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

February 28, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L154 - Tue 28 Feb 1989 / Mar 28 fév 1989

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

SIMCOE COUNTY ATHLETES

STELCO INC.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TEACHER EDUCATION / FORMATION DES ENSEIGNANTS

CARDIAC SURGERY

RESPONSES

TEACHER EDUCATION

CARDIAC SURGERY

TEACHER EDUCATION

CARDIAC SURGERY

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

CARDIAC SURGERY

EXTENDED CARE

TEACHERS

HOUSING FIRST PROGRAM

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ADDICTION

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

CARDIAC SURGERY

FRANCHISES

PROPOSED OBSERVATORY

BINGO HALLS

VISITOR

HEALTH SERVICES

LABOUR DISPUTE

MINISTRY PUBLICATION

PETITIONS

EXTENDED CARE

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

EXTENDED CARE

USE OF LOTTERY PROFITS

EXTENDED CARE

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

EXTENDED CARE

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

EXTENDED CARE

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

EXTENDED CARE

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

TOBACCO SALE REGULATION ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Mackenzie: What do the following prominent citizens in my community and district have in common?

They are: Tim Lambert, president of Local 676 of the Canadian Auto Workers; Gary Cook, business agent of both locals of the United Electrical Workers; John Slinger, lawyer with the McQuesten Legal and Community Services Clinic; Vern Lepine of my own local, 5328, of the United Steelworkers of America; Rodney Bezo, Aluminum, Brick and Glass Workers International Union; Laurie King, Local 6868 of the Steelworkers; Herb MacDonald, workers’ adviser, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers; Edward Crook, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, and Robert Kinnear, chairperson of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union southwestern Ontario council.

What these people have in common is that they are victims of the broken promises of this Liberal government, the broken promises of a more open government and input into decisions made by this government. All of these people represent just some of the 44 organizations that will be denied their day in court, their ability to make a presentation before the standing committee on resources development looking at Bill 162 in the province.

The ones I have read are large organizations, prominent organizations very much involved in this whole field. There are 37 others I could have listed that will not have their day in court as a result of the refusal, by a six-to-three vote of the Liberal members on that committee, to allow everybody to have a hearing on Bill 162.

SIMCOE COUNTY ATHLETES

Mr. McLean: My statement concerns two groups of Simcoe county athletes who will be competing in major events in March. On behalf of my colleague the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague) and myself, best wishes.

The first is a 16-member ski team, including athletes, coaches and team doctor, from Colling-wood Collegiate Institute that will be competing in the International Sports Federation world alpine skiing championships in Ostersund, Sweden from March 3 to 10.

This major international event is open to 14-and 15-year-old boys and girls who will be competing against hundreds of high school students from other skiing nations. This will be the first time Canada will be represented at this significant international event.

The second group is the Russ Howard curling team from Penetanguishene. Skip Russ Howard, vice Glen Howard, second Tim Belcourt, lead Kent Carstairs and fifth man Larry Merkley will represent Ontario at the Labatt’s Brier Canadian men’s curling championship in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, from March 5 to 12. The Howard team recently won their third Ontario provincial men’s curling championship in four years and continue to demonstrate that they certainly are masters of the ice.

I am sure that we all wish the Collingwood Collegiate Institute ski team and the Russ Howard rink success in their respective events. They truly are worthy representatives of Ontario. I would also like to thank the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) for the gifts that he has donated to the curlers.

STELCO INC.

Ms. Collins: I am pleased to inform the House that Stelco sent out letters last week offering approximately 270 of its former employees full-time, permanent employment at its Hilton works plant in Hamilton. With the completion of this task, the company will have offered full-time jobs to all of its laid-off workers who have retained recall rights. For the first time in many years, Stelco’s recall list will be blank.

This is a milestone achievement. As members know, the early years of this decade were not easy for Stelco and its employees. Thousands of workers were laid off and the entire Hamilton economy suffered tremendously. After the last layoff in the spring of 1985, however, the company made a commitment to undertake a five-year productivity enhancement and employment stabilization program involving the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in new modernized production facilities, a pledge of no further layoffs and a promise to do its best to offer full-time employment by 1990 to all of its former workers with recall rights.

Stelco has honoured these commitments. This recall announcement marks the end of a difficult transition period for Stelco and the Hamilton community alike. From this experience, both have emerged better able to compete in a rapidly changing global marketplace. I congratulate the management and the employees of Stelco on their success in forging this competitive renewal and making possible the latest employment recall.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. D. S. Cooke: When the Liberal government referred Bill 30 and Bill 94 to committee, the instructions from the Premier (Mr. Peterson) were that everyone who wanted to speak on the extension of funding to Catholic schools and to the ban on extra billing would be heard. Why is that principle not good enough for the people who are affected by Bill 162? I guess there were no walls and there were no barriers during minority government, but during majority government the Liberals want to use the muzzle on citizens across the province.

I would like to read some of the names of people in Windsor who will not be heard because the Liberals have applied the muzzle on Bill 162: Gary Hewton; Robert Gallant; Mickey Bertrand, Local 89, Canadian Auto Workers; Ray Dupuis, Local 200, CAW; Bruce Boyd, Local 195, CAW; Harry Warner, Local 127, CAW; Mickey Warner, Local 82, Canadian Union of Public Employees; Jerry McCorkell, financial secretary, Local 27, CUPE; Robert Jenner, plant chairman, Local 89, CAW; Ron Seguin, president of CAW Local 616; Randy Hope, president of CAW Local 1941; Don Stewart, private citizen; Nick Dzudz, Local 1973, CAW; Robert Maroon, Local 1415, Amalgamated Transit Union.

I could read the rest of the list. It would take us all afternoon if we went through the hundreds of people whom the Liberal Party is muzzling on Bill 162.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: In recent weeks, the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) has repeatedly failed to act as an advocate for the seniors of this province.

When the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board recommended major rate increases for seniors, effectively penalizing some of the best drivers in Ontario, the minister sat idly by and told seniors that increases would be marginal. Later, when this claim turned out to be totally off base, she told seniors that the announced rates were purely speculative; that seniors should imitate her and wait for the insurance companies to announce their rates.

The seniors of this province have indicated that they are more concerned than the minister is: concerned that they will lose their 20 per cent discount and concerned that many of them will face significant increases.

This weekend Joyce King, past president of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, echoed the sentiments of many seniors. Mrs. King pointed out that more than 50 per cent of seniors are living below the poverty line, and indicated that her own rates could rise by 60 per cent. When asked about the minister, Mrs. King stated: “I don’t like her attitude. I don’t think she is advocating for seniors, which should be her role in government.”

Mrs. King is absolutely right. On the issue of auto insurance rates for seniors, the minister has simply not stood up for the best interests of senior citizens in this province. Regrettably, she has failed her first major test, and failed it badly.

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

Mr. Neumann: I would like to commend two groups which have worked with the government of Ontario to meet housing needs in Brantford. With funding assistance from the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the St. Leonard’s Society of Brant recently opened its Albion Street residence for resourceless youth. Space is provided for up to nine young people who have no other place to live.

I recently had the opportunity to tour the residence along with my colleague the member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon), and it was heart-warming to see how much these teenagers enjoyed having a place of their own. I might add that it should also be noted that the neighbours have welcomed them with open arms and even provided them with books for their library. The not-in-my-backyard syndrome has been noticeably absent on Albion Street. Obviously, the board and staff of St. Leonard’s Society have done an excellent job.

The Sisters of St. Joseph will soon be opening Bethany House, an emergency crisis centre for women and children. This project has been several years in the planning and will meet a pressing need in our community. I have worked with the sisters since this project was first proposed in 1986 and have been inspired by their energy and their commitment to Brantford.

There are other housing needs in our community which still need to be addressed, but at a recent meeting which I sponsored for local agencies interested in housing along with my colleague the member for York Mills, it soon became clear that there are many projects being planned which will do just that. Working together with the government of Ontario, these groups will help us to meet the different housing needs in our community.

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

Mr. Neumann: Obviously, results can be achieved by working hard together.

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Mr. Farnan: The Ministry of Correctional Services’ annual report features the building of the head office in North Bay. Perhaps this is indicative of the politics of empire building of the ministry. Perhaps more appropriate would be the overemphasis of this ministry on incarceration, the lack of treatment of psychiatric inmates, the problems of understaffing and overcrowding and the lack of programming generally within this ministry.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TEACHER EDUCATION / FORMATION DES ENSEIGNANTS

Hon. Mr. Ward: Today, I am releasing two reports which provide the foundation for the long-term revitalization of teacher education in Ontario.

The first report contains the recommendations of the Teacher Education Review Steering Committee. The committee’s 33 recommendations pivot around the creation of an Ontario Council for Teacher Education. Today, I am pleased to announce the establishment of this council, which will advise the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) and myself on ways of shaping a quality teacher education process to benefit both teachers and students.

To ensure appropriate and responsive French-language representation, each group of stake-holders will include at least one francophone. In addition, a French-language subcommittee will advise the council. The council will also benefit from the advice of a subcommittee comprising representatives of parent groups.

The council will be in place and operating before the beginning of the 1989-90 school year. It will be made up of 16 members representing four major stakeholders in teacher education: universities, teachers, school boards and government.

The executive director of the council will be Frank Clifford, who served as chairman of the Teacher Education Review Steering Committee. Mr. Clifford brings to his new assignment 35 years of experience as an educator, including 10 years in the field of teacher education.

The report also recommended that all matters relating to teacher education in Ontario be the responsibility of a single ministry. I am pleased to announce today that a new branch, the centre for teacher education, will be created within the Ministry of Education and will combine the current responsibilities of my ministry’s professional development branch with those of the teacher education

section of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities.

The centre will provide a new focus for policy development and policy implementation in the field of teacher education. Its mandate will include liaison with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and with the faculties of education at Ontario’s universities.

Both the council and the centre will be guided by an important principle emphasized in the steering committee report, that teacher education should be viewed as a continuum which begins in the undergraduate years and spans the full extent of a teacher’s career.

