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

May 25, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

HERITAGE DAY ACT, 1989

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

HERITAGE DAY ACT, 1989

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

COURT RULING

4-H PROGRAM

LABOUR DISPUTE

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

ARMENIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

NURSING SERVICES

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

BICENTENNIAL CELEBRATIONS

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

TOURISM REDEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

ALCOHOL ADDICTION

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

FOOD INDUSTRY

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

PETITIONS

HOME CARE

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

STANDING ORDERS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Laughren moved resolution 7:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that northern Ontario faces particular problems in the delivery of health care due in large part to the sparse population spread over great distances and the nature of the resource-based economy, the government of Ontario should immediately take special measures to provide needed health care to northerners, including but not limited to:

the creation of a medical school in the north providing training for a wide range of health professionals and with a focus on community and preventive care as a key way of dealing with the problems of recruitment and retention;

the provision of more community-based care and more nonphysician health care providers as a key way to deal with the problems of delivery of services;

more home care and chronic care resources to meet the challenge of an ageing population;

culturally appropriate delivery of services, particularly for francophones and natives; and

improvements to the medically necessary travel grants.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation and may reserve any portion of that 20 minutes for the windup.

Mr Laughren: I will indeed reserve some time to conclude when other members have had a chance to speak.

This resolution really comes from a task force the New Democratic Party caucus established about a year ago. In three different trips we travelled throughout all of northern Ontario. We had one trip in the northwest, one in the northeast through the corridor from North Bay up to Timmins and then another trip up through the Sault Ste Marie, Chapleau, Wawa and Sudbury part of the province. We did not go to just the large communities; we went to the small communities as well.

We know, and even knew before we went there, that there is inadequate service in the north. We know that in Ontario as a whole costs are skyrocketing in health care and we also know that most of the health care dollars go to doctors and hospitals. We all demand more, all of us. There are no exceptions to that. We are all after more for our institutions and for a better health care system, but in this year, in the budget that was tabled just a week ago, the health budget is $13.7 billion. That is fully one third of the entire provincial budget, up 10 per cent from a year ago.

In northern Ontario there are particular problems and there is a chronic crisis of lack of services, lack of doctors and lack of institutions. We not only have the problems that the south has; we have more problems than the south has in terms of health care. That is why we established our task force and visited all those communities. There were 200 groups and individuals that told us 200 different stories about their problems with health care in the north.

The hospitals are underfunded. There are entire communities without any doctors whatsoever. There are physicians in the larger centres, but they are carrying too heavy a workload. There is a lack of specialists all throughout the north: psychiatrists, speech pathologists, paediatricians, orthopaedic surgeons, gynaecologists. Quite frankly, the government has an underserviced area program, but that is not working very well either. We all know that. The recruiting and retaining of doctors and all health professionals has been a problem in northern Ontario.

The Ontario Medical Association’s special committee on northern affairs -- by the way, I commend the association for striking that committee -- identified the following shortages in northern Ontario as of the fall of 1987: no geriatricians, no rheumatologists except for one in Sudbury, only one haematologist, no specialist obstetrical services for 40,000 people in the Timiskaming area, no child and adolescent psychiatric inpatient services except in Sudbury and serious shortages of resident psychiatrists, general practitioner anaesthetists and family doctors in towns that can support only one to three physicians.

That was the report tabled by the OMA’s special committee on northern affairs about a year ago.

There is also, all across the north, a marked lack of services for francophones in their language. I can recall someone coming before us and telling us about how difficult it is if you are a mental health worker, for example, or a psychiatrist and you are trying to counsel someone who is having very severe personal problems. How do you counsel that someone in a language other than his mother tongue? It puts an unbearable burden both on the patient and the person who is trying to deliver the service. That is not just with the francophones either, of course. That applies as well to our first citizens, the native people.

There are particular problems, and I am glad that my leader, the member for York South (Mr B. Rae), is here this morning, because he took

part in the task force whenever he could and indeed made a special trip up to the James Bay communities and can tell members stories about the problems up there.

For example, at Fort Albany and Attawapiskat, both communities have hospitals but no resident physician. Each has a hospital but no doctor in those two communities. Doctors do come and visit, I think about every month or so, but there is no continuity. It is not always the same doctor. The health care delivery is not in the Cree language. That must put an unbearable burden on both parties. There is no ambulance service in those communities. Of course, all of this is in communities where the health of the people is poor to start with. There is much to be done for our first citizens in the delivery of health care.

In general, the northern health care problems are truly serious. This government has an option here. They can either continue to try, to put out brushfires wherever they occur, where there is a doctor desperately needed in a community. They can crank up the underserviced area program and put some pressure on and try to get somebody to go in for a while, but then in another community the same problem happens and the problem is not resolved, it is still there.

The province has to take a different look at the way it delivers health care. I think there is an opportunity to use northern Ontario as a kind of model for the delivery of preventive health care and community-based health care. The population of northern Ontario is such that it could be done, it could be used as a model.

I know there are no simple, easy solutions to changing the health care system from one based on illness to one based on wellness. That is not an easy task, and anybody who thinks he can snap his fingers and turn that system around is kidding himself and whomever he is talking to as well.

We do know that at the present time the preventive health care budget, I think, is about 1.4 per cent of the total budget of the Ministry of Health, so we are really not putting enough into preventive health care. That simply has to change or we will for ever be throwing money into a bottomless pit. We will all be there demanding it as well, no exceptions. So that means we have to spend more money on preventive health care and on community-based health care, if in the long run we are going to turn the system around.

I would suggest that we start with a northern medical school. For a long time people have been talking about a northern medical school, but there has been resistance, both from the previous government and from the present government. As a matter of’ fact, it is just in the last year or so that the Ontario Medical Association has come around to supporting this concept, and now the association’s special committee on northern affairs recommends as well that there be a medical school in northern Ontario.

I think there is growing recognition that this is what is needed. I cannot remember how many groups, but almost every group that came before us talked about the need for a northern medical school. There is a growing feeling in the north that this is necessary if we are going to attract doctors to the north and, just as important, keep them once they get there. That is not going to happen -- it certainly has not happened and we have no reason to believe that it is going to happen -- if we train all our doctors in southern Ontario.

There are, I believe, five medical schools in southern Ontario and none in northern Ontario. I do not think one is being parochial to argue that is fundamentally wrong in this province. There should be a medical school in northern Ontario. I would argue that the population of northern Ontario is roughly 750,000 people. That is a substantial population and can justify a medical school. For example, Saskatchewan has a medical school and Saskatchewan’s population is just over one million. Newfoundland has a medical school and its population is not much over 500,000. It is not as big as northern Ontario in population.

We have those two jurisdictions and certainly nobody questions the need for a medical school in those two provinces. Why then do we question the need for a medical school in northern Ontario? Is it cost? The doctors are going to be trained somewhere. Sure, it is expensive to build a medical school, but the people we would be training in the north we would not be training here, so it makes a great deal of sense to establish a medical school in northern Ontario.

I would argue as strongly as I could that if there is a medical school in northern Ontario, it should not be a carbon copy of the medical schools in southern Ontario. We do not want a carbon copy of what we have down in southern Ontario. I do not think that would make any sense whatsoever. I would urge that a medical school in the north have a different kind of curriculum, that it be a curriculum based on emphasizing preventive health care and community-based delivery of health care in northern Ontario.

Let’s face it, the communities are spread farther apart and they are much smaller. It makes much more sense to have community-based health care in northern Ontario and it would make no sense to build a medical school in the north that was the same as the ones in the south. There is an opportunity here.

I talked earlier about a model for health care that was different from what we presently have, and if we use northern Ontario with its own medical school to help build the model based on community delivery of health care as well as preventive care, then I think we would be making a big step forward to building the kind of health care system we want for all of the province.

I know it is very difficult just to revamp the entire medical health care system in the province, but here is an opportunity to use the north as a model and strike out in some new areas in the delivery of health care. I suggest that the curriculum should emphasize not only community-based care and preventive care, but also the training of paramedics and paraprofessionals, nurse practitioners, for example, and community volunteers, and that we approach the delivery of health care differently than we have historically.

In such a northern medical school there would of course be emphasis on the delivery of services to francophones and natives, because that is a very serious gap in the health care system in this province. We should no longer tolerate inadequate services for our francophone population and for our first citizens. That is fundamentally wrong. I do not think it is going to change if we continue to train all of our doctors and other professionals in southern Ontario.

I also, as a result of our task force travelling in the north, want to say a few words about the travel grants. Members may recall that one of our colleagues, Jim Foulds from Port Arthur, fought a long and courageous battle to get travel grants. Then when the accord was struck between this party and the Liberals in 1985, the travel grants were part of that accord. That is why we have travel grants now.

It started out being travel expenses for 300 kilometres and now it is down to 250, but that does not solve a lot of the problems with people getting to regional health care centres. It gets some people to Toronto but it does not get people to health centres like Sudbury, the Sault or Thunder Bay, or even from northwestern Ontario to Winnipeg. That needs to be corrected; the 250 kilometres is too great a distance.

Second, travel companions’ expenses are not covered if the patient is over the age of 18. Even if that person is terribly ill, blind or whatever, the travel grant does not cover an attendant going with him. I think that needs to be corrected.

Finally, the actual costs of travel and accommodation are not covered, just the travel costs based on a formula. Those three corrections need to be made to the northern Ontario travel grant.

We in northern Ontario do need an improved health care system. I am, and we are as a caucus, encouraging the government to look at it differently and to make it a different kind of health care system based on prevention, based on community-based delivery of health care and with culturally and linguistically appropriate services and, finally, more nonphysician health care providers.

Mr Speaker, I would like to reserve the balance of my time for after other members have had an opportunity to speak on this resolution.

Mr Harris: I am pleased to rise in support of the resolution put forward by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr Laughren). What I particularly like about the resolution is that he has given us some things to think about as legislators and individuals. I am certain that not everybody will agree 100 percent with some of the methods the member might propose to solve what I think all of us would agree is a problem. On the other hand, I think there are a number of areas that the member has incorporated into the resolution that are difficult to find fault with, certainly in principle and in direction.

I am particularly pleased that it is not a resolution saying: “We need more of the same in northern Ontario. You’ve got this in Toronto, you’ve got this in London.

We want one of those in northern Ontario.” I want to say I congratulate the member for really thinking about what some of the problems are in northern Ontario and looking at not the “me too” syndrome, which is very often a cry we hear, not just from northern Ontario but from those who feel for one reason or another that they are slightly out of the mainstream, but indeed taking an approach to say we need something in northern Ontario to solve different problems. He has given us a number of areas and food for thought, and I appreciate that.

