Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker, through you, sir, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the House and introduce to the hon. members a delegation from Hamilton and District Council of Women led by Mrs. Muriel Beatty, their president They are sitting in the west gallery of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

SALES TAX ON REUSABLE CONTAINERS

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Prior to today, an exemption from retail sales tax applied to the deposit paid to encourage the return of reusable containers and applied most commonly to glass containers for beer and soft drinks.

Amendments to the regulations made under the Retail Sales Tax Act, which take effect today, extend this exemption to the deposit made on any container to encourage its return, including beer cans, which are recycled rather than refilled. The exemption goes beyond the deposit on beer cans and applies as well to the deposit on all containers used for soft drinks or other products.

As the House is aware, the Ministry of the Environment has recently made a determined effort to encourage the development of a system of refunds for all containers used by the soft drink industry. I hope our new regulation will substantially help the Ministry of the Environment’s efforts to eradicate litter of this kind.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, continuing the government’s action programme outlined in the Speech from the Throne, later today I will introduce for first reading legislation entitled, the Environmental Assessment Act, which will provide for a comprehensive system of anticipation and prevention of environmental damage which can result --

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): That’s the third time that has been announced.

Hon. W. Newman: -- from future development projects in the Province of Ontario.

This bill clearly reflects this government’s commitment to environmental protection as an objective and as a guiding philosophy. We intend to continue to lead the way in the introduction of programmes and policies which will protect our natural environment. In this respect, I am certain that this legislation will stand as an example for other jurisdictions throughout the world, which are as concerned as we are here in Ontario with the protection of the environment.

Environmental assessment is a relatively new term. It is really preventive medicine -- action before the fact, as opposed to reaction after the illness has developed and damage to the environment has occurred. The process of environmental assessment is a means of ensuring that a project can be achieved with a minimum of undesirable effect on the environment. In many ways, Mr. Speaker, we have been doing this kind of planning in Ontario for many years. Certainly, in the private sector, the approvals required for development must meet the high standards of my ministry with respect to pollution control and abatement.

The Environmental Assessment Act refines and defines this policy. The requirements of the legislation are clear and reflect the determination of this government to protect the natural environment today and tomorrow for the generations of the future. Without doubt, this bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in this province.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That’s three times he has said that.

Hon. W. Newman: We are breaking new ground. We are proposing and providing for public participation in major projects. We will be asking more of the sponsors of projects. This bill will place a great responsibility on all concerned, and wisdom and caution will be required in its administration.

Slightly more than a year ago, the green paper on environmental assessment was released. This indicated the government’s intention to establish a formal procedure for environmental assessment, and it set forth the respective advantages and disadvantages of the various optional approaches for a comprehensive programme. These options were presented to the public for critical examination and recommendations.

The response was good, and this valuable input has enabled the government to develop positive legislation to establish an efficient and workable system for environmental protection through the advanced assessment of proposed major projects. It will ensure environmental protection at the critical part of any proposed project -- at the very beginning of the decision-making process.

We have set these objectives: First, to ensure that the responsibility of government is maintained and that final decisions will be made by those people responsible to the electorate. There is no other responsible way;

Second, to ensure that the assessment is carried out early in the project’s planning stage so that a proposal can be changed if necessary without imposing major inconvenience or expense;

Third, to ensure that the proponent of the project and the appropriate government agencies properly and thoroughly evaluate the proposal so that adverse environmental effects will be avoided;

Fourth, to provide access to documents relative to a project under review and to provide for complementary public reaction and input. This will be achieved by both direct presentation and at times by public hearings. Both approaches are provided for in this Act;

And finally, to provide for the conduct of the entire process efficiently, to avoid unnecessary delays and to eliminate confusion and red tape.

Specifically, the bill provides that the initiator of a project will prepare an assessment document to meet specifications set out by the Ministry of the Environment and the ministry will co-ordinate review of this document. The project and its assessment and review may be further examined at public hearings conducted by an independent Environmental Assessment Board. This board will then make its recommendations to the Minister of the Environment.

The final decision on the project and the recommendations from all sources pertaining to it will be made by the minister and the cabinet. Cabinet’s decision will be binding so that a project assessed and reviewed will not proceed without meeting the required environmental considerations.

This legislation and the procedural process have been prepared only after an immense amount of study which required dedication and time of those concerned. This Act has been studied and refined again and again in order to ensure that we have, in this province, an efficient and practical process for environmental assessment. As I have said, this is far-reaching legislation and we are breaking new ground. I am confident that we have produced a strong, realistic and workable system.

I would like to highlight three aspects of the legislation: timing, participation and the role of the assessment board.

The legislation encompasses an area of environmental protection which has not been fully developed elsewhere in the world. As you appreciate, Mr. Speaker, a form of environmental impact legislation has been introduced previously in the United States but with limited success.

In Ontario we have anticipated that in this virtually new legislative field, as with similar pioneer legislative programmes, it may be necessary to refine and to develop improved administrative procedures as we go along. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to implement this legislation in stages.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Like the ban on non-returnables, eh?

Hon. W. Newman: The Environmental Assessment Act will apply first to projects and programmes initiated by the government of Ontario and its Crown agencies. The second stage would apply to major public and private projects.

We believe that an immediate headlong rush into wholesale application of the legislation to all development projects would be foolish, possibly dangerous and even irresponsible.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why didn’t the minister announce this two years ago?

Hon. W. Newman: It is far more practical, in our view --

Mr. Cassidy: He was doing well until he got to this stage.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. W. Newman: It is far more practical in our view to implement the features of this legislation in stages in order to develop satisfactory procedures which will be non-disruptive.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the minister have a 10-year plan or a 20-year plan?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. W. Newman: It is not my intention, however, to delay unnecessarily the overall application of this bill and, in fact, the principle of this bill already has been adopted in our province.

On the recommendation of my ministry, environmental assessment is currently under way in the private sector. Several assessments are now proceeding in co-operation with my ministry. Beyond this, a number of principal industries and companies already have indicated their intention to undertake environmental impact assessments of their planned future developments. We welcome this spirit of co-operation and the acceptance of the principle of acting to protect the environment rather than reacting to repair it.

I have emphasized that we plan to provide for public participation in the assessment process. The legislation encourages constructive submissions by the public or environmental assessments and reflects this government’s policy in this respect.

Thirdly, I wish to make clear that the Environmental Assessment Board will serve as an independent body which will be appointed by order-in-council and which will then report to cabinet through the Ministry of the Environment.

Since this will be an appointed board it will not have the authority to make final decisions. This will be the duty of the Ontario cabinet as its obligation to the public under our responsible system of government. The board and its members will represent a broad spectrum of the people of Ontario and will bring the widest possible range of opinion and perspective to its forums.

I must advise you also, Mr. Speaker, that it will be necessary to introduce suitable amendments to both the Ontario Water Resources Act and to the Environmental Protection Act to conform to the requirements of this new assessment legislation. These amendments will be introduced at a later time.

In summary, I wish to emphasize once more that this legislation has been prepared only after extensive study of assessment programmes in other jurisdictions of the world. We have studied and questioned and considered all suggestions presented to us before determining legislation which will serve the people of this province efficiently.

We believe without doubt that environmental assessment --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): And pragmatically. The minister left out something.

Hon. W. Newman: And pragmatically. I am sorry; thank you.

Mr. Renwick: What does that mean?

Mr. Cassidy: It means no headlong rush.

Hon. W. Newman: We believe without doubt that environmental assessment, as defined in this bill, will enable all of us in Ontario to achieve a universal goal -- to provide and to ensure an environment which is satisfying and rewarding in our time and which will be enriched for the generations of the future by the actions which we take today.

LIVER DISORDERS

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to draw attention to a major development in the field of medical research which, while still experimental, has a high probability of finding applications for developing specific new treatments for liver disorders.

One of the major priorities of the Ontario Ministry of Health and, indeed, health systems throughout the world, is the search for new ways and means of decreasing mortality and morbidity rates. The achievement I am speaking of represents a dew discovery which may prevent alcoholic liver cirrhosis.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The government had better pay attention.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The technique, now undergoing clinical trials, involves using an anti-thyroid drug to reduce the speeded-up metabolism of liver exposed to heavy amounts of alcohol. This increased oxygen demand cannot always be met by the liver’s blood supply. The result of such oxygen deficiency is cellular damage leading to alcoholic hepatitis, which in a high proportion of cases develops into cirrhosis.

Prof. Yedy Israel, principal investigator, has indicated that if the clinical trials at the Addiction Research Foundation Clinical Institute are as successful as the animal trials, it should be possible to halt the cellular damage associated with alcoholic hepatitis in humans. This should facilitate quicker and easier treatment of this disease and sharply reduce the number of hepatitis and cirrhosis deaths.

The implications of the work are significant. In 1973, more than 2,500 Canadians died of liver cirrhosis.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Why doesn’t the government restrict the sales?

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): The member for High Park is the guy who wants to open it up.

Mr. Shulman: Decrease the advertising.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: That was 1,500 more than in 1972.

Mr. Shulman: The member for Scarborough Centre has a vested interest in this.

Mr. Drea: I don’t buy any liquor stocks.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Scientists estimate that about 6 per cent of liver cirrhosis deaths in Ontario are attributable to heavy alcohol consumption. Apart from the humane aspects of the research, the work has significant implications in terms of health costs. As we are all aware, liver disease is a heavy contributor to health costs, particularly public health costs.

Details of this research will be unveiled today at the Addiction Research Foundation. I considered it of such significance as to draw this matter to the attention of members of the Legislature and thus acknowledge the contribution made by the scientists at the foundation and at the University of Toronto.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s very good news for the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The Leader of the Opposition.

HOPE TOWNSHIP GARBAGE SITE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment if his announcement means that the proposal by Canadian Pacific Rad to dump Toronto garbage in Hope township will be reviewed under the procedure that will be coming forward administratively under this Act? Or, failing that, is he prepared to announce his decision, because the decision has been his and it’s been pending for some months.

Perhaps it might be helpful if I were to ask a supplementary question associated with it. Is he aware that Marathon Realty, the realty arm of CP Rail, is negotiating to buy more property adjacent to the Hope township site on the Howard Payne property? Should he not make some announcement about this matter before it goes any further?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the site in Hope township was examined by the Environmental Hearing Board. They made recommendations to our executive director within the ministry. They have been evaluating the circumstances surrounding that and they are doing a lot of hydraulic testing, as I said. I might say that at this point in time that our people have been doing a final assessment on the situation and I would anticipate that I will have some answers in the fairly near future.

Yes, I was aware that someone was buying more land in that area. Certainly, this wasn’t a result of anything that I had to say to CP or Marathon, or whoever the hon. member for Brant was mentioning. I just knew that somebody was buying more land down there. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, there was no indication that anybody should buy or even look at any more land.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Would the minister agree that his statement that the decision on Hope is pending and that his ministry is going through further evaluation, is patently ridiculous, since he has been giving precisely the same answer for over a year?

Wouldn’t he further agree that this is a prime type of decision -- where the garbage of the city of Toronto is to be dumped into Hope township on contract by Canadian Pacific Rail -- and that this new board established by the legislation he intended to introduce in a few minutes should accept, as one of its first responsibilities, a total review of this situation?

Surely, if there is any thought that the government would permit it, it is going to cause a substantial furore, not only in Hope township but in the other areas of the province.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time, as I’ve said, the Environmental Hearing Board did hear the case in question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is replacing that whole procedure.

Hon. W. Newman: I assume that the Environmental Assessment Board will replace part of the procedure. They still will be hearing the same sort of applications as the Environmental Hearing Board has been hearing on sanitary landfill sites. I do go forward here now and say that we are going to have a review with the Environmental Assessment Board process, which is not retroactive as far as I’m concerned.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No decision has been made.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is not retroactive.

Hon. W. Newman: Calm down. Mr. Speaker, I’ve said before that we will be having --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The government has been delaying for ages.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: Does the Leader of the Opposition want an answer?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is not giving us an answer.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): He doesn’t want an answer.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I said before we would be having an announcement on Hope in the very near future.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth, a supplementary.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. Supplementary question: Am I to understand that projects which have not yet received final approval are not going to be referred to the board to be set up under the new Act?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is going to be phased in. The announcement for the election and the --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, when this legislation is brought forward -- it’s quite lengthy legislation -- and when it has had final reading, we’ll lock at any particular project, but this will not be retroactive, no.

Mr. Deans: Nobody’s asking if it will be retroactive; What I am asking is, in the case of projects that have not yet received final approval, will the new criteria that are now being established by the Act that the minister will introduce today be applied to those projects; and will the persons applying for the implementation of those projects be required to abide by the criteria of the new Act?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, until the Act is passed, they will not have to, of course, and we’ll look at it on an individual basis.

Mr. Deans: Is it likely then that approval will be given to the Hope township project or anywhere else before this Act is passed?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a supplementary. On page 5 of the minister’s statement he refers to two phases. The first phase would affect projects and programmes initiated by the government of Ontario and its Crown agencies, while the second stage would apply to major public and private projects. Could the minister advise this House as to what his thinking is as to the time span between the implementation of the first and second stages of this bill?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, that is a very difficult question because we want to get the legislation in place, get it operating, see how efficiently it works and get any bugs that may be in it out of it before we get into the private or public sector. But we are going to start dealing with government projects first.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister’s answer is, it will be as long as possible.

Mr. P. Taylor: Would it be more than a year or two?

Hon. W. Newman: I can’t give the member a time frame on that at this point in time. I would hope if it works efficiently and well we can move it in reasonably quickly but there may be some problems in getting it worked out in detail.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: May I ask of the minister if both the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways would come under the ambit of this legislation?