It is my intention to direct the council to advise on the implementation of key recommendations of the steering committee. In addition, one of the key tasks of the council is to serve as a central co-ordinating body in my ministry’s management of the long-term supply and demand of teachers in Ontario. Our understanding of this phenomenon has been placed in a new and more accurate perspective by the findings of the second report I am releasing today.

The report, by Professor Laverne Smith of York University, was commissioned by the Teacher Education Review Steering Committee to investigate teacher supply-and-demand projections in Ontario.

After a pattern of steadily declining student populations, Ontario is now beginning to feel the effects of the “baby boomerang” as the children of baby-boomers enter our schools. With the sudden upturn in student enrolment, we are facing a strong need for more teachers.

As Professor Smith concludes: “It would appear that, at this moment, Ontario does not have a teacher shortage but it has a teacher shortage in its infancy. Without intervention, this shortage will become increasingly serious within the next few years and is likely to become full blown by the mid- 1990s.”

The effects of this increased demand for teachers have been complemented by an increased number of teacher retirements; by measures to improve the quality of education, including the preparation time for teachers; by the popularity of certain programs, notably French as both a first and second language, and by the accessing of teachers to the three-year early-retirement window.

These factors must be addressed in the long-term management of teacher supply and demand. Our new council, drawing together the key partners in teacher education, will merge the effective management of teacher supply with an improved focus on the needs of the profession. In addition, the council will recommend means of responding to the need for teachers in specific high-demand subjects, such as French-language programs, mathematics, science and technological studies at the secondary level.

I would like to conclude by briefly addressing the widely discussed shortage of teachers in Ontario this coming September.

The scope of this problem remains at this time unclear, because a few key pieces of the puzzle are still missing. We will not know until May 31 how many teachers will use the early-retirement window and we will not know final secondary school subject enrolment until students make their final selections over the next few weeks. We do know, however, that the demand will be the greatest in a handful of subject areas, in the availability of supply teachers and in high-growth boards.

With the benefit of Professor Smith’s recommendations, my ministry is developing a series of potential responses to increase our teacher supply in the short term.

A total of 4,435 students are currently enrolled in Ontario faculties of education, an increase of some 13 per cent above last year. Some 290 students are enrolled in the two French-language faculties. I am working with my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities to ensure significant enrolment increases at the faculties this fall.

While this large supply of teachers will fill a considerable portion of the anticipated need, several growth-area boards are also addressing their demands by hiring from applications already on file. However, it is already clear that we cannot expect to meet all the demands this fall through our faculties of education alone.

In this context, my ministry is processing nearly 1,500 applications for letters of eligibility from out-of-province teachers, a 60 per cent increase over last year.

In addition, my ministry is currently exploring the viability of the following options for augmenting the short-term teacher supply:

Removing, for a limited period, impediments in provincial legislation which restrict our retired teachers from returning to teaching to offer their expertise for a few extra years, particularly in a supply-teaching role.

Encouraging retired teachers to participate in more short-term teaching assignments. Currently, retired teachers are restricted to a maximum of 20 days of work per year, a limit which could possibly be relaxed.

Attracting the estimated 5,000 teacher graduates from the past five years not hired by school boards. Boards might consider offering these potential teachers salary enhancements for their related work experience in specialized areas, such as technical education.

Other possible measures to assist boards include the adoption of a common hiring date, a central registry of teacher personnel and the formation of a new database to help determine our needs in specific subject areas, such as French immersion, science and math.

The supply and demand of teachers in Ontario, both in the short and long term, call for careful, responsible management. We must ensure that the availability of quality teaching professionals tracks the expectations for excellence we place upon our system of education. It is essential that our decisions be pertinent, well planned and workable. Our short-term proposals and long-term answers will fulfil these requirements.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I also welcome the final report of the Teacher Education Review Steering Committee.

I was pleased to hear the report confirm that the present system, which prepares students for their chosen vocation of teaching, produces good results.

I also welcome the proposal by the committee for the creation of the Ontario Council on Teacher Education.

Our teacher education institutions have increased enrolments by 20 per cent over the last three years. However, there continues to be a demand for teachers in certain regions of this province and in several specific subject areas.

Last year when I approved the establishment of the program adjustment envelope we identified teacher education as one of our priorities. We have just earmarked $5.1 million over four years from this fund for teacher pre-service enrolments. Of that, $2.2 million will be allocated to our teacher education institutions this year.

This funding will enable these institutions to increase their teacher pre-service enrolments in September by an additional 385 places. That will bring total enrolments to 4,820.

Demand for teachers is particularly high in several of our major urban centres. Through increase of enrolments at the University of Ottawa, Queen’s University, the University of Windsor and York University, we hope to ease these regional needs.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) outlined the establishment of a distinct teacher education branch in his ministry. Program responsibility for teacher education will now be more closely linked to the development of policy for elementary and secondary schools.

The Ministry of Colleges and Universities will maintain its liaison activities and its role of providing funding for teacher education programs at our universities. As well, we will be able to share our opinions and concerns related to teacher education as a regular member of the OCTE.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I rise today to table the independent investigators’ report on cardiac surgery at St. Michael’s Hospital and to inform members of the steps my ministry will take in response to the report’s recommendations.

The investigating team was asked to report on the scheduling of heart surgery at St. Michael’s Hospital and to identify other factors affecting the management of cardiac surgery cases. I want to thank the investigators, two of whom are in the gallery today -- Vickie Kaminski and Dr. William Sibbald -- for the thoroughness of their report and the quality of their recommendations.

The report identifies factors specifically affecting surgery at St. Michael’s, as well as factors that have had an impact on the delivery of cardiac surgery services across the province. The report notes: “St. Michael’s Hospital has a long-standing and distinguished reputation for the care it has provided to its patients. The hospital has made a clear and focused commitment to patients with all types of cardiac disease.”

I am pleased to report that St. Michael’s has agreed to take immediate action in response to the investigators’ findings. Ministry staff will be working with the hospital to ensure that needed changes are implemented, the number one priority being an effective scheduling system for surgery.

The report clearly demonstrates that the problems we are encountering in providing cardiac surgery are complex and cannot be reduced to underfunding or lack of resources. The recommendations directly involve all participants in the system -- hospitals, doctors, nurses, administrators, support staff, the Ministry of Health and the public we serve.

I agree with the overall thrust of the recommendations and I am moving to implement them as quickly as possible.

I am today announcing a six-point plan of action consisting of further development, evaluation and expansion of the Metro Toronto cardiovascular triage and registry program to other parts of the province; development of standardized guidelines and

definitions for assessing urgent, elective and emergency cases; development of a public education program on cardiac disease and treatment; review of staffing requirements; improved communication within and among hospitals providing cardiac care, and establishment of appropriate performance targets for each of the cardiac surgery centres.

This will be implemented by a multidisciplinary provincial working group for cardiovascular services. I am directing ministry staff to meet as soon as possible with board chairmen, chief executive officers and chiefs of cardiology and cardiovascular surgery of the nine cardiac surgery centres, as well as the deans of medicine, to discuss steps needed to implement many of the report’s recommendations. As the report makes clear, hospitals are accountable for the management of hospital resources and patient services.

I have also asked the ministry’s cardiovascular co-ordinator to seek the expert advice of cardiovascular surgeons on issues requiring immediate action, including the introduction of a system to refer patients to the hospital that can provide the necessary care in the most appropriate manner.

The report identifies difficulties in some hospitals in staffing cardiac and critical care services. As members know, I recently announced regulatory changes to increase the role of nurses in hospital decision-making. I will continue to work with nurses to seek solutions to nursing issues.

As the report notes, our system of cardiovascular services is strong and provides excellent patient care. In the words of the report, “We commend the participants in Ontario’s health care system (physicians, hospital nursing, administrative and perfusion staff of hospitals and Ministry of Health officials) for the current strengths of the province’s cardiovascular program which has benefited many in this province.”

A number of initiatives are already under way to increase the availability of cardiac surgery. I believe that taking action on the recommendations of this report will lead to greater integration of services and better co-operation among centres to strengthen our provincial care network.

I would once again like to thank the investigators named in the report: Mrs. Vickie Kaminski, lead investigator, assistant executive director of nursing, Sudbury Memorial Hospital; Dr. William Sibbald, co-ordinator of critical care/trauma unit, Victoria Hospital Corp., clinical professor of medicine, University of Western Ontario; and Elizabeth M. Davis, RSM, executive director, St. Clare’s Mercy Hospital, St. John’s, Newfoundland.

RESPONSES

TEACHER EDUCATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) on teacher shortages, in which he has told us that the Titanic is not sinking, and even if it is he has a rubber patch ready to place on the sinking ship. He then enumerates a number of ludicrous suggestions, most of which indicate there is going to be an enormous problem.

The minister still claims there will not be a major shortage this fall. I would like to bring him a little reality therapy, if I might.

The Teachers’ Superannuation Commission predicts that 4,000 teacher retirements will take place this year. There are only 4,000 graduates from the schools of education this year alone, so all the retirements are going to take up that number of graduates. We also know the minister’s own plans for lowering class sizes in grades 1 and 2 are going to take up to 4,000 new teachers; at least 1,000 teachers per year. So there is an extra 1,000 teachers we need above what is already there.

We already know as well, of course, that the system is expanding and that we can identify enormous growth areas of Ontario in terms of programs and numbers of students. If you were to survey just the 20 boards around Metropolitan Toronto alone, you could find that they are going to be hiring 4,000 new teachers themselves this year. If you take out the retirement figures from that group, you are talking of approximately 3,000 additional teachers in the system above those we are graduating in Ontario at this point.

What this means is that either we are going to be doing an enormous amount of offshore hiring, letters of permission and that kind of thing, which we had back in the 1960s because of the terrible planning of the government, or programs like lowering class size are going to have to be cut, or programs like French classes in Ontario, which are desired by the population, are not going to be able to be followed.

