My good friend the member for Kingston and the Islands, I know, would understand that having this office in the north, having it acceptable to people to receive that funding faster because of the mail service, the wide geography and everything else -- it is somewhat difficult.

I do have more to say, but I know that my friend the member for Kenora would like an opportunity to wrap up and I appreciate the fact that I have been able to participate in this debate.

Miss Martel: In crass political terms, the best I can say is, this is a joke. I have been here for two and one half years; the member for Kenora, the member for Sudbury and the member for Port Arthur have been here for two and one half years, and in that whole time, this grant has been wholly, totally, absolutely inadequate and this government has not done a bloody thing to change it.

When the questions were raised -- the questions about the blind gentleman from Red Lake, the questions about residents who live in Atikokan and have to travel over to Thunder Bay and cannot get their costs covered -- it has been people in this party who have raised those questions, not the Liberal backbenchers. They have not been seen. The silence has been deafening from these members. As a matter of fact, the only reason we are seeing this now --

Interjections.

Mr Campbell: It is our government that brought it in.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Ballinger: He started this.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Durham-York.

Mr Pouliot: You guys never raised those social issues. You don’t have a social conscience.

Le Vice-Président: Le député de lac Nipigon, n’est même pas dans son fauteuil. La députée de Sudbury-Est, s’il vous plaît.

Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, I would like some of that time back, if you do not mind. Can I get that?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please

Miss Martel: Okay, let me keep going then. The real reason we are seeing this now is that we have an election in a few months. In crass political terms, this is a chance by some of the northern New Democrats to try to get some support. We have been here for two and one half years. It is your Liberal minister who is in power, your government that is in power. If you were serious, you would have made some changes.

The Deputy Speaker: The member seems to forget to address the Speaker.

Miss Martel: All right, Mr Speaker. Let me tell the House what the grant does not do. As a matter of fact, my colleague has referred to the maximum amounts of travel. Let’s just give it to you from Sudbury, Mr Speaker. The airfare is $314.20. The most that we can get back is $125.

If you go by Via Rail, you have to go at night, so you have to take a sleeper. The minimum amount of cost for a sleeper from Toronto to Sudbury is $188, so you still are not getting the full cost covered. It goes back from Toronto to Sudbury at night again, so you have to take another sleeper back and the minimum cost again is $188.

If you have an appointment in Toronto on Friday, you have to take the train down Thursday night, pay for a sleeper, and then pay for hotel accommodation in Toronto on Friday night because you cannot get home until Saturday. That is totally inadequate and this government has done nothing to resolve that.

The full fare of all of the cost for people to travel should be covered. That way northern Ontario people would be assured that they will have full access to health care like those people in southern Ontario.

My colleague the member for Lake Nipigon has already talked about no accommodation costs being covered. When people come from northern Ontario, if they are old, fragile, sick or young kids, they have to bring their mother or a parent or some companion with them. Those costs are not covered and we all know how expensive it is in Toronto to find any accommodation.

The full cost of wages, compensation for salary for a man who has to bring his young daughter or his elderly mother down is not covered. Those are the kinds of costs that should be covered, and if this government was serious about it, this resolution would have gone a lot farther and dealt with all of those problems that have been ongoing for at least two and one half years.

The problem with health care in northern Ontario is the Liberal government, because it does not want to admit that there are inequities and it does not want to address the real problem.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr Wildman: In the few seconds left, I want to say that the problem we have is that we have a Ministry of Health that does not really understand the north.

Recently, I wrote to the Minister of Health pointing out two problems: the fact that the northern travel grant does not cover the full air fare from Sault Ste Marie to Toronto and also the fact that, with the changes in air service in Sault Ste Marie, there are no longer any commercial aircraft that can take wheelchairs on board.

In response, the Minister of Health wrote back to me and went to great length to talk about the fact that a disabled person could travel Via Rail or could take the Ontario Northland Railway. Who wrote the letter? There is no Via service and no Ontario Northland service in Sault Ste Marie. I suppose they could travel to Kapuskasing from Sault Ste Marie and take Ontario Northland or something.

