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

February 15, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L147 - Wed 15 Feb 1989 / Mer 15 fév 1989

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

VERONICA TENNANT

RECYCLING

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

WORLD ROWING CHAMPIONSHIPS

NATIVE PEOPLE AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NURSES’ PARTICIPATION IN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

RESPONSES

NURSES’ PARTICIPATION IN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT / PARTICIPATION DES GARDES-MALADES À LA GESTION DES HÔPITAUX

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

NURSING SERVICES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

WATER QUALITY

PROPERTY SPECULATION

CONTAMINATED SOIL

RECYCLING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

FIREFIGHTING

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NURSING SERVICES

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

VERONICA TENNANT

Mr. Cousens: I rise in the House today to give respect and credit to one of our province’s most outstanding citizens, a woman who for the past quarter of a century has delighted audiences with her dramatic performances. Her contribution to Canada, and in particular to Ontario, has made each of us that much prouder of our heritage.

I am pleased to recognize one of the National Ballet’s principal dancers as she retires from her outstanding career. Veronica Tennant, Canada’s great dramatic ballet dancer, has spent what is for some a lifetime in the National Ballet. She grew up with the company that for 25 years was her home. She leaves behind a legacy of devotion, a devotion to her audiences and to the art form that she chose to explore. Ms. Tennant is a Canadian who danced on stages around the world, in the United States, Japan, Italy and Britain. She has represented us well.

I am sure all members will join with me in wishing Ms. Tennant an equally rewarding career over the next quarter of a century. We thank her for what she has given so far to dance, to Ontario and to Canada. She has performed her part brilliantly. There is only one thing left for us to do and that is to say thank you, Veronica Tennant.

RECYCLING

Mr. Velshi: I would like to note with pleasure recent developments relating to corporate contributions in the waste management and recycling process in Ontario.

Until recently, assumed economic realities have inhibited the development of effective recycling programs. However, some corporate citizens have begun to re-evaluate their positions on recycling by taking a more responsible role in the development of Ontario’s new revitalized recycling movement. Corporations which until recently were offenders of refillable ratio standards are now at the forefront of advertising booster campaigns to remind consumers about recycling initiatives.

Ontario-based soft drink manufacturers will soon begin a $20-million advertising campaign distributing their products with slogans reminding consumers that they can all do their part to contribute to the recycling process. This will directly help the blue box program, which I might add was initiated in North York just this week.

Leading manufacturers are now finally recognizing the need for new, more positive and co-operative relationships with the public sector when addressing issues that affect waste management and the environment. Although corporate advertising, marketing and financial support are not a panacea for this province’s environmental problems, they are certainly a step in the right direction.

I am genuinely pleased with the initiatives these companies have undertaken and I hope they will set a new standard for corporate environmental responsibility.

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

Mr. Allen: Sexual violence is a major problem in our society. According to statistics quoted by the Ontario women’s directorate, one in every four Canadian women is sexually assaulted at some point in her life.

The Sexual Assault Centre in Hamilton, our city, provides vital services to individuals in our community who have been victimized. Volunteers and staff maintain a 24-hour crisis line and accompany victims of sexual assault to hospital, to the police station and to court. They provide public education and preventive programs in the community and support groups to women who have been sexually victimized. Representatives of the centre also sit on several local committees and networks: the Sexual Abuse Network, the Council for Domestic Violence, the Prevention Network, the Hamilton and District Council of Women and Women Working Against Sexual Harassment.

Without adequate staffing and financial support from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, centre staff and volunteers cannot continue to maintain this level of service. Although members of the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres submitted a proposal to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) at her request in June 1988, they have received no commitment or response from her.

I wish personally to lend my support to the request for more adequate and secure funding being presented to the Hamilton centre and the other centres in the Ontario coalition. I urge the minister to take immediate and appropriate action to ensure that their concerns are addressed.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr. Pollock: I have been asking the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) to sponsor public information meetings on the future of conservation authorities. He has responded by sending the parliamentary assistant to all conservation authorities in the province to try to sell the recommendations of the Burgar report.

I was at one of these meetings and saw the parliamentary assistant’s sales pitch. He is giving the impression that the changes are as good as complete, whether user groups, conservation authorities or the general public like it or not.

The minister, in setting up these closed-door meetings, has failed to include one of the most important groups in the consultation, the people of Ontario, the ones most affected by the programs conservation authorities deliver and the ones who enjoy the use of conservation authority parks and natural areas.

The minister’s parliamentary assistant has a three-member committee to assist him in his evaluation of these meetings and submissions sent to the minister. The committee will recommend to the minister what changes should be made. No one in the committee represents the public viewpoint. The minister’s plans have a gaping hole. He will change the entire structure of conservation authorities with no public consultation.

We have decided to bring this to a public forum for the minister. Our caucus is hosting a public meeting on March 1.

WORLD ROWING CHAMPIONSHIPS

Mr. Dietsch: I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the members of this House the bid of the Henley Rowing Corp. to host the World Rowing Championships in 1993, 1994 or 1995 in St. Catharines. Tim Rigby, the president of the Canadian Amateur Rowing Association, just recently made a presentation in Athens, Greece, and received approval to make a bid.

It is interesting to note that seldom are the world championships held anywhere but in Europe. In 1970, however, St. Catharines hosted the world championships at the Henley course. At present, they are competing against Indianapolis, Indiana, the only other North American city approved to make such a bid.

I think it speaks well for the Henley Rowing Corp., under the directorship of its president, Hap Lafferty, bid chairman George Potton, Tim Rigby and others for all their efforts.

Furthermore, I would like to take the opportunity to offer my wholehearted support of St. Catharines’ bid and urge all members of this House to support its quest to hold this prestigious sporting event in St. Catharines, Ontario.

NATIVE PEOPLE AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. Hampton: Yesterday, in front of the Legislature, a group of native people gathered to protest many grievances they have with the justice system. The specific event that sparked their protest was the death and decapitation of an Indian woman and the resulting conviction of the offender with only a two-year sentence.

As the people at the demonstration stated very clearly, they cannot believe that crimes against property receive much more severe sentences than the individual in this case did for the decapitation and, basically, cutting up of a human body. But their protest involved much more than just this single event. As many of the speakers pointed out, across northern Ontario, in too many cases, there are jails which have a disproportionate number of native people in them, a disproportionate number of native people serving sentences that may be, in their view -- and I must admit I feel the same -- out of line.

They are pleading for greater understanding from the justice system of the plight of native people, and they pointed to what is happening right now in Manitoba. The government of that province has undertaken a commission studying the plight of native people and the way they are treated by the justice system. I would recommend one for this province too.

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). Taxpayers in six Simcoe North municipalities were hit with some bad news recently. The bad news is that their tax bills will increase substantially this year because of the cost of waste disposal.

The North Simcoe Waste Management Corp. concludes that it will cost a total of $3.6 million to collect, transfer and transport garbage from the towns of Penetanguishene and Midland and the surrounding municipalities. Tippage fees at Keele Valley landfill site, the final destination for the garbage, will be increased to $85 a tonne from the current $50, and the cost of hauling this garbage is also expected to rise.

This additional financial burden will be placed squarely on the backs of the taxpayers at a time when the government has frozen the unconditional grants to Ontario’s municipalities at 1988 levels. This is clearly unacceptable.

The time is long overdue for the minister to get down to the task of solving the province’s waste management crisis. It is also time for his government to rethink its policy on unconditional grants to municipalities.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NURSES’ PARTICIPATION IN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is my pleasure to announce today amendments to the regulations governing the administration of Ontario’s public hospitals which will give both nursing administrators and staff nurses a greater voice in decision-making in their institutions.

Four recent reports, by the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto, the Ontario Nurses’ Association and my ministry’s Advisory Committee on Nursing Manpower, all concluded that the quality of worklife for nurses needs to be improved.

Under the amendments, staff nurses and nurses who are managers will be represented on committees involved in the hospital’s administration. These include, among others, the patient care committee, the utilization review committee, the occupational health and safety program and the health surveillance program. In fact, nurses will have an active voice in administrative, financial, operational and planning decisions in their hospitals.

In addition, nursing representatives from both staff and the administrative groups will also be accorded a voice on the emergency planning committee. The staff nurse representatives will be elected by their colleagues to ensure a truly participatory process.

We will be having further discussions with nursing, medical and hospital groups on the effective implementation of this new provision and on nursing representation on specific committees.

I will be writing to all the province’s public hospitals asking them to implement these changes as soon as possible. I am also urging them to take appropriate steps to improve the quality of worklife for their nurses, as this will inevitably have a positive effect on job satisfaction and, ultimately, on the care of the hospital’s patients.

Successful hospital administration is a partnership: a partnership of the administrative staff and of the people who give direct patient care. Bringing staff nurses into the decision-making process will broaden this partnership.

The question of professional and staff representation on the hospital board will be covered in a wide-ranging review of the Public Hospitals Act. This review will be a consultative process in which we will seek advice, opinions and recommendations from a wide array of organizations, associations and individuals, as well as the public.

I am also announcing today the establishment of a fiscal advisory committee on hospitals. This committee will be composed of representatives from the administration, the medical staff and the nursing staff.

The fiscal advisory committee arose from the Conjoint Review Committee which looked into hospital operations last summer. The conjoint review included representatives of the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Council of Administrators of Teaching Hospitals, the Ontario Nurses’ Association, the Ontario Hospital Association and my ministry.

It was the consensus of this committee that hospitals needed to develop strength in financial planning. The fiscal advisory committee will make that possible. Its mandate is to make recommendations to the hospital board on a wide range of subjects which will affect the operation of the hospital, how it is used and how it is staffed.

I used the word “partnership” a moment ago. The Conjoint Review Committee also used this word. It felt that our hospitals need to foster a sense of partnership among their administrators and their staff who are involved in giving care to patients. The more co-operation there is among nurses, physicians, administrators and all of the people who perform their services in a hospital setting, the better the care their patients will receive and the more effective hospital administration will be.