If I take just four boards in Metropolitan Toronto -- the Metropolitan Separate School Board, the York Region Board of Education, the Toronto Board of Education, elementary panel only, and the Scarborough Board of Education -- they need 1,100 new teachers on top of those who will be retiring.

What we have is a minister who has no clue about just how severe this problem is going to be, who then suggests to us that he is going to have an early retirement plan for people, which we approved in Bill 30, and now he is going to make it easier for those teachers to come back into the system. Does he not understand what he has to do? They should all retire now and all come back in and double-dip. It is a ludicrous suggestion by a government that is out of touch with the problems that are out there.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Mr. Revile: The astounding statement today of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) demands the sternest possible response. What she has done is to absolutely incorrectly characterize what this report says with all sorts of self-serving claptrap that just does not wash.

What this report says is that her stewardship of the health care system in this province is utterly bankrupt. What this report says is that there are not enough resources. What this report says is that the Ministry of Health has done nothing meaningful to deal with the absolutely critical shortage of qualified personnel to care for people who have heart problems in this province.

I can hardly contain myself, as members can probably tell. It is amazing to me that the spin doctors have found something good to say about the contents of this report. That simply is not what the report says.

The report goes on and on about the undercapacity of this minister’s system. It goes on and on about her failure to deal with the nursing crisis as she continues to hide behind a scarcely believable reliance on and praise of the collective bargaining system, which of course anybody who knows anything in this province does not suspect this government of being capable of. It does not indicate that this government has taken meaningful action, in terms of the nursing shortage, which is clearly developed in this report in an absolutely damning way.

I am amazed the minister had enough nerve to stand up today and deliver that foolish speech she made and I think it is time for her to resign.

TEACHER EDUCATION

Mr. Harris: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward).

I would like to congratulate Professor Laverne Smith of York University, who commissioned a report pleading, I would suggest, with this government to look at the knee-jerk type of short-term policies in conflict with one another that have contributed to and exacerbated the very serious teacher shortage problem that we have.

The report highlights and points out the exact contrast to the minister’s statement. He says, “The supply and demand of teachers in Ontario, both in the short and long term, call for careful, responsible management.” That is what the minister says. That is clearly not what has taken place over the past three years.

He also says, “It is essential that our decisions be pertinent, well planned and workable.” When we have a teacher shortage, a severe problem, in conjunction with an early window retirement program to get more out, how does that make sense? That is the one agenda item I see in the speech which the minister wants to share with the New Democratic Party, saying that was part of the accord. I suppose he is trying to shift some of the blame over there.

The minister is the government and he is the one who has made these silly decisions.

In 1968-69 I attended the faculty of education in North Bay. There were 600 students. Today, with this tremendous shortage, there are about 210. We have been pleading with the Minister of Education, with the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) and with the Premier (Mr. Peterson), year after year, that there is a severe problem. There are about 900 to 1,000 applications and all the minister will let in is 200 to an institution that at one time, when I attended it, handled 600.

At the same time, the minister announces, ad hoc, “We are going to reduce class size,” with no consultation with educators as to whether that will lead to double or triple grading and more problems than are there, with no understanding of the fact that he does not have enough teachers in the classrooms now to meet the existing supply and demand.

It has been an ad hoc, knee-jerk reaction throughout. The only person who shows any sign of understanding is Professor Smith. I hope, since the minister would not listen to us and would not listen to the professionals in the past three years, maybe he will listen to him and salvage something in the future.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Mr. Eves: I would like to respond to the statement made today by the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). The Minister of Health has been telling us in this Legislature for the last several months that the number of heart surgery procedures done in Metropolitan Toronto --

Mr. Black: More surgery isn’t better health.

Mr. Eves: Every time I have brought up these statistics, she has disputed them. Maybe she would like to refer to page 26 of this report, which confirms what we on this side of the House have been saying for months and she has been denying.

The number of cases she is doing has steadfastly decreased from 1985 to now: 2,709; 2,687; 2,612; 2,558. She is going in the wrong direction. She is doing less and less, not more and more. Despite the fact she tells the public she is doing more and more, she is doing less.

“Shortage of Qualified Personnel.” I refer the minister to page 68 of the report. “What is less well enunciated is a plan to solve the critical shortage of nurses.” That plan rests with the minister in her initiative as Minister of Health in this province.

“This step has been taken primarily in response to tighter budgetary controls although there are also concerns for quality of care and continuity of care.” This is talking about hospitals being able to use agencies to hire nurses. They cannot do so because of the budgetary restraints the minister has placed on hospitals. It is identified right here on page 68 of her own report.

“A reduction in cardiovascular surgery residency training positions, together with an expansion of cardiovascular surgical resources, have led to this problem.” They are talking about trained medical assistance for cardiovascular surgeons. Her predecessor announced a reduction of residency positions in Ontario. I have asked her about it in this House several times and she has stood up and defended the position and the policy of the government. This report is very critical of the government, on page 68 and other pages.

I ask the minister to read the

summary. I do not know how she can possibly get the

interpretation out of this report that she read in the House. On page 74, in the

summary section, it says, “At the same time we recognize that there are problems with resources and personnel in Ontario, especially in Toronto, which require immediate attention” -- not studies, but immediate attention -- “if the cardiovascular program is to restore its balance... if Ontario does not devise a system to monitor and manage change --

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

Mr. Eves: -- “the province’s health care system will go from crisis” --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member’s time has lapsed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier. The two statements that were made today by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) and the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) I think point to a broader and deeper underlying problem at the heart of the Premier’s government; that is, we have here two instances, very clear cases, where he is sitting on top of major crises and simply panicking in response.

Can the Premier explain the extraordinary paralysis at the heart of this government which would have produced the two kinds of statements we have seen today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is the most outrageous question I have heard in this House in the last four years. If the member wants to talk about paralysis, they are so paralysed that they cannot even ask a decent question today. They have been sitting here wasting the time of this Legislature. Talk about a paralysed opposition. Mr. Speaker, if you were us sitting here, you would be bored too looking at these people.

Mr. B. Rae: We had two examples today of the paralysis. Let’s go over it. He promised pension indexing; he has done nothing on pension indexing. He promised to move on hours of work; he has done nothing on hours of work. He promised to deal with the Thomson report; he has done nothing with the Thomson report. He promised to deal with the day care crisis; he has people lined up outside the door on day care.

He promised to deal with the question of care at home for senior citizens, and we have a system which has been described by every major homemakers’ organization in the province as in complete disarray. He is sitting on reports. He has reports, piled high up in his office, on every major problem of public policy in this province, and he has not moved to deal with these questions. My simple question is, why has he not dealt with any of these problems?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I, with great respect to my friend opposite, reject his analysis of this situation, as I do his analysis of every other situation. I say with some pride, to my friend opposite, that this government is regarded as a leader across this country and across North America -- I say that with some pride -- in the environment, occupational health and safety, the health care system and education technology. I say to the member that if he cannot think of a better question than that, he is going to have the same problem as Ed Broadbent.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier’s smile gives away the sincerity of his answer to the question. He knows perfectly well the problem that he is facing. We have the problem of frail elderly in our institutions. He is sitting on three reports, which he has had for years now, on the question of what he is going to do. He has reports on pension indexing, which he has completely and totally failed to move on. He has reports on hours of work, which he has totally failed to move on.

He has reports on early retirement, which he has completely failed to move on. The list goes on and on. We have a Nursing Homes Act, which was supposed to force nursing home owners to disclose their finances. He has not even introduced any of the regulations dealing with changes, which he made back in 1987.

I want to ask the Premier again, can he explain the extraordinary paralysis at the heart of his regime, of his administration, when it comes to every major area of public policy in this province -- every one?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I guess reality is in the eye of the beholder. I remember a time when my friend opposite thought he won the last election, and he was only brought back to reality by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). I say to my friend that his analysis has been wrong on every occasion so far, and it continues to be so.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Health, dealing with a report which was made today. There is an extraordinary discrepancy between the report and the statement that the minister made. I would ask the minister, if she has the report in front of her, to turn to page 68. Does she have the report there? She does not even have the report in front of her. She has the statement, but she does not have the report.

Hon. Mr. Scott: What is this, some kind of class? You would think we were at Oxford. Turn to page 68, give me a break.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Cue cards.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: I would ask the minister to turn to page 68. I do not know whether she has read the report; I hope she has. She says on page 2 of her statement that the problems are complex and cannot be reduced to underfunding or lack of resources. Page 68 deals with the question of the shortage of qualified personnel.

I wonder if the minister can possibly square the statement that she makes, when she says it cannot be reduced to underfunding or lack of resources, when the report says this clearly: “Four major studies have been undertaken in response to the shortage of nurses” -- I am quoting from the report -- “The problems are well enunciated in these studies” -- in these four studies, which the minister is aware of -- “The conclusions of these studies are consistent. What is less well enunciated is a plan to solve the critical shortage.”

This report talks about a critical shortage of nurses. I want to ask the minister, what is her plan to solve this critical shortage of nurses? Let her tell us, enunciate it now for us.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: First, I would like to say to the Leader of the Opposition that the report also notes how important it is for us to recognize that the services in Ontario are strong, and that this report builds on a fundamentally strong system and will, as these recommendations are implemented, make a good system and good services even better.

I would say to him that he is aware of a number of initiatives which have recently been undertaken in the area of dealing with the whole nursing issue in this province. We have had occasions and numerous opportunities in this House to discuss them.

I can tell the member that we are working co-operatively with all of the nursing associations: those representing the nurses in their union; those representing the other professional points of view, as well as with the hospitals. The new regulations which we have just announced and brought in I believe will go a long way as we encourage nurses to participate more strongly in hospital decision-making processes, to in fact resolve those quality-of-working-life issues which are affecting the profession in Ontario.

Mr. B. Rae: I was listening for and waiting to hear a plan from the minister. I do not think any of us heard a plan today --

Mr. Farnan: There is no plan.