The fact is that when my friend the former member for Port Arthur introduced the resolution calling for this kind of a program, he saw it as a stopgap, as something that could be done as a Band-Aid until we got better services in the north. Unfortunately, this government continues to treat the whole health care system as a Band-Aid, with piecemeal approaches rather than taking a comprehensive approach to ensuring that we have the facilities and the training facilities that we need in order to get the services we need in the north.

It is not enough to continue piecemeal changing this program. We have to have proper health care for all northerners to have access.

The Deputy Speaker: Government members have two more minutes to debate. The member for Kenora has two minutes, but there are another two minutes to the debate. Do you want to use the two extra minutes? You have four minutes then.

Mr Miclash: First of all, I would like to thank the members for participating in this debate this morning.

When we take a look at the members from the opposition, they concentrate very carefully on the northern health travel grant program. In my opening statement, I indicated this is one of many programs offered to people of the north. I talked about the expanding services that I am going to be involved in tomorrow, actually, at the Lake of the Woods District Hospital for the expansion of various services. I talked about the travelling specialist program and I talked about a great number of things. The northern health grant program, and the travel assistance that is provided, is only one of many of these programs, programs that they obviously have forgotten about in determining this.

The member for Lake Nipigon indicated that it is only a small step in the direction of improving this particular program. I think it is a step that is crucial in helping out our people in the north. However small he may see it, I still think it a crucial one.

We talked earlier about the balance of allowing people to travel from the north for specialized service and of getting specialized service into the north. I think this is a very delicate balance that we have to take a look at, one that the Ministry of Health concentrates on, one that it looked at in terms of having the specialists come in to the north.

The members fail to note that just recently the Premier was in Thunder Bay and announced that we are going to have 48 positions in two universities in northern Ontario that will bring people to the north to practice.

As the member for Port Arthur indicated earlier, we quite often get people up to the north who determine that want to remain as part of the north. I would just like to say that these, along with a great number of initiatives that this government has taken, are things we are doing to ensure that the people of northern Ontario are receiving the best possible health care today.

It is unfortunate that the members from the official opposition would take exception that I mentioned a person from Red Lake, a person in my riding. I feel it is unfortunate that they would suggest that I had not brought that to the attention of the minister, for the reason that I brought it here today to the House, to let people know that there are deficiencies in the programs. One of the main deficiencies that I pointed out was in terms of companion travel; again, one of the reasons that I bring forth this resolution to the members of the House today.

So, again I would just like to thank the various members who have put forth their view and I look forward to carrying on with this resolution.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Revenue and the member for Lake Nipigon, I call both of you to order. This completes the debate on Mr Miclash ‘s resolution.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs Cunningham has moved second reading of Bill 166.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

That vote will be deferred until later.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Miclash has moved resolution 52.

Motion agreed to.

The House divided on Mrs Cunningham’s motion for second reading of Bill 166, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 21

Bryden, Carrothers, Charlton, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eves, Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Hošek, LeBourdais, Mackenzie, Martel, Morin-Strom, Owen, Pollock, Pouliot, Ray, M. C., Roberts, Stoner.

Nays -- 18

Ballinger, Brown, Campbell, Elliot, Epp, Faubert, Keyes, Mancini, Mahoney, McGuigan, Miclash, Miller, Nixon, J. B., Oddie Munro, Polsinelli, Poole, Reycraft, Velshi.

The Deputy Speaker: According to the standing orders, the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, could we have it in the standing committee on general government? There were a lot of discussions during the debate and I feel we would do a much better job with the legislation if we have an opportunity to look at it there.

Hon Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, we would like the bill to follow its natural process, the usual process that takes place in the House, and we will support your original suggestion.

The Deputy Speaker: In that case, we will have a count because I need the majority.

The House divided on Mrs Cunningham’s motion to refer Bill 166 to the standing committee on general government, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 13; nays 25.

The Deputy Speaker: The bill will be referred to the committee of the whole House.

The House recessed at 1210.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Farnan: The truckers of Ontario are suffering because this Liberal government permits American truckers to enjoy an unfair competitive advantage. American truckers, as a result of deregulation, can now haul goods within Canada while Canadians do not always have the same opportunity within the United States.