Having said that, I want to comment on a couple of them, particularly the medical school in the north. I could not agree with the member more that it would be an important step for us to have a medical school somewhere in northern Ontario. When the member was talking about the medical school in the north, he was talking about a different school, not paralleling one from southern Ontario but indeed focusing in that school on the particular areas of concern that we face in the north.

I want to expand on that and say that one of the difficulties I have had in dealing with our universities in northern Ontario is what I have always felt to be a rather narrow vision, saying, “We want to provide here what the University of Western Ontario provides so that our kids do not have to go to London. They can stay here. We want to be able to provide what Queen’s University provides. We want to provide what the University of Toronto provides,” whether that is North Bay, Nipissing University College, Laurentian University in Sudbury or the university in Thunder Bay talking.

I have always felt, and this is why I am intrigued with the member’s comments as well, we ought not to be shooting for some form of education in northern Ontario that is exactly the same as what you can get somewhere else, with the sole reason being that our children will not have to leave home to get these programs.

I have looked at example after example in other jurisdictions, including examples in the United States. One of the things they do well is they have not felt that major universities have to be in major cities. Indeed, some of their most prestigious universities and campuses are totally off in an area that may be hundreds or thousands of miles from what one would consider to be mainstream communities. Yet we seem to have this narrow focus that if the institution is any good, if it is going to be excellent, if it is going to be doing something that is unique, world-class or Canadian-class, it has to be in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver.

I disagree with that and I think our institutions in the north should set their sights a little higher. I think this government has to have a view that there is no reason at all why northern Ontario university programs, and in this case the medical school, have to be limited to provide just for the needs of the north. In my view, that is the wrong approach. I think it sends out a signal about the north, how we feel about ourselves and how we are looked at and approached by big governments in Ottawa and Toronto.

I know I have digressed a tad, but I think it is important and it is something I believe strongly in.

So I would expand on what the member has said in that, yes, we should be looking at a medical program in the north that would help solve some of our problems in the north, but we should be looking at it as well with a view to being the best and the most innovative medical school that would apply worldwide, that would not just train people to practise and stay in northern Ontario but that would indeed be the type of institution that would be recognized, so that if in Australia one faces similar situations with major centres and then some of the smaller areas and distances and what not, people would say: “Well, gee, you know, there is a school in northern Ontario that is absolutely the best in the world.

That’s where we should be going.”

That

part is important to me as well. I would suggest that we ought not to be limiting it to the medical school and just providing those services, but of course they would indeed be very beneficial to helping us in northern Ontario.

When the member talks about provision of more community-based care, I am delighted to hear him talk about preventive health care and the paraprofessionals, paramedics, nurse practitioners, which in my view are all areas that we should be promoting in northern Ontario, and being critical of some of us in the north, placing a little less emphasis on saying there are such-and-such specialists now in Toronto, Ottawa and London, so we want those specialists in Iroquois Falls, Sturgeon Falls, Sudbury and various areas.

Quite frankly, to me that is very expensive, impractical and not a good use of resources. In some very high specialty areas I would be content to make sure that northerners have equal access to those specialists, to that equipment and to those programs in other areas, but I would say to members that there is absolutely no reason why some of those specialty areas ought not to be in northern Ontario. When we look at the heart program that is in Sudbury, to me there is no reason why patients in Toronto ought not to consider Sudbury as one of the premier locations where they ought to be looking at bypass surgery or specialties in those areas.

Our focus ought not to be -- and we suffer from this in the north ourselves and, gosh knows, government from the political level on right through the entire bureaucracy suffers from it -- that feeling of, “Well, that is sort of the outpost area, and sure, we will have a little bit of something there where they can prep them and send them to where the real medicine is practised.”

It is that type of philosophy and thinking that in my view must be broken if all of the people of this province are going to have an understanding of all the regions of the province, our area of northern Ontario and indeed other areas of this province, many of the rural areas of this province, where I understand they feel the same type of alienation from and lack of understanding of the major centres.

I wanted to add those thoughts, which will probably be a little different from some that others will add, put my perspective on to the motion and say to the member that I agree and wholeheartedly support the motion that he has put forward. I congratulate him obviously on francophones, on natives, on home care, chronic care, preventive medicine, but particularly for encouraging us to think a little bit in different areas.

Mr Keyes: It is a pleasure to speak on this resolution as well. The only problem I have is the lack of time to put forward all views that I would like to. I have also agreed even to share some of my time with the honourable member for Sudbury (Mr Campbell).

But I must mention that the crafting of the resolution is of course one that attempts to entrap members of the government side, because he puts so much in the resolution that is so excellent in its emphasis of francophone affairs, home care and community health care facilities, and all of that ends up coming forth with the one particular point of view that is very difficult for me to accept. That, of course, is the suggestion of providing a medical school in northern Ontario as a way of resolving some of the health care issues of the province.

I want to just address that particular issue today: the medical school in the north. If we look at the World Health Organization, which is a recognized organization for setting some of the health care standards, it suggests that there should be approximately one physician for every 600 residents in a jurisdiction. Just looking at Canada, we know we have about one physician for every 542 residents. That was back in 1987, and the ratio has decreased ever since. So we have more than met the standards of the World Health Organization.

Here in Ontario the ratio is one physician for every 469 people. So once again we have far exceeded any of the criteria established by the World Health Organization. Also, we know that the growth of physicians in Ontario is approximately five per cent a year, far in excess of population growth, which is about one per cent. We have some 19,000 doctors in Ontario today, so we know there are sufficient doctors being trained in Ontario medical schools to meet our requirements. The problem today, as it has been for many years, is one of distribution. We have to find a way to encourage more general practitioners to practise in rural and northern communities.

I want to review very quickly in my brief time the five programs that have worked fairly successfully in our ministry in this regard.

The first one is the northern medical specialist incentive program, which encourages medical specialists to establish practices in northern Ontario communities. These medical specialists are being recruited mainly for the five major northern areas: Timmins, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury and North Bay.

The second program, which is perhaps the most important of all, is the underserviced area program, which is committed to attracting physicians to the north. More than 800 doctors, dentists and other health care professionals now work in some 218 communities in the north which have been designated as underserviced areas since 1969. Of those 800 doctors, 195 are specialists who have been recruited through the program I referred to earlier.

I think we must look at the attrition rate in the province. The attrition rate is less than five per cent a year, and that is excellent by any measure of standards. Many people stay some six years beyond their four years of incentive grants, which is quite significant indeed.

The third area, of course, is physician training in the north. Any statistic will show you that it is not the location of the school that matters; where the residency training takes place really determines where that person will want to practise. The ministry recognizes the need for residency training in order to practise in rural and remote Ontario. Currently, we know that residency training in the north is carried out in Sioux Lookout by the University of Toronto; in Moose Factory by Queen’s University, whose program I am very familiar with; in Sudbury by the University of Ottawa; and through McMaster University’s northwestern Ontario medical program, based in Thunder Bay.

I know the Ministry of Health, in consultation with medical schools and associations, is examining other ways of trying to increase the exposure of medical school students and postgraduate clinical trainees to northern and rural practice. That is the significant part: not the location of the school but where they get their residency training. Therefore, it is the one I wish to emphasize.

We know that the northern health travel grant program does allow a lot of our residents to travel for treatment out of the province into Manitoba, southern Ontario or to other centres within the north by paying their travel costs. The air and land ambulance program transports patients from remote communities to northern health centres and to urban hospitals.

I wish I could take the time, but I promised it to the member for Sudbury, to talk about native issues, francophone issues and the many other incentives of this government to meet the very obvious need of adequate medical health care in the north. I urge the members to think seriously about the fact, as I said, that we do have enough doctors. We must continue to provide the innovative programs that will attract them to practise in northern Ontario.

I leave the rest of my time to the honourable member for Sudbury.

Mr Morin-Strom: I am pleased to be able to speak to this resolution, which deals with a most critical issue of concern to northerners: the health care system and the deficiencies we face with respect to it right across northern Ontario.

Health care is a basic right. New Democrats have fought to ensure that Canadians had the best affordable and accessible system of care in the world. It was New Democrats, under the leadership of Tommy Douglas, who first established medicare in this country and Saskatchewan’s example was a shining beacon that could not for ever be ignored.

Finally, 20 years later, in the 1960s, the federal government set up a country-wide medicare system. New Democrats in Ontario have persistently pressured the provincial government to provide health care to all its citizens. When we negotiated the accord with the Liberals in 1985 that ended 43 years of Tory rule here in Ontario, health care concerns were high on our list. A ban on extra billing by doctors was essential to our support of the new government. We finally achieved that ban in June 1986.

In that accord, the particular health care needs of northerners were also high on the list. New Democrats had worked for more services in the north, particularly community-based and paramedical, that would respond to the difficulties inherent in a small population dispersed over thousands of miles. Tory governments had failed to respond.

We were determined that if services were not coming to the people, then people should be able to go to those services. Jim Foulds, who was our member for Port Arthur, put forward a resolution in the Legislature in 1984 that medically necessary travel for northerners should be covered by the Ontario health insurance plan. That resolution had the support of 70 northern municipalities, but it did not have the support of the Tory government.

Again, in 1985, we drew up the accord with the Liberals, including the OHIP coverage of medically necessary travel. Northerners now have this coverage. However, moving people who required medical attention to the overcrowded southern -- usually Toronto -- facilities was never seen as more than a stopgap measure. One can plug the hole in the dam for only so long before the pressure causes it to burst.

New Democrats toured northern Ontario in 1984 and turned up a litany of problems caused by years of government neglect. The Liberal government has now had four years to come to grips with the problems. Northerners have yet to see marked change.

Northerners still need medical attention and treatment, just as those living in the more prosperous southern region of this province, and they are tired of being treated as second-class citizens. This is the message we are receiving and we have received on the tour of the north we have conducted over the past nine months. We have talked to the people and asked them how this government could possibly best meet their needs.

Our task force on northern health care has been a déjà vu experience: we have seen it before. We travelled through the northwest in June 1988, In September, we started in North Bay and continued along communities on Highway 11 to Kapuskasing. Earlier this year, we visited people in communities along Highway 17, from Terrace Bay to Sudbury, with detours to smaller towns like Wawa, Chapleau and Little Current.

Finally, in April, we visited native communities in the far north along the shores of James Bay. Northerners do have the ingenuity and the willingness to deal with problems in health care caused by a sparse population spread over long distances. What they do not have from this government are the necessary resources to deal with the matter effectively.

The New Democrats’ northern health care task force heard many variations on this theme in the approximately 200 submissions we received in hearings right across the north. Native people want control of the administration of health care on their reserves. Franco-Ontarians need services to be provided in their own language.