Mr. B. Rae: -- because there obviously is not one. I want to say to the minister, when she says that the problems cannot be reduced to underfunding or lack of resources, perhaps she would like to look at the next sentence to the one I have just finished reading which says: “Compounding the provincial shortage, there has been a discontinuance of the use of agency/registry nurses in some hospitals which have traditionally used these nurses for as high as 10 to 15 per cent of their total nursing staff. This step has been taken primarily in response to tighter budgetary controls...”

I wonder if the minister can tell us: If budgetary controls are cited specifically in the report as one of the reasons why hospitals are not going to agencies, how can she stand up in her place and say that underfunding and a lack of resources are not problems when it comes to solving these critical shortages? The words “critical shortage” are not used by me alone; they are used now by this report which the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you; the question has been asked.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Leader of the Opposition will know that hospitals that are run by boards of trustees and professional administrators are responsible and accountable for the policies that they establish for their hospitals regarding hiring practices and policies.

I would say to him as well that if he wants to have a quote on the resource allocation, on page 71 the investigators say: “We have identified a major shortage in the utilization of resources intended for cardiovascular surgery in Toronto. There is no question that the Ministry of Health has provided additional funding through the budgetary system for increased services.”

Mr. Reville: Turn the page and read what it says on page 72.

Mrs. Grier: They did not give her that page.

Mr. B. Rae: I cannot believe the answers. First of all, I could not believe the statement, because it was such an inadequate reflection of the seriousness of the report.

We have a report which was commissioned to deal primarily with a problem which the minister incorrectly identified as being unique to St. Michael’s Hospital. The committee looked at the situation at St. Mike’s and said: “Look, you haven’t got a problem at St. Mike’s, you have a problem right through the system. It is endemic to the system; it is part of the system and it is a problem of a system which is not well-planned, well-managed or well-financed,” and that is obvious from what is being said in this report.

I wonder, given the direct criticism of the ministry which is contained in these documents of the administration of a very important aspect of our health care system in this province, can the minister tell us why she should not resign?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, in response, I think it is very appropriate to say to the Leader of the Opposition how pleased I have been with the response from the hospitals providing cardiovascular care in this province, and particularly from the chairman of the board of St. Michael’s Hospital.

Mr. Dilworth said, “It is vital that we do all that we can, all that is possible, to ensure that patients with the most critical needs have those needs met as quickly as possible.”

He also went on to state, “All nine Ontario hospitals will look carefully at the process of prioritizing the allocation of resources for critical care, as well as issues concerning cardiac surgery waiting lists.”

We know that what is at issue, in this issue and in others, is the need for hospitals to work together; to work together with the ministry to make sure that resources are allocated in such a way as to make sure that those who are in most urgent need receive that on a priority basis. I can say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am pleased with the response from the board chairman; from the hospitals; from administrators; from doctors and from nurses in their willingness to work together with the ministry, as we make a good system even better in the future.

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health as well. During statements I pointed out the findings on page 26 of the report to the minister. They conclusively state that there are fewer and fewer heart surgery cases being performed in Metropolitan Toronto every year, that they have consistently decreased from 1985 through to 1988.

On page 68 of the report, as I and the leader of the official opposition have pointed out, it says, “What is less well enunciated is a plan to solve the critical shortage” in nursing. Then they go on to say, as we pointed out to the minister during statements, that “This step has been taken primarily in response to tighter budgetary controls,” which the minister and her government introduced, “although there are also concerns for quality of care and continuity of care.”

Does the minister disagree with any of those statements this report has made, that there are fewer procedures being performed every year, that she has no well-enunciated plan to solve the nursing shortage in the province --

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mr. Eves: -- and that the monetary and budgetary policy of her ministry, which she imposed on the hospitals in this province, has led to this shortage?

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

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: If the critic for the third party is going to quote from the report, I will do so as well. On page 42, and I think this is very important, it says, “As waiting lists, waiting times and cancellations increased, more attention focused on individual patients by the politicians in the Legislative Assembly and by the media.”

Mr. Eves: The time for ministerial statements expired.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: This is extremely important. “A lack of knowledge of the functioning of the health care system sometimes leads politicians and reporters to assume conclusions which are not fully accurate.”

Mr. Eves: The lack of responsibility and initiative by the Minister of Health leads to dangerous consequences.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have said on numerous occasions that the member opposite does not listen. He does not want to hear this. He assumes conclusions which are not fully accurate. That is right here in the report. I would say to him that the bottom line under this

section on page 43 says, “We believe that the public and the Legislature must allow hospitals, physicians and the Ministry of Health to work together to constructively address such issues in a reasonable and collaborative fashion.” That is what we are doing.

Mr. Eves: For a year the minister stood in her place and told us there was no nursing shortage in Ontario. Now it is outlined here in black and white and she wants to read from a different page.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Eves: What about the issue of residency positions, seeing as how we did not get an answer to the one about nursing shortages? It says, “A reduction in cardiovascular surgery residency training positions, together with an expansion of surgical resources, have led to this problem.” Does she disagree with that statement?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would point out to the member opposite, if he will listen for just a moment, that Sudbury Memorial Hospital has a very fine cardiovascular surgery program and has no residents. They have staffed their program with well-trained nurses and other staff.

Mr. Eves: So you disagree with this conclusion? We don’t need residency physicians?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I can say to him it is very important that we factually and accurately present a picture to this public, which watches the proceedings in this Legislature, that is fully accurate as we proceed to, as I said before, build on the foundation of a fine health care system in Ontario, and as we criticize it responsibly make a commitment to make it even better.

Mr. Eves: This is almost unbelievable. These are facts found by an investigation that the minister appointed, and she refuses to acknowledge any of them. Is she tired of page 68? We will turn to page 71. How about the cardiovascular surgery unit at Sunnybrook Medical Centre, which the minister said would be open, and I quote, “almost immediately”? Almost immediately was about eight months ago, and we now find out we will be lucky if it is rolling by the fall of 1989.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Eves: Let’s turn to page 74 if she does not like that page. This is the

summary. She should be able to read that. Maybe it is the only part of the report she has read. “If Ontario does not devise a system to monitor and manage change, the province’s health care system will go from crisis to crisis,” as the minister has been doing, “and public confidence will continue to be eroded.” Does the minister agree with that statement or not, yes or no?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In the numerous discussions we have had in this House during estimates, during question period and at every opportunity, we have talked about how important it is for us to work together co-operatively and collaboratively, not only as we manage change but as we plan for the future. I would say to the member that in the implementation of these recommendations, we believe that by encouraging hospitals to work together co-operatively with the ministry, we will build the kind of network that will result in improved quality in patient care right across this province.

Mr. Eves: People are dying on the waiting list.

Mr. Speaker: We will wait for the member for Parry Sound.

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier, and I hope he likes this question. He has not liked any other questions that have been asked so far this afternoon, so I will try to give him one that will not bore him and that he may want to respond to.

I am sure the Premier is well aware of the fact that there is a very substantial and very significant difference in funding between municipal homes for the aged and the nursing homes in Ontario. He is also aware, I am sure, of the court case which is presently under way with respect to this particular question.

Is the Premier prepared to step in and attempt to overcome the difference in funding between these two providers of health care in this province or, alternatively, is the Premier simply going to wait until the court case strings out? It may take some long period of time before a resolution is seen to this particular problem. What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend points to an anomaly in the system that we inherited from his administration.

Mr. Brandt: Well, do something about it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are doing a lot of things about a lot of the problems they have created, I am telling my friend; and if he stands up here on the road to Damascus and recants all of the things that they did and the messes we have to clean up, I am happy to admit that we are in court because of their policies on that matter.

I say to my friend that it is probably not appropriate to comment, the matter being in court.

Mr. Brandt: Perhaps that kind of response had some validity six months or a year after the Premier took office. Fully four years after he has sat in that seat as Premier of this province, he has a responsibility to clear up a funding differential that fully amounts to 33 per cent difference between how some of our senior citizens are being treated in homes for the aged and how some of our senior citizens are being treated in nursing homes.

Can the Premier justify having some senior citizens being given more money in one facility and other senior citizens being given less money in another facility? Can his government justify that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me ask him -- and I compliment my honourable friend on his temerity -- how does he justify it, because he created the system? We are trying to get out of the mess that his government caused. How does he have the temerity to stand up in this House and ask the question? It absolutely amazes me how utterly shameless my friends opposite are when they stand up to accuse us in this phoney tone of moral rectitude of not solving in a short space of time their problems that they created over the years.

He should be embarrassed to stand up, but I want to say this: He looks very handsome with his new tan, and welcome back.

Mr. Brandt: When one talks about temerity and puffing oneself up in talking about a former government that was in place some four years ago, he cannot justify an entire series of programs which are crumbling under his administration. He can take some action to correct a problem which is very serious and which had to be taken to court in order to get his government to move on it.

He has problems with health; he has problems with housing; he has problems with virtually every ministry in his entire government. Here is one problem we can give him a solution to: Treat all senior citizens in this province equally. That is what we are asking for.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not know if that is a question, but again I ask my friend how he can summon up all this unction and moral rectitude and tell us and lecture us when he did the exact opposite when he was in a position to do something about it. What accounts for sanctimony? Maybe it is going over to that side of the House. Maybe that is what causes the whole situation, I have no idea.

But I want to tell my friend that when he looks at the record of this government in a whole range of areas, when we are dealing with the highest-growth economy in the industrialized world, when we are putting in changes of programs in the environment and in health care, we are determined to make sure that our system remains affordable and accessible for all, that we are going to make sure that we do not run into the problems.

We solved the great problems that they created, be it pension deficits, be it unfunded liabilities. They stuck every problem on the back burner and we have to deal with them now. And I will tell him this: we are dealing with them.

Their idea is the politics of avoidance; our idea is to wrestle with these problems. They did not care about the future; we do. That is why I say to my tanned friend opposite that he is going to be sitting there for another four years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait if you want to waste time. New question, the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The House just sort of fell into the credibility gap, that was the difficulty, I think.

TEACHERS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question for the Minister of Education regarding his problems with teacher shortages. I can understand and have some sympathy for his problems given that they are not all his but that one of the gang of four left him with the lack of planning that has put us in this preposterous situation.