Furthermore, with the exception of Michigan, Ontario has the most lenient weight control limits in Canada and the United States. Yet despite this fact, our fine for exceeding this generous gross vehicle and load weight is a ridiculous $53.75. Compare this to the situation in the United States. The same truck that pays Ontario’s token fine would pay $2,250 in Pennsylvania and $10,000 in Rhode Island. The American truckers simply view our petty fines for overloading as the cost of doing business.

Certainly overloading will contribute to our $1.8-billion road repair bill this year. Overloading is a danger to safety on our highways and overloading with our low fines gives the American truckers yet another competitive edge as they move goods within Canada.

The trucking industry is a vital component of the Waterloo region’s economy. It has been badly undermined by this Liberal government’s deregulation policy. Ontario’s truckers must have a level playing field. Otherwise jobs will be lost and trucking companies will move south of the border. It is time to act. Truckers deserve better.

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

Mr Runciman: More than eight months have passed since social workers in the town of Prescott identified several children who had become victims of sexual abuse. After these many months, 28 of the 36 children identified have received no psychological treatment whatsoever. The Ministry of Community and Social Services acted quickly to provide funds to assist with the prosecution of those charged, but the ministry has not provided one cent to permit this urgent treatment to begin.

A local task force has reported to the ministry that almost $1 million in funding is required to provide the necessary treatment over the next two years. More important, the majority of the 36 abused children suffered physical injuries as a result of their sexual abuse. This and other factors establish this group of children as among the most severely traumatized. Therefore, they require the most skilled and comprehensive treatment services available, and it will be long-term.

Only one facility exists in the Prescott area which provides specialized treatment for children and it has a waiting list of almost 150. Local social service agencies are understaffed and the many cases of sexual abuse now identified present a unique and difficult problem for the community of Prescott.

I urge the Minister of Community and Social Services to take immediate action to provide the necessary funding so that these victims of child abuse can receive the treatment and counselling they so urgently require.

WILLIAM J. TEGGART

Mr Mahoney: I would like to bring to members’ attention the upcoming retirement of Peel region’s chief of police, William J. Teggart.

The Peel Regional Police Force has the reputation of being one of the most advanced forces in North America in the area of criminal investigation. Chief Teggart distinguished himself in this field as well, and one of his cases was the very well known Demeter murder investigation. He spent 20 years in the detective branch, holding virtually every rank up to and including deputy chief.

Over his 34-year career as a police officer Bill has received many awards, including the Governor General’s Canadian 30-Year Police Exemplary Service Medal and the Queen’s Silver Jubilee Medal for Community Service. He also received, for the Peel Regional Police Force, the Ontario Medal for Police Bravery from the Premier of Ontario.

Chief Teggart has always believed that police officers should pursue higher education and as such he studied police-related subjects at the Ontario Police College, the Canadian Police College, Northwestern University, the University of Toronto and the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy.

I was in attendance recently at his farewell dinner and it was evident that he is a very well-respected man. It was a wonderful evening with great humour and yet some sadness in saying goodbye.

I wish Bill and his wife Joan much happiness and success in future years and I am sure the residents of Peel would join me in well-deserved congratulations to this outstanding gentleman of the Peel Regional Police Force.

TIMOTHY GARLAND

Mr Kormos: Down in Niagara where I come from, the people are mad as hell that there is a convicted paedophile who is going to be released in 20 days ready to strike again, ready to attack more children. Of course, we are talking about 27-year-old Timothy Garland of Brampton, whom members heard about yesterday. Children are going to be victimized and this government shows such disinterest in the inevitability of that.

This molester has been neither treated nor controlled by virtue of the courts and the probation process that followed his sentence. He is identified as being dangerous and having an uncontrollable sex drive. Indeed, in his prison cell they found a list of future victims and descriptions of the sort of atrocities he was going to impose on those children.

It is incredible that a creep like this is going to be allowed to walk the streets to prey on more youngsters. What is more incredible is that the government shows such a lack of concern about the fact that there are going to be more and more victims, not just from other molesters but certainly, as I said, predictably from this Timothy Garland.

The response of the government to questioning yesterday was pathetic. It showed not just a complete lack of concern, but obviously lack of ability to do anything to intervene in these types of tragic circumstances -- tragic for the victims. One need not be so concerned for the perpetrator. When will this government start acting responsibly?