Hon. W. Newman: Canadian National Railways would come under the ambit of the federal Ministry of the Environment. It comes under the federal government, so it would come under their ambit at this point in time. As for a CP proposal, it would depend upon what kind of proposal it was, whether it would come under our jurisdiction. I would assume in many cases it would be, depending on the specific instance one is dealing with.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, if his appointment of the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) as chairman of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission means his outright rejection of the recommendation of the commission on the Legislature that this practice of appointing sitting members to positions of extra responsibility and emolument be abolished.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I recall those recommendations relatively well. I think the main context of the recommendations was that as these appointments came up, it could be worked out that they would be appointed as parliamentary assistants. If they have responsibilities, which the member for Timiskaming will have with respect to the Ontario Northland, that is, in conjunction with his responsibilities as a parliamentary assistant, then I think this is totally consistent with the report.

While I’m on my feet, I’d also congratulate the member for Timiskaming. I’m sure all members on all sides of the House wish him well in his very onerous responsibilities.

Mr. Cassidy: We are not so sure.

Mr. Deans: I wouldn’t bet on that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m sure the members on the other side of the House share with me the great confidence I have in his capacity to look after this particular area of responsibility.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): There is nobody left.

Mr. Cassidy: It is one of the worst appointments the Premier has made in four years.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The Premier is joking.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since the Premier has taken the opportunity to express his congratulations, I regret I have to express to you, sir, my deep concern that once again the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission is headed by a political hack who knows nothing about running a railroad.

Mr. Deans: How about the member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes)? There is a man who knows how to run a railroad.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Wouldn’t the Premier consider that it’s about time we put in someone from northeastern Ontario who knows something about the running of a railroad? Wouldn’t the Premier consider that his experiences in the past in this regard have been enough of a lesson so that he is not going to repeat them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have found that appointments of members to various boards and commissions have been very excellent appointments. I’m not going to go through them all here, chapter and verse, this afternoon.

Mr. Breithaupt: It would take too long.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not very many that haven’t had a taste of the gravy. Just about everybody. Just about all of them had some of it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition, in that this is a sort of pre-Easter week I will not become provoked, but his observation about the appointment of a political hack to a particular position is one that I think the Leader of the Opposition ought to consider very carefully.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Tell us about the guy the Premier fired.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

GO-URBAN SYSTEM

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier further, in the absence of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes), if he can clarify the status of the work that is evidently going forward on GO-Urban since his minister, who is absent still, and the other employees of the transportation commission have indicated they still have confidence in the feasibility of magnetic levitation and there is a further expenditure going on? Can the Premier tell us of the status of the $3.4 million lien brought by Canada Systems Group against the project for payment of its commitments, and the $100,000 owing to Spar Aerospace for work carried out on the project as well?

Are these commitments going to be made? What is the status of it? What happened to the three-month report the minister was supposed to present to the House following the withdrawal by the West German government of its support?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t comment in detail. I’m sure the Minister of Transportation and Communications will be delighted to do so. I would only observe that the Soberman report -- which I know the members opposite have read with great care, and of course they have reached a consensus as to its recommendations -- states, I think without any hesitation, the absolute necessity of an intermediate capacity system for Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I think he is talking about light rail.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If memory serves me correctly there were some five probable alignments suggested in that report. However, Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment exactly on the status of the two or three contracts related to the GO-Urban system. As I said in this House, and I’ve said publicly, it is my hope this province and the people in it will be the developers of some form of intermediate capacity system, both as it relates to the needs of Metropolitan Toronto and some of the other urban centres. In view of the economic benefits to be derived therefrom, and the technological advances that are of course part of it, I would like to think we have the capacity here in Ontario to do it rather than have it developed elsewhere. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, some jurisdiction somewhere is going to do it; I would like to see Ontario be the one.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: We are concerned, however, about the financial commitment. Can the Premier tell us what this is costing us on a continuing basis?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the Minister of Transportation and Communications will be delighted to give the hon. member that information.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Finally Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment if he has consulted with the professor from the University of Tokyo, whose name I guess is Dr. Jun Ui, an expert on the effects of mercury pollution, on human ingestion of mercury, who has made, I thought, some very strong statements regarding the problems we have in this province associated with mercury pollution? Has the minister uncle taken to meet with this gentleman and the people who are with him for consultation purposes?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, these gentlemen, I believe, were supposed to come to Toronto originally, but their plans were changed. I have not met with him personally, but I certainly have had my technical people made available to talk to him at any time. I believe our people are going down or have been in Ottawa discussing the matter with him, providing all the technical data available within the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is there any thought within this ministry or the Ministry of Health, concerning any further assessment of the problem in Grassy Narrows, and the Wabigoon and English River systems, which the minister has indicated to the House he feels is largely a receding problem, in light of the fact this external and independent expert claims from experience in Japan the levels of mercury ingestion here are very serious and will lead to substantial medical problems for the Indians concerned.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as far as the jurisdiction of the Minister of the Environment is concerned, we have been monitoring the fish. We will continue to monitor the fish and check the mercury levels. We have certainly made the information public and will continue to keep the public informed. We will also be giving those results, of course, to the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier).

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): No alternatives, though.

Mr. Speaker: No more questions? The member for Wentworth.

TORONTO DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer indicate if in his discussions with the Metro council and the city of Toronto council regarding the Toronto development controls, there was mention made of the 12 -- perhaps more than 12 -- projects which had applications before them for building permits, and if in fact those projects will now automatically receive approval as a result of the act or whether the controls that have been set in place by the cabinet will allow the council to disallow the applications?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I did not have discussions with city of Toronto officials or with city of Toronto elected persons.

Mr. Deans: I then ask whether the Treasurer is aware, from the discussions that were held with people in his ministry, from feedback from them to him, of whether in fact there are 12 or more projects which were awaiting a final decision of cabinet before automatic granting of building permits would be required, since they complied in all other aspects, presumably? If that is the case, then do the development controls put in place by the cabinet allow the council to disallow the granting of those permits?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea whether there are 12, or how many there are, but it seems --

Mr. Deans: Well, a number.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- to me that undoubtedly there were applications which came forward to the city, how many I don’t know, during the period from the time that the original bylaw was passed until the time of its disallowance -- if I can use that term -- by the Ontario Municipal Board subsequently confirmed by the cabinet. I don’t know what their status is. Whether in fact that was the only reason that they were not granted, I have no idea. That is something which would be between the applicant and the city.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the cabinet, in making its decision, has apparently endorsed the principle of what the city of Toronto has intended to do although it disagreed with the manner in which it was done because of the lack of objective criteria, will the government take action with the municipality of Toronto in order to ensure that those 12 applications which came in after the bylaw was initially passed and which the city therefore could not deal with by any other means than the means which it undertook, now come under the objective criteria when they are released at the end of the month?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I think, as I have said, that is something which is going to have to be determined between the applicants for building permits -- if there were applications, and undoubtedly there were during that time, and the city of Toronto. If there are disputes as to the position of those applications for building permits, then that’s something that the courts will have to settle and which we are not able to settle any further.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Rather than deliver a non-answer like that, is the minister not aware that the city is powerless to stop those 12 projects or apply criteria to them because the original bylaw is the only bylaw which applies to them since this cabinet has struck down the 45-ft holding bylaw?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m sure that there are a number of things which may or may not have prevented the issuing of those permits -- demolition legislation and a whole host of other things. What the status is of each of those applications, however many there may be -- the hon. member seems to know and thinks that there are 12; I don’t know how many there are -- again I can only say that that is something which will have to be sorted out between the applicants and the municipality and, failing a resolution at that level, that’s what the courts are there for.

Mr. Cassidy: The Treasurer is lining up with the developers on that one.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If I might ask a further supplementary. The matter was raised following the minister’s announcement a few days ago. Since the action of the Municipal Board, on emanation of this government, and the action of the government itself has in fact left a hole in the protective bylaw structure through which some of these applications may very well be approved, would he not agree that, since it is the stated policy of the government that the city of Toronto should have these powers, the government could act through private legislation to prevent an approval of the building permits simply by mistake or in fact by the intrusion of the power of this government in the first place?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the minister for or against --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is the member for or against?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Entirely for.

Mr. Deans: Now we know.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): That was a non-answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Retroactively.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Wentworth has the opportunity to ask questions.

HOUSING POLICY

Mr. Deans: I would like to ask the Premier a question with regard to his overall housing policy: Between November, 1974, and March, 1975, the income levels of families eligible for housing under the Home Ownership programme in the city of Hamilton and surrounding area went from a minimum of $8,700 to a minimum of $11,806. How does that coincide with the government’s stated intention to continue to provide housing for low and middle income groups, given that there is over a $3,000 difference in the qualification requirements in the matter of five months?

Hon. Mr. Davis: That question should properly be directed to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine). I would say as a matter of general policy, we are developing programmes and are committed to providing housing for middle and lower income groups.

Mr. Deans: If the government is developing programmes for middle and low income groups, could the Premier perhaps make known to the public what those programmes are so that they might be able to make some kind of determination about the likelihood of their ever being able to find accommodation?

Let me ask a question with regard to rentals. In a statement made by the Minister on March 20, he set out some criteria for the establishment of rents in projects which were being undertaken between private developers and the Ontario Housing Corp. -- the criteria will be found on page 3. Can I ask the Premier whether --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Page 3 of what?

Mr. Deans: Page 3 of the document that he read in the Legislature.

Can I ask the Premier whether he doesn’t feel, given the rapid rate of rental increases, that criteria not unlike those set out on this page could be applied to the overall rental industry in order to try to make available to people, housing or accommodation at a cost they can afford? Does the Premier think it particularly funny that people aren’t able to get housing within their ability to pay?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have a copy of that statement with me.

Mr. Deans: Does he know what his government is doing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I regret that I didn’t bring it with me. Perhaps if the member had advised me he was going to ask this, I would have brought it with me. I am sure the Minister of Housing will be delighted to answer this for him.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question: I want to put this to the Premier. It is said in the statement of the Minister of Housing on behalf of the Premier’s government --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Our government.

Mr. Deans: The Premier’s government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is all our government.

Mr. Deans: It is the Premier’s government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is the member’s government. He lives here and pays taxes.

Mr. Deans: On behalf of the Premier’s government -- I don’t take any credit nor do I accept any blame for his blundering --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: -- it is stated in that particular document -- on his behalf this was made -- that there could be an agreement reached between developers and the government with regard to the rate of rent which would be charged. Why doesn’t he move to do likewise across the board to protect people in rental accommodation against unwarranted rent increases?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this matter of rent controls before. I know the members opposite are totally committed to a policy of controls on all things --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Control, control, control.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- prices, rents, wages and so on. It has just never been as clearly enunciated as it has been this afternoon. I am delighted to hear it.

Mr. Stokes: Who was talking about wages and price controls?

Hon. Mr. Davis: He was.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Why doesn’t the Premier practice a little self control?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development has the answer to a question asked previously.

PROVINCIAL PARK FEES

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on March 20, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) asked the following question, in the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources, of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development:

“In view of the statements made by senior officials of the Ministry of Natural Resources that there is going to be an increase in the provincial park fees, would the Provincial Secretary assure this chamber there will be no such increase before the next provincial election?”

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to assure the members of the Legislature that we do not intend to increase fees for provincial parks. I am advised that the speculation in the press was probably prompted by the recent announcement of the federal government concerning a significant increase in national park fees.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Shame.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’m not saying anything nasty about the federal government -- just the facts.

Mr. MacDonald: Dastardly.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Isn’t that part of the plot?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The officials of the Ministry of Natural Resources who were questioned by the press did not, I am told, say that there would be a fee increase in provincial parks.

Mr. Stokes: They said it was customary to raise them every three years.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Like University tuitions.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They simply reiterated the policy of the government to maintain a reasonable balance between operating costs and revenues through periodic adjustments on the scale of park fees.

Mr. Stokes: They were just kite flying, and it wouldn’t fly.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is the member still in favour of free admission?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

TRAINING SCHOOL GRANTS

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): A question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, relating to the amendments to the Municipal Act which now permit municipalities, in which there is a training school or an institution under the Developmental Services Act, to assess $50 per person or per bed as a grant in lieu of taxes: Is there anything in legislation or regulations requiring such a municipality to provide or maintain any certain level of service in that municipality?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Good: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Why then is the municipality of Montague township being pressured into paying the water and service bill of the Ontario Hospital school in Montague township, which I believe is about $50,000, to the city of Smiths Falls, now that it is about to receive this grant of $50 per bed?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have no idea, Mr. Speaker. I’ll be glad to look into it and give the hon. member the answer.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld), who has been absent for several days:

Is the Premier aware that the Minister of Colleges and Universities waltzed into Ottawa a week ago Wednesday to meet with the board of Algonquin College, that he told them to spend all of their reserve funds in order to eliminate the 1974-1975 deficit, and that he’s left them facing a $1.4 million deficit for 1975-1976, with absolutely no concrete suggestions as to how to meet it?

If he is aware of that, can the Premier tell the House how the government intends to help Algonquin out of this financial difficulty, having cut its spending to the bone?

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): This is happening all over the province.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m delighted to hear that a minister of the Crown is still able to waltz in and out of any situation. I find that encouraging, very encouraging. I wish I had that same ability myself.

No, I don’t know of any discussions the minister had with Algonquin College. The minister at this moment is, I believe, engaged in dialogue at the University of Toronto. He may even be here before the question period is over, at which time I’m sure he’d be delighted to answer the hon. member’s question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Carleton East.