The membership on the fiscal advisory committee was designed to foster this partnership. However, we recognize that these initiatives are only part of the solution. They are but the first steps on the way to improving the quality of worklife for our nurses and involving them more fully in decision-making so that the entire hospital operation may benefit from their participation. We will continue to address nursing issues by working closely with hospitals and with nursing associations.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I would like to inform the members of a new product management system to be used by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario in determining what products will be sold in its 620 stores.

Members are aware that the last two years have seen many changes take place at the LCBO, including a major management reorganization in late 1987. All of these changes have worked towards making the LCBO a more customer-driven and businesslike organization.

This morning, the new LCBO product listings system was unveiled to representatives of both domestic and foreign beverage alcohol suppliers. The goal of the new system is to meet the needs of consumers who are demanding better access to a broad selection of products. It will also appeal to suppliers who want more flexible access to liquor store shelves and an improved ability to move products in and out of the distribution system in response to rapidly changing consumer tastes and preferences.

The new policy was written following extensive consultation with the industry last fall and will come into force over the coming year. I believe these new changes clearly represent a step forward in fostering a businesslike environment for fair and open competition between beverage alcohol suppliers.

The new policy is consistent with the principles of international trade in that all suppliers will be treated exactly the same. Each new product submission will require a comprehensive business plan and marketing strategy. If selected for consideration, it must then pass stringent lab and tasting tests. All listings will be required to meet their own individual yearly sales quota, agreed to in advance by the supplier, or face possible delisting. Suppliers will be able to appeal any listing or delisting decision to a special appeals committee not involved in making the original decision.

Current listings will be exempted from the new requirements until January 1 of next year. The first listings committee meeting under the new system will take place this summer. The detailed listing forms were made available to suppliers today. This market-driven system will create a much improved environment for suppliers and will offer a fair and easily understood set of rules under which they can market their products.

I am confident the new Liquor Control Board of Ontario product management system will contribute significantly to the LCBO’s business plans, while improving selection and access for both consumers and suppliers.

RESPONSES

NURSES’ PARTICIPATION IN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT / PARTICIPATION DES GARDES-MALADES À LA GESTION DES HÔPITAUX

Mr. B. Rae: In anticipation of the report on Monday of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board, on Thursday of last week the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Elston) announced the Liberal government was going to be studying the question of no-fault insurance. Coincidence, you say, Mr. Speaker? Just a coincidence?

The Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), knowing that on Orders and Notices there is a motion of nonconfidence in the government with respect to nursing and health care, chooses today to announce the amendments to Ontario regulation 518/88. After two and a half years of requests to the minister to make these changes, she chooses today to make this announcement. Just a coincidence, you say, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps. Stranger things have happened in the minds of men and of women.

I want to say to the minister today that we think this announcement is long overdue. It is one that is obviously a very necessary first step in the creation of a true democratic administration of our health care system, one in which we take seriously the requests of workers. If it is good enough for the workers in our hospital system, perhaps it will one day be good enough for the workers of General Motors, of Inco and of other places who have no rights with respect to the management of the places where they work.

We look forward to a reform of company law. We look forward to a reform of all aspects of insurance law so that drivers have some control over their own insurance system. I think this is a very necessary step, not only in terms of our hospital system but also in terms of recognizing the rights of working people everywhere.

I might add that one of the questions the minister is going to get is that if she is making these changes with respect to nurses, she is going to have to answer the questions of other workers within the hospital system as to why they are not being included on hospital committees and as to why they are not being taken seriously with respect to the fiscal administration of the hospitals.

I can tell her, from my experience, that everyone in the hospital system has ideas and has something to contribute to the management and operation of the hospital. I would have thought the minister would have wanted to make of the hospitals a true model that would speak not only to improving our health care system and to improving the conditions of nurses, but that also would be a model for other workers as well.

This change, as I say, is long overdue. It is a very necessary change. It is, however, only a first step. As the minister has said, we need to change the Public Hospitals Act. We have been looking forward to these changes for a very long time. The minister has been studying them for a very long time. I think time is wasting. It is time to get on with this question. I hope very much that the minister will make those changes.

Je veux dire que reconnaître enfin le travail des infirmières -- même si ça se produit la journée même où nous avons une motion de censure du gouvernement, précisément sur cette question de la reconnaissance du travail des infirmières dans notre système hospitalier -- c’est un changement que nous attendons depuis longtemps.

Mr. Reville: If I can continue where my leader has left off, clearly I am pleased about the small step that has been taken by the government today. I am concerned that the distance between steps may be too far and too long. I am concerned particularly about the wide-ranging review of the Public Hospitals Act that has been announced. It is important that such review catch up to all the work that has been done over the last eight years on the health professions legislative review, because obviously those two matters are closely intertwined. It worries me that the ministry is just now beginning the review of the Public Hospitals Act.

I am concerned as well that the minister says she is just now writing to the province’s public hospitals urging them to take appropriate steps to improve the quality of work life for their nurses. Clearly, we know there are other steps that need to be taken.

I know the minister will want to pay careful attention this afternoon during the nonconfidence debate. If it happens that the government does not resign at the end of that debate, at least it will have had the benefit of some other steps we will offer it which it should be taking to ensure that patients get the highest quality of care possible and that the nursing profession is protected.

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

Mr. Eves: It is my pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon and actually congratulate the minister on this step she has taken. This is a step we have been asking her to take since at least last March when the first nursing report was made public. I realize there were three others that followed. They all made similar recommendations.

Here we are not really talking about changing

an act of the Legislature but a regulation pursuant to

an act. I would like to have thought this could have been done many months ago. However, as they say, “Better late than never.” I think it is a good step. It is a good step to get some very direct input, as I have said on many occasions, from those in the nursing profession who deal with the problems in the public hospital system and elsewhere in health care on a day-to-day basis, and who are more than familiar with the problems in the system.

We are looking forward also to the minister’s review of the Public Hospitals Act, because that is a very important second step that has to take place. This is a good first step with respect to the nursing profession. There are many other problems the nursing profession has out there unrelated to this, but this certainly at least gives nurses input on a very direct basis on what has to be done in our hospitals and health care system in Ontario today.

We look forward to the minister’s proposal with respect to the Public Hospitals Act.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr. Runciman: I have a brief response to the public relations fluff announcement made by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye). It is obvious the government is desperate to fill the air to give an indication that something is happening over there. This is really nothing new, nothing meaningful, other than some sort of very belated response to very severe and harsh criticism by the Provincial Auditor on two occasions with respect to management practices at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

I think the only real, new initiative we have seen undertaken at the LCBO in the past couple of years was a result of a recommendation from the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, and that was for the expansion of agency stores in this province. Indeed, we compliment the minister and the government for accepting the recommendation of our party and following through on that very important consumer-oriented recommendation.

Looking at the monopoly the LCBO has with respect to the sale of alcohol products in this province, I want to suggest that perhaps more innovative ways should be looked at in terms of recognizing the very real needs of consumers in this province. We are quite prepared to work with the minister in achieving that kind of objective.

Mr. Speaker: That completes ministerial statements and responses.

Mr. Ferraro: Is that what he wants, liquor in the corner stores?

Mr. Speaker: I have not called for oral questions yet.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. There is growing evidence that there is a real problem of affordability with the rates that are being imposed by the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board. He will know that under

section 27 of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board Act, he has the power to make a policy statement for the board, and that under

section 20 of the act, the board has the legal jurisdiction to review any decision it has made, to consider evidence before it and to make a new decision with respect to any rate it has established.

I wonder if the minister can tell us whether it is his intention to tell the board how this government feels about senior citizens who are facing increases of 20, 25 and 30 per cent and about others who are facing increases as high as 82 per cent, and whether he does not think that affordability is something the board should take into account when setting the rates for drivers in this province.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is absolutely wrong when he talks about increases of 20 and 25 per cent for senior citizens. The honourable gentleman is trying to create here something approaching fear among those people.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that from what I saw in a preliminary way yesterday, the implications across the province for seniors are somewhere around perhaps one per cent when we deal with the discrimination issue. I have some preliminary work that has been done now by the auto board to look at what happens in some communities with respect to seniors. The indication is nowhere close to 25 per cent when you address the issue of benchmark rates, or even upwards of the top rate.

His assertion is absolutely false. In fact, it seems to me to lead to unproductive activity on his part with respect to this issue in trying to scare people. I think he would know that as a result of that, I will not be sending out a directive at this point when we do not know exactly what the insurance companies are going to file in the way of their own rates.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister has said that my views are unproductive. I am sure the senior citizens of the province will be interested to hear that their views are also regarded as unproductive, as what I am saying in the House today is reflective --

Hon. Mr. Elston: That is not what I said. I said your scare tactics are unproductive and you’ve been doing it a lot lately. That’s what you do these days.

Mr. B. Rae: No. It does not take any imagination to know that if 20 seniors’ organizations are out there complaining about the rate increase, it is not because of anything said by the New Democratic Party; it is because they read the newspapers and watch television and know exactly what their increases are going to be.

The minister has refused to answer my question. Once again, if we have people whose rates are going up and they cannot afford it, is that something that bothers him or not? If it does bother him, why does he not exercise his power under the act to ask the board to review its decision so that nobody faces a rate increase he simply cannot afford as an individual consumer? What is he going to do about affordability?

Hon. Mr. Elston: What I am going to do today is indicate quite clearly that we have a benchmark increase of 7.6 per cent. That gentleman over there is making some suggestion about outrageous increases for which he has no evidence when it applies to senior citizens. That gentleman is trying to stir up a storm before the companies have had a chance to file rates and tell the market what the real cost is going to be from place to place.

With respect to seniors, for the member’s purposes and for the purposes of all of the members here, there are some preliminary numbers that ought to be repeated around the province. At the benchmark rate, somebody in Scarborough, for instance, can expect an impact of about one per cent. A benchmark rate would take it up to eight per cent. In Windsor, the new plan would show a decrease of nine per cent at the benchmark up to minus two per cent. In Thunder Bay, the new plan will be minus 14 per cent; the benchmark would be minus eight per cent.

In Timmins, it is minus 20 per cent with the new class plan, and the benchmark would take it to minus 13 per cent. Ottawa would be at minus six with the new class plan and at plus one per cent when it is taken to the --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Would the members please allow the member for Welland-Thorold to ask a final supplementary.