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Cunningham: I would like to take this opportunity to make a few comments on the government’s long-term-care report released yesterday. While we in the Progressive Conservative Party are pleased that this report has been released, I feel obliged to express some concerns.

Many of the reform policies in the report were part of the 1986 paper entitled A New Agenda, released four years ago. The new service access agencies referred to are reminiscent of the one-stop access program which has not yet been implemented in the pilot centres.

The government must also address the high turnover rate in the labour supply. Without an adequate labour supply long-term care services will not be available. I would also like to caution the government from offloading too much on to the municipalities.

I am particularly disappointed that the report omits regulation of rest homes. The government has been aware for some time now that many elderly citizens have been living in substandard care because no legislation exists to protect the residents. It is appalling that the government has done absolutely nothing to ensure a standard of safety and care in these facilities where abuse, neglect, poor nutrition and hygiene have been reported.

It is important that we do not lose sight of providing quality long-term care services. Clients’ needs and preferences must remain at the forefront of this process. We will watch the implementation and continue to press for good recommendations and implementation.

SUDBURY LAND RECLAMATION

Mr Campbell: Last week I had the pleasure of representing the Minister of Northern Development at the planting of the millionth tree in the land reclamation program for the regional municipality of Sudbury. Such an event was not envisioned several years ago when a core group of concerned citizens took realistic stock of the region’s environment and said, “We must do something to enhance the vitality and the beauty of the region of Sudbury,” I say to my colleagues across the way.

Scientists, led by Dr Keith Winterhalder of Laurentian University and Dr Tom Peters of Inco, researched and experimented with planting methods and types of grass and trees that would grow in the soil of the once barren rock. The result is the greening of Sudbury. Over the last 12 years, 2,900 hectares have been reclaimed, including land across the transportation corridors into Sudbury.

I am proud of the province’s commitment to the land reclamation program through the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. By the end of the province’s current agreement with the regional municipality, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines will have contributed a total of $843,000 over a 12-year period. Approximately $10 million has been committed to this program with other financial contributions, including those from the regional municipality of Sudbury, Inco, Falconbridge and the federal Department of Employment and Immigration.

The land reclamation program serves as an excellent example of the confidence, commitment and the high level of co-operation demonstrated by municipal leaders and others in the Sudbury community.

SOFT-DRINK CONTAINERS

Mrs Grier: For some time I have been urging the Minister of the Environment to get serious about waste reduction by requiring soft-drink containers to be refillable. I have received many calls and letters supporting my position. I want to share with the House a letter which a Mr Sweeney wrote to the minister. It says:

“As a small store owner, I was disappointed to learn of your decision to allow pop companies to introduce more non-returnable containers.

“Before the 500 ml non-returnable bottles were put on the market, our store used to return over 300 small bottles every two weeks. We now see these bottles in our neighbour’s gardens, our garbage can and probably in school garbage cans.

“You mentioned that if people wanted returnable bottles, they would buy them.... The most popular sizes...are no longer available in returnable containers.

“You said that people from all over have praised our blue box system.... It is a good program, but that doesn’t mean that we have to manufacture material to fill them. What about the praise we received from the New York officials with regard to our bottle deposit system.... They used our bottle-free highways in their argument to get their present deposit system.

“If you must allow the industry to use non-refillable bottles and cans, make them charge a deposit.

“As a store owner, this would mean extra work for me but it’s a small price to pay for a better future for my children and their children.”

Mr Sweeney is quite right. I hope the minister will listen to what he has to say and act on it. The minister ought to; Mr Sweeney’s store is in St Catharines.

FARM TAX REBATE

Mr McCague: In 1989 the Liberal government unilaterally changed the farm tax rebate program without consulting the farming community. They income-tested a property tax matter.

The program was initiated in 1970 as a way to redress farmers for the disproportionate taxation of farm assets. Farmers continued to pay taxes on their homes. In 1989 the Liberals turned the program into an income subsidy program and cut $23 million from the budget. Only after he announced the changes did the Premier promise to consult with farmers to reform the program. The farm tax rebate program review committee has now reported to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

The committee clearly supports the position of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture that the program should be based on “the agricultural use of the property, not on ownership status, occupation of the owner, or income level of the owner.”