OTTAWA AREA AMALGAMATION STUDY

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Premier:

In response to a question from the hon. member for Ottawa Centre on Oct. 29 last, nearly five months ago, the hon. Premier told this House -- and I refer to page 4515 of Hansard -- that there was a study under way at that time to determine whether or not the urbanized portions of Gloucester township and the village of Rockcliffe Park should be amalgamated by the city of Ottawa. Could the Premier say when that study will be completed and reported to this House?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m very surprised that the hon. member -- and I know he’s a new member -- isn’t aware of the study going on by Dr. Mayo in the Ottawa-Carleton region, which is of course a total study of the community.

Mr. Stokes: The Premier was just lucky enough to have the Treasurer on his left there. That’s how he was made aware of it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps if the hon. member would consult with Dr. Mayo, he might tell him when he expects to have his study completed.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT ELLIOT LAKE

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker: Inasmuch as the joint report prepared by his ministry and the Ministry of Health has now been completed and copies have been delivered both to the Minister of Health, who alas has departed the scene, and to the Minister of Labour himself, or at least to his deputy, is the minister prepared to release that report?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I hope that we’ll be prepared to make a statement on that in the near future.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

GRAND RIVER FLOOD INQUIRY

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development with respect to the Grand River flooding of last spring and the inquiry that has taken place: Can the minister advise us when we might expect to receive the report of the inquiry commission, as some substantial time has now passed and there is great interest within the Waterloo region and the communities along the Grand River valley to come to grips with the conclusions that the commissioner may bring forward?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The water is rising again.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Speaker, I’m not in a position to advise the hon. member of that at this particular time.

Mr. Lawlor: Will the minister get himself into such a position?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

INSULATION MATERIALS

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier: What is the government doing to encourage the use of insulation materials that are safer than asbestos, both in its mining and in its processing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question for the hon. member, but I will be delighted to try to find out for him from the appropriate ministers.

Mr. Burr: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that Ontario Hydro has virtually eliminated the use of asbestos as the result of a programme that began several years ago?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of it; but obviously the member feels that is a very positive thing. I will communicate his views to Ontario Hydro just to tell them how well he thinks they are doing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

MANPOWER TRAINING

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suppose this question should be directed to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development in regard to manpower training in the Province of Ontario.

Have there been any meetings going on under the umbrella of this ministry to plan for manpower training, apprenticeship programmes and so on, especially as they relate to the study of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities called “Training for Ontario’s Future”?

Has the minister had any discussions with the Minister of Labour and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. McNie), I believe, who is looking after this?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio is the minister responsible for the manpower secretariat.

Mr. Reid: He is not here.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I understand there has been discussion between his secretariat and with the Department of Labour, but he will be in a position to speak to that when he is in the House.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: By “the Department of Labour” does the minister mean the provincial Ministry of Labour?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Reid: Could I then redirect my question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker? What talks have gone on, and has the ministry come up with any programmes? Is the ministry, for example, going to follow the recommendations in the task force report and become industry-centred with apprenticeship programmes and remove some of these programmes from the secondary schools and community colleges?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, that is quite a way removed from my ministry, but I have had discussions with the Minister without Portfolio in connection with manpower problems -- not in connection with those training problems which would ordinarily be the responsibility of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. I can’t tell the member what he may be planning in that way. I know he has plans afoot in connection with manpower, but they are still in the formative stages. Our discussions in that regard are continuing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West?

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister last month removed agricultural workers from some of the exemptions in the Employment Standards Act, will he now consider removing those agricultural workers from the exemption under the Labour Relations Act so that their association of migrant farm workers can, in fact, receive the protection of the Ontario Labour Relations Act?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, there is no thought of doing that at the present time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

NIGHT TRAFFIC COURT IN YORK REGION

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): A question of the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker: Why has there been such a delay -- it has been a period of nearly two years since the region of York asked the minister’s predecessor, twice removed -- to establish a night traffic court in York? Has he yet replied to the region about establishing such a court?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, it is my information it has been operating since February 1974 in that particular area of Toronto.

Mr. Deacon: I was referring to the Region of York in Newmarket, the one operated in Newmarket. That is a different region. Maybe the minister doesn’t understand. Metropolitan Toronto is different from the region of York.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Has the minister got that figured out?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member would refer back to the statements of two of my predecessors, twice removed, a statement was made at that time by the then Attorney General that they would embark upon this study as a pilot project in, I believe, North York. Before they decide to expand it, in other areas of the province or other areas of this particular region, they would see if it was operating successfully.

Mr. Reid: Predecessor three times removed.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Accordingly, it is operating up there. Is the member trying to tell me something? Has he been caught up there or something?

Mr. Deacon: No. Doesn’t the minister have a copy of the letter written March 7? They are asking for an answer, and attempting to get one from the minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Don’t look at me. Perhaps if they wrote to me they would get an answer more accurately and more quickly.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They did write to the minister and they didn’t get an answer.

Mr. Deacon: I think the minister should have a copy of the letter sent to him on March 7 asking for an answer for them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Maybe the minister needs a special arrangement to get it through.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

COMPLEMENT FREEZE

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

Is the minister aware that the complement freeze imposed several months ago on all ministries within his government is working undue hardship on a lot of the regional offices, particularly the district offices of the Ministry of Natural Resources? Is he aware that, as a result of this freeze in complement, the Ministry of Natural Resources is forced to take people on on a contract basis by which they are denied the rights and working conditions which generally apply to civil servants across the province -- particularly female workers? In district offices they may have one permanent employee and six others on contract who are forced --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Ministry of Culture and Recreation is growing.

Mr. Stokes: -- to take two weeks off a year so they won’t be considered permanent personnel. Doesn’t he think this is discriminatory against female employees and will he do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s quite a question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes and yes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it was a long speech ending with a rising inflection.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Just say yes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’ll try to remember everything the hon. member has asked.

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, we can’t have it both ways. The hon. member and all members agree the government should keep down the complement of the civil service; that we shouldn’t allow it to increase and that we should, in fact, try to reduce it. We’re holding the line now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What about the Ministry of Culture and Recreation?

Mr. Ferrier: They are circumventing it. The Ministry of Culture is advertising some excellent jobs.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay certainly, I’m sure, gives public credit to the government, particularly under the responsibility of the Chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Winkler), for keeping from increasing the complement of the government. This is probably the only government in North America which has succeeded in doing it.

Mr. Stokes: The ministries still have them but they have them on a contract basis, that’s all. The minister is just playing games.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay asked me whether I know if there are any hardships down the line in doing this. I would be surprised if there weren’t. Of course, in some areas there is going to be some weeping and gnashing of teeth in getting adjusted to this particular situation but I’m sure the ministries and the civil service will manage to cope with it as they have with other difficult situations in the past.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister is deceiving himself as well as the other people now.

Mr. Stokes: Will the minister look into it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would be pleased if the hon. member would get up and give his blessing and his encouragement to the continued policy of the government to keep down the increase in the size of government generally.

Mr. Stokes: That’s not what I asked.

Mr. MacDonald: And it’s not what the minister is doing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre has a supplementary.

Mr. Deacon: Would the minister tell us if this is the way the government is covering up the larger increase in the civil service than is apparent from the figures?

An hon. member: Certainly he is.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member is referring to the fact that we are hiring some people under contract, that has no relation to it at all. As a matter of fact, if the hon. member doesn’t appreciate the difference between not taking on, say, 10 people and adding them to the civil service and, perhaps, getting three or four people on contract then he had better do a little greater study in depth on government generally.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is a great difference first in numbers --

Mr. Lawlor: We have had six new boards in the last three days.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and one has greater control over the period of time in which they are needed insofar as the work is concerned.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

CATALYTIC CONVERTERS

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Is the Minister of the Environment aware that catalytic converters on old cars could be dangerous by causing fires in forest areas where there is dry grass? Has he had any information on that?

Hon. W. Newman: No, but we have certainly looked at the catalytic mufflers on the 1915 models. The member might be aware of the fact that the catalytic mufflers were not a pre-requisite here in Canada. It was just in the US that the American-made cars -- a lot of them in the GM line -- had the catalytic mufflers. Certainly we have no reason to suspect them of causing fires but we certainly do check the emissions from them.

Mr. Ruston: Would the minister consider investigating their use in park areas where there is a possibility of fires?

Hon. Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we certainly would be glad to look at any flames being shot out of the catalytic mufflers but we have made a great deal of tests on them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

TORONTO AREA TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier in relation to the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority. A statement by the Minister of Transport of March 13, 1975, wherein he said that the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority, an arm of the ministry, was created by the Ontario government to regulate and coordinate inter-regional transit services, is in conflict with the statement the Premier made on Aug. 23, 1973, when he was speaking to this and said that the government would not be infringing upon the autonomy of the local areas concerned. Has there been a change in government policy in relationship to the minister’s recent statement?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that maybe because it is Monday I’m a little slow today. I really don’t understand the question or see any conflict or contradiction in the two observations that were made. If the hon. member might like to rephrase it, I’d be delighted to try to answer it for him.

I’ll tell him that I think the problem may be in his understanding of it. What I indicated initially, when the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority was being proposed and developed, and the legislation passed, was that when it came to the planning mechanisms we were most interested in having the planning responsibilities still those of the regions which were participating within the authority. I don’t think anything the minister has said has contradicted that We are talking now about inter-regional transportation. I don’t really see any conflict in those two observations.

Perhaps if the member could drop me a note and spell it out more specifically, I’ll try to answer it in a better fashion for him. As I say, it still hasn’t registered, but I don’t see what the problem is.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

COURT BACKLOG IN WINDSOR AREA

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Attorney General. Is the Attorney General aware of the serious backlog of criminal cases taking place in the city of Windsor and the county of Essex? If the minister is aware, will he look into the situation in an attempt to resolve it? Is he also aware of the fact that the jury panels being selected sometimes number as many as 86, at a cost to the province of approximately $1,000 for them, and that they are called in and then sent home because the criminal case cannot be conducted?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of it, having read about it as recently as today, as reported in the Windsor Star, I believe. As I read the article, from the comments of the judge reported in the article the problem seemed to be that there were only seven or eight lawyers in that area during the bulk of the criminal work. As I read the article, it would appear that the lawyers weren’t ready to go or were involved in another court.

Insofar as this pertains to legal aid, if it turns out that legal aid applicants are trying to secure the services of a small number of criminal lawyers in that area, I would hesitate to tell them they must take other people on the legal aid panel. I think that the choice should be available to those who have been issued a certificate.

That’s what I read in the article. Perhaps I didn’t understand it correctly. If there is a large number of criminal cases on the list and a small number of defence counsel handling the hulk of those cases, if they have to be involved in another court and are not ready to go, then it is just one of the situations which we run into, not only in the Windsor area but in other areas of the province that are served by a fairly small number of members of the criminal bar.

Until the public goes to other lawyers -- and I’m not suggesting that they should -- the problem will continue. It is just the same as 20 people wanting their cars fixed by one mechanic. It all can’t be done at the same time. I’ll welcome any observations the member might offer as to how this congestion can be alleviated. But until such time as the situation changes, I think it will continue to be with us.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary?

Mr. B. Newman: Is the minister aware that the jury panels are called down to the various criminal cases, but they are sent right home simply because the cases cannot be proceeded with? Could not the cases be programmed in such a fashion, or the lawyers involved inform the officials, so that the jury panel wouldn’t lose a day’s pay and receive only $10 for its services in putting in an appearance at the court?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, jury panels are directed by the sheriff to appear on a certain day at the opening of the sessions or the assizes. There may be two or three cases slated for that particular day, or perhaps one case, wherein counsel have indicated to the officers of the court, the sheriff and perhaps even to the judge himself, that they anticipate the case may last for three or four days.

Lawyers coming next on the list with case No. 2, No. 3 or No. 4 are usually advised by the court, because they call and ask how long the first case is going to take, that it is estimated the first case will take perhaps as long as three days, and so they are not ready to go until later on in the week.

It may be that on the day in question, or almost on the eve of the day in question, a very critical witness for one side of the case or other is ill, or counsel is ill; and in the interests of their respective clients, be it either the Crown attorney representing the Crown or the defence lawyer representing the accused, they communicate that to the court. The next morning, when the panel turns up, there are no lawyers ready to go for cases Nos. 2, 3, and 4 because of the reasons I’ve outlined and, in order to minimize the inconvenience to the jury, the judge will send them home, and quite properly so.

This is what happens when you have people involved in a system dealing with people. It’s only as good as the health and the ability of the people involved. Sometimes the same thing will happen where an accused actually absconds and, without the accused, they won’t proceed with the trial.

I just don’t know what the answer is, but it’s something we can’t just ignore; it’s there. Anybody who has practised any law in the courts will tell the member the same thing happens with civil cases too.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR MEDICAL TRAINING

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Inasmuch as the Minister of Colleges and Universities has stated that the problem of admission to students into first-year medical school is strictly within the realm of the university, and the dean of the medical school has written a letter stating that they are only carrying out the policies as set down by this government, can the Premier step into this vacuum and straighten out one or the other and let us find out who has the responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m always prepared to step into a vacuum if one exists. I really don’t know of any vacuum. I haven’t had a copy of the correspondence. This government has always been prepared, I think, to recognize the relative autonomy of our post-secondary institutions in terms of standards, admission and otherwise. However, I’d be delighted to discuss it with the minister and see if the member for High Park is right as to whether there is a vacuum. I question that there is, but I’ll certainly have a look.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: Will the Premier agree that there is a serious problem there which is causing more than serious inconvenience and heartbreak to many Ontario students? And can he do something to assist in this problem?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there are a number of students every year, whether it be in medicine, law or elsewhere, who are disappointed in not gaining admission; of course, this is sometimes more pronounced in the faculties of medicine, although it has happened in other faculties as well.