Health care professionals, including specialists, general practitioners and therapists, could be attracted and retained in the north if there was a medical school in the north. Nurses, particularly nurse practitioners, could provide much-needed care in small communities. Many dedicated people are ready to deliver mental health services, home care and drug and alcohol treatment in the community, but are handcuffed by a lack of funds.

To free up the resources needed, there must be a change in the Liberals’ attitude to health care. Priorities must shift from treatment of illness to promotion of wellness. Presenters to our task force underlined the millions of dollars that could be saved if people received care and help in their community, in their home and with their family.

The Ministry of Health’s budget reflects the Liberals’ lack of attention to community and preventive health care programs. In the latest fiscal year, expenditures on community health services were only five per cent of the health care budget. Despite major moves to deinstitutionalization, moneys spent on community mental health have not significantly increased and make up only two per cent of the total. Spending on public health care, which covers AIDS awareness programs, immunization and health promotion, was a paltry 1.5 per cent of the total.

Even a small shift in spending would mean a large increase in community and public health programs. In travelling the great distances between communities across northern Ontario, it is obvious that community-based and preventive care are essential to the care of northerners.

Our task force also met with professionals, hospital staff, ambulance attendants, social service workers and volunteers, who do an incredible job on scant resources and would be the backbone of a delivery system that could meet the needs of northerners.

The government spends thousands of dollars in incentive grants to get medical professionals to practise in the north, but experience shows that few stay beyond their initial commitment. Using examples and statistics from Minnesota, Sweden and Finland, many presenters argued that the way to attract and keep medical professionals in the north is to train them there. Bob Rosehart, president of Lakehead University, and many others argued for a medical school and a full complement of training facilities in the north to train doctors and other specialists like speech/ language pathologists and others.

The health task force heard over and over that the Ministry of Health’s underserviced area program is not getting the job done. Small communities end up competing with each other, one offering a free car, another a free house. Towns of 2,400 to 10,000 people cannot afford to subsidize physicians, who in many cases become the best-paid residents in their communities.

Whether in the field of mental health, speech/language pathology, audiology, midwifery, treatment of the multidisabled, age education or care for seniors, the task force was told that services had to be provided locally. Many creative community-based groups appeared before the task force. We are convinced that they could provide more cost-effective and appropriate service than delivery vehicles developed in the rarefied atmosphere of downtown Toronto offices of Health ministry officials,

The system of grants for medically necessary travel has not solved the problem of lack of services, particularly in small communities. For instance, most towns in the northwest are too close to Thunder Bay for residents to be eligible. More to the point, people do not want to be forced to travel when service could be provided in their own community.

Community health care would significantly reduce costs. Doctors appearing before our committee estimated that it costs $400 a day to keep someone in a hospital. At every stop, the task force was impressed by the dedication of health care givers. However dedication does not put food on the table or pay the rent. There is something askew when a society cannot afford to pay more for those professionals who provide the care in the north.

Right across the north, we have heard expressions of concern and support for the recommendations that we have put forward in this resolution. I would call on all members of the Legislature to support us in the call for better health care facilities, training of health care professionals in northern Ontario and a community-based, local approach to solve our real health care needs right across northern Ontario.

Mr J. M. Johnson: The member for Cochrane South (Mr Pope) had intended to speak on this resolution, but in his absence, I would like to make a few comments.

First of all, I would like to start by congratulating the member for Nickel Belt for bringing forward this resolution. While I cannot speak of the major concerns they have in health care delivery in the north, I certainly can share many of the concerns that the member expresses about the vast distances, sparse population and problems relating to rural Ontario.

As I mentioned, they are not as great as the problems in the north, but we do have similar problems. We have hospitals that are several miles -- 15, 20 or 30 miles -- from the needs of the people they serve, so there are problems that rural Ontario has that they do not have in the city. There are concerns that the member has expressed that we should address and I certainly can support many of those concerns.

I would certainly like to just highlight the one area that he mentions in his resolution: “More home care and chronic care resources to meet the challenge of an ageing population.” In my part of the province, we also have an ageing population and we also have a tremendous need for home care and chronic care resources. Unfortunately, this government has been very slow in recognizing this major problem. The Victorian Order of Nurses and the Red Cross both appealed for assistance to be able to carry on to continue to serve the people they have served so well in the past.

In my riding of Wellington, the VON has provided an excellent service for many years. In fact, they are the only people who do provide that service and it keeps many of our seniors out of more costly institutional care such as nursing homes and certainly hospitals. That need is there in my part of the province and I am sure it must exist in the north, as well.

If we do nothing else by supporting this resolution, we zero in on that very aspect of it and encourage this government to continue its support for the VON and the Red Cross. Instead of waiting for the opposition to force them into doing something to assist these organizations, they should be upfront and support them in the early part of the year and not wait until they are facing a deficit position. In fact, it would be my feeling that they should be putting more dollars into funding the home care program because it certainly will save money on much more costly care in the hospital environment.

It would just make sense to spend pennies to save dollars. This government has not learned that yet. Hopefully, it will learn it very shortly or will pay the price for not learning it.

I hate to belabour a point, but I am offended by the government’s insistence in calling our health care system accessible, quality health care. It is not.

Mr Fleet: Nonsense, Jack.

Mr Callahan: That doesn’t sound like a speech that Alan Pope would make.

Mr J. M. Johnson: Then I will ask the members who follow me to address an issue that I will raise once more. At the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital just across on Wellesley Street, the waiting list has grown from a matter of months to a matter of years since this government has taken power. The waiting list is now three years. If that is accessible, then I do not think the government members understand the meaning of the term.

Quality means individuals should have the opportunity to go to the doctor or hospital of their choice. When I raise this question of a three-year wait, I am told that the individuals, my constituents in the province, can go to another hospital. They have mentioned several. They have not quite started mentioning the hospitals in the United States, but I imagine that is their next suggestion.

If it is quality and it is accessible, then surely three years is not reasonable. Would anyone here deliberately place an individual in the position of having to wait three years for a hospital operation, for an operation for a knee replacement or a hip replacement, to let people suffer in pain? Is that accessible health care? I hate to be negative, but unfortunately this government needs a kick in the seat of its pants.

Having said that, I will stand down and allow other members from the north to participate in this very meaningful resolution presented by my good friend and colleague the member for Nickel Belt. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr M. C. Ray): Are there other participants? The member for Sudbury.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Or do the government members not wish to listen to one of their own?

Mr Campbell: Mr Speaker, I am tempted with a line like that to temper my comments. I am, of course, as a northerner and as a Sudburian, pleased to rise to participate in the debate because I feel very strongly that we must, through a number of programs, deal with the particular health care issues in northern Ontario. I was particularly interested when my friend the member for Wellington (Mr J. M. Johnson) mentioned the Wellesley Hospital in the context of northern health. I think that for the previous government, in some ways, that was the solution.

I recall, as a member of the community in Sudbury, when there was a choice between Laurentian University in Sudbury and McMaster University for the last medical school that was built or operated in Ontario. Members know what the result was. The medical school went to McMaster. I would hope that is not perpetuated today by the third party.

I know my friend the member for Nickel Belt has a number of very excellent proposals in his resolution. The only problem I have specifically with the motion is the traditional concept of a medical school, because I think that, as my friend the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr Keyes) pointed out, it is not the same situation with a medical school as with residency programs, because residency programs in place in a community are the ones that very much deal with where the resident, then doctor, practises medicine. I can tell members by personal experience in Sudbury that that is, in fact, the evolution that is taking place.

I would like to take members back to 1979 when the Sudbury region faced a critical shortage of specialists in every single specialty; there were a number of specialist shortages. In 1979 we were also facing the ageing of specialists. The average age of specialists in 1979 was 55 years of age, which meant that we really only had a decade to plan before the specialists started to retire. We embarked on a program using the underserviced areas grant and putting it together with a region of Sudbury program, in co-operation with the community and the hospitals, called the physician recruitment program.

All three sectors of the community, recognizing the kinds of things we had to do to attract more specialists to the medical community in Sudbury, put together this program. The program dealt with visiting the medical schools to recruit those doctors who were general practitioners, but hopefully we were also able to speak to those people training to be specialists in the medical schools.

The program was fairly simple in that we were able to contact those medical schools, set up appointments and I, as chairman of regional health and social services at the time, was pleased to participate in that recruitment program. I was also pleased last year, in my new capacity, to visit again and help out in the physician recruitment program that is coordinated by the province but in which the regional municipality of Sudbury participates.

The situation in Sudbury has dramatically changed because we were able to get out and speak to individual physicians and specialists who were welcomed into the Sudbury community. We were able to put together the underserviced program grants for parts of our region that qualify, and we were able to put together the critical mass of a number of hospitals that can co-ordinate and work within a system of having the base of medical knowledge that those doctors require and the research facilities that they can gain access to, whether in Sudbury or building up linkages with other medical schools in the province.

It is an unfortunate fact that the previous government built all of its five medical schools in southern Ontario. It is one that I think is unfortunate, for as I said before, the last choice was made between a northern and a southern university to be part of that. But circumstances are changing to the point where we can and must develop, not only in Sudbury but in Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, North Bay, Timmins and all of the other hospital areas that we have, to build that critical mass of research capability, of excellent facilities, so we can attract and keep those physicians and specialists that we are looking for.

The next items that I would like to deal with briefly, in the time my good friend the member for Kingston and The Islands has allowed me to speak, are two areas that I am particularly concerned about that are mentioned in the resolution; that is, the present work that is being done for francophone services, the recruitment program particularly for francophone physicians and other health care professionals in the north. This is a major priority of the underserviced area program of the Ministry of Health, so within the underserviced area program, we have a further enhancement.

The new program will address long-term needs for francophone professionals. We know that in Sudbury again, this system is starting to work. We are starting to attract those francophone specialists, not only medical doctors but other specialists.

The purchase of seats in Quebec, for example: The first students of this program entered the courses in 1987 and will graduate in 1991, so there is a fuller development of this program. I am reminded of the other initiative that generally speaks to manpower needs in northern Ontario, and that is the northern health manpower committee and northern co-ordination. If you recall, the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) announced on 17 November 1988 the establishment of the northern health manpower committee to help attract and retain health professionals in the north.

I think the committee, which is composed of northern representatives from health care associations, agencies and other professionals, should identify the need for doctors, allied health care professionals and health care services across northern Ontario, listing the specific requirements on a priority basis; identify geographical areas of greatest need for health care services; develop and maintain co-operative working relationships among doctors and allied health professionals, health care institutions, district health councils and health teaching facilities, and develop innovative approaches to retain health care professionals in the north.