Mr. Kormos: The board’s own report notes that the impact of these increases on some segments, in particular young females, and not just older drivers but more particularly newly licensed older drivers, will be very significant, yet the board declined to impose any requirement that there be a phasing in. In view of the board’s own acknowledgement of the significance of the impact on those classes of persons, would the minister use his jurisdiction under

section 27 to direct a consideration of phasing in for these people who are going to be hardest hit by the massive increases?

Hon. Mr. Elston: What I have been telling people lately is what I will be telling the member today, and that is that we have a 30-day period after the announcement in which companies will be filing their rate increases as suggestions to the board. That has to take place so that we know exactly what is going to be occurring in the marketplace. I will be watching that filing as it comes about, obviously over the next 30 days.

The honourable gentleman is quite right that there are some changes required because of the introduction of a new class plan that we are quite in favour of and that eliminates the discrimination about which we spoke yesterday. I can tell the honourable gentleman that there are some adjustments required in the marketplace -- there is no question about that -- and there are some increases.

But as I said with respect to the people in Ottawa, in the example of the seniors I gave just a couple of minutes ago, when we talk about an increase of about plus one per cent on their current average premium, it will move the premium from about $524 upwards to $564. It is an average number, but it is interesting to indicate that the premium at that level, the $564, is still a very reasonable rate for coverage.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister should be careful because we do --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct the record. I gave a wrong number when I was quoting a number for market premiums for Ottawa. I had indicated that the difference between the board class impact and the benchmark impact was one per cent, but I misquoted the average premium numbers associated with both of those numbers. The number I should have quoted was the difference between the market premium now, which is $559, and the benchmark impact, which would take the number to $564, which I indicate was the correct number. I apologize for the mistake.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: My question is for the Minister of Health. Is it still the view of the minister that the nursing shortage is essentially a Metropolitan Toronto problem?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have said on numerous occasions in this House that the vacancy rate in nursing varies across this province, from zero in some communities where it is no problem to seven per cent in downtown Toronto.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister has told the Toronto Star that she regards it as essentially a Metropolitan Toronto problem.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: He’s subtle.

Mr. B. Rae: I always enjoy hearing from the Premier because nobody is asking him any questions these days.

McKellar General Hospital has had to temporarily close four of the beds in an 11-bed intensive care unit; the minister will know McKellar is in Thunder Bay. Major surgeries have frequently been cancelled because of a lack of nurses to care for patients in post-op or ICU, and ICU nurses have worked up to 110 hours over a two-week pay period.

They had a regional meeting of the Ontario Nurses’ Association in Thunder Bay the other day. There were 22 units represented, hospitals and health care units throughout northwestern Ontario. More than half of those units reported severe staff shortages of trained nurses. Can the minister tell us why she continues to take the view that this is really only a Metro problem and not a province-wide problem?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I will repeat again for the Leader of the Opposition, and perhaps this time he will pay attention, that in fact I said very clearly that the vacancy rate across the province is quite varied. In some communities it is somewhere between zero and two per cent to three per cent and in downtown Toronto it is seven per cent.

We are particularly concerned in downtown Toronto, because it seems to be focused in the area of critical care, and we are moving and taking steps to address that situation. The member knows full well that there are many challenges facing northern Ontario. We have, as he knows, established the Northern Health Manpower Committee to address many of these issues that are unique to the northern part of our province.

Mr. B. Rae: There are communities like Thunder Bay with more than 100,000 people, and smaller communities like Red Lake and Geraldton that are reporting very severe staff shortages and are unable to deal with problems as a result.

In light of what the minister has heard now from the ONA, in light of what she has heard from a great many people throughout the system, can she tell us why her government continues to take the view that it will not open up the collective agreement, allow serious bargaining to take place with respect to nursing shortages and deal collectively with the government and the Ontario Hospital Association together, deal with the problem, partly a problem of recognition but partly and in good part a question of money?

I cannot understand why the minister would be reluctant --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. B. Rae: -- to sit down and let that process happen and make sure we respond to this crisis.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I find it shocking that the Leader of the Opposition would stand in this House and advocate government intervention in the collective bargaining process. The Ontario Nurses’ Association and the Ontario Hospital Association collectively agreed to the first contract ever agreed to without arbitration. That the member would stand in this House and ask for government intervention, I find shocking.

Mr. B. Rae: Are you equally shocked with the ONA?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister completed the response a while ago. Please stop wasting time.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. It was reported that this morning, on her way to cabinet, the minister was questioned by the media about the impact of auto insurance rate increases on seniors. Her response was -- apparently this is on tape -- “Seniors are not a poverty group.”

I want to indicate to the minister a couple of quotes from a study done for the Social Assistance Review Committee, An Overview of Poverty in Ontario: “Families with heads aged 65 or older, poor families in Ontario, totalled 27,300.” Another quote: “Almost half of all unattached elderly persons in Ontario were poor in 1984: 115,000 out of 253,000.”

Will the minister be kind enough to explain to this House and to seniors across this province, many of whom exist on meagre fixed incomes, why she, as their advocate in cabinet, is not addressing their very real concerns about the way this government and its New Democratic Party friends have treated their auto insurance classification changes?

Interjections.

Mr. B. Rae: I take the blame for a lot of things, but this is not one I’m going to carry the can for.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: There have been many reports in the press recently. I am consulting with seniors’ groups with regard to their reaction to the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board rates.

It appears from the analysis of the documents we have done to date that what a person’s increase or decrease in those rates may be depends very clearly on where he or she lives in this province, from a low in Timmins of a decrease of more than 19 per cent to a marginal increase in Scarborough for other age groups. This is the information I believe needs to get out to seniors so they can review in a rational manner the rates they may be involved with over the next short term.

Mr. Runciman: That was a complete avoidance of my question with respect to the quote attributed to the minister, “Seniors are not a poverty group,” which flies in the face of statistics prepared by her own government.

As the advocate for seniors, the minister should know that the new risk classification system for auto insurance will prohibit insurance companies from offering senior citizen discounts, discounts of between 10 per cent and 15 per cent traditionally based on age.

The minister was also quoted in this scrum as saying, with respect to rate increases for seniors, “Overall, the effect will be marginal .” If the cost of putting food on your table, your mortgage, rent, hydro or gasoline went up 20 per cent, 30 per cent or 40 per cent in nine months, with no improvement in the service, would the minister describe that as marginal? How does she justify that comment?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: I am certain that when the figures are analysed and presented to seniors and other age groups across the province, we will have an opportunity then to discuss actual realities. Many seniors in the province will experience decreases in their insurance premiums. Those who will be experiencing increases may wish to work with me and the insurance companies. There may be insurance companies that may wish to phase in increases over a period of time. This may well be a solution which would be palatable to those who are faced with large increases, whether they be seniors or whether they be 30-year-old drivers with little driving experience.

I am certain that those talks are yet to come, both with the insurance people and with the groups who are concerned to date, and I would be happy to work with those groups.

Mr. Runciman: I do not know if that was an announcement of a new policy or not. Time will tell.

I want to read a couple of other statistics from the Ministry of Transportation report in 1987, Ontario Road Safety. Numbers show that relative to the total number of licensed drivers in each age cohort, drivers in the 65-to-74 age group have the lowest level of accident involvement. Drivers in the 75-plus age group have the second lowest. I can go on and on with statistics, proving that this age group is the safest in terms of driving.

Given those statistics, which the minister should be aware of, does the minister still support this very unfair risk classification change brought in by her government with the support of the NDP, a system that penalizes our safest drivers, a system that penalizes people surviving on fixed incomes at poverty levels, a system that penalizes older people in society --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the minister hear any question?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: I heard the first part of the question and I will certainly address that portion of it.

As advocate for seniors, I am very pleased to hear the honourable member opposite quote those figures, because there is a prevailing attitude that perhaps older drivers are not cautious and safe drivers. For him to indicate to the House today that in fact older people are good drivers makes me feel very good, and I hope that people will take note of those figures today.

Ontario is moving from a classification system which is based largely on age, sex and marital status to one which bases premiums on identifiable risks. Those seniors who do have good driving records, as many of them do, will find that their rates will be comparable.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Eves: I have a question to the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware that health officials in the Kitchener-Waterloo area put out a health advisory yesterday, advising all residents of the area to boil their water for 10 minutes before using it, even if it is just to be used for brushing their teeth. The advisory was put out because of the presence of a type of coliform in the water.

Coliform, as the minister knows, can cause a number of gastrointestinal problems, including vomiting, diarrhoea and nausea. Can the minister tell us when she was first aware of the situation, the background that led to the discovery of the contaminant in the drinking water and what action is being taken to provide safeguards for the residents of the area?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to thank the member opposite for his question. In fact, the information I have is that the public health unit was contacted February 13 in the afternoon. It notified our public health officials the morning of February 14. Notification to boil water went out from the ministry the afternoon of February 14.

Mr. Eves: The minister will also be aware that regional health officials have ordered the J. M. Schneider meat plant, as well as other meat processing plants, shut down until the extent of the problem is determined. However, the tests of the water were first taken on February 6 and repeated over the course of the next few days. Each test, according to published reports, showed that the contamination was getting worse as each day went along.

This means that for almost a week, Schneider and other meat processing plants were possibly using contaminated water for the processing of their products. This indeed raises a serious health concern, not just for the residents of the Kitchener-Waterboo area but for the entire province. Can the minister tell us what precautions she has ordered be taken to protect the safety and health of Ontarians who may have purchased meat products processed during this period of time?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I believe it is very important that we make sure that we have all of the facts. I would say to the member that from our perspective we are still investigating this matter to make sure that we have all of the facts and the information.

As the member will know, the Ministry of the Environment does the sampling for the region. We acknowledge in fact the importance of the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Health officials working together closely so that this information is made available not only to public health officials but also to the public so that all of the facts and the information will be known and people can boil water or respond appropriately.

Mr. Eves: I understand what the minister just said. However, the fact remains that these plants were operating during the period of time from February 6 until now, and there is at least the possibility of this contamination. I think it is incumbent upon the Minister of Health to take some precautionary steps.