I have always been concerned, Mr. Speaker -- and I think there has to be some degree of reason, some degree of balance here -- that we don’t become totally restrictive as far as admissions to our post-secondary institutions are concerned. This doesn’t mean that it can’t be looked at and discussed with the universities, but I’m sure the member for High Park doesn’t feel that we should restrict enrolment at our universities entirely to Ontario or Canadian citizens --

Mr. Shulman: They should have priority.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- since there are a number of Ontarians who attend universities outside our own country, certainly outside our own province. I recognize there is a certain amount of political appeal in it at the moment. I don’t deny that for a moment. But I think we have to look at it very carefully and do whatever we do with some degree of reason and logic. I am quite prepared to discuss it with the minister, but I am not prepared to give any commitment today.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that over the past few years a number of those in the agricultural industry have been bringing in experienced Mexican farm labourers and that they could bring their families with them, but this year they are informed by Manpower that the only members of their families they can bring with them are those who are 16 years of age and older, so the experienced Mexican farm labourers refuse to come to assist those in agriculture in the Province of Ontario? Has there been a change in the manpower Act, or does the minister have anything to do that would correct this situation?

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): The member should ask his friends up in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the provisions for bringing in people from Mexico and the Caribbean are governed by the federal government. In making those regulations, I believe they do consult with our Ministry of Agriculture and Food, but they are the ones who are responsible and I think the member would have to ask them. However, I’m sure the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) will have some information if the member will save his question for him on Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that, not withstanding the previous order, the House will sit on Wednesday, March 26, and when it adjourns on that day it will stand adjourned until Monday, April 7.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT, 1975

Hon. W. Newman moves first reading of bill intituled, the Environmental Assessment Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Hon. W. Newman moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Hon. W. Newman moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in explanation, this bill actually dissolves the Environmental Hearing Board and, when the new bill comes in, replaces it with the Environmental Assessment Board.

LABOUR OMBUDSMAN ACT, 1975

Mr. Reid moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide for the appointment of a Labour Ombudsman.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to establish a labour ombudsman to hear and investigate employee complaints with respect to employers and trade unions. It would apply to both union and non-union workers.

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I’ll recognize the member for Algoma.

An hon. member: Keep it short and sweet.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, it’s the usual tradition at this time of the year to bring some of the sweetness from Algoma to the members of the Legislature. So I would say that these little envelopes that have been distributed by the page boys and girls are with the compliments of the Algoma maple syrup producers.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oxford had the floor when we rose last week.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, appreciating the urgency and the short time left to this House to debate the Speech from the Throne, I think the rest of my remarks could sensibly be done when we debate the budget. I am prepared, therefore, with those very few words to conclude my remarks and yield to the next hon. member who chooses to speak to the Throne Speech.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope I can make myself heard despite the rather raspy voice I have at the present time.

As appears to be the custom, Mr. Speaker, I would like to join other members of this House in commending you on achieving and capably fulfilling your responsibilities in the high office as Speaker of the House.

I am going to be honest with you though, Mr. Speaker, and tell you that some of the members of this House, including myself, considered your appointment to be very short-lived, as your past attempts, as Deputy Speaker, to conduct the procedures of the House in an orderly fashion, left something to be desired. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, you have surprised us. You have done a reasonably good job of maintaining order and you seem to exercise fairness in carrying out your responsibilities, which other members of the House appreciate I am sure.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): He may be blind at times.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Members don’t have to be like the weather outside today.

Mr. Riddell: You seem to be somewhat reluctant, however, Mr. Speaker, to cast a glance at the back benches on your extreme left during the question period, and I would hazard a guess that you purposely ignore us here in the fear that my colleague, the member for Carleton East (Mr. P. Taylor), will jump up and pose a question which might be embarrassing to you and your colleagues in the conduct of the House proceedings.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): What about the member for Essex South (Mr. Paterson)?

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) and I will try to restrain the member for Carleton East as much as possible in the hope you will make every effort to acknowledge our attempts to ask questions periodically.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Do you hear that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, having given some considerable thought to what I might say in reply to the Throne Speech, I am reminded of a teacher who would begin his chemistry lecture by asking the students to name the properties of a vacuum. There was so little substance in the Throne Speech that it is practically impossible to comment on the policies of the government in this time of uncertainty, due to inflation here and abroad and world recession. Therefore I will comment on matters of concern as they pertain to the people of Ontario.

We received a copy of the final report of the electoral boundaries commission on Tuesday last, and I would like to express my sincere regrets that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) has lost his riding.

Not only did he lose his riding, but the rural people of Ontario have lost what little remains of representation on their behalf in the Ontario Legislature, inasmuch as another rural riding has been lost in favour of an additional riding in the city of London.

Now I fail to understand, Mr. Speaker, why the Minister of Agriculture and Food and his parliamentary assistant, the member for Middlesex South, (Mr. Eaton), would support the views of the two members for London in doing away with one of the rural Middlesex tidings in an attempt to establish three ridings in London and only one Middlesex riding. The news media has given wide publicity to the fact that the member for Middlesex North (Mr. Stewart) lost his riding, but the reports fail to indicate that the four members from Middlesex and London requested these changes, and assuming that the commission gave some consideration to the request, then I can only say that the Minister of Agriculture and Food helped feather his nest and now he is going to have to lie in it.

It has been suggested that the minister has three alternatives; to retire after 18 years of service, contest the London North riding, or run against the Liberal member for Huron.

Mr. Gaunt: He would be defeated.

Mr. Riddell: I say, Mr. Speaker, the minister really has only two alternatives; to retire or to run in the new Huron-Middlesex riding, for I firmly believe the minister’s roots to be too deeply anchored in the rural community for him to even consider contesting the election in an urban riding.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the minister would seriously consider contesting the election in the Huron-Middlesex riding, for I firmly believe it could be one of the most interesting campaigns in the entire election.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Hear, hear. It would be another cabinet minister down the drain.

Mr. Riddell: I am fully cognizant of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that one such as I, who lacks experience in the political arena, should not be giving advice to a member who has had 18 years of experience in politics. But should the Minister of Agriculture and Food decide to contest the election in Huron-Middlesex, then I would like to suggest that the tone of this election be conducted in a much more moral fashion than was the by-election in Huron in 1973.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): The member has to speak for himself.

Mr. Riddell: During the by-election in Huron at that time, I can’t help recall that there was an attempt on someone’s part to muddy the waters, and it didn’t take a genius to assess the origin of such erroneous information. The press reported than an unidentified person said that he certainly wouldn’t hire the Liberal candidate to work for him as he couldn’t content himself with any one particular line of profession and, as a result, was always on the move.

What was not reported, Mr. Speaker, was that the same Liberal candidate worked for the extension branch of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, commencing his duties in Hastings county, and later being moved to Essex county with the same department, and then to a position as an assistant general manager of the Ontario stockyards in Toronto -- all of which are departments and facilities of the Ontario government.

This, I presume, was what was implied as the Liberal candidate not being able to settle down to any one particular job. But, unfortunately, this wasn’t the only dirt that was hurled during that by-election.

During the campaign, Mr. Speaker, I was allegedly divorced, bankrupt, and a one-time prisoner in a penitentiary in western Canada. I was amused, however, at my constituents’ response to these allegations, particularly in connection with my so-called prison term in western Canada.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): That one was true, eh?

Mr. Riddell: Some of my constituents responded to the delegation by saying: “Well, if he was in jail it shows that he has got some gumption, and we want a man with aggressiveness to represent us in the Ontario Legislature.”

Mr. Speaker, you well know, as do many of the members in the House, I hope, that people will no longer buy this kind of political garbage. Unfortunately, there are some members who have not yet grasped this concept. The type of political nonsense which the hon. member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) was reported to have stated in a speech to some group in Toronto recently can do nothing more than lead to her defeat, along with that of the government, in the upcoming election.

Mr. P. Taylor: That’s right. That’s right.

Mr. Riddell: And, Mr. Speaker, I can say without fear of contradiction that the hon. member for St. David will be defeated unless she has something more positive to say about the Ontario government’s housing programme. Surely the people of Ontario are entitled to something better than that.

To get back to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I would very much regret to see him throw in the towel. I have seen the minister perform both in the Legislature and outside the Legislature, and although it is questionable whether he has rendered a great deal of assistance to the farmers in Ontario, he does have the ability to lead them to believe that he has and is doing something for them. He speaks well at agricultural meetings and conventions, and certainly has a very pleasing personality wherever he goes.

I commend him for his dedication in the House for I don’t believe that all other cabinet ministers put together spend as many hours in the House listening to the debates as does the Minister of Agriculture and Food. But his shortcoming is definitely his reluctance to implement policies for the betterment of the agricultural industry in Ontario.

Our beef producers are in trouble. Our pork producers will likely suffer the effects of low beef prices. Our chicken producers have to operate at a loss, particularly when the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board negates the effectiveness of the Chicken Producers Marketing Board in setting prices.

Our sheep producers are practically giving the wool away, and paying a levy on that wool to promote sheep and sheep products.

Our beef producers will be expected to pay a 45 cent levy on each head of livestock sold -- which, I might say, is 10 cents more than that requested by the Beef Improvement Association. Why the minister chose to increase this levy to 45 cents on his own volition remains a mystery, not only to me, but to the beef producers in general.

The minister does not want to take part in the preservation of class 1 and 2 land. And when it did appear that he was trying to preserve good farm land by taking a stand against the pipeline being installed in the good agricultural land in southern Ontario, he succumbed to the decision made by the present Treasurer, the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. McKeough), that the pipeline was going to be constructed in southern Ontario and that was it. It was just not going to go anywhere else other than in southern Ontario.

The minister seemed to show very little interest in preventing Ontario Hydro from constructing power line towers on class 1 and 2 land; and I don’t recall him voicing any objections to the gobbling up of land by the government to construct new cities.

There has been a request to the minister on the part of opposition members to establish some type of price stabilization for farmers to eliminate the high risk and financial difficulties that farmers continually face. But the minister has always passed this off by saying that price stabilization programmes are matters for the federal government. Every other province seems to assist the farmers, while the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food introduces legislation to permit farmers to borrow money in order to get themselves out of debt.

Now I could go on and talk about the plight of the farmer in Ontario but I don’t believe anything will change in that respect until the government changes, and this is a matter for the people of Ontario to decide in the next election.

Mr. Speaker, I was amused at the report of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) announcing the government’s decision to establish an independent commission of inquiry into the long-range planning of Ontario power needs. The commission will emphasize public participation in planning the expansion of Ontario Hydro from 1983 to 1993. In the meantime Hydro will continue to increase its expenditures by establishing more generating stations and power corridors all over Ontario with no public involvement in the decision-making process for any project undertaken before 1983.

I would like to pose a question. Is hydro a lifeline or a killer? Electricity is a marvellous source of power, we will all admit that; without it modern society would be lost. Ontario Hydro needs new sources of power for the years ahead, there is no question about that; and these sources are limited because of technical knowledge and certain physical attributes which must be present.

While the farmers of rural Huron county may see no reason that all hydro development could not be located in the northern part of the province, Hydro may have some very valid and understandable arguments why this is impossible. Nevertheless, Hydro should certainly listen to those at the grassroots in the province, listen to their concerns and listen to their suggestions, which Hydro has generally tended to ignore up to the present time.

Farmers are the backbone of the nation and there are few people who will dispute this. Much is being said these days about the rate at which farmland is being taken out of production because of urban-like development. In western Ontario, Hydro is being dubbed a culprit because power corridors, to carry the heavy lines from the power plant to the power distribution station, in some cases crossed crop-growing lands, reducing productivity there.

One of the most valid arguments put forward in opposition to the proposal that a Hydro plant be located in the southern half of Huron county has been supplied by the white bean growers of Huron county. The white bean industry in Huron county could be threatened by the introduction of a Hydro plant; and it wouldn’t really matter whether the proposed Hydro plant would be a nuclear type or a fossil fuel type, both could result in dire problems for white bean consumers across the world. A fossil fuel plant would produce air pollution and a condition known as ozone bronzing in white beans. A nuclear plant would have no direct effect on beans, but the industry would be indirectly stymied by the fear of foreign buyers that the beans carried fallout from the Hydro development. This could be a very real concern for foreign buyers who would simply shun Huron county beans for those grown in other areas.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): That is one of the most original ideas introduced in this Legislature. I congratulate the member.

Mr. Riddell: I thank the member for his support.

Mr. Cassidy: Radioactive beans for all; is that right?

Mr. Riddell: Environmentalists have great influence --

Mr. Cassidy: The chairman of the ONTC has been giving the member the raspberry.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): No, that was directed at the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): He is a raspberry.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s his first official act.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps you should bring the member for Timiskaming to order for making rude noises in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: You have no point of order.

Mr. Riddell: Environmentalists have great influence on everyone these days. Everyone wants clean air, clean water, clean countryside. These are worthwhile aims and objectives. With modern technology and plenty of money, one could almost believe that some day it could be possible to live in the style to which most people want to become accustomed without fear of pollutants of any sort. Yet common sense dictates that unless there are some changes in the pattern of modern living, there will be little left of what is now familiar and enjoyable. I believe it is time people became concerned about pollutants in our environment.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a little time to speak on certain environmental matters which have been and are of great concern to the people of Ontario but which have been, if not completely ignored by the government then inadequately and irresponsibly handled.

I refer to the number of environmental issues on which this government has promised action in previous Throne Speeches as far back as 1971. I point to the complete lack of any concrete legislation for any of these issues thus far. It is not surprising that this year’s Speech from the Throne should be completely void of any promises dealing with environmental legislation, or any type of legislation as far as that goes.

Mr. Haggerty: He’s right on.

Mr. Riddell: Perhaps it is the feeling of this present government that if no promises are made none will have to be broken, as has been the custom in the past.