The Acting Speaker: The time remaining will permit only the wrapup by the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr Laughren: First, I would like to express my appreciation to those members who have engaged in this debate, particularly my colleague from Sault Ste Marie, and also the two members from the Conservative caucus, the member for Wellington and the member for Nipissing (Mr Harris). I appreciate not only their support but their kind remarks regarding the resolution.

I was somewhat taken aback by the comment of the member for Kingston and The Islands that this was a resolution designed to entrap government members. I cannot think of a more paranoid comment to come out of private members’ hour than that.

For him to say that we have enough doctors in Ontario indicates a total lack of comprehension of the problem of health care in northern Ontario. It is a little frightening to think that member is, I believe, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health. If that is the attitude that permeates the Ministry of Health, then it is going to be a long time before we get improvements to the delivery of health care in northern Ontario. I was very saddened to hear that member’s comments.

Besides, he says the programs in the north which they have put in place or which were already there are working well. If those programs are working well, why did we, when we had our task force across northern Ontario, have 200 submissions to us telling us in very graphic terms that it is bloody well not working well in northern Ontario? If members were more honest to themselves in this chamber, they would admit that as well.

I was very surprised to hear the member for Sudbury get up and parrot the views of the Ministry of Health, Surely to goodness, the member for Sudbury knows that northern Ontario boundaries are not totally enclosed within the regional municipality of Sudbury. Because Sudbury has a regional health centre, that does not mean all of northern Ontario has the kind of health service that the regional municipality of Sudbury has. I would have hoped the member for Sudbury understood that better than he apparently does.

We cannot compare services in a community like Chapleau or Wawa or Attawapiskat with the services in the regional municipality of Sudbury. There is no comparison. It is like comparing Sudbury to Toronto. It makes no sense at all to make that argument.

The argument that it is not important where the medical school is is ridiculous. Of course, if the medical school is in the north, then more people will be trained in the north, will take residency in the north and will practise in the north. That is common sense.

My colleague the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) was in Sweden and saw the model there where they built a medical school in the north. The member for Carleton East (Mr Morin) was there as well. I was wishing he would have spoken to the resolution, but I know there was a lot of competition for a limited amount of time.

It really makes no sense whatsoever to argue that because there are medical schools in southern Ontario, that means the problem of the distribution of doctors in northern Ontario is resolved. That is a ridiculous assumption. If it were that simple, the problem would have been resolved by now.

To argue that the travel grant program is working well is also to ignore the reality. Fine, maybe the member for Sudbury’s constituents are happy with the travel grant. That does not mean that people all across northern Ontario are happy with the travel grant. It is not servicing them well, and there need to be improvements. For the member for Sudbury and the member for Kingston and The Islands to get up and comment that everything is going just fine, that there is no problem with delivery of health care in the north, is downright silly.

I still have hopes that members of the government will think seriously when it comes time to vote on this resolution. There is nothing radical in the resolution. It is not designed to entrap any members of the assembly. All it is is a resolution calling for improvement in the delivery of health care to northern Ontario; suggesting that we use more community-based delivery systems and that we put a medical school in the north, based on a different model than those in the south, so that we train people who are paraprofessionals, who are trained in community-based and preventive care.

That is all it does. It is not something that is designed to embarrass the government. For members to think that if they vote for this resolution, they are going to embarrass their government, is downright silly.

I do not think there is anything in here that the Minister of Health would not agree with. I bet the Minister of Health would say, “Yes, those are appropriate goals for the delivery of health care in northern Ontario.” If she would not say that, I wonder why. I have heard many of her pronouncements, and she agrees with a lot of this.

All I am saying to the members of the assembly is: Join with us in supporting this resolution.

HERITAGE DAY ACT, 1989

Mr McLean moved second reading of Bill 7,

An Act respecting Heritage Day.

Mr McLean: The explanatory note to this bill is, “The purpose of the bill is to name the third Monday in the month of February ‘Heritage Day’ and to designate this day as a holiday in the province of Ontario.”

“An Act respecting Heritage Day...

“1. Where the third Monday in the month of February in any year is proclaimed a public holiday in a municipality, the name of the holiday shall be Heritage Day.

“2. Any act, regulation, proclamation, contract or document that refers to a public holiday on the third Monday in the month of February shall be deemed to refer to Heritage Day.

“3. This comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.”

I welcome this opportunity to outline my private member’s bill, Bill 7,

An Act respecting Heritage Day. As members are no doubt aware, the purpose of this bill is to name the third Monday in the month of February Heritage Day and to designate it as a public holiday in Ontario.

Ontario’s heritage is about our past, our present and our future, and that means it is about the kind of province and the quality of life we will all have in the future. We are a community in Ontario. It is a community of people from many generations, many countries and many cultures. This is a community of people we should deeply appreciate and celebrate on the third Monday of February each and every year. It is a legacy we must improve and enhance for our future.

When I speak of the community of people who make up this great province, I am referring to people whose roots lie in virtually every country on the face of the globe. For all our diverse origins, we have learned to act as a community, as a multicultural society where different people from different beliefs and from different cultures live, work and play together.

Heritage Day, the third Monday in February, is already widely celebrated across Canada unofficially since 1974. To give these celebrations a higher profile and greater visibility, Ontario Heritage Week was first introduced in 1986 and this has grown steadily in popularity over the past three years.

I believe that the third Monday in February should be designated Heritage Day and proclaimed a public holiday to increase awareness and appreciation of the social and economic importance of Ontario’s multifaceted heritage resources. This day could be used to encourage a broad public participation in heritage preservation, protection and promotion. It could also be a day to support and recognize the efforts of groups, individuals, and the many organizations involved in heritage activities in Ontario.

The current Heritage Week is largely a community-based celebration with the majority of events and activities organized by local groups such as historical societies, architectural conservation advisory committees, community museums, archives, heritage organizations, schools and libraries, to name but a few. These groups deserve our appreciation, support and recognition for their efforts to keep our heritage in the public eye, for giving our heritage a higher profile and for making us all aware of our roots.

When I talk about designating the third Monday in February as Heritage Day and designating it as a public holiday, lam not saying we would be recognizing the same heritage in each and every community in Ontario; far from it. As I said earlier, we are a community in Ontario of many people, many generations and many cultures. Remember that our roots lie in virtually every country in the world, which means that different communities would be celebrating a different heritage and diverse origins that have brought us all together to act as a common community in Ontario.

How would we celebrate our roots if members join with me in passing Bill 7? How could we make proper use of the third Monday in February if it is designated as Heritage Day and proclaimed a public holiday in Ontario?

Some communities might wish to stage heritage walks to enable the public to view historical buildings, sites or documents that have played such a vital role in our past. There could be heritage displays and seminars. Bus tours of historical routes and military establishments could be organized. Heritage arts, crafts and folk displays could be staged. Schools could organize heritage quizzes and poster contests. Businesses could become involved by having window displays in their establishments. Once again, the list is endless.

Events like these I have mentioned would involve everybody in the community, whether they are young or elderly, whether they are involved in business, industry, education or government. All of us could play a role in celebrating our heritage in Ontario.

The fair, equitable climate we now know in Ontario is a direct result of the leadership and role models given by all levels of government and the sincerity and common decency of all citizens of this great province, but it would certainly be naïve of me to suggest that our multicultural society has progressed in constant harmony or to ignore the blemishes that exist today.

I believe that if we celebrate a Heritage Day on the third Monday in February as a public holiday, we will be providing our citizens with an ideal opportunity to learn about their brothers and sisters who live next door, in the nearby community and adjoining townships who may have a different culture or heritage than themselves.

I cannot think of a better method of improving the multicultural composition of our society, of ending discrimination in employment practices or in renting affordable housing. Can members think of a better method for making each and every one of us more sensitive to the different traditions and values of our immigrant, ethnic or native brothers and sisters in this province?

But Heritage Day celebrations would not be restricted to only recognizing the role and accomplishments of the many diverse cultural groups in this province. The day could be used in a particular community to focus increased public attention on the role and many accomplishments of the many individuals in the history of Ontario.

For example, some communities may wish to acknowledge the many accomplishments and contributions of a man who was elected to the House of Commons in 1790 and appointed, on 12 September 1791, as the first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada. Of course, I am referring to John Graves Simcoe who convened the first Legislative Assembly in our province and established York, which we now call Toronto, as the capital of Ontario.

That is only one example of a person who left his or her mark on our history. There are many more we could recognize on Heritage Day, such as Samuel de Champlain, Joseph Brain, Laura Secord, Alexander Graham Bell, Chief Pontiac, Chief Tecumseh and Dr Norman Bethune. As members can see from this extremely short list of men and women who played a role in society or history within or outside the boundaries of Ontario, there are numerous individuals as well as cultural groups that deserve our attention on Heritage Day.

I believe it is important for us to set aside, as I said, that third Monday in February as a day for all of us to reflect on our heritage. We should share with and communicate to groups and individuals a new vision of heritage in Ontario which emphasizes broadened

definitions and new processes.

We must support and encourage groups and individuals in promoting their heritage activities and interests throughout Ontario. We must increase public awareness and involvement in heritage conservation and development of activities among nontraditional supporters in the private sector.

The story of Ontario is one of growth and change. It is a story of the coming together of peoples of diverse backgrounds, beliefs and customs, of the effects of this encounter on them and on the land where they choose to anchor their dream of a better life. Because the land was here long before the people who came to settle it, it is with the land that the province’s story begins, but it is with the people of Ontario that this province’s story continues.

If we stand back and view events in their larger context, the seemingly haphazard course of history begins to take shape and to take on form and coherence. From this wider perspective, the province can be seen as an edifice built by the various groups whose presence today gives it its unique and vital character. This edifice rests on the cultural traditions of Ontario’s native peoples. They were the original guardians of this land and its riches.

At the base of this edifice and interspersed throughout its structure are the building blocks of the province’s other two founding peoples, the French and the British. Their presence is acknowledged in many of our laws and customs, political and cultural institutions and the province’s two dominant languages.

The British and French also constitute the two largest groups in this province. Today almost 53 per cent of Ontario’s population is of British origin. Close to 10 per cent claims French ancestry. The building blocks of the edifice that we call Ontario continue onward and upward with German, Dutch and black immigrants, Ukrainians, Poles, Hungarians, Russians and Jews from central and eastern Europe, and continue on with Italians, Greeks, Portuguese, Czechs, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Asians and groups of immigrants from the West Indies and Latin America.

We all know that building blocks piled one on top of another will sooner or later tumble to the ground unless they are cemented together in a harmonious and cohesive manner. That cement is a common vision of a society founded on the principles of freedom, peace and order.