The entire manner in which this issue has been handled raises some serious concerns. Apparently, the presence of contaminants in the water was first known by regional officials and Ministry of the Environment staff on February 8, that is, one week ago. The minister’s officials and regional health staff must have known of the threat to human health, yet it was not until yesterday at five o’clock that an advisory was put out warning Kitchener-Waterloo residents to boil their water.

Can the minister tell the House why it took five days for her ministry to be made aware of the contamination problem, when the ministry of the person sitting next to her knew about it on February 8, and why the residents were not ordered to take precautionary steps some days ago?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would say to the member in answer to his first question that I gave him factual information as to the time when the ministry was notified and when the public health people took action. The local medical officer of health is taking appropriate action, such as informing people of the importance of cooking meat and boiling water and so forth.

We are also investigating the matter to ensure and improve the communication between the labs and public health officials, if it is necessary that it should be improved, so that we will have the information as expeditiously as possible.

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr. Laughren: I have a very direct question to the Treasurer. Could the Treasurer tell us which of the three cities of Sudbury, Brantford and Toronto had the largest percentage increase in the price of resale homes between January and December 1988?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: From my general reading of the press, I would presume it is Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Laughren: The minister fails. As a matter of fact --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I should have known you are much cleverer than your leader.

Mr. Breaugh: If you spent more time on this, you would know.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Was your supplementary, did the Treasurer fail?

Mr. Laughren: No, I said that the Treasurer failed. I do not have to ask that question. We know he did.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: My next guess is Sudbury.

Mr. Laughren: As a matter of fact, Brantford had the highest percentage of increase in 1988. The reason I put the question that way was that yesterday the Treasurer -- and he has said it on past occasions -- was trying to lead us all to believe that the problem of inflation in the housing market is a Toronto problem. That is simply not the case. It is a province-wide problem, and since this government came to power in 1985, the price of homes all across Ontario has gone up something like 113 per cent, while the consumer price index has gone up under 15 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting for a question.

Mr. Laughren: My question to the Treasurer is, will he now, immediately, impose a land speculation tax in Ontario?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No, and perhaps I should sit down at this point, but I feel that since the member’s preliminary comments were rather extensive, I should say that one of the attractive aspects of Brantford, perhaps over Sudbury and certainly over Metropolitan Toronto, is the quality of life that is available there.

While the increases the honourable member is referring to are undoubtedly correct, and I am very glad to be instructed by him, he would find that the housing prices are still considered by rational buyers to be reasonable in the area. If he went into the housing market in Brantford and Brant county, I can assure him that he and his family would be well accommodated for a reasonable amount, based on the indemnity that he receives for his duties here.

The nice thing about Brantford is that it is within relatively easy commuting distance of Metro Toronto or metropolitan London, metropolitan Kitchener and Waterloo and even metropolitan Caledonia. On this basis, for example, there is good Via Rail service both east and west. I heartily recommend to the honourable member or anyone else who is interested that Brantford and environs, including St. George, is one mighty fine place to live.

CONTAMINATED SOIL

Mrs. Marland: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Last June, eight months ago, I raised an issue with him regarding the lead-contaminated soil at a Pickering housing development. At that time, he said he would take whatever action was necessary to protect the future home owners in that area.

It has now been eight months and the lead-contaminated soil is still on the construction site. It is covered with torn plastic sheeting and no liner is underneath. The longer it sits there, the more it will recontaminate the soil around the houses. Home owners will soon be moving in. Will he ensure that this soil is moved before the new home owners and their children occupy the houses?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member will be aware that in this particular case, at some rather considerable cost to the taxpayers of the province, we addressed this particular problem that existed in Pickering as a result of a development taking place on a property which had been approved under the previous administration for the purposes of building.

When the actual development took place a number of years after the approval was given, we discovered that there had been some contaminated material there and we decided that we would take action as quickly as possible to deal with that. There had been some very difficult negotiations that took place between the Ministry of the Environment and the people who are developing and owning the property. Ultimately, we came forward with a solution.

We are attempting to move as quickly as possible to deal with this problem by removing the last of the soil that is there, but the member will know that the soil has been moved away from the area directly involving the homes. I am hopeful that the remainder of it can be removed at the earliest opportunity.

Mrs. Marland: I am wondering how much credence there is in the assurances of the ministry. I want to give as an example to this minister the fact that it is now seven months ago that his ministry staff stood in my riding of Mississauga South and assured the people who live close to the Tonolli and the former Exide plant that the soil in that area would be removed starting early this spring. Now he is in a war of words regarding who is going to pay for it. The people in my community do not care who pays for it. They are not responsible for it being there.

My question to him is with regard to the Tonolli-Exide property. Now that his staff will not give me a direct answer when I call his office, could he give those people a direct answer? Will that soil be removed this spring and will those people be protected?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We are attempting to negotiate an agreement in there, and I think there is a lot of goodwill all around in these negotiations.

The member will remember that in the situation with the city of Toronto, the city very quickly came to an agreement with the Ministry of the Environment on how we could work together to solve the problem. As a result, after an expenditure of some $8 million on the soil that was contaminated in the south Riverdale area, we have a cleanup which has been completed. We are now into the Niagara Street neighbourhood attempting to do the same thing, again with the full co-operation of the city of Toronto, and I must compliment the city on its co-operation.

I expect we are going to see the same kind of co-operation in the Peel region. I know that the member herself will be wanting to see that kind of co-operation so that we can move as expeditiously as possible to ensure that the soil is removed at the earliest opportunity.

At the conclusion of my answer to the question, I want to extend to the member for Mississauga South my own personal congratulations on a very important day in history, her birthday today.

RECYCLING

Mr. Velshi: My question is also to the Minister of the Environment. I was pleased to see that the city of North York has become the latest to join the ranks of those municipalities which have implemented the highly successful blue box program as part of their efforts to decrease the amount of waste entering their landfills.

I realize that this program has become extremely popular with residents, as it allows them to make an actual contribution to helping us meet the challenges we are facing in the area of waste management. Could the minister update us on the blue box program?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would be delighted to do so. I was happy to have the opportunity to be in North York yesterday with the chairman of the regional municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, Alan Tonks; the mayor of North York, Mel Lastman; officials from Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc., including Harold Corrigan, and a large delegation of local people who are interested in the issue of recycling.

I was delighted that in fact there are now more than 100 municipalities in Ontario, with North York coming on stream, that are involved in the blue box program and that I was able to indicate the support of some $707,000 as the ministry’s contribution to that.

I think what was equally significant, perhaps surprising however, was that I indicated there would also be $66,000 coming to help purchase what we call a shredder-mixing machine that will convert grass clippings, leaves and other plant debris into useful compost.

In North York we are going beyond the blue box program, and all of the local officials there were talking about innovative new ways to bring other things into that recycling stream.

Mr. Velshi: The minister has answered my supplementary also, in which case I would like to ask him if all the soft drink manufacturers in Ontario are now on board in terms of the recycling of their bottles.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am sorry I answered the supplementary that the member anticipated I might leave time for, but I can indicate to him, because it is an excellent supplementary question that was forthcoming and spontaneous, that all of the sectors appear to be coming on stream.

I have been involved in discussions with the plastics industry, with those who are involved in the production or distribution of groceries in Ontario, with newspaper publishers. Virtually everybody who makes a contribution to the waste stream in Ontario has been in discussion with ministry officials or with me to discuss what plans he would have to ensure that the products he produces in fact are products which are recycled in this province.

We want to ensure, for instance, that there are markets for those recycled materials. We want to ensure that virtually every possible material that we can find --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I am glad it is not the birthday of the member for Don Mills, too.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware, from recent correspondence he has had, that back in the spring of 1988, two employees of the Giant Yellowknife Mines Ltd. of Schumacher, employed in a gold processing mill, were overcome while engaged in processing computer parts of aircraft parts brought into Ontario from the United States. Similar problems have existed with reprocessing in Manitoba. Can the minister tell us his position with regard to the entry of these materials into Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: No, I cannot. In fact, if the member for Hamilton East could use the mechanism that perhaps was used by the member for Don Mills (Mr. Velshi) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), I could have given him a fuller answer here at question period. But I cannot give him those specific details now. I do not have them with me and I do not recall them. I could, if the member likes, take the question as notice, or perhaps he has something to say in his supplementary.

Mr. Mackenzie: I can send another copy of the letter to the minister. He has had it for several weeks and has not, as yet, responded to it.

It also points out that one Timmins gold mill has been transporting incinerated sewage sludge from Toronto to sewage incinerators for reprocessing. The Ministry of the Environment has investigated and found the sewage sludge contains dioxin and a variety of other exotic materials. Can the minister tell us if he approves of this exposure of the workers and what steps he has taken to guarantee that the workers are safe in these operations?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think the member for Hamilton East knows full well that I do not approve of any circumstance where a worker is exposed to a hazardous substance, except controlled rigidly pursuant to the terms of our regulations dealing with hazardous, dangerous and toxic substances. I do not have further information on the specifics he has referred to. He says he sent me a letter. I will investigate that and see if ministry officials are perhaps looking into it and preparing a response for him.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. It has to do with the minister’s new direction to solve the highway problems and the chaos around Metropolitan Toronto by making it more stringent and more difficult to obtain a licence in Ontario. On the other hand, there is another point of view in his ministry when the assistant deputy minister, safety and regulation, Margaret Kelch, who as registrar of motor vehicles, is quoted as saying: “I have asked our critics to prove you would get a safer driver by having more extensive or more difficult tests. None of them have.”

Could the minister explain the confusion? He is going in the direction of having far more stringent safety and driver training and driver testing. On the other hand, his assistant deputy minister is saying that is not really needed. Could he tell us really where his ministry is coming from?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Once again, the member for Markham has shown where the real confusion lies in this House, and it is with him. The issue is clearly not designed to ease the traffic congestion problems within Metro or Ontario, as he is well aware. The issue is one to direct our energies at getting off the roads those people we think should not be there by action of accumulating numerous demerit points -- of course, he would not have any personal experience with that system, I am sure -- and people who are constantly in violation of the Highway Traffic Act.