To begin with, I would like to talk about noise pollution and the complete lack of any worthwhile controls on this most serious problem. We are aware, I am sure, of the problems of noise pollution today and of the problems which it can cause to our health and overall well-being. It was as far back as 1971, when the Premier (Mr. Davis) announced that there was to be a bill of rights for the protection of the environment, that the whole question of noise pollution came under discussion. At that time the Ministry of the Environment was promising that noise pollution would be dealt with at another date. This legislation was to have dealt with provincial noise regulations which would be enforced throughout Ontario.

We recall the Speech from the Throne in March, 1973, when the Premier stated that it was the intention of his government to institute a provincial noise abatement programme. Now, after 3½ years, all this present government has been able to bring forward has been a model bylaw, which can be adopted by municipalities if they wish but which has not even been defined yet.

Mr. Good: And it hasn’t even been introduced.

Mr. Riddell: In other words, while this situation has been growing steadily more disturbing and more complex since 1971, and while the government has been conducting expensive studies in various municipalities, we are back to 1971 in terms of dealing with this situation.

Many municipalities which have been concerned about this question of noise pollution had wanted to do something about it two or three years ago. However, the municipalities got letters from the Ministry of the Environment stating they should not do work on this question because the province was going to do it. We now find ourselves in 1975. And what do we have in terms of provincial noise legislation? Nothing. We are to have a model bylaw which can be accepted or rejected by the municipalities.

Mr. Good: They haven’t even got it ready.

Mr. Riddell: Not only do we not have any regulations, but what about the question of vehicle noise regulations which were to be aimed at curbing operational noise from motor vehicles; or the stationary noise source regulations; or the nuisance noise, such as noisy neighbours?

Mr. Haggerty: The member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) says, “I’ll put ’em in jail.”

Mr. Riddell: All has been forgotten. This government has proved to be inefficient in dealing with this question, saying that it is not the government’s responsibility but that of the municipalities. The municipalities, however, have shown they have not been able, or willing, to convict on infractions of noise bylaws.

Moreover, this province will become a mosaic of municipal regulations. Some will enforce the government model standards while others will not. What will happen is that this government will encourage industry to locate in municipalities with less stringent regulations or ideally no noise bylaws.

I would sincerely request, Mr. Speaker, that the Ministry of the Environment take immediate steps to introduce legislation for noise regulations for the province as a whole.

There is another question I wish to deal with that has received an almost total lack of action from the government. This is the whole question of solid waste handling and disposable containers. I would like to know how this government can face the people of Ontario today and say they are acting responsibly on environmental problems in this province, when surely they are not doing so.

It was as far back as 1971 when the former Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) promised legislation to reduce the use of non-returnable pop containers. And in March, 1973 the minister of the Ministry of the Environment of that day (Mr. Auld), stated that the province had a very definite commitment to hold the line on the increase in the amount of garbage. He said strong leadership would be taken in this field so that “we can cut down as much as possible on one-way disposable cartons that will include cans, bottles and plastic containers.”

An hon. member: Non-leadership.

Mr. Riddell: In the Throne Speech of March 1974 we heard the Premier state, and I quote: “My government will also propose other measures for the control and reduction of litter and solid waste.” These measures, however, have merely resulted in a ban on the flip-top of non-returnable cans. This is by far inadequate.

Solid waste in Ontario now exceeds six million tons per year. Garbage disposal costs the taxpayers of this province $100 million per year. In 1972 the composite beverage industry generated an estimated 241,846 tons of waste at a cost to the taxpayer of $3.9 million. The estimated waste amounted to 6.76 per cent of the estimated 3,575,000 tons of solid waste collected by municipalities in that year.

In 1972 the total energy consumption connected with the manufacture and disposal of primary containers amounted to 3.3 billion kw hours. This energy is sufficient to heat 25,500 average size Ontario homes for a year, and this degree of energy consumption would be valued at $32.3 million.

All the facts in the Ministry of Environment’s solid waste task force report made clear the need for a ban on non-refillable containers, bottles and cans. Yet no adequate action has been taken by this government. It can only be concluded that the environment has again been sacrificed on the altar of corporate profits, with the taxpayers left to pay the ever-increasing costs of cleaning up and disposing of this problem.

My dissatisfaction with the provincial programmes in the area of solid wastes stems from a difference in philosophy. The ideal environmental solution is to eliminate waste at its source. That is to replace things that are discarded after one use with things that can be reused many times over. A switch from the throw-away can and bottle to the returnable container would provide an excellent example of the philosophy which urges fundamental changes in our society.

What is happening in the matter of disposable containers is similar to what will happen to the noise regulations. Many municipalities are themselves planning to ban nonreturnable bottles. An article in the London Free Press this past week stated that the city of London is preparing a draft bylaw to ban non-returnable bottles. This matter, however, is a provincial responsibility which it will be impossible, and undesirable, to handle on a municipal level.

I would again request, Mr. Speaker, that immediate steps he taken by the government for the elimination of non-returnable bottles and cans through a gradual ban in favour of reusable containers.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short reference in my speech to the matter of environmental impact assessment. We did get a report on it today; a bill has now been introduced and we are thankful the minister is finally seeing fit to bring a bill into this House.

Mr. Good: Inadequate though it is.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): The member hasn’t read it.

Mr. Good: Yes, I have; every bit of it. I know what’s in it.

Mr. Drea: Oh, sure he does.

Mr. Riddell: The inadequacies of existing procedures for government approval of major projects in this province are alarming. In 1971 the Environmental Protection Act was passed and provision was made for a similar agency called the environmental council.

Again, in 1973, in the Speech from the Throne, the government said it would place before us legislation to establish a permanent agency for environmental protection having the responsibility for a comprehensive system of assessment and evaluation of the environmental significance of activities of ministries of the government, utilities, projects funded in part by the government and related activities in the private sector which had comparable environmental implications.

Again, in the 1974 Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, the government said we would be asked to approve legislation which will require an environmental assessment of major new development projects. But once again, the government only talks about protecting the environment and has done nothing on this question up to the present time.

Mr. Cassidy: They are pragmatic.

Mr. Riddell: What I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, is what this government has been doing since 1971 in regard to environmental problems in this province. The answer must surely be very little. It would seem that the ministry of this government responsible for the environment is much more a public relations agency than a responsive government ministry.

It is completely beyond belief how this government can come before the people year after year with promises of this nature which are still to be fulfilled. We are all aware, Mr. Speaker, that Ontario Hydro is in the midst of planning a new transmission system across southern Ontario which will eventually connect to northern Ontario.

This system will have a tremendous environmental impact on the areas through which it will pass. Already this government has approved a 500 kv transmission corridor from the Middleport transformer station near Nanticoke to the Cherrywood transformer station near Pickering; a corridor between the Pickering and Lennox generating stations in the eastern part of the province; and a corridor to join the Bruce complex to the Toronto area. While the Nanticoke-to-Pickering transmission corridor was extensively studied by Bruce Howlett Inc., an independent organization, whose findings were reviewed by the Solandt commission; and the Pickering-to-Lennox line has been studied by Commonwealth Associates Inc. and is being reviewed by the Solandt commission, this was not the case with the Bradley-to-Georgetown transmission route. In the last case, Ontario Hydro has been permitted to do its own study without the benefit on an independent group and without public hearings.

Mr. Speaker, the need for a permanent environmental impact assessment body is most apparent when one considers the enormous effects these huge corridors will have on our environment and on the lives of the people affected. Moreover, the Bradley-to-Georgetown route must be immediately reviewed by an independent environmental group and through public hearings.

I would again request, Mr. Speaker, that the Ministry of the Environment take immediate steps to review all the questions to which I have referred and to act responsibly on these problems rather than mask them. in the last four years very little has been done by this government on environmental issues. Perhaps this present government does not feel that environmental questions are important enough to be dealt with by effective legislation or perhaps the industries would not approve.

The result is the same: A series of broken promises one after the other culminating in the present Throne Speech with no promises at all. The people, however, are aware of the lack of action of this government; and this lack of ideas in the present Throne Speech is a clear representation of the non-action of this government on the questions which I have outlined.

I want to complete my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by talking about the latest educational grants. I might say that both Huron and Bruce county boards of education were denied any grant whatsoever and the unfortunate part of the whole thing was that neither board was consulted. They simply received a letter from the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) saying they would not receive one penny of a grant. It would appear that Perth county as well was not going to receive a grant; and I became somewhat alarmed at this, because all three counties happened to be represented by Liberal members and I began to think the government was playing politics.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Sounds like dirty tricks.

Mr. Riddell: However, I must admit that Perth county did receive a slight grant -- certainly not nearly as adequate as it might have been, but it did receive a slight grant. Huron county board of education did not receive a grant of any kind and this led to an interruption in a five-year programme on the part of the Huron County Board of Education to have industrial arts and home economics courses throughout the county.

They are also endeavouring to establish a minicomputer at the high school in Exeter for instructional purposes; this was to be a pilot project. Again, they didn’t receive a grant for this purpose. One of the heating systems has completely packed up at one of the schools in Huron county, and again they didn’t receive a grant in order to rectify this situation.

I might just say at this time that the fact that Huron County Board of Education did not receive a grant will not disrupt the programmes in Huron as much as it will in Bruce county. I would just like to quote from an editorial in one of the weeklies, which I think hit the nail right on the head. I quote:

“Inexcusable cutbacks

“The provincial Ministry of Education’s decision to cut off the entire capital budget of the Huron County Board of Education is hard to understand. Its decision to cut off capital funds to the Bruce county board, however, is downright outrageous.

“There can perhaps be some question as to whether or not Huron needs the extra classrooms it has budgeted for. Perhaps we can get along without these new facilities. There is no question, however, that new facilities are needed north of the county border in Bruce.

“The population of the south Bruce area continues to grow strongly. There is only one reason for that growth -- Ontario Hydro’s nuclear generating station and the accompanying heavy water plant. It is completely inexcusable that one branch of the provincial government can cause growth problems while another branch refuses to help cope with the problems; one more reason for Huron to continue to fight against a generating station in our county.”

I know, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) will have more to say about the grant structure in the educational system in Bruce and the fact that the Minister of Education refused a grant to Bruce. I won’t elaborate any further on this matter, other than to say that the trustees of the Huron County Board of Education know full well that grants were made to certain county school boards which did not even request the extent of the grant that they received; and yet for some reason the Minister of Education turns around and refuses to give a grant to those counties which certainly do need them for one purpose or another. So with these few remarks, Mr. Speaker -- and I say again I can make many more but I’ll leave them for the budget debate -- I will now end my remarks and relinquish the rest of the time to some other member who wishes to speak. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. Cassidy: One of the best private members in the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, although you are not the Mr. Speaker whom I have in mind, I should like to congratulate you upon your election to your high office and commend you on the way in which you have been handling the assembly. Incidentally, inasmuch as you, as the Deputy Speaker, are now in the chair, the same applies to you.

Last Thursday, the United Auto Workers presented a brief to some members of the cabinet. It was predictable that many of the auto workers’ requests and suggestions would fall on deaf ears, but there was one so logical and reasonable that it should have been accepted without hesitation or reservation.

I refer to the request that compulsory overtime in auto plants be eliminated. Some men have run up as many as 1,600 hours of overtime in a single year.

There are several reasons for discontinuing overtime. If the work were spread around, there would be fewer unemployed. It is as simple as that. It is true that many workers need the extra income that overtime work provides, but most of them would rather see a share-the-work policy adopted by the auto companies. As it is now, refusal to work overtime can lead to serious difficulties and even penalties for those who do not acquiesce.

The work week should be legislated as one of 40 hours. Work beyond that should be considered overtime and should be voluntary. In order to share the work, a low limit of overtime should be set and, more important, enforced; and the minister should not grant permits beyond the present 100-hour-a-year limit that is supposed to be observed now.

Another complaint to which the cabinet should have responded favourably was that affecting safety in the plants. At Chrysler, large numbers of maintenance men who help to maintain safety conditions have been laid off. Consequently, there are increasing complaints from the safety reps. When government inspectors issue directives to the company on safety improvements, in some auto plants the safety reps receive a copy but in others they do not, or at least only with great trouble. These directives should be disclosed to employees as a matter of right.

Another complaint easily remedied concerned Workmen’s Compensation Board payments. In one auto plant, injured workmen are penalized about $20 a week because their cost-of-living allowance, amounting to over 60 cents an hour, is not considered by the Workmen’s Compensation Board as part of their wages. This should be rectified by the board.

Another matter with which the government should concern itself is pension plan termination insurance. American subsidiaries can close their Canadian plants and leave our factory pensioners in financial difficulties. At Auto Specialties in Windsor, for example, some pensioners lost as much as $100 a month when that American company terminated operations in Ontario.

It is not only in bankrupt companies that pension plans are lost. There is at least one instance in which employees have had to give up their pension plan when the company maintained that it would have to close down unless the workers gave up their insistence on planning for their retirement.

There are too many Ontario workers, Mr. Speaker, losing their pension plans, often on the eve of retirement. The provincial government should devise some plan to insure workers against loss of pensions if their company goes bankrupt. A pension reinsurance programme is needed now, and for many people it is needed urgently.

Of course, Ontario and Canada need to build homes for low-income families. A public corporation, using publicly land-banked property, should go into action, first to keep the economy from slowing down; and second, to restore to young married couples any hopes that they ever had of home ownership.

These are some of the issues raised by the auto workers that should have elicited a favourable response from the cabinet.

On another topic, Mr. Speaker, as every entrepreneur knows, investment of money is required to establish a successful enterprise. It takes money to make money. The same is true of energy. It takes energy to produce energy. Back in 1961, little more than seven per cent of Canada’s energy consumption went to produce energy. By 1971, over 10 per cent of Canada’s energy was being used to produce energy. This increase reflects the large amounts of energy now required in producing nuclear power.