In conclusion, I believe that an annual Heritage Day on the third Monday of February would increase awareness of the scope and value of our heritage and cultural resources and encourage participants to preserve, promote, protect and develop their diverse heritage and cultures. As I said earlier, Ontario’s heritage is about our past, our present and our future. That means it is about the kind of province and the quality of life we will all have in the future. The community of many people from many generations, countries and cultures that we are so fortunate to have in Ontario is a legacy we must improve and enhance for the benefit of our future and the future of our children.

I will reserve the balance of my time for the wrapup.

Mr Fleet: I would first like to congratulate the member for Simcoe East on this bill. I am obviously going to support it. I think it is an excellent advance. In fact, as the member well knows, I have introduced legislation in this House of a similar nature which goes rather further in terms of a Heritage Day.

I will refer both to Bill 7, which is what we are debating today, and Bill 9, which I had introduced. I had actually introduced Bill 6 originally, immediately prior to the member for Simcoe East, but I subsequently introduced Bill 9, which has a technical improvement on a point not particularly relevant to today’s proceedings. I am sure that will assist members as we go through.

The provision in Bill 7 -- and there are some rather important differences between the two bills -- really seeks to take advantage of a provision in the Municipal Act,

section 211, which permits municipalities to declare a public holiday. It permits the declaration of a holiday, in essence without any restriction.

This Bill 7 would provide that that would become Heritage Day, and as the member for Simcoe East has already related, this is further to an earlier proposal he had calling it Simcoe Day. I think the reasons for expanding to a Heritage Day have been expanded upon in an excellent fashion in terms of the heritage of many different people across all of Ontario. An opportunity to celebrate is really the heart of the proposal of Heritage Day.

What Bill 9 would do, quite frankly, is provide a holiday, a public holiday for people and a true reward for the working men and women of this province.

I would like to quote from a draft paper of the Ontario Advisory Council on Women’s Issues:

“Public holidays are a basic standard which improve working and living conditions, contribute to improved family life and may lead to increased productivity.”

I submit that is entirely accurate, it is well put and it is exactly why a new public holiday is an appropriate advancement in our society. For a variety of reasons, the most logical time for that to occur is in the third week of February. That is already Heritage Week in Ontario and the first Monday is in fact an appropriate time.

As I indicated when I introduced my legislation, a public holiday to celebrate our heritage is an idea whose time has come. In fact, this is a matter which has been the subject of public discussion since at least 1973. At that time, the Heritage Canada Foundation was advancing this as an idea to Ottawa, as a matter of fact. When asked why this was being proposed -- and I will quote because I do not think I can provide a better or more succinct explanation -- they replied:

“Because a holiday makes people sit up and take notice. It also provides a chance for celebration; in this case, for a celebration of our history. Our country has a rich cultural past. Our homes, buildings and streetscapes are living history lessons, symbols of that past. Their preservation contributes to the feeling of identity and continuity in this diverse nation. It tells us something about our roots. It reminds us of who we are.”

I think that is exactly the kind of feeling we would wish to evoke on a new public holiday in February, a time when people frequently experience the midwinter blahs. It is an opportunity to turn a negative feeling into a very positive feeling.

The experience in terms of other legislation has been primarily directed, actually, in the Parliament of Canada. In 1973, following the submissions by the Heritage Canada Foundation, there was a standing committee on justice and legal affairs which studied the issue, proposed a Heritage Day and suggested in particular that the focal points for the first three years of celebration of Heritage Day be the Canadian flag, which as all members would be aware, was proclaimed on 15 February 1965; in the second year Canada’s first Prime Minister, Sir John A.

Macdonald, and in the third year, to celebrate the importance and the contribution of Canada’s native peoples, the first citizens of our country.

I would suggest that in the fourth year, if not earlier, we would now want to celebrate the development and installation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, another very important element of our heritage.

In fact, the bill I propose, Bill 9, would permit the government of Ontario by a proclamation to determine which theme of heritage would be celebrated in each year, and there are a variety of other appropriate themes, a number of which were touched on with eloquence by the member for Simcoe East.

The kinds of support and the rationale for a public holiday at this time are not limited to simply the cultural considerations. Again, I would like to return to a draft discussion paper on changes to the Employment Standards Act from April 1989 from the Ontario Advisory Council on Women’s Issues. It indicates that in 1984, almost 56 per cent of private sector employees and over 76 per cent of unionized employees had 11 or more paid holidays each year.

Currently, as members will be aware, there are eight public holidays in Ontario: New Year’s Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day -- which of course we have just celebrated -- Canada Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and Boxing Day. This government has added Boxing Day as a public holiday and that again assists workers across Ontario. I think it also improves the life of the people in management. It confirms their right to have a public holiday, but it is only eight days. It is quite clear that the standard now ought to be more.

This is also why, in my bill, I proposed that the Civic Holiday be a public holiday. It is not one currently, which I found quite surprising, and members of the public would be quite surprised to learn it is not a public holiday.

The problem with having both the Civic Holiday as a municipal option, and in essence Bill 7 that we are now debating also really only perpetuating a civic option, is that if a proclamation is provided by the municipality, it provides a holiday only for civic employees. If the municipality goes further and passes a bylaw, it gives the shops, as defined by the municipality, the obligation to close, but it does not entitle those workers in those shops to get paid for a paid holiday.

That surely is not an adequate resolution to the problem and it does not deal with the reality that the holidays are being established by collective agreements or that this is what is setting the standard. I think it is an appropriate time for this Legislature to move forward to set a standard to provide a holiday, a Heritage Day.

I would also like to point out that there is support in other areas for having a holiday in mid-February. In 1982, a committee of the Ministry of Education in Ontario indicated that a break was needed for students. I am quoting again from the report. It said, referring to the period between January and the midwinter break in March, “This period is the most difficult and demanding for pupils and teachers.” They recommended that it either be called Heritage Day or Constitution Day, on the third Monday in February.

There is good reason, for educational purposes; by reason of our employment standards, in terms of working and living conditions and of enjoying the richness of life in Ontario; and for the purpose of advancing the celebration of our diversity but also the things that we share in common. That, indeed, will make us a stronger nation, and in a world which is global in its nature, it is important that we focus on our links to the past, because they are also links to our future and to our present neighbours around the world.

I think any member of this Legislature would agree with me that this would be a significant advance. I encourage all members to support Bill 7. Again, I congratulate the member for Simcoe East. It is an excellent initiative. It is something that would help the people of our province and again I urge all members to support this, and also Bill 9 when we get the chance.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I am pleased to join in this debate on the continuing saga of Heritage Day, which is an idea whose time has come and gone and never really found its way into law, for some reason or other. It has been such an obvious thing that Canadians, of all people, should have a holiday in February to help us survive our winters. It is one of the greatest gaps in social policy that I can imagine any society having. So any move in that direction is welcome and I support it.

However, I cannot believe that the methodology used by the member for Simcoe East is one that does not move it along faster. I read the explanatory note and I noticed that it is to name the third Monday of the month of February Heritage Day. It says it is to designate this day as a holiday in Ontario. Then I read the lengthy bill that is before us here, in the 10 or 12 lines that we have, and all it does is say that it will be called Heritage Day if a municipality proclaims it Heritage Day. It does not make it a public holiday at all, but says that when a public holiday is made, if it is ever made in Ontario, as I gather Bill 9 would do, at that point it shall be called Heritage Day.

I say to myself, what we have here is a philosophical treatise on the importance of the name. The name is the thing rather than the reality of actually having a holiday. I would much rather the member had come forward with a bill which had actually given us the holiday and we will name the thing later, rather than giving me the name today and still not giving me that third Monday in February as a break from those late winter blahs that afflict so many of us. For the members from the north beside me here, they know they are at that point halfway through the winter; it is an important date to recognize the fact that summer may come some day again to northern Ontario.

I would love to hear, in the response time by the member, why he has chosen this particular route to deal with Heritage Day. Is it his intention that we delay our movement towards having this extra public holiday even longer, or what was his reason?

I just want to talk a little about why we need the holiday, other than the obvious winter break. The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr Fleet), who spoke previously, has referred to some of the issues. Presently, organized workers and managerial types in the province get 11 or 12 days of holidays recognized throughout the year in addition to paid vacations of, on average, approximately four weeks in Ontario at this stage. But if you look at our laws for the general public, and there are a lot of those unorganized workers in our province, they are limited to two weeks of holidays under the Employment Standards Act.

That is all an employer in our society has to provide. Then they get approximately eight days of recognized statutory holidays in Ontario,

If you compare that with jurisdictions like France, where the argument now is whether they shall move from five weeks to six weeks of paid holidays as law for all their citizens -- in France, of course, the month of August is the month of holidays -- you say to yourself, “Here we are, an advanced society, and this is the best we can do for our average working people?” especially those people who do not have power mechanisms, whether it is a professional society or a union, to work for them. Are we not a little bit in the Dark Ages? The idea of adding one extra day of paid holiday in the winter as a leave for people is something I think we can all recognize as important.

Mr Fleet: Bill 9 proposes two holidays.

Mr R. F. Johnston: Yes, I notice that Bill 9 proposes two holidays. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to debate Bill 9 or I would be happy to move on to why I would love to see other things appended to it in terms of employment standards amendments.

However, I think it is important as well to talk about the importance of the name and the importance of the reason in terms of the nature of the celebration we would have on this holiday, that is, calling it Heritage Day. As the member rightfully says, heritage speaks to our past. I think that is accurate. It also speaks to the roots for our future and the nature of our country as it grows.

I would like to speak about the importance of that celebration from a number of aspects. The multicultural aspect is one I would like to come to later, as with the other cultural issues that are around it. I would rather speak a little more precisely as well to some issues of the economy of Canada and our particular heritage, which I see in great danger of erosion these days, and some real need of celebration.

I would like to refer, if I might, to a few things my colleague the member for Hamilton West (Mr Allen) wrote late last year in a column in the Hamilton Journal and Hamilton Mountain News about his views of our cultural heritage as it relates to our economy. He made the remarkable point, of course, that we are so different from the United States in the nature of how our economies developed and the linkages between government and private enterprise to make our country function because of its enormity and yet its sparse population. He rightfully alludes in his

article to the fact that we had the only transcontinental railway in all of North America that actually did not go bankrupt, because it was done in co-operation with our federal government at the time. The national dream, as we know, was based around that link that was forged.