I would just like to ask the minister if he still wishes to stick by his indication that this is only a problem in certain areas when he knows now from the Teachers’ Superannuation Commission that retirements alone across Ontario will take at least all the graduates that we have. There are communities like Ottawa with 120 retirements and London with 128 retirements. London, I point out to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), does not have one supply teacher right now in either math or sciences.

Will the minister tell me how it is that we got to this position where we are going to be thousands of teachers short this fall?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I do have to say to my friend the member for Scarborough West that although I do recognize that there are indeed some short-term problems in terms of the situation of teacher supply, I believe that we are responding in a very orderly, manageable and responsible way.

The member talks of this situation as being some sort of insurmountable problem. I do not believe it to be so. As a matter of fact, if he wants to use some figures and some examples in terms of needs, he should recognize that last year alone there were over 6,000 new entrants to the teaching profession in Ontario.

He talks of the need of certain boards, and I will give him some examples. The Halton Board of Education, for instance, will require 152 teachers next year and has 961 applications on file. The Durham Board of Education, which will require 360 teachers next year, has 1,075 applications on file.

I would point out to my friend that we do believe that the situation is easily manageable. We will not sacrifice quality in the teaching profession just to respond to the member and others who have their fingers poised over the panic button.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I know from time to time it is important for a minister to posture as an ostrich with his head in the sand.

The question again is around shortages. I would like to ask the minister this with regard to their reduction of class size. The Premier in the last election promised in the first year, in 1987-88, that he would reduce class size to 20:1. Then the government moved it, because that would have taken 4,000 teachers, over to a three-year to four-year period, about 1,000 teachers per year required.

Is he now going to have to curtail that promise even further than he already has or is he going to pretend today that that is not going to get touched by this either?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am glad the member has raised that particular issue. He will know that I stood in this House well over a year ago and pointed out that after extensive consultation with both school boards and teaching professionals in this province, we had come through with an orderly and manageable process to achieve what I believe to be perhaps one of the most worthwhile initiatives undertaken in elementary education in this province in many, many years.

The member will also know that we established targets and we established a phased-in implementation process. He will know by now that not only did we meet the target of the first year, we exceeded our goal in reducing class sizes in the elementary grades. We substantially enhanced elementary school programs and brought forward a number of initiatives. The member knows full well that not only are we meeting that commitment, we are exceeding it.

HOUSING FIRST PROGRAM

Mr. Harris: I have a question to the Minister of Housing, relating to the Housing First policy between the minister and her counterpart the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten). Under this program, announced with great fanfare last spring, the first priority for the use and disposal of government land is for the creation of more housing for low- and moderate-income earners.

Many are wondering where the minister was when the Ontario government recently sold land in Cambridge, where the housing crunch is little better than it is in Toronto and where the vacancy rate according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. figures for 1989 is actually worse than Toronto. I would like to ask her specifically why 185 acres of provincial land were sold last week, for industrial use only, at close to one quarter of the market value.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite will know, because I have explained our policy in the House before, that the Housing First policy identifies land which is surplus to government use and indicates that its first purpose will be housing if it is appropriate to housing use. That decision is made by the government, in particular by the Ministry of Government Services, and our commitment is that, on all the surplus lands that are so identified, 35 per cent of the units that are built -- and that is a floor, not a ceiling -- are meant to be affordable, meaning to reach the needs of low- and moderate-income people.

I cannot comment on a specific piece of land at this point, but I think that the member should know we have already announced eight pieces of land, many of them in Metropolitan Toronto, to be treated in this way. There will be more announcements coming. We are looking at all the land that is available to us and, as I understand it, the land that the member is talking about was zoned for industrial purposes and is meant to be used that way.

Mr. Harris: It appears to me, other than a little comment from the minister who whispered in her ear, that the minister did not know anything about this. This is not the name of the game or the policy that she announced for government land.

It is my clear understanding that industrial land in the Cambridge area is not in short supply, but there is obviously a serious housing shortage in that area, a problem more severe by the numbers than there is here in Metropolitan Toronto. It appears to me as though the policy of the government should read: development first; housing second, third, fourth, if at all.

According to the industry commissioner’s office in the city of Cambridge, market value for the piece of land is between $16 million and $24 million; yet this government let it go for a whopping $4.4 million. Even if the minister intends to take profits, as she said at some time, and commit them to housing, it makes no sense to sell it for 25 per cent of the market value.

I would like to ask the minister again how she can reconcile this with her stated objective, that it is Housing First when she disposes of government land.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Our policy is extremely clear, and I find it difficult to understand why the member opposite has not so far managed to grasp it. Let me try again. The policy says that our land which is appropriate for housing will be used for that purpose. This land is zoned industrial. The details about the way in which government treats land are, of course, the responsibility of the Ministry of Government Services.

We have been using the land in the province that is appropriate for housing for the purpose of housing. I have initiated discussions with the new federal Minister of Housing, to see if he can urge his federal colleagues to make land that the federal government owns available for the same purposes and in similar ways.

The member opposite is very exercised about this issue, and I invite him to add his voice, as one that is very influential with the members of his party in Ottawa, in exactly the same aim as mine, which is to increase the supply of housing out there and the amount of land that is available for that purpose.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ADDICTION

Mr. Morin: I have a question for the Minister of Health. A few weeks ago, a number of concerned teenagers from Orleans in Gloucester staged a three-day protest to emphasize their need for a drop-in centre and a crisis hotline for the troubled teens in the community. The problems facing these teenagers include pregnancies, troubles at home and at school, and drug addiction.

My question to the minister is, what is the Ministry of Health doing to meet the needs of the teenagers of Orleans?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to acknowledge the member’s interest in this issue. He has spoken to me about it. As the House will know, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced a doubling of funding for addiction programs in recognition of the need to increase access to these important services in the province.

Since last spring, my ministry has funded 37 new or expanded drug and alcohol counselling and education programs for young people, three of which are in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I can tell the member that the Orleans program which he referred to was not a recommendation by the district health council in Ottawa.

Mr. Morin: Federal health statistics show that there are at least 7,000 teenagers in the Ottawa-Carleton area who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. In view of the fact that it costs the Ontario health insurance plan $23,000 to send a child to a for-profit clinic in the United States, an approximate expenditure of $15 million in 1988, would the minister consider redirecting those funds towards building a much-needed rehabilitation centre in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would say to the member that in fact funding decisions are based on prioritization by district health councils. In Ontario, long-term care is available at a number of locations: Stonehenge in Guelph, Alwood in Carleton Place, the Donwood Institute in Toronto, Brentwood in Windsor and the l’Arc-en-ciel in Opasatika.

Although some may require long-term inpatient treatment, recent research has shown that for the majority of patients, outpatient and community-based programs are very effective. For the member’s information, we currently fund 24 community mental health and addiction programs in the Ottawa-Carleton area, and I can assure the member, who has a real dedication in this area, that we will continue to review existing programs and, as resources are available, continue to make improvements.

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Phillip: I have a question for the Minister of Housing: 3380 South Millway is a 100-unit town home complex in Mississauga. Although technically registered as a condominium, it has been a rental project for seven years. A few days ago, the tenants were surprised to discover that an open house was being held and their units were being sold. Only 20 of the 100 families are in a position to purchase their units, so 80 families are in fact facing eviction as those units are sold.

Can the minister tell the House why she is not prepared to close the loophole in her own Rental Housing Protection Act so that tenants like the 80 families in Mississauga will not face eviction?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I know the member opposite is referring to the Rental Housing Protection Act, and the concern he has raised is one that I think is worth raising. The important thing to say here is that in this province we treat the ownership of a condominium in the same way that we treat the ownership of any other residence. What that means is that someone who buys a house or a home of any sort, whether it is standing on a lot all by itself or is a town house, an attached house or a condominium, has the right to rent that property to someone else if he or she chooses, and also has the right to move into that property himself or herself if he or she chooses.

We believe that is a reasonable position to take, and that is the point of view we have taken on this matter. We have, however, taken significant measures to protect people in rental accommodation in a variety of other ways in our new version of the Rental Housing Protection Act, which the member opposite well knows. I believe it is important to treat ownership of housing in the same way, no matter what physical form it takes.

Mr. Philip: The minister will know that this has not been owned by individual home owners who are going to try to move back but rather by one or two developers who have owned the property for a period of seven years.

The minister has recently announced, for the third time, her Homes Now program, which she claims will create 30,000 new rental units over a five-year period of time. Does the minister not realize that she is losing the battle when she is using tax money to bring about new rental accommodation while, by her own admission, some three times the number of units she claims she will be creating can in fact disappear because she refuses to plug this loophole in her own act? Why is she not prepared to put in that plug in that act?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite knows very well that tenants of all sorts in this province are protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act.

He should also know that in the new version of the Rental Housing Protection Act, which we are bringing forward and which he will have an opportunity to comment on further, we are saying the only way a tenant may be asked to leave the accommodation he is in is if the person who buys the apartment himself wishes to move in. So it is only if someone wishes to move into his own unit that this could possibly happen.

I think that is a reasonable way to handle this. I believe what we have done makes sense. We have also increased the protection for tenants in rental accommodation all over the province in a variety of ways which the member well knows.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Mr. Eves: I have another question for the Minister of Health. This report is dated February 15, 1989. How come the minister is introducing it in the House on February 28?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Following receipt of the report, I read it carefully and I would recommend it to the member. I met with the investigating team to discuss personally its findings. The report makes recommendations not only for the Ministry of Health and St. Michael’s Hospital, but for hospitals and surgeons. Collectively and collaboratively, we have been discussing how to implement the recommendations of the report as we take the kind of action to ensure that we move positively and confidently into the future.

Mr. Eves: I find it passing strange that a report that has so many serious recommendations to make to the Minister of Health, a report which she did not have a copy of -- I had to send her a copy during the first question of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) on this matter -- I do not know why she would sit on this report for two weeks.