In the United States it took many years before nuclear power plants, as an industry, produced their first lot of energy above the amount of energy invested. If I recall correctly, the first nuclear plant was put into operation in 1956, and it was 1971 before the nuclear industry produced any net contribution of energy to the people of that country. In Great Britain, Peter Chapman, an energy accountant, who has gained international recognition lately, has made a study of the energy costs of fuels. The energy industries in Britain consume 30 per cent of the energy they produce. I quote: “Coal mining, oil refining, coke, gas and electricity production jointly consume more than 30 per cent of the total energy input to the United Kingdom.” Walter C. Patterson, editor of “Your Environment”, a British magazine, predicts that the cost accounting now being done by Chapman and his associates may, I quote, “present the nuclear industry with an indigestible mouthful.”

In the United States it is only because of billions of dollars of government money that nuclear power plants are producing electricity at prices the public have so far tolerated. In Ontario it would be interesting to discover how much electricity from nuclear plants would be costing us today if all the money sent by the federal government on Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., as well as the investment by Ontario Hydro, had to be taken into account.

The office of energy conservation in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources at Ottawa has been talking recently in realistic fashion about conservation.

In the August, 1974 issue of ASHRAE Journal, the research director and economist present some interesting views and statistics. Among other things, they show how impossible it is to forecast Canada’s energy needs for the year 2000. If we have a high growth rate, high population -- that is 38 millions -- high consumption, and I take it a lack of interest in conservation methods, we shall require 26 quadrillion Btu’s in the year 2000 AD. If, on the other hand, we have slow growth, low population -- 29 million -- low consumption and, if we take conservation seriously and practise it, only seven quadrillion Btu’s will be required. There is a great margin for error between seven quadrillion and 26 quadrillion Btu’s.

Between 1961 and 1971, Canada’s total energy consumption went from three to over five quadrillion Btu’s. If we Canadians are reasonable and make an effort, we can hold our increased energy requirements over the next 25 years to less than the increase experienced during the Sixties. If we are unreasonable and selfishly refuse to conserve our energy resources for future generations, then we may easily quadruple present-day consumption of energy.

Whose is the choice? It is really a collective choice. It will be of no use if one per cent or two per cent of Canadians conscientiously conserve energy by reducing use of their automobiles, by insulating their homes to better advantage, by turning down their thermostats, by turning off their unnecessary lights and by enduring summer heat instead of turning on the air conditioner. The efforts of one of two per cent of the people will make no significant difference. All Canadians must participate.

No great sacrifice is necessary, just the suffering of a little inconvenience from time to time. But 98 per cent of the people will not follow unless there is a leader to follow. The government of Canada would be the ideal leader. For us in Ontario the provincial government is an acceptable alternative. Serious leadership must be given without further delay.

We are told that the Canadian government has applied more efficient maintenance procedures in its Ottawa heating plants, achieving n 10 per cent or 12 per cent more efficient performance. Well that’s fine, but how did they do it? What can you or I, Mr. Speaker, do to achieve a similar reduction in energy requirements? Have you been told? I haven’t as yet.

Why are so many skyscrapers in Toronto still lit up all night? We are told that the lighting helps to heat the building. Even if we accepted this as a valid excuse in winter, how could we possibly accept it in summertime? What we need is leadership to solve our energy problems.

About the only answer we hear from the Ontario government is that Hydro will squander almost $24 billion in the next eight years -- mostly on nuclear power -- for power plants, most of which would not be required if our government showed genuine leadership, not only in conserving the unrenewable energy resources now being used extravagantly, but also in developing alternative sources of energy.

One American company in Columbus, Ohio, with branches in such cities as Detroit, is already planning homes with solar heating systems that will pay for themselves in from six to eight years, even at present fuel prices. As we know, the present fuel prices will escalate. This means that the solar energy systems will pay for themselves in less than eight years, and from then on will deliver free fuel -- free in money terms and free in energy terms.

The Pittsburgh Plate Glass people are already preparing to turn out solar panels on an assembly line system, the inevitable result of which will mean a slashing of capital costs. One of the engineers doing a study for Honolulu on the feasibility of using wind turbines to produce electricity for that energy-impoverished island, estimates that a $50,000 wind turbine will last 50 years and pay for itself in about seven years.

As I said earlier, it takes energy to produce energy, but for solar and wind energy systems the energy and the money are for the capital costs only. The fuel forever will be free.

For nuclear power plants, and for plants powered by fossil fuels, the capital costs are only the beginning. Fuel must be fed into the power plant day after day, month after month, year after year. The cost of the fuel is subject to inflation. In the case of oil and gas, the fuel is becoming increasingly inaccessible and therefore more expensive, even if there were no inflation with which to contend.

The research director of the office of energy conservation at Ottawa, to whom I referred earlier, says:

“As for forecasts in the energy field, I am afraid that the record has been one of self-fulfilling prophecy. Time and again we have made forecasts, then installed capacity to meet those forecasts and finally induced the development of energy-consuming residential and industrial practices to match the capacity.”

This is a serious ecological indictment, Mr. Speaker, of our materialistic society. It is also a fine description of Ontario Hydro’s game plan: Make a forecast for expansion; advertise like mad to make sure it comes true; encourage people to live better electrically, to heat their homes with electricity, a method that uses up almost twice as much energy as other methods; then make more forecasts and scream that now we must go nuclear to meet the so-called demands of the public, which of course Hydro has encouraged.

Hydro says innocently, “We are simply trying to meet the demands of the public for electricity. Hydro officials apparently give no thought to the change in society that will take place in the plutonium economy into which they are guiding us. Do they realize that the Atomic Energy Commission in the United States has finally become alarmed at the dangers inherent in the theft of plutonium by organized terrorists of one kind or another? Do they realize that the Atomic Energy Commission, a few months ago, gave “shoot to kill” orders to at least one private power company in order to prevent the possible theft of plutonium? Do they realize that the Association of American Railroads is refusing to transport radioactive wastes, claiming that they are too hazardous? Do they realize that the Atomic Energy Commission now proposes that shipments of radioactive materials be accompanied by armed guards?

By the year 2000, when the United States has its 1,000 projected nuclear plants and Canada has its proposed 100 plants, do you realize, Mr. Speaker, the small private armies that will be needed on this continent, apart from the regular military and police forces? These guards, incidentally, are part of the financial cost of having nuclear power plants. Do Hydro officials or Ministry of Energy officials realize how this unavoidable necessity of taking every conceivable precaution against the theft of plutonium will drive us inexorably towards a police state?

In April, 1974 the Atomic Energy Commission revealed its special safeguard study. One of its recommendations reads as follows:

“The first and one of the most important lines of defence against groups which might attempt to illegally acquire special nuclear materials to make a weapon is timely and in-depth intelligence.”

There it is, Mr. Speaker, “in-depth intelligence.” And what is that? I quote further:

“Such intelligence may involve electronic and other means of surveillance, but its most important aspect is infiltration of the groups themselves.”

Shades of Richard Nixon.

Most people agree, of course, that infiltration of anti-war demonstration groups and civil rights marchers was as destructive of democracy as it was unnecessary. But in preventing a fanatical group from making a bomb from plutonium stolen from the nuclear power industry, we must ask ourselves how else the United States government or our own government could possibly cope with the problem and frustrate the plotters without using every form of electronic surveillance and infiltration.

Nuclear power, the so-called peaceful exploitation of the atom, is bringing us relentlessly and inexorably into the police state, or the garrison state, as someone has termed it. Nuclear power plants bring us into a plutonium economy. Neutralizing the dangers inherent in the plutonium economy requires intolerable infringements on the personal freedoms of all of ns in order to frustrate the subversive activities of a few who will be unable to resist the lure of political and/or financial power that possession of a few pounds of plutonium would put in the hands of unscrupulous men.

In an October, 1974, statement, the Atomic Energy Commission admitted that current procedures for safeguarding plutonium were quite inadequate. The proposed remedies are tantamount to turning the nuclear fuel system, processing plants and all, into armed camps with military security, federal police, security checks, and all conceivable means of violating individual privacy. In other words, a garrison state.

In case it has escaped your notice, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to your attention the fact that the Canada-US Environmental Council -- CANUSEC -- meeting in Toronto late last fall, called for a moratorium on further nuclear power development.

On another environmental topic, is the Ministry of the Environment checking into the possibility that fibreglass is now presenting society with the same problem as asbestos? The British Journal of Industrial Medicine in 1973 reported animal experiments showing mesothelioma could be caused not only by asbestos but also by fibreglass.

Use of fibreglass in tires is likely to increase, presenting us with a possibility that small respirable particles of glass fibres are becoming airborne as tires suffer wear on our streets. Are the asbestos particles now released when brakes are applied, mostly near street corners, going to be joined by fibreglass particles as motorists lay rubber, mostly near street corners?

Studies have shown that at street corners in the downtown canyons of big cities, carbon monoxide concentrations often exceed levels that are presumed safe. Do street corners of our large cities now present those who live and work nearby with a triple threat to the health of their lungs -- fibreglass, carbon monoxide and asbestos?

Has the ministry checked a single office or home to find out whether the fibreglass filters used in so many heating and cooling systems are emitting small glass fibres while filtering out larger particles of other substances?

If, for administration purposes, the inside of buildings is not considered part of the environment by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman), who is the appropriate minister to do a study on this matter?

Auto body repair shops that make use of fibreglass may, through their buffing procedures, be contaminating their own air and perhaps that of the neighbourhood. As Barry Commoner has pointed out, technological substitutions cause most of our environmental problems. Fibreglass may not he doing much harm but it certainly has the potential. There will never be a better time to investigate this suspect than the present.

It is natural for us to assume, because we hope, that fibreglass is no threat to our health. That is exactly what virtually everyone thought about asbestos some years ago. Asbestos workers found the dust annoying, but who suspected that it was actually harmful?

Today we know better. According to the University of Toronto study by Shettigara and Morgan, in one patient cancer of the larynx developed 23 years after a four-day exposure in an asbestos insulation works. Another victim had only about one month’s total exposure over a 15-year period. Another contracted cancer of the larynx 31 years after spending a few days in an asbestos insulation works. The latent period amongst the patients ranged from five years to 55 years after the first exposure. One of the two patients whose latent periods were only five years had a six-month exposure in an asbestos insulation works and the other had eight months in an asbestos spraying shop.

There is a report also concerning an asbestos mining area in Germany -- blue asbestos or crocidolite, that is. People who had had one or two years of residence as children, and no further known exposure to asbestos, developed mesothelioma 35 years or so later.

Because asbestos takes such a relatively long time to produce its harmful effects, it has taken our best medical investigators a long time to indict it. Fibreglass may be just as ruthless a killer, but at least it is now a suspect, and we should be able to carry omit investigations much more expeditiously. Incidentally, the Shettigara-Morgan study seems to show that intense exposure to asbestos leads to asbestosis; that moderate exposure leads to lung cancer for smokers and to mesothelioma for non-smokers; and a short exposure leads to cancer of the larynx. These categories are somewhat blurred, of course, but there seems to be such a general probability pattern for those unfortunate enough to come into close contact with asbestos itself or with asbestos workers.

A few words about crocidolite -- blue asbestos. Irving J. Selikoff, E. Cuyler Hammond and Herbert Seidman in their Oct. 4, 1972, presentation to the International Agency for Research on Canada meeting in France had this to say:

“Crocidolite was not used for insulation work in the United States during the period covered by the experiences of insulation workers we have studied. Exposure to this fibre therefore cannot explain the cancer risk involved. [Later they said:] We were not able to detect evidence suggesting that chrysotile was associated with greater risks than amosite in insulation work or vice versa. We have no knowledge of the comparative effect of crocidolite because it was not used in United States’ insulation work.”

It may be that crocidolite fibres are even more harmful than other kinds but the claim that crocidolite is a sole villain responsible for mesothelioma, as made by a Ministry of Health spokesman not so long ago, is not supported by the research of Selikoff and his associates.

We shall be whistling past the graveyard, Mr. Speaker, if we hope that elimination of blue asbestos at Johns-Manville will end the dangers of asbestos to the workers. Blue asbestos is just a red herring.

I should like to refer briefly, in closing, Mr. Speaker, to the excellent brief presented by representatives of five of the leading churches in Ontario to the cabinet on Jan. 22 of this year.

Their basic request was that the Ontario government match dollar for dollar those amounts now being voluntarily donated by Ontario citizens through their churches and through international agencies for the purpose of promoting or furthering self-help development programmes in the third world. Since the federal government, through the Canadian International Development Agency, would apparently match this combined amount again, the capabilities of the various non-government agencies would be quadrupled.

Inasmuch as the Ontario government would undoubtedly like to increase its assistance to the third world, this method of doing so seems to offer us the advantage of participation without the obligation to concern ourselves with all the petty details of administration. It seems likely, too, that from the recipients’ point of view aid offered by voluntary organizations is not suspect as is sometimes the case when aid is government-sponsored and administered. There have been disturbing rumours that food sent through government bodies has ended up on the black market in the countries to which it has been sent. With churches and other volunteer agencies working on a person-to-person basis this could hardly happen.

The brief presented by the churches to the cabinet closed with a reminder that hundreds of millions are suffering. I quote:

“This is a time and opportunity for Ontario to stand together with the global village in banishing from the earth all those ills which debase man’s dignity, starve his body and crush his spirit.”

We in Ontario, cannot alone banish these ills but we cannot refuse this call for help.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to congratulate you and also the people who sit in your stead on the fact that, despite the newspaper pundits and what have you, I don’t really believe we have the most disorderly House in Canada. I think because of your very firm --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Some of the most disorderly people though.