As a person who comes from western Canada, the member for Hamilton West wrote very movingly as well, I thought, about our development of co-operative traditions in our country in terms of the development of the wheat co-ops, of course, in the west, but also here in Ontario where our agricultural communities especially developed this methodology of coming together as a community as part of our heritage of working together in a very tough country in which to survive economically and as a result developing some very different approaches to working economically as part of our economic culture than did our neighbours to the south.

I think it is important to say that has grown into food co-operatives, housing co-operatives and other kinds of notions which are very much the fabric of what we do now. Whether it goes into health care and the idea of community clinics that are run by community boards or others, that ethic of co-operation is incredibly important to us. I hope when we start talking about culture, we do not restrict ourselves just to the notions of songs and dances and traditions of that sort from various ethnic communities, but rather that we look at some of the other fundamental fabric of our country.

I think it is a wonderful time and a desperate time for us to celebrate that, because of what is happening with free trade and what I see as a move at the national level to ignore what we have accomplished, to say that we should sell off every crown corporation we have that symbolizes that heritage of connection between business and government in terms of the development of this country, that talks in sort of American republican terms about what the economy is and denies so much of what is our fabric.

I would also say that this day will provide us with the opportunity in this province to celebrate, I hope, our native people’s role in our society in very profound ways. The member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) was saying that he wondered if maybe we should call this Tecumseh-Brant Day rather than Heritage Day and make a major statement about the importance of that community to us and our society. It is so undervalued in social and economic policy, as it has been in a very unfortunate way in our country over the years, that if we start to talk about heritage, let’s talk about that central nature of our province and country which is so different from other countries.

Then of course there is the bilingual nature of our founding communities in this province. I say so, although the member for Markham (Mr Cousens) is not here to jump on me for such a notion. I think it gives us a real time and place to focus our celebration of the French fact in Ontario, as it does the multicultural community. I am reminded that in the city of Toronto there are some 26 languages recognized and used in publication in that place. That is the new reality of our nation. This would be a wonderful day to be able to celebrate that reality in our future, not just our past, as a country.

I wish we could move along to actually having the day established as a holiday. Then this member’s bill to name it Heritage Day would be the appropriate vehicle and we could start to set up the mechanisms to make sure those various communities and our economic philosophy are well established and well presented on that Heritage Day for the years to come.

Mrs Marland: I am happy to rise today and speak in support of Bill 7, the private bill of my colleague the member for Simcoe East. I may just say at the outset that I am happy to be able to stand and support a bill with this number. I certainly was not able to vote in favour of the last Bill 7 that came before this Legislature.

In speaking in support of this act regarding Heritage Day, I want at the outset to congratulate the member for Simcoe East. I also want to say that I am somewhat astounded to hear the comments this morning about why we should support this bill, those comments particularly that pertain to perhaps no better reason than that of having a vacation day, an official statutory holiday to beat the midwinter blahs.

I think it is kind of ridiculous for members in this Legislature to stand and say that we should have a holiday in the midwinter in order to deal with our climate, and that is the reason to support this bill. I am quite sure that the integrity and the intent behind the private bill of the member for Simcoe East to establish a Heritage Day officially in this province has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Ontario needs another statutory day, nor that the holiday should happen to take place in the winter when the climate is a little unacceptable for some people.

I want to set aside any association of my comments with the remarks from the member for High Park-Swansea or the member for Scarborough West (Mr R. F. Johnston) who think that is a pretty good reason to have a Heritage Day. In fact, all the wonderful reasons that we should have an official Heritage Day in Canada and, indeed, in Ontario are the reasons that I know the three parties in this Legislature today will support this bill.

The fact that we have the kind of province that we have in Ontario, the fact that we are indeed the premier province in Canada has everything to do with our heritage and nothing to do with the winter climate. I cannot help but refer to what I believe is the very essence of our heritage in Ontario; it is an essence that transcends all ethnic background and all ethnic heritage because it is the essence of religion.

Fortunately for Ontario and indeed our country, the people who came 100 and 200 years ago to this country brought with them a religion. It did not matter what country they came from; they brought with them a Christian heritage. If there is one area of major concern that I have about the future direction of this province, it is indeed the fact that our Christian heritage seems to be going out the window. Since those people with a Christian heritage in Ontario built this province, and indeed this country, because of the strong roots they had in their faith, I have a very real concern.

Whether they were Catholics or Protestants who came to this country and had the courage and the faith to work hard and to build what we now have inherited, they were Christians.

I think that today we experience in Ontario what is, in particular, a double standard. I can quote as an example this Legislature, in which every day that the House is sitting we recite the Lord’s Prayer. The double standard develops when the schools of this province, which the Liberal government directs from this Legislature, are now told by the Liberal Minister of Education (Mr Ward) not to solely use the Lord’s Prayer anymore. It begs the question of what our heritage is and what we believe and see as our heritage in this Legislature --

Mr Fleet: It was the court that ordered us to do it, the Supreme Court of Ontario.

Mr Carrothers: You’re distorting the issues. Ridiculous. Useless discussion.

Mr Dietsch: You’re being misleading. That’s disgusting.

Mrs Marland: The fact remains that we do have different standards within this Legislature and without. Because it hits a nerve to make that comment and because I am now having interjections, particularly from the member for Oakville South (Mr Carrothers), who is suggesting that what I am saying is not true, I simply said that the Minister of Education directed that the Lord’s Prayer not solely be used in our schools,

Mr Fleet: The Supreme Court of Ontario made the order. They’re complying with the court order.

Mr Dietsch: Tell the whole story.

Mrs Marland: That is a fact. The reason for that direction is one that could also be challenged, but that is fine. If the Liberal members, including the member for High Park-Swansea, who is also arguing against that fact, are defending their positions, that is fine. They can be accountable to the people who elect them.

I am simply free to speak in this House and say that I happen to believe that as we will move forward to celebrate a Heritage Day in this province, that Heritage Day should have regard for our Christian heritage as well as our multicultural heritage.

As I speak on behalf of the people in Mississauga South, I want to tell members that those people whom I support who have very rich cultural backgrounds, whether it is Greek, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese, whatever background the people who live in Mississauga represent -- it is through their strength, collectively, that this province will move forward.

We must remember that heritage and culture are more than dances and costumes. When we talk about the heritage and culture of the people of Ontario, we are talking about the people who live here. It is those people, their beliefs, their morals, their standards and their ethics that we would celebrate with a Heritage Day in this province, not the fact, as has been suggested by the member for Scarborough West and the member for High Park-Swansea, that we have a vacation to deal with the winter blahs.

When we salute the prospect of having an official Heritage Day, we should salute also the number of volunteers who are involved in those heritage organizations throughout this province and work hard all year round to maintain heritage through those volunteer organizations.

In closing, I want to repeat something I said in February 1988 at the outset of Heritage Week. I said then, “To emphasize the fact that our heritage is the most important aspect of where we are today, I would suggest that each one of us looks into the past as we reach for the future and benefit from the legacy of the people who have left for us a very rich cultural heritage in this province.”

The motto of the city of Mississauga is “Pride in Our Past and Faith in Our Future,” and I share that with the members of this Legislature.

Mr Owen: I too want to endorse the bill proposed by the member for Simcoe East. I also have a little concern with the wording of the bill. This has already been pointed out to the Legislature by the member for Scarborough West. I am happy to support the wording of the bill, but I would be even happier to have supported what is spelled out in the explanatory note accompanying the bill. They seem to contradict one another.

The explanatory note says there will be a holiday on the third Monday of February and it will be called Heritage Day. Unfortunately, the bill itself says that a municipality can proclaim a public holiday and that it will be called Heritage Day. In other words, I note that it does not achieve what I think it was intended to do.

Back in 1973, the Heritage Canada Foundation endorsed the idea of a Heritage Day and spelled out that there were no other holidays at that time, that it was close to the anniversary of the adoption of our Canadian flag, which, if I recall, was February 15, and that it did not favour any particular group or single person to be recognized, but felt that it would recognize the heritage of the entire country.

I would point out that there are some objections to the idea of having a Heritage Day, in that it would mean we would be less productive in this country, but I would point out that the United States has 12 statutory holidays, five of which are devoted to heritage; Finland has 12 holidays devoted to persons and events of national significance; Canada currently has only nine statutory holidays; the United Kingdom has 11; Spain has 10; Japan, which we regard as a very productive country -- in fact, it is the only major industrialized country which records stronger growth than Ontario -- has 13 statutory holidays annually; Australia has 10.

So with our nine you can see that we are certainly lagging behind what other countries are doing.

I would also point out that Mexico has a holiday on February 5; Japan has a holiday on February 11 which is called Constitution Day; in the United States the third Monday in February is Washington’s Birthday and the third Monday in January is Martin Luther King Day. Both are statutory holidays in that country.

Already in our country there are companies which recognize the need for a holiday in February. For example, Sperry instruments and Procter and Gamble provide their employees with a midwinter holiday, basically to boost the morale of their employees.

I would also point out that with a Heritage Day we could recognize local events of history, the accomplishments of various people and individuals in our local history and traditions. I would submit that while I support this particular bill, I would hope that it would go further on some occasion and recognize the need for a Heritage Day not only in this province, but across the country, for the reasons that I have spelled out.

I would also point out that there is some confusion in Alberta, because I understand it has already named the third Monday in February as a holiday and is calling it Family Day, and that the civic holiday in August in Alberta is now being called Heritage Day. I would ask that the federal government intervene, to try to bring a consistency across the country in establishing the importance and the need for a statutory holiday in February, on the third Monday of February, establish it and call it Heritage Day.

Mr McLean: I will use part of that time to wrap up. I would like to comment briefly on some of the remarks that were made by the member for High Park-Swansea. As he indicated, we had introduced our bills on the same day and he had amended his later on. I think the time has come for this type of legislation to be enacted. I have had many people say to me and encourage me, over the period of years that I have been trying to bring in a Simcoe Day and some different wordings, to try to get the third Monday in February designated as Heritage Day.

There is some confusion in some people’s minds over whether we are talking about Heritage Day as a holiday or as a holiday across Ontario, and that is really not the intent of the bill. The intent of the bill is to make sure that the third Monday is designated as Heritage Day. I understand that the bill would be referred to committee. That could be determined, then, by a committee of this Legislature, however it may want to amend it. It would be able to include that in it, if the committee so wished.

When the select committee on education recommended the same back in about 1982, as the member for High Park-Swansea had indicated, there was a lot of discussion at that time with regard to the March break period. But when we go from 1 January to almost the end of March, there are a lot of people who are looking for a holiday in that time. If that is what the members of the Legislature wish, then so be it.

I compliment the member for High Park-Swansea for bringing in very similar legislation, and I hope that some action will be taken by this Legislature to have a Heritage Day in this province acknowledged.