What type of action is the minister going to take in response to all the critical comments and conclusions that this report comes to? If she wants to deal with the

summary

section again, on page 74, it says, “At the same time, we recognize that there are problems with resources and personnel in Ontario, especially in Toronto, which require immediate attention if the cardiovascular program is to restore its balance.”

If the minister has read this report for two weeks and met with the people who made it, as she suggests she has, why is there no specific plan of action, no concrete steps that she is going to take to deal with these problems immediately, other than more and more studies? The problems have been identified. What action is she going to take?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In my statement to the House I outlined a six-point plan of action. I sent the member a copy of the statement, but I will pleased to say to him again that the six-point plan of action consists of the following:

Further development, evaluation and expansion of the Metropolitan Toronto cardiovascular triage and registry program; development of standardized guidelines and

definitions for assessing urgent elective and emergency cases; development of a public education program on cardiac disease and treatment; reviewing of staffing requirements; improved communication within and among hospitals providing cardiac care, and establishment of the appropriate performance targets for each of the cardiac surgery centres.

This plan will be implemented by a multidisciplinary provincial working group for cardiovascular services.

We have already contacted the nine hospitals in this province providing this service, and I am pleased to tell the member that they are all very positive in their response and their desire to work with the ministry in a co-operative mode. The board chairmen, the chief executive officers, chiefs of cardiology and cardiovascular surgery and teams of medicine have agreed willingly to come forward to implement these recommendations.

FRANCHISES

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last week, I received a very disturbing letter from a Toronto-based Volkswagen-Audi dealership. Volkswagen Canada has abruptly cancelled the Audi franchise of this company with very severe consequences for the continued operation of the 75-person enterprise.

This experience, in my opinion, points out a serious problem in our current legislation. It appears that franchise business relationships can be cancelled at a moment’s notice, without recourse.

May I ask the minister whether this information is correct, and if so whether he is aware of other cases where this situation has led to significant job loss?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member’s information is correct. We have a situation where some 30 Volkswagen dealerships have been affected by this termination of the Audi dealership franchise. They will retain their Volkswagen dealership franchise.

My ministry officials met with the Federation of Automobile Dealer Associations of Canada earlier this month, I believe it was on February 8. As a result of that meeting, we have asked for specific information from the federation and are waiting until that information is provided; then we expect to have meetings with Volkswagen Canada.

I can say to the honourable member that on our first reading of the franchise agreement it appears Volkswagen Canada has acted within the terms of the agreement, but certainly in terms of the job loss in the specific instance my friend refers to and generally throughout the 30 dealerships, we view the action as being most unfortunate.

Mr. Daigeler: I would like to ask whether the minister shares my interest in making, in a general way, franchise relationships more predictable. I think what is to be regretted here is the very short notice that has been given and the fact there does not seem to be any recourse. I would like to ask whether this matter is under study by the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We have had some discussions with the federation on this issue for some period of time. I say to my friend that we have looked towards other jurisdictions, both in this country and in the United States. In most other jurisdictions, similar franchising legislation is really lacking. In the short term, we have suggested to the federation that it sit down with both domestic manufacturers and importers and try to negotiate fair and equitable agreements, without the kind of short-term cancellation notice my colleague refers to.

In the longer term, rather than looking at specific legislative action in this industry, we are looking at the whole issue of franchising, not just in the automotive industry but across the spectrum of industry. That is part of the consumer review that is now under way.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you. I have a question for the Premier (Mr. Peterson); he was not here yesterday, he left halfway through question period today and he will not be here for the next two days.

Mr. Speaker: The question is to which minister?

PROPOSED OBSERVATORY

Mr. Laughren: I will direct my question to the government House leader. If he can find his way back into the chamber and remove the growth from his seat, I have a question for him.

On January 26, I had a question for the Premier (Mr. Peterson) concerning the development of a neutrino observatory in Sudbury at the Creighton mine. On January 26, the Premier indicated that he had not been briefed about it but that he would bring himself up to speed and refer it to the Premier’s Council on high technology. I am wondering if the government House leader, who is the Minister of Mines, can bring us up to date and give us a status report on the request for about $7 million over four years, which would kick-start that very important scientific project.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I will ignore the opening salvo because I would not want to unduly excite my friends in the official opposition, lest I be accused of a personal attack in responding to that particular observation.

I can tell my friend that I have been briefed on a number of occasions, not the least of the briefings coming from some of my own constituents who have been involved in the project to which the honourable member makes reference. My colleagues the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) and the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) have indicated interest in and support for this particular undertaking in the Sudbury area.

We have made a commitment, as the honour-able member knows, to research and development. The Premier’s Council on high technology has made specific funding available in this connection. We are looking at what particular benefits would flow to the province and what the support from other levels of government and the private sector is going to be.

Mr. Laughren: I am concerned about the government’s response on this matter, because it truly is an important scientific project and it is not a lot of money for the province to kick in. As well, the technology fund has very much underspent what it was allocated this year.

When the Premier’s group was in Sudbury last week, the regional chairman asked the director of research for the technology fund about the project and he said, “I really do not know anything about it.” I wonder why the government -- the Minister of Northern Development, the Premier or the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology -- has not been in touch with the Premier’s technology people to bring them up to speed on this to see if we can get this project approved, because it is not going to go anywhere unless the province intervenes and gives the start-up money to it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Let’s be clear that we have been looking at that proposal. We are interested in knowing what the benefits to the province of Ontario are going to be. We are going to analyse that. We can assure the honourable member that we are looking at the particular proposal. We are aware of his interest and the interest of the honourable member for Sudbury.

I can tell him we are carefully analysing the proposal, but we want to know, before we commit funding, what the short-term, intermediate and long-term benefits to the province are going to be. We are responsible in the way in which we manage the finances of this province and we want to make a very careful analysis before we make that commitment.

BINGO HALLS

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Recently there has been a proliferation of privately operated, profit-making bingo halls in Ontario. In many areas, including my own constituency, these private operations are threatening to drive bingos run by charities out of business. In some cases, this is being achieved through questionable practices such as guaranteed nightly transfers of fixed sums of money to charities, regardless of revenues.

In effect, some private bingos are temporarily operating at a loss to attract groups and drive bingos run by charities out of business. What specific plans does the minister have to address this serious problem?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I can say to the honourable member that there has been growth in the proliferation of the number of bingo halls. I am going from memory, but I think we are now in the range of some 200 -- it may be slightly above that -- in terms of the number of halls in the province. The honourable member has indicated that as a result of the proliferation in his area not all the halls are able to turn a proper profit.

I certainly hope and expect that any entrepreneur who is getting into the business will understand the rules we now have under the orders in council, which require 20 per cent of the profit to be turned over to the charities involved and limit the amount of the take the hall owner can take to 15 per cent.

This matter is under thorough review. When that review is complete, I expect we will announce appropriate action.

Mr. Runciman: Last week the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said he would not allow casinos into Ontario because he did not think they would lead to good lifestyles. Why is the minister permitting profit-making bingo halls to spring up all over this province when these halls dramatically increase the number of bingo games people play and have a detrimental impact on many charities?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We are taking a look at what has been, I say quite candidly, a significant growth in the number of bingo halls. But for my friend the member for Leeds-Grenville to suggest this government is allowing them to spring up all over the province indicates to me he is unaware of the policies that have been in place for a good number of years in this province, and those policies have not changed.

There was at one point an unofficial moratorium on the number of bingo halls, but that moratorium is no longer in effect. Certainly, the order in council under which we are working does not limit in any way the number of halls, other than in terms of being private enterprises whether those halls can get a return on their investment.

The honourable member has raised the issue of how many is enough. In an effort to ensure that the charities are getting a reasonable return, and also to ensure that all charities can have an opportunity to be involved in what is a very profitable enterprise for them, we are very carefully reviewing the policies that have been in place over a number of years.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Just before I recognize the next questioner, I know members would want me to draw their attention to a visitor in the lower east gallery, Murray Gaunt, a former member of this House.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Kanter: I have a question of the Minister of Health. I recently received a notice at my door, as did many of my constituents, announcing the opening of Medvisit Doctors Housecall Service, a service that provides doctors for house calls but that excludes serious or life-threatening emergencies. I understand the Scott Task Force on the Use and Provision of Medical Services has expressed some concerns about the quality of care provided by such services. I am wondering if the minister could advise whether she has any plans to monitor or regulate services like this.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: This is a very important question. The Scott task force attempted to differentiate between walk-in clinics, radio-dispatched house call services and after-hours clinics that are owned and operated by community physicians, and those that are operated by corporations and employ physicians. The task force raised questions about the possible duplication of services, the continuity of care and the standards of practice, all of which are quality-of-care issues.

They suggested an evaluation be done jointly by the Ontario Medical Association and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario on the function of these services. I have already spoken to the college of physicians and surgeons and discussions are under way as to what kind of evaluation could be done.

Mr. Kanter: While this evaluation is under way, I wonder if she could clarify the fee

schedule that applies to such services. As I understand it, doctors making house calls after hours are paid a premium. Does this premium apply to the nonemergency type of house call provided by services such as Medvisit?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The fact of the matter is that premiums are paid for after-hours calls that are deemed medically necessary. However, these services are advertised as services available for longer hours and only for nonemergencies. The member is quite correct: The calls are therefore made within what would be considered normal business hours of the service and do not qualify for the premium as identified by the member.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I wonder if the Minister of Labour can tell us if he is aware of the strike that has been on now for several weeks at Orenda engines, a division of Hawker Siddeley in Mississauga, where some 320 workers have been faced with a company that has been intransigent in terms of bargaining and that is now using strikebreakers to continue the operation, including an armoured bus with Plexiglas and shields up to bring scabs into the plant. It also sees air force personnel running the picket line at a very rapid rate of speed.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am aware of it. I would not want to comment on any of the allegations the good member for Hamilton East has made, but I will tell him that the parties in that dispute reconvened for a third session of mediation on February 16. Unfortunately, no real progress was made, or was reported to me in any event by officials within my ministry; but obviously we are prepared to meet again and sit down with the parties just as soon as they are ready for a next round of mediation.