Mr. Germa: He is at it again.

Mr. Drea: -- sometimes benevolent, and very often understanding hand, I think we have the one House in Canada that truly expresses the indications, the aspirations and, indeed, the hopes of the people.

It is all very well to run the kind of a House that perhaps would have brought great commentaries 100 years ago, but I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the deputy Speaker, and to the chairman of the House as a whole that in the year 1975 institutions have to justify themselves to the public. I suggest to you with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, that by the way this House is conducted we do justify ourselves to the public, for matters can be brought before you without all of the red tape, the hocus-pocus and all of the nonsense about precedents of 100 years ago or 50 years ago or 25 years ago, and they are heard.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the way this House is conducted is really much more relevant to the times we live in than to the times that were written about in some book that was published with a black cover and now languishes somewhere in a library with loads of dust upon it.

Mr. Lawlor: Even the times are chaotic. Keep your patience.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend someone else also from this institution and that is our Sergeant-at-Arms. I have sat in the chair on a very infrequent occasion and for very, very limited periods of time. I can think of no one who has to sit here, who despite his personal feelings, who despite the lack of alacrity in the debate, must nonetheless sit there straight forward, without a nod, without any indication of boredom, without any indication of excitement, other than our distinguished Sergeant-at-Arms. I am very proud to serve in a House that has been able to have such a distinguished practitioner of the art of absolute impartiality as our Sergeant-at-Arms.

Mr. Speaker, it has always been my custom when replying to the Speech from the Throne to talk about something in Scarborough. I realize that for one political party, because they never attend anything in Scarborough, that that type of thing is a little blasé. I understand for another political party, because they don’t have representation in it, that it may be a bit incomprehensible. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House bear with me for a few moments because once again this afternoon I want to pay some tribute to some people who are very unsung in the borough of Scarborough, and those are the public health nurses.

Mr. Speaker, I am possessed this afternoon of a very large document which is the 1974 year-end report of the borough of Scarborough. I could probably read in a lot of things that give great credit to the borough, and that give great credit to the people there, but I just want to talk about something on pages 5 and 6 of the yellow section, which is devoted to the health department and the nursing services.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the objective of the nursing services in Scarborough was to give more support to the family by enabling parents to cope with problems in bringing up children. In other words, to help them to be better parents. Mr. Speaker, that may be the motto of the public health nurses in Scarborough, but I would say to you that this country would be a lot better served if that were the motto of every municipal government, of every provincial government and of every federal government. Quite often the women who serve in that department find themselves serving above and beyond the call of duty; they are dealing with many problems which are outside the pure and distinctive health disciplines.

Mr. Speaker, when is the last time that you can recall a public health nurse from the borough of Scarborough or, indeed, from any municipality across this province, who first didn’t try to cope with the problem, even if it wasn’t health, and only after having tried to cope with the problem and having failed, then came to us? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the public of this province who seem to have the idea that any time they get into a problem they can come to us or the federal government, or their municipality -- might very well follow the example of the very distinguished women who serve in the nursing services branch of the health department of Scarborough, in first trying to cope with the problem. And if you can succeed, well then, Mr. Speaker, you have solved the problem.

I would very much like to see the example of these women -- who receive very little publicity, who receive very little fanfare, and yet who do a tremendous job, not only for the people they serve but for the entire community -- brought to the attention of those who say they want to serve the community. Because I think if they would follow the example of the nurses in trying first to cope with and solve the problem, and only going to a governmental body as a last resort, that perhaps the province might be better served.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I would like to turn to a much more distressing thing. Last week my colleague, the member for St. David, put forward some very accurate, some very descriptive --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Inflammatory!

Mr. Drea: If inflammatory is the truth, then the member had better get used to flame in his mouth.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, my Lord, he sounds like a magician. Blue smoke. Poof!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre has the floor.

Mr. Lawlor: The member should not raise his voice. Just stay calm.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say today that I am going to be entirely accurate; I am going to be entirely calm --

Mr. Lawlor: Impossible.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): That’s unusual, isn’t it?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, my colleague, the member for St. David, put forward some very accurate, some very truthful and some very disturbing accusations against those in the federal government. It is with the greatest of reluctance that I am going to add to that today, Mr. Speaker, because I am going to give you the record of bow the federal government deliberately sabotaged, deliberately stopped, deliberately made sure -- and I use the word deliberately, because they did it deliberately -- they stopped the people of this province who were going to buy a house between now and the end of the year from having a warranty and having insurance protection upon it. Mr. Speaker, I say to you, the fault for that lies with one federal cabinet minister, Mr. Danson, because he deliberately did it. And that’s the fourth time I’ve used “deliberate.”

I’m going to go into the history of the housing warranties and how Ontario has been deliberately -- and that’s the fifth time -- thwarted by him and by his staff.

Mr. Speaker, I’m going to go back to August of 1974 --

Mr. Lawlor: He won’t even talk to them any more. He doesn’t want to talk to those people opposite any more.

Mr. Drea: He doesn’t want to talk to me? I’ll tell the member something, I don’t want to talk to that four-flusher any more.

Mr. Haggerty: Put him in jail.

Mr. Lawlor: That shows the utmost courtesy and rapport between governments.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough Centre will continue.

Mr. Lawlor: We’re going to get a lot done that way.

Mr. Drea: Then the member had better talk to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Ministry of Housing in Saskatchewan, because they know what I’m going to say and they echo it.

Mr. Lawlor: Echo? Stay calm.

Mr. Drea: My friend had better talk to his NDP government, because they are heartsick. The only difference between them and me is they don’t have the guts to say it.

Mr. Stokes: Did the member never hear of the carrot rather than the stick?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, let us return to last August --

Mr. Lawlor: Did he ever hear of the gloved hand rather than the gunned gut?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will continue.

Mr. Drea: In August of last year, Mr. Speaker, the federal minister responsible for housing warranties was Mr. Basford. That was prior to the election. Mr. Basford had told the house builders of this province and of every other province that the federal government was not interested in an overall housing warranty programme. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, the house builders came to the Province of Ontario and asked us if we would be interested in bringing in a housing warranty programme that would cover new houses and cover, in separate areas, a protection for the new home buyer against the bankruptcy or the vanishing of the builder prior to the closing of sale -- if the builder lust took the deposit and vanished into bankruptcy or the vanishing of the builder after the date of closing and sale, or the date of occupancy, a protection plan for the new home buyer that would provide a warranty against the things that showed up in the first few months --

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, the law reform commission recommended that six years ago, and this government has done nothing about it.

Mr. Drea: The reason we didn’t is because we vent to the federal government and said that if we did, we’d very seriously jeopardize the ability of other provinces. And I can document that one.

Mr. Lawlor: Nonsense. We’re perfectly within our competence.

Mr. Drea: The member had better go out and talk to his friends in Saskatchewan before he opens his mouth again.

Mr. Haggerty: Tell us about consumer protection.

Mr. Lawlor: Is that a warning, my friend?

Mr. Ruston: Got a warrant?

Mr. Lawlor: I’ll leave now.

Mr. Haggerty: Tell us about consumer protection in Ontario.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the second part of that was that subsequent to the date of transfer of deed and occupancy the particular house would be covered for a specific period of time against immediate faults, and after that against very serious structural defects. The particular thing about structural defects was that it would extend for a rather prolonged period of time, because it dealt with walls, it dealt with soil conditions, it dealt with drainage and a great number of other things.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you that in August of 1974 this government was on record that, yes, we were fully prepared to enter into a programme that would guarantee this to the new home buyer. And, once again, because it was a rather new area on two grounds: If a programme could be developed where the house builders policed, administered and did a lot of the free inspections -- in short, cut the bureaucracy and the cost -- then, yes, we would provide them with umbrella legislation that would enable them to do this. But if they could not produce a plan that was satisfactory to this government, we would bring in a plan by the end of 1974 which would do this under governmental control.

Mr. Speaker, in October, 1974, because the federal government, the government in Ottawa -- and I am not talking about Central Mortgage and Housing Corp.; I am talking about the government -- said they had absolutely no interest in this programme. Despite the fact that the Throne Speech said they were bringing in a housing warranty programme, they really had no interest in this.

At that time, the 10 provinces of this country called meetings to see if there could be a co-ordinated national plan, administered by the 10 provinces in lieu of the fact that the federal government did not choose to participate. There were meetings in Toronto, in Winnipeg and in Quebec City, on an interprovincial basis, because the federal government did not choose to participate.

Subsequent to the time of those three interprovincial meetings, there was a further meeting called in January, 1975, and at that time the federal government again announced that it did not intend to participate. Mr. Speaker, it wasn’t our announcement that appeared in the newspapers, but at that time I think you will recall there was some talk about six provinces: Saskatchewan (Mrs. Hind is a very remarkable woman), Ontario, and the four Maritime provinces.

We were asked by the HUDAC organization, which represents builders across the country: Would we accept a plan in principle and agree to provide some seed money for two or three years, which would be repaid, because there is a cost to setting up an insurance programme like this? And would we introduce provincial legislation in as coordinated a manner as was possible to achieve such a plan? And, Mr. Speaker, we said we would. The provinces were Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. That great consumer province of British Columbia said they neither had the resources nor anything else and they bowed out.

Mr. Speaker, we did that, and they said that in view of the fact that the federal government would not participate, would we be agreeable to putting in seed money to get this off the ground? The amount of seed money from Ontario was high, but it certainly wasn’t as high in per capita terms as was being assessed upon the four Maritime provinces. It may have been higher in per capita terms for Saskatchewan, but they felt a social duty to the rest of the country. We went along with it.

We were hardly out of that meeting when the federal government said it was going to bring in a national housing warranty programme, it was going to have a meeting in April and that’s when it is going to be done. Mr. Speaker, there is going to be a meeting in April, but not with the minister. The minister is going off to Europe. He is going to see Paris, Stockholm and a few other places. People in the press gallery tell me it is the most avidly sought junket of the year by those in the parliamentary press gallery. After all, Mr. Speaker, they’re going to look at low-cost, co-operative housing, all of those things that touch everybody’s heart.

They’re going to do Paris in April. I can just see them all trudging along to the low-income houses to “April in Paris.” Wow! I can see them going up to Stockholm to see the socialist enterprise. It won’t be in early April, it will be in the middle of April when the weather gets warmer.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s great. This is the socialist prejudice the members over there have.

Mr. Germa: Let him tell us about his summer holidays in Inuvik.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: But Mr. Speaker, the minister who is supposed to be in charge of this --

Mr. Lawlor: What is poor old Barney going to do?

Mr. Drea: I guess Barney is going to play “April in Paris.” That’s about the limit of his intellectual ability.

Mr. Speaker, this is what April in Paris means to the people in this province this year. We have accepted our constitutional responsibility and we really believe in a housing warranty programme that will for the first time protect the people who buy new houses, not only in this province but across the country, that will protect them against bankruptcy, the vanishing with their deposit by the builder, and against the house being no good when they go to move in and it’s caving in a year afterward. The price this province has paid is April in Paris because it is betrayal, it is sabotage and it is a deliberate programme to make sure that when we try to introduce a programme in this province that that programme will be subverted before it can be brought to being.

I’ll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. We sat down in those meetings last August and we said: “All right, you go back and talk to your federal government because we want a December decision, because the housing starts are in the spring of this year and we want the houses that are started in the spring to be covered by this programme.” Now you start to get the significance, Mr. Speaker, of April in Paris with Mr. Barnett Danson.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: He can’t be there in April, Mr. Speaker. That means there can be no housing warranty programme in this province or in any other province.

Mr. Lawlor: This government has the constitutional powers to bring it in.

Mr. Drea: Look, I’ve had enough of the member for Lakeshore, let him just sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will continue.

Mr. Lawlor: Get on with the job.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I’ll tell you we would like to get on with the job. If we could have started in December, we would have had --

Mr. Haggerty: Why didn’t the government start then?

Mr. Drea: Because we believed in that bunch that the member belongs to.

Mr. Haggerty: What about two or three years ago when the government had all that money and didn’t spend it?

Mr. Drea: What money? The member doesn’t even know what he’s talking about.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough Centre has the floor.

Mr. Haggerty: They are jugglers over there. They can put more housing on paper than --

Mr. Drea: The juggler isn’t here. I’m going for the member’s jugular and let him not forget it.

Mr. Lawlor: Remember the promise of calmness.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I’ll tell you why we didn’t do it two or three years ago.

Mr. Haggerty: Tell us. Tell us why the government changes its Minister of Housing even six months.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will you kindly allow the member for Scarborough Centre to continue?

Mr. Ruston: He said he wanted a rest. He doesn’t want to stand.

Mr. Drea: I don’t need a rest. I just read that thing in the paper about the member yesterday when a fellow said there were 124 yellow dogs running after Nixon, but not the member for Essex-Kent. I hope he read that.

Mr. Ruston: No, I didn’t read it.

Mr. Drea: I’ll send him the clipping.

Mr. Ruston: The member must have written it in his own paper.

Mr. Drea: No. Doug Fisher did and he is not of us. He is of them.

Mr. Ruston: I thought he was with Dalton Camp.

Mr. Drea: No. Mr. Speaker, I’ll tell you why we didn’t do it two or three years ago.

Mr. Ruston: I wouldn’t worry about the member either. Let him say what he wants.

Mr. Lawlor: He wasn’t around.

Mr. Ruston: He doesn’t know what to say, Mr. Speaker. I think you had better ask for the next speaker.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, if I have one more outburst from that member over there I wish you’d discipline him.