I want to thank the member for Scarborough West for support of the bill and aspects of the multicultural aspect that he had discussed with regards to the importance of it. I believe that some day it will not be uncommon for people in this province to be speaking several languages; not one or two, but several. I think young people today will have the opportunity to do just that.

When we look at the population of Metropolitan Toronto and the large ethnic population here, I think it is important that we do acknowledge Heritage Day and the heritage of every member in society.

I want to thank the member for Mississauga South (Mrs Marland) for her support of this bill and my colleague the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr Owen) for discussing the various holidays that are taking place in different parts of the world. I think it is good to have that on the record, so that people will be able to see it and realize what is taking place in other countries.

I compliment him on his brief presentation, because I know his background and heritage and how interested he is within his local community and his riding with regards to what we have worked over the years to maintain for the future and to make sure that our heritage is not forgotten.

When we look at what takes place in other countries with regard to the holidays, I would be very prepared to have the bill referred to committee and have it discussed in committee, as I am sure the member for High Park-Swansea would want to be part of those discussions to make sure that if this bill does not finally come to fruition, then perhaps his bills will. I am not particular about where it comes from, as long as it happens. I think it is important that all members of the Legislature support it, because we do realize that it is needed.

With those few words, I will conclude my remarks. I would hope that every member of the Legislature would see fit to support the bill.

The Speaker: It appears that completes the discussion on ballot item 5 and ballot item 6. The standing order does state that the vote shall be taken at 1200. Is there agreement that we are close enough to 1200?

Agreed to.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

The Speaker: Mr Laughren has moved resolution 7.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

HERITAGE DAY ACT, 1989

The Speaker: Mr McLean has moved second reading of Bill 7.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr McLean: I would like the bill referred to the standing committee on general government.

Mr Reycraft: Under standing order 71(1) I note that these bills should be referred to committee of the whole House, unless referred to a standing or select committee by a majority of the whole House. It would be my advice that the bill be referred to committee of the whole House.

The Speaker: The standing order is very clear that any bill given second reading shall be referred to committee of the whole House unless a majority wishes otherwise. In the past we have discussed this matter and there have been occasions when unanimous consent has been given. I would have to feel that unanimous consent is not available. Therefore, would the House be willing to allow it to go to committee of the whole House?

Agreed to.

Mr McLean: I would like to request that it be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Speaker: Therefore, I will have to ask:

All those in favour of the bill going to standing committee will please rise.

All those opposed will please rise.

There is not a majority in favour of it going to standing committee. It will be referred to committee of the whole House.

The House recessed at 1204.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

Can members imagine a strike taking place in education in the city of Toronto and affecting five communities in which for six weeks none of the elementary school students were able to go to class because of the intransigence of the board and that the matter would be ignored? Well, that has been the case in Kirkland Lake and surrounding communities.

Since the strike started on 18 April, 1,200 students have been out of school. Only one day of mediation has taken place since that time. All the teachers are asking for is comparable working conditions to those in neighbouring jurisdictions. For some reason or other, the Minister of Education (Mr Ward) has not seen fit to put his weight behind getting the board to the bargaining table, especially after the announcement that has been made around pooling changes, which takes away the major argument of the board that it cannot afford to meet the demands of the teachers.

That could never have happened in southern Ontario, but it is happening on a day-to-day basis there and those children are in danger of having their school year grossly affected.

COURT RULING

Mr Jackson: I wish to bring to this government’s attention the case of Franca Capretta, who was viciously beaten with a baseball bat by her husband on the front lawn of their home on 4 June 1987. The victim spent three months in hospital. She underwent surgery to remove skull fragments that were lodged in her brain and must still undergo reconstructive surgery.

However, this week in Ottawa, Justice Houston sentenced her assailant to only 90 days in jail, to be served on weekends, for the reduced charge of aggravated assault, because according to Justice Houston, “the beating was an aberration in the life of a hardworking family man.”

I submit to members of this House that both the reduction of the original charge of attempted murder and the sentence itself are outrageous and unjust. The victim will have spent more time in hospital than the assailant will spend in jail. This case is another indication of the crying need for the removal of the false distinction between wife assault and common assault in the minds of our society and apparently our judiciary.

I call upon the Attorney General (Mr Scott) to take immediate action on behalf of this woman and direct appeal of the sentence for the assault causing bodily harm. I renew my calls to the Attorney General to review the existing sentencing procedures in current use by Ontario judges. The women of this province, and indeed all Ontarians concerned for the cause of justice, depend on the government’s swift action.

4-H PROGRAM

Mr Adams: I am pleased that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is moving to rejuvenate the 4-H program. 4-H began in Canada in 1913 with potato, livestock, sewing and gardening clubs for young people. More recently, its emphasis has been a broad approach to personal development of youth in rural Ontario.

It now aims to develop self-reliance, leadership and career-related skills. The 4-H motto is still “Learn by Doing,” so that the hands-on approach of club projects is greatly emphasized. Today, 4-H activities are attractive to rural and urban youth. They include computer work, landscaping and recreational projects as well as the traditional agricultural topics. Urban participation is high in veterinary science, recreation and canine projects. All projects, from home science to large-animal husbandry, now attract both boys and girls.

The Peterborough 4-H Club is thriving at a time when the movement has encountered slack times elsewhere. Membership has increased over each of the past three years, an increase of 14 per cent since 1987. The Peterborough club now serves young people from 11 to 21 years of age. It draws from the rural and urban sectors of the community. 4-H is alive and well in Peterborough.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Allen: The strikes in the children’s aid societies in Hamilton have been going on now for seven weeks, and the potential for tragedy grows. Early this week Maria Cabral, a 16-year-old foster child, had no one to talk to. Her foster parents are not people she can relate to. Her worker was unavailable because of the strike. She took three bottles of pills and almost died. Foster parents, in turn, are feeling helpless as the strike continues and they have no support workers to relate to.

The impasse continues because the society workers cannot be expected to work in the intolerable case-load situations, the extensive overtime, the periodic 24-hour availability routine in this highly stressed work, and they deserve at least inflation-level wage increases in salaries.

The announcement that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney) made earlier this week with respect to topping up low wages in social agencies pointedly excluded the children’s aid societies. He missed an opportunity.

Now a solution can only be found, it seems to me, if the minister will move to assure these two societies that if they substantially relieve the case loads and provide inflation-level increases over the term of a multi-year contract, he will not see the agencies suffer financially as a result. I ask him to give those assurances today so that Maria Cabral and her friends can talk to their workers again and tragedy may be avoided.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Mr Harris: After reading the headlines in the Huntsville Herald News last week about a 64 per cent increase in municipal taxes, and comments as well from the local Liberal member calling for a cut in local education spending, I came across an interesting letter to the editor. I would like to read it to members today. It says:

“Dear Editor,

“The Peterson Liberals in their throne speech announced a new initiative for the rescue of our environment. Rather than a substantive program with funds being committed, the Premier has introduced a new lottery called Cleantario, which will allow the provincial government to avoid its responsibilities for positive action.

“The public relations guys who suggest these ideas seem to be suffering from the same bankruptcy of ideas as the government. Incredible, eh?

“At no expense to the taxpayer, I suggest the following lotteries to raise funds for those programs that the Liberals have neglected: For hospitals and health care services, You Bet Your Life, or perhaps the I Wish Sweepstakes; for transportation, Pothole Poker, and for education, Scratch Your Future.

“Many of your readers may have even better proposals. If they would like to send me their ideas at Box 1825, Gravenhurst, the best suggestion will be rewarded with a one-year membership in the Muskoka-Georgian Bay PC Association. And it will be sent to the Premier at absolutely no charge.”

It is signed “George Beatty,” obviously a concerned citizen, one who is not prepared to gamble on Ontario’s future.

ARMENIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr. B. Nixon: I rise today to acknowledge a day of significance for the Armenian members of our multicultural society in Ontario. This Sunday, 28 May, marks Armenian Independence Day. At the end of the First World War, the people of Armenia celebrated their independence.

The chairman of the Armenian National Council commemorated the day with the following words: “Yes, our republic is small and its bounds are narrow. It is deprived of its best lands and there is not enough room for all the people.... But I feel that the boundaries of the state cannot remain inflexible for ever.”

History has removed the independence of Armenia, but not the spirit of the people.

I would remind the members of the House that the ties between Ontario and Armenia go back to 1886, when the Armenian people first settled in this province in the St Catharines area. Those ties were made stronger last year when the tragic earthquake struck and the people of Ontario rallied to the aid of the Armenian victims. This kind of mutual support is a reflection of the true spirit of muiticulturalism that we celebrate here in Ontario.

I would also like to acknowledge the presence in the House today of Sarkis Assadourian, manager and executive director of the Armenian Community Centre in North York. I extend good wishes to the Armenian people in Ontario, to Mr Assadourian and all around the world on Armenian Independence Day.

The Speaker: The member for Riverdale for 33 seconds.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr Reville: I would like to bring to the attention of the Legislature inquests into the deaths of two women, one of whom lived in the Kitchener area and one of whom lived in the Guelph area. In both cases, the women, suffering either from injuries sustained in car accidents or from heart attacks, had to be moved around the province to find a hospital that had enough nurses to take care of them. Regrettably, both women died. The government had better pay careful attention to the inquest recommendations.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

Mr Kormos: I have a question of the Solicitor General referring once again to the sequence of events that occurred in April in Lucan at the Ontario Provincial Police detachment.

The Solicitor General has told us that her motive in attending at the police station was “to assure myself that he” -- referring to Whalen and, I presume, to the “crippled friend” who has been spoken of -- ”was indeed safe and then reassure the daughter.” She said that on more than one occasion.

The minister has also indicated that when she arrived at the police station, and we know this to be fact now, she met the Whalen father and realized she had been misled about two things: one, about the parents not being in town, and two, about the young man being abused.

The question to be asked then is why at that point the minister did not discontinue her attendance. Rather, at that point the question is, why did she carry on into the police station and spend some 10 minutes there identifying herself, among other things --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Kormos: -- she did not have to identify herself as Solicitor General -- but identifying herself as a friend of the family?

The Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon Mrs Smith: I would like to say to the member for Welland-Thorold, as I have said before, that I received the call and I went up for the reasons stated, to make sure that indeed I could reassure the daughter that her brother was in safe hands. Two of the police officers went by me as I was talking to the father in the parking lot. I therefore considered it a courtesy to go into the station and let them know why I had come and to assure them that I had no interest whatsoever in affecting anything in the course of justice; I had simply come as a result of the call, for that reason.

It was to make sure that the police fully understood this, that I felt it necessary to explain to them that that was the reason for my going.