We have heard from the Ontario farmers and from agricultural experts. They have concluded the government’s moves were wrong and should be reversed to bring back the original principles of the farm tax rebate program; that is, to relieve farmers of an unfair property tax burden.

The Progressive Conservative caucus opposed the Liberal move in 1989. We now call on the government to immediately implement the recommendations of the committee.

SEATBELTS

Mr Owen: Most motorists in Ontario wear their seatbelts. The majority believe that wearing a seatbelt reduces the chance of serious injury in the event of an accident, and statistics bear this out.

A 1987 Ontario road safety report found that 86% of drivers were reported to be wearing seatbelts when involved in crashes, and of these a majority, 82%, were not injured. However, those drivers not wearing seatbelts when the collision occurred were 21 times more likely to be killed and 76 times more likely to be hospitalized than belted drivers.

Improved road safety habits, including the use of seatbelts, would help reduce injuries and in turn reduce costs associated with hospitalization and insurance.

A group of teachers at Georgian College in Barrie, Michael Wolfe, Fred Ruemper, Tony Podzienski and David Aves, was one of six groups to receive highway safety research grants from the Ministry of Transportation in 1989. Recently they had an opportunity to share their findings at a Toronto conference. Ultimately the findings of these research groups can be applied to encouraging better and safer driving habits and conditions.

I am pleased that these Georgian College teachers were given the opportunity to turn their talents and concerns to this problem and to lead the way to better highway safety across the province of Ontario

VISITORS

The Speaker: Just before we go on to the next order of business, I would like to inform the members that we have a number of visitors in the Speaker’s gallery today, including seven members of a delegation from the USSR Supreme Soviet.

The delegation is headed by the Chairman of the Soviet of Nationalities, USSR Supreme Soviet, Rafik Nishanov. Also accompanying the delegation is the ambassador of the USSR in Canada, His Excellency Alexei Rodionov.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SENIORS’ MONTH / MOIS DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

Hon Mr Morin: This year marks the 20th consecutive year that the government of Ontario has proclaimed the month of June as Senior Citizens’ Month in Ontario, a time to recognize both the past accomplishments and the continued and valued contributions of the more than one million senior citizens living in this province.

Cette année, le thème du Mois des personnes âgées, JubilAGEtion / Fête-Àge, en hommage aux personnes âgées, symbolise l’esprit de participation et de réjouissance qui anime de nombreux événements dans des centaines de communautés de l’Ontario. Parmi les événements qui prendront ll’affiche, il y aura « JubilAGEtions of June », une série de spectacles de variété qui donneront aux personnes âgées de l’Ontario l’occasion de démontrer leurs nombreux talents.

This year’s Seniors’ Month theme, A Celebration of Age, symbolizes the spirit of activities and events that will be taking place in hundreds of communities across Ontario. One of the special events happening in June will be a series of seniors’ variety shows, JubilAGEtions of June, featuring the many talents of seniors.

The best acts from across Ontario will appear at a special four-day song, dance, comedy and music extravaganza at Roy Thomson Hall, 13 to 16 August. The highlight of the province’s tribute to seniors will take place this evening at 6:30 pm in the main foyer of the Legislative Building when the Honourable Lincoln M. Alexander, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, presents a number of seniors with an Ontario Senior Achievement Award.

The purpose of these awards is to recognize some of the outstanding contributions individual seniors have made to their communities during their senior years. This year, the external nomination process resulted in over 600 nominations being received by the Office for Senior Citizens’ Affairs. With the assistance of Mrs JoAnne Fillimore, chair of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens, and my colleagues the member for Wellington and the member for Oshawa, a number of seniors will be presented with the 1990 Ontario Senior Achievement Award.

Chaque récipiendaire honoré ce soir témoige de la contribution inestimable des personnes âgées à nos communautés. En rendant hommage à ces personnes, le gouvemment de l’Ontario témoigne sa reconnaissance et sa gratitude à ceux qui continuent de mettre leurs talents et leur énergie au service des autres. Au cours du Mois des personnes âgées, nous félicitons toutes les personnes âgées qui continuent de partager avec les autres leur temps et leur sagesse.

Each of the award recipients to be honoured this evening exemplifies the tremendous contribution older adults make to our communities. Through honouring these few ind