Mr. Mackenzie: If he has had a report from the mediators, he will know the company’s position hardened in terms of the demands it has made on the workers, including having skilled tradesmen work on assembly where they have had no training at all in putting together aircraft engines.

I wonder if the minister will take a look at the violence and threat of violence that is now taking place on this particular picket line and if he will consider legislation in the province, which we have long asked for, that would outlaw strikebreakers in a legal strike situation.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The issue of violence on the picket line obviously is a serious one, but I think in all candour my friend from Hamilton East would acknowledge that where there are those sorts of allegations, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Ministry of Labour to respond, that those sorts of allegations ought to be dealt with in the appropriate venues.

Of course, when we are talking about violence that is of a criminal nature, that venue would be the criminal courts; and when we are talking about issues directly relating to the ongoing process of bargaining, whether it is a matter of bargaining in bad faith or trying to affect negotiations, the appropriate venue would of course be the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

With respect to the member’s suggestion that the government consider legislation of the sort he suggested, if my memory serves me the member has a bill in Orders and Notices speaking to that subject. Obviously, those sorts of matters are undergoing an ongoing review within the Ministry of Labour. Just in order to respond to this question, I will look again at the bill my friend the member for Hamilton East has in Orders and Notices, if indeed he does have one.

MINISTRY PUBLICATION

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. He has cut back on the firefighting crews, the conservation officers are underpaid, the fish-stocking program is down and now we have this magazine, which is a good magazine put out by his ministry: Landmarks. This is going to be the last edition. Why is he cutting back on this magazine?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Finally, after all this time and a few days before we leave these wonderful chambers, the member asks a reasonable question. The fact of the matter is that his

preamble has no substance whatsoever. Things were never better in the province relating to hunting and fishing. Notwithstanding 40 years of neglect by the Conservative government, we have fish stocks and game like never before, and I am proud to say it has been under the good management of this government.

To answer specifically the member’s question, that particular magazine was started under the aegis of his government. It said that in a reasonable length of time it would be self-sufficient. Last year, it cost $300,000 for the people of this province to send out this nice magazine that the Conservatives decided was appropriate but should be self-sufficient at some point in time. That did not happen. I am saving the taxpayers of this province $300,000 out of pocket, plus whatever else the cost was.

Mr. Pollock: What is the minister going to cut out next?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As many seats as we can over there.

Mr. Speaker: I guess that completes oral questions and responses. I cannot believe it.

PETITIONS

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Runciman: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 75 persons in the riding represented by the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes), a member of the government party, which reads in part as follows:

“I believe that all residents of extended care facilities, whether it be a nursing home or a municipal home for the aged, are entitled to equal care and services according to the specific care requirements of each individual.

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

“I urge the Ontario government to reform the extended care system so that it is uniform, fair and equitable with regard to funding and regulation, and so that seniors in all extended care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve.”

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr. Tatham: I have a petition from the Ontario Teachers’ Federation, District 37, signed by 747 members:

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

It is signed by myself.

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Brandt: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 59 persons in the riding represented by the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), a government member, which reads in part as follows:

“I believe that all residents of extended care facilities, whether it be a nursing home or a municipal home for the aged, are entitled to equal care and services according to the specific care requirements of each individual.

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

“I urge the Ontario government to reform the extended care system so that it is uniform, fair and equitable with regard to funding and regulation, and so that seniors in all extended care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve.”

USE OF LOTTERY PROFITS

Ms. Hart: I have a petition signed by 698 members of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario Inc.

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

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

“Given the continuing pressures for increased funding for hospitals, the provincial government should change the laws governing the Ontario Lottery Corp. regarding the allocation of profit so that at least 50 per cent of all provincial lottery profits be allocated to hospitals and the health care system.”

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 23 persons and a number of others who are from the ridings of York North and York Centre, government members’ ridings, which reads in part as follows:

“I believe that all residents of extended care facilities, whether it be a nursing home or a municipal home for the aged, are entitled to equal care and services according to the specific care requirements of each individual.

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

“I urge the Ontario government to reform the extended care system so that it is uniform, fair and equitable with regard to funding and regulation, and so that seniors in all extended care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve.”

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by me.

Mr. Speaker: I just have a question. Was that to the Lieutenant Governor in Council?

Mr. Cousens: Yes, it was.

I have another one that I can read that is very similar. “To the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.”

Mr. Speaker: It is out of order.

Mr. Cousens: It is signed by 30 persons and a number of others who are from the riding of St. George-St. David, so you can see that it is properly placed, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I quite agree.

Mr. Cousens: It is also from a government member, and I have been asked to present them for him.

It reads in part as follows --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Cousens: This is another one --

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but was that for the Lieutenant Governor in Council?

Mr. Cousens: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: I am saying it is possible that is out of order then.

Mr. Cousens: No, I would not think so, Mr. Speaker.

“I believe that all residents of extended care facilities, whether it be a nursing home or a municipal home for the aged, are entitled to equal care and services according to the specific care requirements of each individual.

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

“I urge the Ontario government to reform the extended care system so that it is uniform, fair and equitable with regard to funding and regulation, and so that seniors in all extended care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve.”

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Cousens: I have another petition:

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

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

“Given that the present population of Brother André high school in Markham consists of 1,500 students and is at capacity; and

“That the projected enrolment for September 1990 is approximately 2,700, with the majority of increased enrolment at the grades 9 and 10 level; and

“That the potential overcrowding will have serious repercussions for students and teachers alike;

“The Ministry of Education, in consultation with the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board, move immediately to approve a new high school for occupancy in September 1991 in Milliken Mills that will include initially grades 9 and 10 and therefore alleviate potential intolerable conditions at Brother André high school.”

This petition is signed by approximately 65 residents of Markham, Unionville and Thornhill.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cousens: I have another petition:

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

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

“Whereas the dramatic growth rate in York region has placed extreme pressure on the municipal planning process, and given that serious allegations have been made regarding the integrity of this process in York region, we strongly urge the provincial government to conduct a full and open public inquiry into the municipal planning process and land development practices of York region.”

It is duly signed by myself.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr. Cousens: I have a another petition:

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

This is duly signed by myself and constituents, but also approximately 23 residents from other neighbouring ridings.

Miss Roberts: I have a petition as well, very similar to the one that my honourable friend opposite just read.

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

It is in proper form and signed by myself, as required.

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Harris: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 47 persons from my riding, which reads in part as follows:

“I believe that all residents of extended care facilities, whether it be a nursing home or a municipal home for the aged, are entitled to equal care and services according to the specific care requirements of each individual.

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

“I urge the Ontario government to reform the extended care system so that it is uniform, fair and equitable with regard to funding and regulation, and so that seniors in all extended care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve.”

It is signed, as I said, by 47 persons from Nipissing and myself.

I have one other. This one comes from the city of Sudbury, the extended care nursing home, and it contains 152 signatures. I believe that is in the riding of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell).

I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 152 persons in the riding represented by the member for Sudbury, a government member, which reads in part as follows:

“I believe that all residents of extended care facilities, whether it be a nursing home or a municipal home for the aged, are entitled to equal care and services according to the specific care requirements of each individual.

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

“I urge the Ontario government to reform the extended care system so that it is uniform, fair and equitable with regard to funding and regulation, and so that seniors in all extended care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve.”

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

“Whereas the Liberal members of the standing committee on resources development have voted to oppose an opposition motion to hear all deputations who want to appear before the committee on Bill 162,

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to instruct the standing committee on resources development to reschedule its public hearings on Bill 162 in order to give all deputations who wish to make presentations about the proposed changes to the workers’ compensation system an opportunity to appear before the committee and express their views.”

That is signed by 92 residents of Ontario and I have affixed my signature to it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry -- oh, the member for Hamilton East has another one.

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

“Whereas the Liberal members of the standing committee on resources development have voted to oppose an opposition motion to hear all deputations who want to appear before the committee on Bill 162,

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to instruct the standing committee on resources development to reschedule its public hearings on Bill 162 in order to give all deputations who wish to make presentations about the proposed changes to the workers’ compensation system an opportunity to appear before the committee and express their views.”

That is signed by 10 citizens of Ontario and I have affixed my name to it as well.

I have a further petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Liberal members of the standing committee on resources development have voted to oppose an opposition motion to hear all deputations who want to appear before the committee on Bill 162,

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to instruct the standing committee on resources development to reschedule its public hearings on Bill 162 in order to give all deputations who wish to make presentations about the proposed changes to the workers’ compensation system an opportunity to appear before the committee and express their views.”

This is signed by 30 residents from places as diverse as Sault Ste. Marie and Cambridge, Ontario. I sign my name to the petition.

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Villeneuve: I have two similar petitions. In the interest of time, I will read only one. However, they are both addressed in a similar fashion. I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 45 persons in the riding represented by the member for Cornwall (Mr. Cleary), a government member, and a similar petition from 15 persons in the riding I represent, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. They are identical, so I will read only one.

“I believe that all residents of extended care facilities, whether it be a nursing home or a municipal home for the aged, are entitled to equal care and services, according to the specific care requirements of each individual.

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

“I urge the Ontario government to reform the extended care system so that it is uniform, fair, and equitable with regard to funding and regulation, and so that seniors in all extended care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve.”

I have signed both petitions and I respectfully submit them.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 27 persons from Palmerston and area, which reads as follows:

“I believe that all residents of extended care facilities, whether it be a nursing home or a municipal home for the aged, are entitled to equal care and services, according to the specific care requirements of each individual.

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

“I urge the Ontario government to reform the extended care system so that it is uniform, fair and equitable with regard to funding and regulation, and so that seniors in all extended care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve.”

I support this petition and have signed my name to it. I also have a petition from Waterloo expressing the same concerns and I have also endorsed that petition.

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 33 persons in a riding represented by a government member, the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins), which reads as follows:

“I believe that all residents of extended care facilities, whether it be a nursing home or a municipal home for the aged, are entitled to equal care and services, according to the specific care requirements of each individual.