Mr. Cousens: I commend the minister, because I want to see us do everything we can to clean up the roads and have good drivers there. But I think there are a number of initiatives this minister has to take. It has to do with driver testing centres. There used to be six; there are now two. We have applicants waiting for up to two months to get a driver’s licence. We have staffing at a minimum to deal with the backlog. We have Metro drivers now facing increases in insurance. We have a crisis in Metropolitan Toronto on our highways.

It has to do with far more than just driver incompetence. It is one of the many areas that has to be addressed. What we are really looking for is an overall policy and strategy by his ministry to come up with a solution to the needs we have in this province.

I support the need for something there, but what is he really doing to come up with an overall comprehensive strategy that puts the responsibility on the government to come up with some solutions to the hazards we have on the roads, to the shortage of highways, to the failure of the infrastructure, to the failure of his government to do what is needed to solve --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: On a scale of 1 to 10, I think the member got one point with that question in his leadership bid.

He full well knows the efforts and the energies this government has exercised in the last three and a half years. He was there when we turned the sod for Highway 407, which his government sat on for 35 years. He was a member of the government when it cancelled the GO extension and the GO advanced light rail transit system. He was a member of the government when it moved out the one remaining driver examination centre in Metropolitan Toronto. He moved it.

This is the member for Markham who constantly criticizes this government for spending money, and we have done more in this ministry than those guys did in 35 years.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I am sure the minister knows that last week our former leader, Stuart Smith, urged half of Ontario’s community colleges to become polytechnical institutes that offer degree-granting programs in technology. Stuart Smith also urged the colleges to combine their resources with neighbouring universities to offer degree programs.

May I ask the minister whether she supports these proposals, and if so, how is she trying to bring them about?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I think it is important to recognize that Dr. Smith was speaking to a conference of our colleges and that one of the focuses of that conference was on the review we are undertaking of the college system. For that reason, I think we need to put Dr. Smith’s comments in the context of the review we have undertaken. I think members of the House may be aware that the review of the college system is looking at the original mandate of the colleges, how that has been fulfilled and in what ways it may need to change.

One of the issues we are looking at is the relationship between the colleges and the universities. I think it is extremely important to recognize that there are a great many views on what that relationship should be. There are some people who have called for some colleges to grant degrees and there are some who have suggested that perhaps that degree granting should be very specialized, in a sense, creating more polytechnic institutes. But there are many others who feel very strongly that any degree granting would really compromise the mandate of the colleges.

What I do find is there is a very widespread sense that there need to be closer linkages between colleges and universities and we need to look at the flexibility between the two systems, particularly in the area of transferability of credits. In that latter area, we are already taking some very active steps. We had a conference bringing college and university people together, and there have been a number of specific initiatives undertaken by colleges and universities since that time.

Mr. Daigeler: I thank the minister for this answer. I very much look forward to the report being completed soon, because I think it is a very important matter.

Stuart Smith also stated that, in his opinion, community colleges are viewed by politicians, some businesses and the public as second class, while universities are seen as the more prestigious post-secondary institutions. This is a view that concerns me greatly, especially when we look at the shortage of skilled labour, for which the work of the colleges is so important. Can the minister advise this House what she is doing in her ministry to improve the understanding and appreciation of the work of the colleges?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I do feel this is a very important question, because I believe the colleges have probably been successful beyond what anybody imagined they could be when they were originally founded. They have provided access to post-secondary education in the applied fields of arts and technology, they have had a very high quality of training and they have been relevant to the communities and to the workplace. Their graduates have a remarkable placement record.

Yet it is true, as the honourable member has mentioned, that there is a shortage in some areas of skills which the colleges served, and while we have seen a very large increase in enrolment in the universities, we have not seen that large increase in the colleges. We are not sure of the factors that are bringing this about. It may be that this relationship between colleges and universities is part of it, and we are looking at that. It may be that people do not know enough about the opportunities in the college system. We certainly have to look at relationships between colleges and high schools and colleges and the workplace. Our review is undertaking to do all of that.

If I can take just a moment, I think it is so essential that we recognize that this mandate is valuable and that we at no point accept a description of the college system in Ontario as a second-class system.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: It is first class in all ways.

FIREFIGHTING

Mr. Farnan: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. A couple of weeks ago I asked the minister about the intention of the Ministry of Natural Resources to reduce the number and the size of fire crews to fight fires across northern Ontario. Yesterday, apparently the news finally came out that 230 firefighters will lose their jobs.

In 1986, the loss in valuable timber alone was over $20 million. That is by his own ministry’s statistics. Can the minister tell us how it is that by reducing the size of his experienced fire crews, they are going to do a better job than has been done in the past when we have already had severe losses. How is it that smaller crews are going to do a better job?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I thought I gave the member a very explicit answer that was not hard to understand. I suggested to him that in the new era of fighting forest fires, where we have now nine CL-215 water bombers, there is a great ability to respond immediately, on a first-strike basis, to fires that are initiated. To modernize our way of fighting fires really has to do with this modem concept. While the fire crews are reduced in numbers of people at the crew level from five to three, the fact of the matter is that we are putting more crews in. I made that statement to the honourable member and it was just a matter of putting the numbers together.

The fact of the matter is, when we talk about 170 crews with five people in them, we are increasing the number of crews to 207 three-man crews. I told the member all that long ago. I do not know how much he wants to squeeze this issue before he goes back to tell his people that we have the finest firefighting capability of any jurisdiction in the country, and that we are doing a great job fighting fires, some 3,200 fires that started last year, some $50 million in expenditures.

I am very proud of my firefighters and what they are doing. The fact that we are modernizing it is something that we meant to do for the simple reason that we are modernizing the way we attack fires, and it has been very successful.

Mr. Hampton: The minister says that he is decreasing the size of the crews but he is going to have more crews. The Toronto Star notes that in the Algonquin region, for example, there are going to be fewer crews. I just checked with some of the district offices in the northwestern region, and they are going to have a reduction in the total number of crews.

If he is reducing the number of people -- and from what the minister said, my calculations say he is reducing it by about 230 people at least, which is what the paper says -- and he is not putting more crews into Algonquin, and he is not putting more crews in the northwest where he had a serious fire problem last year, where is he putting them? Where is he putting the new crews that he is establishing?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This member has a complete misunderstanding of firefighting in the province. The fact of the matter is that where the crews are deployed has to do with where most of the problems are, how we react to fires, how we get back on the first strike.

Mr. Hampton: It is a good question: Where are you putting the crews?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Be quiet for a minute, as I was when the member posed the question. I did not interrupt him once. I might interrupt him another time, but not when he is posing a question to me. Having said that, I would ask the member to mark this down carefully, then we will get someone to take it through to its conclusion.

The move from a five-person to a three-person core will increase the number of crews from 170 in 1988 to 207 in 1989-90; the member is not marking this down. This will increase the number of crews by 37. The member did not mark that down, so he is going to come back next week with the same damned question.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Villeneuve: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. To date the Minister of Transportation has not committed his government nor his ministry to a construction

schedule for Highway 416 down to Highway 401. In the last election campaign the Premier talked of accomplishing this by 1994 and he was quite loose and forthcoming with dates and figures.

Will the minister now outline the government’s construction

schedule and stages to extend Highway 416 down to Highway 401?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I really do not know where the member has been, but it was clearly not in eastern Ontario. The very same question was raised by my friend the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli) only a week or so ago. In fact, the highway will be under construction this year. We have made funding commitments, peaking in 1992, to the tune of $58 million. If that is not a commitment, I do not know what is.

Mr. Villeneuve: This highway is needed and it is badly needed to help the economy of eastern Ontario. Ottawa needs the highway and certainly municipalities such as those south of the Rideau River, Oxford on Rideau, South Gower, Edwardsburgh and Kemptville need it to boost their economies. They have affordable lots for sale. We need a road into Ottawa.

Will the minister give the House and the people of Ontario a firm

schedule as to commencement dates and anticipated completion dates for this highway?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am really surprised to hear from that member on that side of the House, questions with respect to delaying Highway 416 in any way. It sounds as if he is reading from some of the speeches that I have made.

Mr. Sterling: Remember the Queensway, Ed?

Mr. Villeneuve: Yes, what about the Queensway?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: With respect to the Queensway, we are a year ahead of the

schedule the former government had in place. With respect to Highway 416, nobody wants a four-lane highway into our nation’s capital more than we do or I do. If the member was so interested, why did the Conservative government delay that highway for 31 years?

Interjections.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Labour. I have had several phone conversations on Bill 208. The minister stated at the time of introduction of this bill: “It flows from a vision that the productivity and effectiveness of Ontario enterprise are nourished by the value we place in fair and equitable workplaces; workplaces where labour-management relations are based on trust and mutual understanding, where health and safety are protected and in which the exploitation of women and minorities is not tolerated.”

One of the ways in which this bill was to achieve this idea was through additional educational initiatives, such as uniform training programs administered by a new occupational health and safety agency. Given the critical role this agency will play in the new system of workplace health and safety regulations, can the minister tell this House exactly how this agency will function and, in particular, what the ministry’s role will be in the future? Will this government continue to take as active a role in the protection of workers in the workplaces of this province as it has done in the past?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Those are very good questions.

Let me deal first with the question of the continuing role of the government of Ontario through the Ministry of Labour. Obviously, the government and the ministry have overall responsibility for ensuring that we have done everything possible within the government to ensure healthy and safe workplaces. That, in fact, is why we are proposing in the legislation to create a new agency.

The significant bias of the bill is for training and education. Initially, the specific responsibilities of the agency will be to develop the training programs that will allow us, in the fullness of time, to ensure that in every workplace in this province there are people who have specific training and understand health and safety issues in those workplaces. That is really what the agency is going to start off doing once the bill is passed.

Mr. Tatham: This agency is going to rely heavily upon the certified members of the joint health and safety committees whom it trains. This legislation gives these workers the right to stop work in specific circumstances. How can the minister ensure that these members will be properly trained to carry out such duties? Has the minister given any thought to the way in which such a procedure will be implemented?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: We have given a great deal of thought to that. I do want to tell my friend the member for Oxford that the way we will finally put into place mechanisms to ensure that the full thrust of Bill 208 can be realized is through the consultative process in the agency. In fact, one of the things we have been able to achieve over the past 10 years in this province in health and safety is a good, solid framework of labour-management co-operation within our workplaces.