Mr Kormos: That is an incredible period of time, 10 minutes, in which to relay what would appear to have been a very brief message.

It remains that the Solicitor General did not speak to the Whalen boy -- and that would appear to have been one of her motives in attending -- addressed no concern about the “crippled friend” who had similarly been arrested, then failed to reassure the daughter, as she told us the motive for her mission was, because we have not heard anything about her calling back the daughter. Rather, it was a matter of receiving a phone call from the daughter subsequently and then making her own phone call back to the OPP detachment.

Under those circumstances, how can the community not perceive her conduct as anything other than trying to use her influence as Solicitor General to aid or to mitigate the circumstances of a very close friend of the Smith family?

Hon Mrs Smith: There are all kinds of assumptions here that are not true: for one thing, the “very close friend” is not true at all; for another, the business about the other party. I found I had been completely misled about the safety of John Whalen, so I took for granted that I was misled about anybody’s danger. That was why I simply told them I had been misled. Actually, I discussed with them summer’s advent and some casual things and left.

Mr Kormos: The Solicitor General would have us and the community believe that there was a sense of urgency about all of this and that she was certainly alarmed. Why then, as she tells us, upon being awakened at 1:30 in the morning or just a little bit earlier --

Mr Reycraft: You’ve said she was alarmed. She didn’t.

Mr Kormos: The Solicitor General said that and it is in Hansard. She was awakened by a phone call. If there was this sense of urgency, concern about the family friend and his abuse by the police, why would there not have been a phone call made to the police station? Why would there be a personal attendance by the Solicitor General to come to the aid of this close family friend?

Hon Mrs Smith: I repeat, as I repeated before, that I was wakened in the middle of the night by the sister, who was very alarmed. Has the member got that? I wished to reassure her. I felt confident that when I got to the police station I would be quickly reassured about her brother’s safety and would reassure her.

Mr B. Rae: Perhaps the Solicitor General is familiar with the Police Act and the regulations that are passed under the Police Act. The regulations under

section 31 of the Police Act say this to the Solicitor General, “No chief of police, constable or other police officer shall take or act upon any order, direction or instruction of a member of a board or council.” That would apply to any member of a police commission.

For example, if a member of the local police commission or the Ontario Police Commission had received a call similar to the one the Solicitor General received, not only would it have been entirely improper but clearly it would have been against the regulations, and against the Police Act itself, for a member of the police commission to turn up at a police station and do anything that would even be perceived as giving an instruction or advice to a member of the police force.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr B. Rae: I wonder if the Solicitor General can tell us why she feels she is not subject to the same principles and the same requirements of the Police Act and its regulations as members of the Ontario Police Commission and any local board of police commissioners.

Hon Mrs Smith: certainly accept that I am. I did not act, instruct or otherwise involve myself in the case or interfere in any way in the processes of justice.

Mr B. Rae: I thought that is what the Solicitor General might say. I wonder if she can contrast her statement with the statement made yesterday by one of the spokesmen for the OPP, Mr Guay, who is listed in the Ontario phone book as responsible for media relations for the OPP. He stated yesterday, “It’s unusual that a minister show up at a detachment and it is perceived as pressure by investigating officers when she’s on the scene.”

That perception of pressure is there. It is very real. It is clearly felt by members of the police force, as members of the Police Association of Ontario have stated, and that is why it is set out clearly in the regulations. Does the minister feel she is bound by the same principles of the Police Act and its regulations as any member of a local board of commissioners of police or of the Ontario Police Commission itself?

Hon Mrs Smith: I do indeed believe that, and that is why I wanted to make certain that in this case the police did not perceive any instruction, threat or pressure. That is why I made clear to them that I had come strictly at the request of a young lady who was very disturbed and had no interest in putting on any pressure. This is all reported.

Mr B. Rae: I wonder if the Solicitor General has now had time to reflect on the events of the last week. She has heard, I am sure, from many members of the OPP force. She heard from a spokesman of the police association yesterday and she heard from a spokesman for the OPP yesterday in terms of how they perceive and how they feel about a minister of the crown showing up at a police station at 1:30 in the morning and phoning again at four o’clock in the morning with respect to somebody who is being held in detention.

Is the Solicitor General not now prepared to stand up and admit what she should have admitted as soon as these facts became public: that she made a mistake, that she recognizes it was a mistake, that it is perceived as pressure by the police and that anything a minister of the crown does that even appears to interfere with a police investigation is utterly and completely improper?

Hon Mrs Smith: Any attempt to interfere with the course of justice would be completely wrong and I would not do it. Any attempt to influence a court case would be completely wrong and I would not do it. That is why I took the time to assure the police that I had no interest in any change, that I had come simply as a result of the phone call, was happy with the results and wanted to go back and reassure the daughter, although I did not need to do that since the father had already acted in that capacity.

Mr Brandt: I would like to ask the Solicitor General if in fact she believes she can serve in the capacity as the Solicitor General of Ontario, and therefore directly in charge of the Ontario Provincial Police, and at the same time have another role as a private citizen while serving in that primary capacity?

Hon Mrs Smith: It was to make clear that I understood the difference in the roles that I went in and explained to them that I wanted no role in the justice of the case. That was strictly theirs and I recognized this. I was there strictly to find out that the boy was safe.

Mr Brandt: Obviously the OPP did not understand the minister’s instructions to them, because they are now saying that by her very presence, without uttering a word, without in any way interfering with the actual activities of the OPP in their handling of this particular matter, she, by showing up and subsequently calling back, applies subtle influence to a case of this kind. Does the minister not see that distinction in her responsibility?

Hon Mrs Smith: I would say that by that very question the member is admitting that it was a good thing I went and reassured them I was there on only the one purpose, that I had no interest in interfering with justice.

Mr Brandt: It is becoming increasingly difficult to understand how the minister can justify showing up at an OPP detachment at 1:30 in the morning and in some way offering some instructions. Of course, the detail of that is not available to the members of the opposition, because she is now hiding behind a police report as being the only information that is available with respect to any kind of arm’s-length, independent study.

I ask the minister again: Even if as a lack of judgement, even if her judgement call in the first instance was absolutely wrong, which it was, by showing up at 1:30, why then -- and while this question has in fact been answered before, it has never been responded to accurately, correctly or directly -- would she call back, knowing she had already committed an error by being in the parking lot, talking to the father, going into the detachment, speaking to the police in whatever manner --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Brandt: -- which is still a mystery, then going home, having time to think about it --

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Brandt: My question, Mr Speaker, is, why did she call back?

The Speaker: You placed that previously. Minister.

Hon Mrs Smith: I find under the circumstances of calling back that I cannot understand the question being raised in the way it is. I received yet a second phone call that conveyed more concern about the safety of the young man, which of course was completely uncalled for. I phoned the police station, simply reported the conversation to the police and asked strictly that they put on record, in case it was ever inquired about, that I had got a second call and that indeed I had told the daughter to follow normal processes. I told the police, “I have no interest in this whatsoever.”

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Premier, again dealing with the Solicitor General’s misconduct. The Premier will know that all members of cabinet are expected to act in a highly distinguished and dignified manner as ministers of the crown. I am wondering if the Premier would advise us of what guidelines his cabinet operates under with respect to contacts between cabinet officers and police.

Hon Mr Peterson: There are guidelines that have been issued. They were issued some years ago, I think in the Davis regime, and they are the operative guidelines.

Mr Runciman: Based on the Premier’s conclusion that he has reached and expressed to this House and to the public, that the Solicitor General’s conduct in the early morning hours of 9 April does not justify her removal from office, would the Premier indicate to us whether or not he has reviewed the guidelines as established by former Premier Davis and if indeed his Solicitor General conformed to those guidelines?

Hon Mr Peterson: Yes, I have reviewed them; and yes, she has, in my judgement.

Mr Runciman: For the record, this was dated 8 November 1978 and it deals with the policy of communication between members of executive council and key officials in the judicial system: “With the exception of the Attorney General in the performance of his duties as chief law officer of the crown and the Solicitor General in the performance of his duties as the minister responsible for the police, no member of cabinet may communicate with police officials concerning the decision by the police to lay a charge or charges.”

Is the Premier saying to this House and to the people of this province that his minister did not violate that guideline? It seems quite clear to me and it seems quite clear to members of this party that the minister did indeed violate that guideline.

Hon Mr Peterson: I am glad the member read it into the record because it is very clear she did not. She did not discuss the laying of charges. I think the member has answered his own question. He is quite right, she did not violate them.

Mr B. Rae: I want to put to the Premier the question that I put to the Solicitor General that she was unable to answer. What is the Premier’s response to the statement by an official of the OPP that the very fact the minister was at the detachment was “perceived as pressure by investigating officers when she’s on the scene”? What is his response to that?

Hon Mr Peterson: That was one of the subjects of the report. It said there was very clearly no influence on the course of justice, that there was nothing untoward that happened. There was no attempt to influence the course of justice. Very clearly, the member may have that perception and others may have that perception but it was not, in fact, the case.

Mr B. Rae: The Premier -- I choose my words very carefully -- cannot hide behind a police report which, in fact, dealt with the question of a criminal charge against someone; that is to say, the possibility of criminal charges. It was a criminal investigation with respect to the potential criminality of the actions of the Solicitor General.

Does the Premier not realize that, short of criminal behaviour, it is also possible for ministers of the crown to act improperly, and that he should stop using the language about “untoward” and all this other language which he is inventing, that he should deal with the perception which is felt very strongly by members of the OPP that the presence of a minister of the crown, a Solicitor General in this instance, at 1:30 in the morning, after which there is a phone call at four o’clock, is “unusual” and is “perceived as pressure by investigating officers when she’s on the scene”? Does the Premier not understand that you do not have to be a crook in order to do something wrong?

Hon Mr Peterson: I understand that absolutely. Let me tell the member that the report went into all the facts surrounding the circumstances. I told the member about the police report. It mentions the accused and there is an accused in this particular case. I say to the member, and I think most people who are aware of this appreciate the fact, that there has been a full, independent investigation. Their conclusion was that there was no interference in the carriage of justice.

Mr Runciman: Again to the Premier, the Premier has indicated that based on the results of the OPP investigation of the actions of the Solicitor General on the morning of 9 April, he is satisfied that she did not do anything that would justify her removal from office, Did the police report that the Premier based his decision on spell out what the Solicitor General said to the police officers and what they said to her?

Hon Mr Peterson: It dealt with all of the facts of the situation in the eyes of the police. I did not ask them how to conduct their investigation. They came back with their assessment of the facts and that is where it sits.

Mr Runciman: I think that tells it all right there. Obviously, the Premier is telling us that his minister conformed to