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

“I urge the Ontario government to reform the extended care system so that it is uniform, fair, and equitable with regard to funding and regulation, and so that seniors in all extended care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve.”

I have signed this myself. I have another petition which reads the same. It is signed by people from the Peterborough area.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Allen: I have two petitions to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, totalling 20 names in all, from the Kitchener-Guelph region, which read as follows:

“Whereas the Liberal members of the standing committee on resources development have voted to oppose an opposition motion to hear all deputations who want to appear before the committee on Bill 162,

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to instruct the standing committee on resources development to reschedule its public hearings on Bill 162 in order to give all deputations who wish to make presentations about the proposed changes to the workers’ compensation system an opportunity to appear before the committee and express their views.”

I have affixed my signature to these petitions and I certainly agree with the contents.

EXTENDED CARE

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 105 persons from my riding, which reads in part as follows:

“I believe that all residents of extended care facilities, whether it be a nursing home or a municipal home for the aged, are entitled to equal care and services, according to the specific care requirements of each individual.

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

“I urge the Ontario government to reform the extended care system so that it is uniform, fair and equitable with regard to funding and regulation, and so that seniors in all extended care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve.”

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

TOBACCO SALE REGULATION ACT

Mr. Allen moved first reading of Bill 221,

An Act to regulate the Sale of Tobacco.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Allen: This bill responds to the salient fact that tobacco is the leading preventable cause of disease and death in Canada. Because there is little onset of smoking among adults, it is important to have legislation that postpones effectively that decision among minors until they are, in fact, adults.

Surveys tell us that at present approximately 90 per cent of retailers do sell tobacco to minors, even though such sales are illegal.

Mr. Speaker: And what does the bill say?

Mr. Allen: What the bill says is that it would increase the maximum fine. First of all, it would repeal the Minors’ Protection Act. It would increase the maximum fine for selling tobacco to persons under 18 from $50 to $5,000, the current maximum being $50 in the Minors’ Protection Act.

The bill differs from the bill introduced by the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) in that it would require tobacco retailers to obtain a tobacco sales licence in order to sell the product. Further, regulations under the bill would be able to provide that all vending machines be located in areas inaccessible to minors.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Ms. Hart moved, on behalf of Hon. R. F. Nixon, second reading of Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act.

Ms. Hart: Members will know that Bill 119 is the result of an announcement made by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) in the 1986-87 budget that the government intended to change the emphasis in allocation of Ontario Lottery Corp. funds, expanding them to include hospital services and, at that time, general expenditures. This was done to reflect the priority that this government puts on health care. At the same time, the Treasurer indicated that he and the government were totally committed to continuing and improving their financial support for culture and recreation.

That support continues to be true today and the proof is in the pudding. Since this government came into office, its spending on recreation and culture has increased substantially every year. I would also point out that the ministries responsible to those client groups have not been limited to lottery moneys.

The Ministry of Culture and Communications, for example, got 85 per cent of its funding on the culture side from nonlotteiy sources in the last two years. Special funding has been announced this year: the Ballet Opera House, $65 million, plus the land; and film incentives, $34.3 million over two years. The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation has received $2.8 million a year for sports safety initiatives and $3.2 million for older adult initiatives. Those are all nonlottery moneys.

It must also be said that changing demographics and opportunities resulting from new technology are all placing increasing pressure on the health care system. It is interesting to note that we spend $40 million a day on health care and $5.5 billion for hospitals in this year’s budget alone. All of us want the best-quality health care and access to that care. If we compare the $360-million notional surplus from the provincial lotteries to the daily cost of operating our hospitals, it would be swallowed up very quickly. We think we are doing the right thing by putting any unallocated lottery money in that direction.

Having said that, I would point out that a significant change in Bill 119 from its predecessor, Bill 38, which died on Orders and Notices, is that Bill 119 makes it very clear that fitness, sport, recreation, cultural activities and the Trillium Foundation have first call on any provincial lottery profits in the fiscal year. This is significant because it preserves and confirms the primacy of those activities. They get their allocations first. Only what is left over goes to the operation of hospitals.

Since 1986, when this proposal was first aired, the Treasurer and all the affected ministries have had many opportunities to discuss it with those most affected by it. One of the questions that comes up again and again is, “Why don’t you guarantee a level of funding?” Our response to that, as it would be from any government, is:

“We don’t guarantee any other programs, for example, funding for education, municipalities, the justice system. It would be inappropriate to do so.” Parliamentary practice is for the Legislature to approve the funding levels for each and every program through the annual estimates debates. I suppose it might be said also that there are no guarantees that people will continue to buy lottery tickets.

In conclusion, I would say that Bill 119 confirms and reaffirms this government’s and the Treasurer’s commitment to culture and recreation. It gives them first call on any lottery moneys raised in the fiscal year. At the same time, it reflects the realities of today, that health care is a spending priority of this government, as it should be, given the increased pressure on it, by dedicating any unallocated dollars to the operation of hospitals. Somebody has to pay for health care, and most people would agree that it is this government’s responsibility to ensure that that occurs.

I look forward to participating with the other members in the debate.

Mr. Laughren: Just a question to the parliamentary assistant, whom I welcome to the debate this afternoon. I am pleased to see her carrying this bill on behalf of the Treasurer. I was hoping she would tell us about the surplus, which I notice she referred to as a notional surplus. I could almost see the capitalized letters for “notional.” Before the debate begins, I would be interested in knowing just what the surplus is in the fund.

Mrs. Marland: I wondered if the parliamentary assistant could elaborate in her response. When she says that all of us want quality health care and then goes on to say that there is no guarantee that people will continue to buy lottery tickets, how does her government plan to ensure that we will have quality health care if it is at the whim of people buying lottery tickets? Is that how we are going to budget quality health care in the future of this province?

I would respectfully suggest that, if it is, we certainly have far more to worry about in the future of health care than we already know we have to worry about and the concerns that have been addressed by my colleague the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), the Health critic for the Progressive Conservatives, who has intensively, for at least the last three months, been asking the Health minister very serious questions about where the solutions are going to come from for the funding of health care programs today in this province and the fact that we have so many areas of underfunding.

I hope that the parliamentary assistant is not suggesting in her speech that everything is going to pivot on people faced with buying enough lottery tickets in order to be secure in the knowledge that the hospitals will be there, the nurses will be there, the qualifications and the trained people will be high enough to do the work that needs to be done in serving the public in terms of giving health service, or that capital equipment and capital building -- l mean, how much of this is going to now be funded from the lotteries? It would be interesting to have that answer.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to thank my colleague the member for York East (Ms. Hart) for her very excellent and quite brief distillation of the essence of this very important legislation, which I want to say that I very strongly support, because we as a government, as the honourable member has said so eloquently, have established a very good level of support for culture and recreation across the province.

My friend the member for Lanark-Renfrew (Mr. Wiseman) and other members of this assembly know only too well of the very substantial work that has been done by my friends, first the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) when he was the minister and now the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil). They have travelled the province doing good works in the area of culture and recreation.

But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, when I go back to my constituency in the great east of this province, people say to me: “We understand the government’s commitment to health care. We understand that there can be no greater priority for any government in our society today than to maintain a good and strong level of support for the operations of our public hospitals and all of those other matters that are part of a quality health care commitment.”

I repeat that I am personally very strongly committed to Bill 119, because while I think we have to maintain a very strong commitment to culture and recreation, as our friend the member for York East said, we also have to make plain that the commitment this government has to hospitals and health care is a very, very top priority.

I cannot wait to hear my friends in the opposition stand, when they have the opportunity to speak to the second reading in full debate, to hear where they stand on this matter. We have heard a great deal of criticism from the opposition about inadequate funding for hospitals.

This legislation, so ably advanced by my friend from York East, puts the government position plainly before the assembly. It is a position strongly supported, I believe, by the people of Ontario and certainly the people of Renfrew North. I am very anxious to hear the support from our friends opposite.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members have questions or comments or would like to distil essence? If not, would the parliamentary assistant wish to reply?

Ms. Hart: Yes. My friend the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) asks about lotteries being the primary source of health care funding, our hospital funding. Clearly, given the numbers, $5.5 billion for hospitals this year, $40 million a day for the health care system, even if we used the entire lottery revenues, which are projected to be $455 million for 1988-89, it would be ludicrous to suggest that that would be the primary funding source for health care.

It is clear from the language of Bill 119 that the primary objective is to fund cultural and recreational activities. They have first call on the money, along with the Trillium Foundation. Then, if there are moneys left over, this government has chosen to channel those funds to the operation of hospitals, and very properly so, given this government’s stated priority for health care.

My friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) asked me about the notional surplus. The current numbers are $369 million from the Ontario games and $932 million from the interprovincial games. As my friend opposite knows, those notional surpluses have been built up over a number of years since the early 1970s when these games were initiated.

Never, even in the first year of lottery revenues coming in, were they fully or even half allocated to the objects set out in the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act. It was never anticipated that the revenues would be so high and it would not be fiscally responsible, given the pressures on the health care system, to dedicate those --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member’s time is up. The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: I do indeed want to engage in a debate on Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act. The parliamentary assistant, in her opening remarks, certainly did not get to the heart of the issue and the debate that has swirled around this bill. She made it sound as though it was beyond her comprehension how anyone could not support Bill 119.

Of course, the government House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), in his remarks expressed great interest in watching the opposition somehow try to justify any opposition they might have to the bill. I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that I am opposed to Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, because I think it is a bad bill.

What the government members have not said -- they referred to it rather obliquely -- is why the previous incarnation of this bill, Bill 38 as I recall its number, was dropped. It was dropped in a minority parliament because there was massive opposition to the bill all across Ontario. The two opposition parties combined had a majority in this assembly, and they were simply going to vote against it. We could not have had this legislation in a minority parliament. The government had to have a majority in order to bring this bill in.

Mr. McGuigan: Tyranny of the minority.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Essex-Kent is living in a time warp. It is the tyranny of the majority that we are