The internal responsibility system has a good 10 years of experience, and we are counting on that and on the bipartite nature of the agency and the procedures it will design co-operatively between labour and management to work out those details. The bill in fact provides for that so that the certification mechanism does not come into place before all those details have been worked out, as I said, on a co-operative basis.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP.

Mr. Farnan: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Norman Morris is the former president and chief executive officer of the Ontario Lottery Corp. During his tenure of office, the Ontario Lottery Corp. had extraordinary profits in eight successive years. He was fired, and very recently a financial settlement was made with Mr. Morris for unlawful dismissal. Will the minister come forward now and let us know what the nature of this settlement was? We believe it was a six-figure settlement. Will he reveal the nature of the settlement, and is he prepared to have this settlement come under some form of scrutiny?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I thank the member for the question. The question has been raised with me before, not in this Legislature but in other places.

I am advised that under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, that information should not be disclosed.

Mr. Farnan: If the shareholders of any corporation were in a situation where the chief executive officer was fired and a settlement was made for unlawful dismissal, there would be a public accounting to those shareholders. The taxpayers of this province are the shareholders in this government, and they have the right to know if the government has messed up on this and if, in order to cover its tracks, it has had to make an exorbitant settlement to Mr. Morris.

Will the minister allow this issue to go before the standing committee on public accounts so the taxpayers of this province can know how this government is spending the tax dollars of this province?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: Again, I can tell the member that quite a bit of negotiation has gone on between the Ontario Lottery Corp. people, the government and Mr. Morris. We feel the settlement that has been made is fair and equitable both to Mr. Morris and to the province.

I might also tell the member, since he is talking about the Ontario Lottery Corp., that he will be receiving very shortly our latest financial statement. I think he will be very pleased with the job that has been done for Ontario by the lottery over the last several months.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Sterling: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. I recently received a reply from the minister with regard to a contract he has let to Executive Travel Centre to handle all the government of Ontario’s air travel arrangements for the next three years.

I asked for specific information as to the individuals who were behind this contract and exactly what the advantage was of the Executive Travel agency over, I believe, another dozen that applied for this.

In the minister’s response he said to me: “Access is denied in part to the proposals and some of the evaluation criteria relating to third parties. The provision applies because the records contain financial and commercial information submitted in confidence which could reasonably be expected to cause injury pursuant to

section 17 of the freedom of information act. In addition, personal information is severed pursuant to

section 21.”

Is this the kind of information we can receive about substantial contracts that are going on and will favour and financially benefit a particular company? Can we not find out what --

Mr. Speaker: You have had ample time to try.

Hon. Mr. Patten: I think the member knows full well that there are provisions as to the sort of information we do share. If the member feels there is information that is warranted and that he is entitled to, he can certainly apply for that information and seek the support of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Of course, the Information and Privacy Commissioner will make a ruling and either provide him with the information or be able to explain why it might place this company in jeopardy to share such information.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr. McLean: I have a petition signed by 144 teachers:

“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.

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

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by over 100 constituents.

“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.”

It is so submitted and signed.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cousens: I have a second 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 so submitted.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Furlong from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr43,

An Act to revive I. Gosselin & F. Camiré Developments Limited and to change its name to Northern Frontier Develop. Ltd.

Bill Pr74,

An Act respecting the City of London.

Your committee recommends that Bill Pr83,

An Act to incorporate Ukrainian Evangelical Baptist Association of Eastern Canada, be not reported.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mrs. McLeod moved that, notwithstanding standing orders 2(

a) and 71(b), the House shall meet at 11 a.m. on Thursday, February 16, 1989, to consider one item of private members’ public business and that, notwithstanding standing order 71(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 63.

Mr. Reville: The New Democratic Party is clearly going to agree to the motion, but I think it should be noted that we normally sit for two hours on a Thursday morning. Given the government’s insistence that there is a great deal of business to be done, it seems odd that we are not meeting until 11 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr. Reycraft: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Before we begin on the debate on the motion of the member for York South, I would like to advise that there has been agreement by the three party whips that we share time this afternoon. It has been agreed that the wrapup speeches will start at 4:45 and that the balance of the time will be divided evenly by the three parties. As well, the wrapup speeches will be about 20 minutes in length for each of the three parties.

Mr. Speaker: I know the motion has not been put yet, but is there agreement?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: We can agree then that the parties will share equal times and that the windup speeches shall commence at 4:45.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am a little concerned about something which just transpired in here. It was my understanding that the House leaders had agreed to tomorrow’s schedule, which involved a slight variation in standing orders. I heard you put a question that, in my reading of the standing orders, would have required unanimous consent. It did not get that. I am a little at a loss here.

I understood that there was some negotiation and an agreement had been reached to sit tomorrow at 11, but I am worried that a precedent may have been set here that you can set aside the standing orders of the House by a majority vote rather than by unanimous consent. I would not like it to be taken as precedent.

Mr. Speaker: There was a motion put.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes, there was.

Mr. Speaker: I agree, and the motion was carried. There was ample time for the House to discuss it, debate it and vote on it, and the House decided the same as the House would decide on any standing order.

Mr. Cousens: Just set a precedent, Michael.

Mr. Breaugh: I think we’re all going to regret that.

Mr. Speaker: Where were we?

Mr. Breaugh: I think we’re all rethinking what we just did.

Mr. Speaker: There was agreement, as I understand, for the times for the debate this afternoon. I will recognize the member for Riverdale to put the motion.

Mr. Reville: I wonder if I might get unanimous consent of the House to move the motion on behalf of the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), who is not in the House at the moment.

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly find out. Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. Reville moved, in the absence of Mr. B. Rae, motion 5 under standing order 70(a):

That the government lacks the confidence of the House because of its failure to address in any meaningful way the crisis in the supply of nurses within the health care system, both with regard to the recruitment of adequate numbers of people and the retention of nursing professionals within the system, which follows from the unwillingness to address structural issues about the role, responsibilities, respect for and compensation of nurses, the result being that people in Ontario who need hip and knee replacements in order to retain their mobility and the chance to live independently outside institutions are forced to wait many months to get them, thousands of people -- including children -- needing heart surgery are forced to wait through months of being scheduled, cancelled and rescheduled for the surgery they need, and because hospital emergency departments (for lack of nurses) are forced to restrict noncritical admissions, patients seeking emergency care often have to travel considerable distances to find an emergency department that will see them for treatment.

Mr. Speaker: In the absence of the member for York South, the member for Riverdale has moved the motion of nonconfidence. I would remind all members that the debate will take place for the balance of this sitting and the standing orders are very clear that the Speaker shall interrupt the debate and call a vote on the matter at 10 minutes to six. If there is a recorded vote, then the bells will ring for up to five minutes.

Mr. Reville: It is a pleasure for me to be the leadoff speaker for the New Democratic Party with respect to our motion of nonconfidence in the government and specifically in the Ministry of Health, which we believe has shown regrettable dereliction of duty with regard to a critical health care profession for any province.

It is known by now, I know, because of the discussions that have occurred in the Legislature, that nursing is the largest profession in the province and is a profession that has increasingly come under siege, not only because of issues like pay, although there are significant issues regarding pay, but also because of the structural way in which the health care system has developed and because of the failure of government, this government in particular, to realize that structural changes must be made in order to give nurses control over the development and implementation of policy under which they are required to work.

That this is a critical issue is made patently clear by the announcement of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) today. My leader has already pointed out the amazing coincidence that on the very day our nonconfidence motion on a range of issues with regard to nursing was to be debated, we finally have the statement by the minister that amendments to Ontario regulation 518/88 have been made.

Of course, those regulatory changes are changes that have been long recommended to the Minister of Health by nurses, by others and by us. It would be inappropriate for me to suggest we are not happy to see those changes, although we believe those changes have been too long in coming.

We also believe those changes are very much an initial step in beginning to rectify the well-known problems in the nursing profession that have been brought to the attention of government, as the minister points out, by the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto, the Ontario Nurses’ Association and the Advisory Committee on Nursing Manpower, which of course is the government’s own advisory committee appointed by government to advise it on issues with respect to the nursing profession.

Perhaps in a more immediate way, these issues have been addressed by literally hundreds and thousands of nurses themselves who have reported to members of the Legislature and the government, in various ways, the kinds of conditions under which they work and the kinds of risks nurses themselves believe patients are exposed to due to, concerns they have been pointing out about the nursing profession.

Last year, earlier in this session, my leader and I had an opportunity to visit the nurses who work the floors of our hospitals and who provide the care for us when we are ill. We were both moved and amazed by the stories we heard.

We heard of young nurses with a couple of years experience who, due to cutbacks and the difficulty of attracting staff nurses, were being put into these situations that are the most extreme in hospitals, where patients are exposed to life-threatening situations. They were required throughout their shift to care for those patients, and sometimes during shift changes were exposed to having to care for a number of patients they very much considered to be too many.

They would have preferred a one-to-one ratio, particularly when a patient was in a life-threatening situation on some of the complex life-support systems that have been developed. They had to rush between stations in the intensive care units to monitor several patients at once.

In some cases, and in the more modern ICUs, it is sometimes possible to move a wall between intensive care beds so that it is much easier for one nurse to monitor two people, although the preferable situation is to have one nurse to one patient in those cases.

We were told by staff nurses that on occasion they actually had to hurry from room to room and deal with things I have very little knowledge of -- defibrillation and such techniques that I could not manage, or pronounce probably -- and that it was the kind of work stress to which they were exposed daily.

I have had an opportunity now to travel much more extensively in the province than I had when I first met with nurses at the Wellesley Hospital, and have learned that this, contrary to what the Minister of Health sometimes says, is not only a problem in Metropolitan Toronto, although the circumstances are somewhat different in Metropolitan Toronto, Mr. Speaker, as you will appreciate. It is somewhat easier for a nurse who wants to work to have a choice of working opportunities in an area where there are many, many hospitals.

I suppose there are 30 hospital opportunities in Toronto and you could go and work for an agency and then have some control over the kind of shift you work and the location in which you work.

Those are issues that of course are of a great deal of concern to nurses. We have a number of small urban areas in the province where if you want to work as a nurse, where you work is, say, at the Welland County General Hospital. I spoke to nurses there and discovered that the situation was a little bit different there, because many of the nurses needed to work in order to contribute to the family income. In those cases, sometimes the family income would be interrupted by layoffs, where the husband would be laid off at the plant and it became absolutely imperative for the wife to work and put the bread on the table.

What I discovered in those situations, in talking to a large number of nurses, was that the younger nurses intended to leave the profession as soon as they could find another opportunity. They were going to leave town or they were going to leave nursing.

The older nurses felt they were just going to have to continue on nursing, but they did not like the situation. They spoke to me of shifts that used to have 12 nurses and now commonly have eight nurses and the same number of people are being cared for. As you can see with fairly rudimentary mathematics, the nurses were required to do at least a third more work. There is another way of looking at it, which would say they were doing 50 per cent more work. But in any event, they were being required to do nursing that was much more intensive, even though they were not necessarily in an intensive care unit.

One of the other issues that is raised frequently by nurses relates again to the hospital cutbacks and the reduction in support staff. I can give you a simple example that is readily understandable. I talked to nurses at the Wellesley Hospital who told me it was not that long ago that there was an orderly for each floor and that the practice now is to have an orderly for five floors. This means nurses are now doing work that used to be done by support staff, and they find that work added on to their nursing workload creates other obvious pressures.

That is partly called the portering issue, which means nurses are now required to leave the floor with the patient in a wheelchair for discharge or transfer. Those transfers used to be effected through the use of support personnel and are not currently being done in that way.

That has a lot to do with the political economy of health and the attempt by the Ontario Hospital Association, and in another remove, the Ministry of Health, to reduce the costs that attract to the running of hospitals. Of course, it has had a negative impact on the practice of the nursing profession, an impact the nurses feel every day in their work.

Mr. Speaker, you will be aware, because we have addressed this in the Legislature on a number of occasions, that nurses have not sat idly by while their profession is under threat and in crisis. In fact, nurses everywhere have been speaking out about the concerns they see, about their concerns for the care of their patients, and have developed among other things reports such as this one, which I am sure all members have had a chance to read.

This happens to be a report commissioned by the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario. Their response is called “Sorry, No Care Available Due to Nursing Shortage.” The response is to an analysis in a labour market context which was commissioned by the RNAO and executed by Noah Meltz and Jill Marzetti. It is an excellent document. I am pleased it is here, although the recommendations made are not, in the main, brand-new recommendations. These recommendations have been made by nurses for some time. I think nurses realize that to get the attention of the government, sometimes it is necessary to get the reports up to a particular height. Sometimes the government will then take notice.

As it happens, this very day, not one hour ago, an envelope arrived on my desk. It is some information that has been sent to me by the Ontario Nurses’ Association, probably because --

Mr. Philip: You’re the NDP Health critic.

Mr. Reville: It is partly because I am the NDP Health critic. It is also partly because yesterday, on Valentine’s Day, in Ottawa there was an information picket at the Ottawa Civic Hospital and the Ottawa General Hospital, as well as at selected sites throughout the region, from 1100 hours to 1300 hours, which I take to be between 11 a.m. and one o’clock over the lunch hour, to protest current working conditions in area hospitals.

This is from their media release: Nurses feel strongly that they are more subject to burnout than people in other professions; that nurses are leaving in favour of part-time nursing; that they do not have time to give the quality of care that they want to; and that health care administrators are unwilling to provide adequate staffing, all leading to high levels of frustration within the profession. Staff nurses presently have no input into the health care system, which is inconsistent with the input of other health professions. Nurses are locked into their position and the responsibilities and pay associated with it, with little or no hope of future advancement.

These are key concerns among staff nurses. “Improvements in general working conditions must be made if we are to alleviate the present shortage and ensure the future of the profession.”

In one respect, the nurses’ concerns have been answered by the statement made today by the Minister of Health. That, of course, relates to a change in terms of professional advisory committees and other committees charged with the conduct of hospitals. It is my hope that these changes will be implemented as quickly as possible, and that staff nurses in particular will take their long-denied but necessary place in the management of hospitals and in the development and implementation of hospital policies. That is only one of the concerns addressed in reports like “Sorry, No Care Available Due to Nursing Shortage.”

Included with the press release is a letter that describes in more detail some of the issues facing nurses in the Ottawa area. When the Minister of Health takes a look at the Hansard of this -- or perhaps she is watching even now on a private television screen somewhere; I hope so -- she will realize that she is dealing not with a cyclical problem and not with a Metro problem, but with a problem that has been developing, that will not go away by merely waiting and that is not restricted to Metropolitan Toronto but is a problem throughout the health care system, throughout this province, and quite frankly, throughout other jurisdictions.

However, it is the Minister of Health’s responsibility to take care of this jurisdiction and it is our contention that unless further steps follow the announcement of today, we are going to find that nurses are going to continue to be under severe stress. Some of them will respond to that stress by finding other work. I have certainly spoken to nurses who think it is much less stressful and much more rewarding to become real estate agents, for instance.

Mr. Philip: Drug salesmen.

Mr. Reville: Detail person, as offered to me by my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. Of course, we all know that the term “detail man” nowadays is not current because many of the people doing that work for pharmaceutical companies are in fact women and many of them were trained as nurses to begin with.

One of the most devastating documents I have had a chance to read lately is a report, commissioned by the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto, which deals with an analysis of job satisfaction among hospital staff nurses. If it were my responsibility to run the health care system in Ontario instead of just to criticize it, this report would make me stay up nights, because this report indicates there is overwhelming dissatisfaction among the very professionals who are evaluating their own profession.

When that occurs among any group of workers, we know that swift and decisive action needs to be taken or it is going to be difficult to attract young people into that profession, or once people have begun that profession, to keep them there. This is a problem that is an everyday concern in northern Ontario, the question of the attraction of health care professionals and the retention of health care professionals once they are there. It is, I think, a matter of extreme concern, and should be a matter of extreme concern to this government, that many nurses would not recommend to their children that they follow them into that profession.

That is a very telling attitude. It says something about changes in the way women view their work and their role. Those are changes I applaud, but the health care system is going to have to wake up and realize that women are not prepared to trail around behind some gentleman in a white coat with a stethoscope and an MD stuck on him, that those days of martyrdom are gone and should be gone. I am glad they are gone, but the system has not caught up yet; for sure the system has not caught up.

There are nurses who are far more skilled in a number of procedures than any physician is ever going to be, yet it is the physicians who sweep through the wards and have managed to maintain control of all the power structures. Some physicians have seen the light. They realize that this situation cannot go on and they are now belatedly joining the nursing profession and demanding that changes be made. I am glad to see that it is possible for us to learn things.

There are a number of problems in the health care system. We can avoid one of the problems by ensuring that those parts of the system that are very strongly in place do not deteriorate because the nursing profession is under too much stress.

It is possible to look at the way nurses are remunerated and to do that right now; to look at the educational opportunities that are available to nurses and to attend to that right now; to make sure that these regulatory changes that we heard announced today in fact do give nurses real power in terms of the management of the health care system and in terms of the development of policy programs within the health care system.

It is not at all sure that the regulatory changes that have been announced will do that. There may be some empowerment that has to occur in addition. It may not be sufficient to have nurses there at the table, but that will be a start.

Mr. Speaker, you will hear more from my colleagues throughout the afternoon. This is a matter about which the New Democratic Party feels very urgently. We pledge ourselves to continue to work with nurses and those who care about health to ensure that this crisis is alleviated, and alleviated properly. It is because the government has failed to attend to these problems that the New Democratic Party has no confidence in the government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The next speaker, the member for Simcoe West.

Mr. McCague: I am pleased to join in the discussion of our health care system and, in particular, health care as it applies to the valuable contribution of the nurses involved with that. Unfortunately, I had the opportunity to be in hospital not too long ago. I found the doctors were quite short and kept on the move, and where I got the most pleasure was from the treatment I got from the nurses. I do not know whether I am any different from other members of this House, but I doubt it very much.

I want to take this opportunity to put on the record two or three things as they apply to my riding. I am pleased to see the parliamentary assistant to the minister here in the minister’s absence. Members will note that the parliamentary assistant has been studying health care in a much warmer climate and is showing the effects of it, as he sits in his seat here today.

The minister was kind enough to have recently, just a couple of weeks ago, approved 25 additional beds for a nursing home in Coilingwood, which will allow for the construction of a new building with approximately 60 beds. The minister did act fairly quickly when I complained about the telephone system as it applied to the ambulance service in my riding. There are quite a few other things that she has not seen her way clear to be so supportive of, at least to this point.

In the last election, the member for Dufferin-Peel (Mrs. Wilson) took over the parliamentary responsibilities for the Orangeville hospital, and the parliamentary assistant will be aware that the people there are upset because there has been a cap of $20 million put on the government’s contribution to the costs. Even though it is true that there is a letter on file from some person in the ministry agreeing to a $20-million contribution to the capital cost, that came late in the planning process and as a great surprise to the people involved there.

The people in Collingwood have been working diligently to raise money as their contribution towards the capital cost of renovations or a new hospital in that town. One of the things that is really disturbing about that is that in a relatively small place, they raised $4 million after the Premier (Mr. Peterson) had come up and encouraged them to do that and given them not a full assurance, but encouragement to proceed with this. He thought the government would be able to fund its share of the work that was necessary in Collingwood, only to find the government dragging its feet.

I know that the government does not have a bottomless pit from which to get funds to build new hospitals, but I think it is wrong and it is very difficult for local people when the government encourages them to raise those kinds of sums of money and then delays and delays the implementation of the whole program. It is very disconcerting for the community.

There is one other aspect of the way the minister seems to be treating these issues. It is very difficult to get somebody to come right out and say, “The minister said we could get some money in our town” -- X, Y or Z -- “if we could only find some way of rationalizing the doctor situation.” I think that means, “If you, Mr. Hospital Administrator, or the hospital board could persuade all the doctors to go on salary, then we might be able to approve your capital costs.” I cannot say with all surety that is the way the ministry is leaning, but I have fairly positive indications that that is the way it seems to be going.

I am starting to get calls from people who are concerned about the backlogs for heart bypass surgery. I have not run into one yet who is really impatient. The longest one reported to me in my constituency is now four months. I do recognize it is a problem which is being brought to the minister’s attention by nurses, doctors, administrators, people needing the surgery and so forth.

One item for which the ministry has some responsibility is the matter of the integrated homemaker program. I guess there is no issue on which I had more letters than when it appeared that the Red Cross might have to discontinue its service. It was encouraging that the funds were provided to cover the deficit. What will happen in the future is hard to know, but as we all know, the cost of care at home is probably a tenth of what it is in the hospitals and much lower than it is in nursing homes, so I hope the ministry will see its way clearly to funding that and allowing those nurses to continue.

I have a lot of constituents who are upset. It seems to be that doctors can get their patients’ attention fairly quickly. Doctors are concerned about the imposed settlement they received from the ministry. They in turn have quite a few of their patients upset about the same thing.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the ministry would want to roll back the salaries of optometrists. There must be some hidden plan over there in which the government wants to whack away at some of the professionals. I do not think personally that it is wise. I think that kind of bashing runs through the whole community and does nothing but lower the opinion of government in the minds of many of our citizens.

I will leave the rest of our party’s time for others in our party who wish to speak.

The Acting Speaker: The next speaker, the member for Elgin.

Miss Roberts: Today we are facing an exciting and challenging time in the health history of our province. We have created in this province a health care system that is second to none, a system that is valued and highly valued by its citizens.

Yet health care as we know it is facing a number of economic, demographic and technological forces that demand that we come up with some new answers: how to manage our precious health resources with the finances available to us, how to provide the care and support programs that our growing elderly population needs and how to measure and evaluate the technological advances so that they serve us and improve the health of our people. These are the challenges that our government is facing and addressing.

I believe that in this province we have the responsibility to show leadership, to use the great variety of talents and abilities that are available to us and to help the way to a better health care future. As our Minister of Health has said, health care is not a partisan issue. It crosses all political lines and provincial boundaries.

As we build our health care future, we recognize that the nursing profession itself is clearly in a time of transition. The way in which this profession changes and evolves over the next few years is bound to have a major impact not only on the quality of Ontario health care, but also on the range of health services that we are able to offer.

One of the difficulties we are facing today is staff shortages in certain specialized areas of nursing, particularly in the Metropolitan Toronto area. The issue is a complex one because right now in Ontario we are graduating about 2,800 nurses each year. While the number of nursing positions in the community colleges has increased, the positions are filled up as quickly as positions become available.

It is clear then that the difficulty is not so much a question of attracting nurses to enter the profession as it is a question of encouraging nurses to remain in their careers. We know that women have greater career opportunities now than ever before. We know that the job of a nurse, while very rewarding, is also very demanding.

It would be naïve of me to suggest that any province or any political party has a quick fix for the nursing issue. Shortly after her appointment, our Minister of Health asked the Advisory Committee on Nursing Manpower, a committee made up of nurses and ministry representatives, to undertake an inquiry into nursing issues and to bring forward recommendations for consideration. The committee’s report was released in September. The other reports by the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario have subsequently been released.

While the recommendations in those reports are under review, our government is moving in a number of areas. As the minister said in the House earlier today, our government is now bringing forward regulatory changes to the Public Hospitals Act to create a much larger role for nurses in hospital management. These are needed but interim changes to adapt dated legislation to the needs of nursing and to the modern hospital environment where most nurses work.

More important, our government will move ahead with a full review of the Public Hospitals Act with the aim of having new legislation ready for introduction in this House in the fall of 1989.

A consultation process will be announced shortly and nurses will be invited to participate in the updating of public hospitals legislation.

These legislative changes will give nurses a stronger voice in shaping their work environment, but the resolution of the problem of job dissatisfaction among nurses will not be found without the co-operation of the hospitals that employ the nurses, the associations that represent the nurses and other professionals who work with the nurses. We must find a way to bring all interests together to seek practical short-term and long-term solutions to the problem.

In the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital, which is in my riding of Elgin, they have had a medical-nursing liaison committee for almost two years, helping in the internal management of the hospital. This shows the commitment to working together in that area to have a better health care system.

I am looking forward to seeing what changes will be made in the structure with the new regulation that has been brought forward today.

As we look for these solutions, the government will also move forward with its own health care agenda, including the expansion of community-based facilities. Our government has made a commitment to double the number of people receiving health care in community health centres and health service organizations. We are also looking to a major expansion of services provided through public health units and we are funding a new positive shift towards a greater emphasis on community-based health promotion and disease prevention programs.

All of these developments mean there will be more flexibility, options and choices for nurses in the types of settings where they will be able to work and carry out their professional responsibilities.

Nursing has an essential role to play as we move forward towards a new vision of health care for this province; indeed, a special challenge for nurses to make the voice of nursing be not just heard but an effective agent of change in bringing about our health care future.

I would like to commend the Minister of Health for her announcement today, an announcement that will promote new leadership roles for nurses in hospital management. I would like to commend her for her decision to proceed with a thorough review and examination of the Public Hospitals Act. I would like to commend her for leadership in working to bring a positive and creative change in the nursing issues in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have other participants in the debate? The member for Simcoe East.

Mr. McLean: I am extremely pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on this motion, because I sincerely believe this government has led us down the path and into a health care crisis in Ontario. This crisis involves a growing shortage of nursing personnel; this crisis involves a growing shortage of hospital beds; this crisis involves a delay in hospital capital construction; this crisis involves a growing lack of home care for the sick and the elderly; this crisis involves increasing surgical delays, and this crisis involves a health care system that is growing sicker by the minute under the direction of this government.

We recently heard the Minister of Health acknowledge that there is a serious problem. She knows the shortage of qualified nurses exists, but she fails to respond to this extremely serious problem. What does she decide to do? She decides to have another inquiry, another study. Studies and inquiries can only go so far. I honestly believe this is just one more example of the government’s stalling tactics. It is one more example of the government abdicating its responsibility.

The Minister of Health recently announced the terms of reference for an independent inquiry into the scheduling of cardiac surgery at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto. This inquiry is supposed to look into the hospital’s policy and practice with regard to the method of determining which cases should take priority over others, the monitoring of patients on waiting lists for heart bypass surgery, the cancellation or postponement of scheduled bypass surgery, the scheduling of patients for bypass surgery and admissions into the cardiovascular unit.

I think the following is an extremely important

section that is being reviewed, because it indicates to me that the minister is more than aware of the shortages of nurses: the operation and administration of the intensive care unit resources and the cardiac care unit resources, including nursing and admission policies and procedures.

We recently heard that some of the 40 children requiring heart surgery at the Hospital for Sick Children here in Toronto were sent home to wait up to eight months for the surgery they require. The shortage of intensive care nurses has forced this hospital to cancel and rebook heart operations for children. Delays have left the children, ranging in age from one year to 15 years, waiting anywhere from six weeks to eight months.

The shortage of qualified nurses has hit me close to home in my own riding of Simcoe East. It seems that almost daily I receive at least one telephone call or letter from a constituent or relative of someone who has faced heart surgery delays time after time after time. What am I to tell these people I will be telling the members about in a few minutes?

In May of last year the Chairman of Management Board spoke against a motion by my party by saying there was no need for an emergency debate because the Ministry of Health was: “making progress on the issue of nursing shortages. It may well be an emergency to the opposition, but this government has the matter well in hand.” If this is an example of the government having something well in hand, then I shudder to think what the situation would be like if the government let something get out of control, and believe me, this is a situation that is clearly out of control.

Let me talk about some of the people in my area who have been waiting for surgery. Lloyd Crawford of Oro Station has had a series of heart bypass surgery delays stretching over a period of more than six months. That has meant he could not return to work to his job as a truck driver to support his family.

Walter Silver of Orillia has faced numerous delays in his surgery for intestinal cancer. Mr. Silver’s condition is worsening with each passing day he waits for surgery and he finds the strain of waiting and worrying about his surgery to be agonizing.

Clifford Mears of the Orillia area has had the same long wait. He has been waiting for many months and his wait has led to a heart attack and the deterioration of the quality of Mr. Mears’s life.

Phemie Beacock of Elmvale in the same situation was told last year to remain at home and wait for a call from a surgeon about when she could expect to have her operation. She has yet to be called.

I have one as late as yesterday. John Farrel, 59, of Brechin, Ontario has been waiting for more than eight months for triple heart bypass surgery. It has been cancelled and rescheduled numerous times. Mr. Farrel was told to be at St. Michael’s Hospital here in Toronto on Tuesday, which was yesterday, for his surgery. When he got here, he was not on the admitting list. They eventually admitted him late yesterday. After settling in, he was told he would have to leave because they needed his bed. This was yesterday.

He went back today and his doctor admitted him, but it is still not known when he will be operated on and no date has been set for Mr. Farrel’s operation. I find this very unfair to him.

I want to relay clearly that the nurses have had enough. They are voting with their feet and they are beginning to leave their profession. It is estimated that at least 6,000 of Ontario’s 80,000 practising nurses will quit the profession within 10 years of entering it. This will occur largely because of working conditions and pay.

I would like to turn my attention to the minister’s lack of concern and action over the redevelopment of Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital. In her rather short letter dated January 16 in response to my correspondence on this matter, she said, “The ministry is actively working with the hospital to review all options available to bring this project to fruition.”

I must say I was somewhat dismayed with this response to a matter of interest shared by me, the hospital board of directors, the people of the Orillia area and, of course, by the many people who depend on this facility for treatment.

Her officials told the board in December 1987 that she would have a final decision on this proposal by the end of March 1988 at the very latest. We are quickly approaching March 1989 and the minister has still not come forward with the decision on the board’s proposal for a second campus in Orillia. The health care system in Ontario needs action from the minister, not more rhetoric. The board of directors must know if redevelopment of Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital is acceptable so they can step up their fund-raising. They have raised almost $5 million to date.

The minister must pay attention and improve working conditions for nurses, and the minister must ensure that there are more nursing home beds available so we can free up the badly needed beds in our hospitals throughout Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take

part in this debate, and I will save the rest of the time for some other speakers.

Mr. Kozyra: I believe that every concerned citizen in this province is