An hon. member: Like what?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will continue.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, to come back to why we didn’t do it two or three years ago, we’ve always had a regard for the less fortunate provinces in this country. It is a matter of record --

Mr. Haggerty: He is really going to the bottom of the barrel now. He’s got to run a little faster --

Mr. Drea: The member had better tell his friend Mr. Regan about that, because he’s the one who advocated the position that I’m just going to talk about.

Mr. Ruston: Control the price of oil? He’s the only one who does control the price of oil.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, two or three years ago we could have done this.

Mr. Haggerty: Prices review board.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Drea: The question was raised to us by the four Maritime provinces. Two of them are Liberal. They raised the question to us that if we went it alone in the housing warranty programme in this province they didn’t have the resources, they didn’t have the ability to keep pace and it meant they were precluded from doing so for at least a decade. And, my loud-mouthed friend, it is a matter of record -- and he can look at the minutes of those interprovincial meetings -- that time and time and time again this province said that we felt an obligation to those who didn’t have the resources to bring in a housing warranty programme and that we would try one more time with the federal government.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Right on.

Mr. Drea: I say to you, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Haggerty: It’s his ministry’s jurisdiction.

Mr. Drea: -- after 8½ months, and seven tawdry months by the federal government, this province will now have to bring in a housing warranty programme. But what I want to say is --

Mr. Haggerty: The responsibility is right there; right in the member’s department.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): How about the National Building Code?

Mr. Drea: National Building Code? The member is so far out of date. We have an Ontario Building Code, Why does he think we brought it in?

Mr. Paterson: We’ve been fighting for it for 10 years.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I want to say something. After this duplicity --

Mr. Germa: What are they going to do about Ross Shouldice?

Mr. Drea: About what?

Mr. Germa: Ross Shouldice. He built all those houses; tell me about him.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will continue.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): He has to think of something to say first.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, after that record of duplicity since August of 1974 by the federal government -- and I forgive the minister before the present one; after all, he was in a minority government. He didn’t know when he was going into the unemployment line, But Mr. Danson has known. Mr. Danson had put into the Throne Speech of the federal government that there was going to be a housing warranty programme administered by the federal government, and that’s a fact. When asked about it, Mr. Danson’s department said, “We really don’t know.” Do you know, Mr. Speaker, to this date, and we are now at the end of March in 1975, the federal government cannot give the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations in this province an answer as to what they have in mind.

The reason I have dwelt so long on April in Paris, one great big junket along with the press, paid by the taxpayers, is that they told us we would find out in April what they had in mind. Mr. Speaker, if you can tell me about a single federal-provincial agreement that is going to be reached with the appropriate cabinet minister touring Europe to look at low-cost housing in Paris --

Mr. Paterson: Was the member looking at housing in Taiwan?

Mr. Drea: If you can tell me one single agreement that has ever been reached without a single political figure there -- and I realize that the “Great White Father” down there is just back from a trip; I wouldn’t want him to get into jet lag by coming to a meeting with us -- not a single political figure there in April --

Mr. Haggerty: What did the Premier do in the meantime?

Mr. Drea: -- all at a very, very, and I say this with the utmost respect, a very, very civil service level, but after all they are not the people who are going to make the decisions, Mr. Speaker, in terms of housing warranties. It isn’t dirty tricks; it isn’t the spirit of John Dean or something flying over Ottawa. I wouldn’t say a thing like that.

Mr. Lawlor: Is that a concession?

Mr. Drea: But I will say that it was a deliberate, planned concept to sabotage the ability of the Province of Ontario to bring in a housing warranties programme because it would be an embarrassment to more than 20 years of the failure of the NHA or the Central Mortgage and Housing to inspect a single house adequately. If any one member can tell me -- and I’m sure they’ve bought houses -- if there is a single housing customer in this country who believes in “NHAapproved” any more, except as a device to get the builder off the hook, I would be very pleased to meet with the lady or gentleman.

When houses and their walls were collapsing around them, when the water was pouring in through the windows, the NRA was insisting upon a bannister down into the cellar stairwell because somebody might fall.

There is hardly a homeowner in this province who has bought an NRA-approved home and who has not called and said, “Will you do anything for me with the builder?” The builders said, “We have nothing to do with that. We just look at the specifications; the blocks are all 11½ ins. wide.”

Is it any wonder that after 20 years of futility, failure and utter incompetence, some things in the Throne Speech of the federal government are suddenly subverted and used to stop the one province that can bring in a decent, logical, effective, efficient programme which will protect new home buyers?

Mr. Lawlor: This government is going to lose the next election because of it. It’s subverted this government; it’s undermining all its efforts.

Mr. Drea: I can understand why somebody of the member’s political persuasion would be sensitive about subversion. I really can.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s not the bandwagon of the member for St. David he is on. It’s a little go-cart of his own.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Give it to him.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the reason I raise this -- and I don’t like to -- is that I feel betrayed. I’m not like all the rest of the people who say “You can’t trust anybody in the federal government.” I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I even meet with those socialist ones from --

Mr. Lawlor: He doesn’t have to swing his hands about his own naivete.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I meet with everybody. I’m always prepared to believe, despite their past record or performance, that somehow there is a bit of rehabilitation or spark within them. I’m not like the Pharisee in the temple, Mr. Speaker, whose spirit does --

Mr. Lawlor: That’s what the Pharisee said.

Mr. Drea: I said I was not like the Pharisee in the temple despite the fact that his spirit does pervade the NDP benches. I don’t say, “Thank God, there goeth someone worse than me. Thank God I am here.” I don’t do that. I am always prepared to meet with anybody.

Mr. Stokes: It’s very difficult for him to do that.

Mr. Lawlor: He just feels better when somebody else who’s better than he goes by.

Mr. Stokes: It’s almost impossible.

Mr. Lawlor: Why mention it?

Mr. Drea: To the distinguished member for Lakeshore, after listening to him for 3½ years --

Mr. Lawlor: The member is a lucky fellow.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: He’s lucky enough that he can stand it, I guess.

Mr. Lawlor: I have stopped speaking because the member has stopped listening.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the distinguished member for Lakeshore for 3½ years, there is only one thing out of the good book that always comes to mind and that is the Pharisee in the temple. I’m sorry I bequeathed the member his fate, but he reminds me of him so much I cannot separate it in my mind.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s all the member gets out of the good book? My Lord, there are other things there too.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Will the hon. member continue with his remarks on the Throne debate?

Mr. Lawlor: How can I stay awake, if I cannot speak?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the reason I brought all this up about the housing warranties today is this --

Mr. Lawlor: What was the reason?

Mr. Stokes: Reluctantly.

Mr. Drea: Very reluctantly. I don’t like to tell the people of this province what a bunch they have in Ottawa and what a bunch they have in the political party which supports them absolutely. I don’t like to do that.

Mr. Lawlor: They are more embarrassed than the member is.

An hon. member: The member for St. David wasn’t nearly as reluctant as the member.

Mr. Lawlor: Let the member bring in his own legislation.

Mr. Drea: My legislation is ready, I say to the member. But I will say this: It won’t cover anybody for this building season because we have been deceived by the federal government. When the member’s basement floods, or whatever it is, then let him send a letter to that fellow Danson, or send it right over there to the leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon), because he supports him all the way, and that is the reason I bring it up.

I don’t mind the criticism when we are in a position that we haven’t moved fast enough. But, Mr. Speaker, when you believe that the federal government in this country is honest and sincere and then you get stabbed so many times in the back, there is only one conclusion you can draw: It was deliberate, it was intended to hurt this government, and over the Secretary of State for Urban Affairs, whatever his fancy title is -- and I again refer to him as that four-flusher from North York -- perhaps the spirit of John Dean indeed really reigns.

When that house isn’t any good, don’t let the member write us a letter, let him write it to Danson, and forward it right over there to the leader of the Opposition.

Interjections by hon members.

Mr. Lawlor: The member is just sore because he won’t be in Paris in April, that’s all.

Mr. Drea: I don’t have to go to Paris in April, I am more concerned about the people with lousy houses in April.

Mr. Rushton: He’s going to Taiwan --

Interjections by hon members.

Mr. Ruston: -- the member and the member for Dovercourt.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough Centre has the floor.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, just to recall the very sordid record --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: A little more respect over there.

Mr. Haggerty: Is the member causing the thunder up there?

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): It is coming down on the opposition’s heads.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, just to recall that very sordid record, I would like to state that in August of last year we said we were prepared to introduce into legislation in this province a provincial housing warranty programme that would do the things that we said it would do. At the request of other provinces, because they believed in the federal government, and probably because of my own naiveté, we agreed to give the federal government one more time. Since then we have given the federal government four more times, in the latest of which -- as I read in the paper; they didn’t even have the courtesy to give us a reply -- I read in the paper that they were going to do it.

It is now the end of March, 1975. Mr. Speaker, for practical purposes there is going to be no housing warranty programme that will cover houses built in tins province this year. That grieves me. I have bought three houses in my time --

Mr. Haggerty: What about the provincial building code?

Mr. Drea: I am not going to pay any attention to the member so he can just be quiet.

Mr. Speaker, I have bought three houses in my time -- and I feel very strongly about this. There should be a housing warranty programme in this province. There would have been, except for the deliberate sabotage of the federal government. I would rather have seen an inept provincial government that couldn’t bring in a housing warranty programme, than see a provincial government that wanted to do it, deliberately sandbagged by that bunch in Ottawa.

Mr. Ruston: This government has had 32 years to do it.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): It had 32 years.

Mr. Drea: That really grieves me.

Mr. Ruston: Too bad, we feel really sorry for the member.

Mr. Drea: Well then, maybe we’ll send all the complaints about the bad houses to the member for Essex-Kent. He’s got a big smirk on his face. I guess as a Liberal he figures that anybody who buys a house can take their own risks.

Mr. Haggerty: He noticed things outside the door.

Mr. Ruston: Is the member going to repeat this outside?

Mr. Haggerty: The member is hiding behind a skirt.

Mr. Drea: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I am hiding behind a skirt, I would like to say to you the only thing that the member for St. David has been guilty of -- and she is a very distinguished colleague of mine -- is that she understated the case.

Mr. Lawlor: He’s trying to make up for it.

Mr. Drea: No, I am not making up for it. I am giving the House a month by month story of sordidness and duplicity unequalled in dominion-provincial relations in our time.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, no!

Mr. Drea: Let the member talk to his friends in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Lawlor: There have been worse things than warranties.

Mr. Drea: Really? As a big real estate man, I suppose there may have been worse.

Mr. Lawlor: More important things than warranties?

Mr. Drea: I wish the member could tell the average wage-earner in this province that there is something more important than the house he is going to buy which is his biggest consumer purchase.

Mr. Lawlor: The member has been able to live with it for an awful long time.

Mr. Drea: No, I haven’t been able to live with it for an awful long time. It may be very nice for the member and his colleagues who draft the kind of agreement that doesn’t work.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: I haven’t been able to live with it for a long time. The member has.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lawlor: It is the government’s responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will continue his Throne debate speech.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would love to continue in a very calm and equable manner. That’s the way I started out, but every time I stand up --

Mr. Lawlor: It sure didn’t last very long.

Mr. Kennedy: The member ought to listen politely.

Mr. Lawlor: He is the easiest member to get riled in the House.

Mr. Drea: Me?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s great fun.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, there are only four or five minutes left and I want to get on to some other important topics and I am going to come back after the adjournment.

I would like, for three or four minutes, to talk about a topic which is very dear to me. It splits the Liberal caucus no end and has the NDP wondering whether it’s social justice or social decency.

Mr. Lawlor: Has it anything to do with the federal government?

Mr. Drea: No.

Mr. Lawlor: Good.

Mr. Drea: No, in this case they are merely simple.

Mr. Ruston: Tell us about Taiwan last August. Tell us about that.

Mr. Drea: I would rather go to Taiwan with decent people than I would go to a communist place with the people in the member’s party. If that’s the way he wants it, that’s the way he just got it. I always prefer to stand and sit with people I would invite home to dinner. I don’t like to sit with people I wouldn’t want in my own house and that may be something very strange and very foreign to that party. When the member is talking to me, he had better recognize it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ruston: I don’t have to recognize anything he says.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Tell them to be quiet, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It would seem to the Chair that it is almost 5 o’clock. Perhaps the hon. member would move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to. I would like to tell you though --

Mr. Lawlor: He wants Francisco Franco home for dinner.

Mrs. Campbell: He’ll never get there for dinner.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if you could curb the raucous member for St. George, I might move the adjournment.

Mr. Lawlor: It is the member’s fault.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment I would like to say that tonight, in case there are those who want to load up the Liberal caucus -- I realize it is a very difficult effort -- I want to talk about gun control and I intend to talk about the very sad state of Air Canada. Not that Air Canada is a matter under provincial jurisdiction but the meals and liquor served aboard are certainly a matter for provincial jurisdiction.

On the basis of what I am going to talk about I would move adjournment of the House at this time so that the private members’ hour might commence.

Mr. Drea moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR: MEDICAL DATA BANK ACT, 1975

Mr. B. Newman moves second reading of Bill 9, An Act to establish a Medical Data Bank.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As this is the first private member’s bill to come up for debate in this session, I think it is probably one of the more important pieces of legislation that this government could accept from an opposition member.

Mr. Speaker, the bill itself, An Act to establish a Medical Data Bank, is just as its title signifies. The purpose of the bill is to establish a data bank in which could and would be stored in computerized form the medical histories of persons in Ontario who wish to participate in such a data bank. And I emphasize: “Who wish to participate in such a data bank.”

Such records of individuals, Mr. Speaker, would be of vital assistance in the case of an accident or sudden illness, when the patient’s personal physician is unavailable for consultation, or any number of other reasons that one could cite. The details of a person’s medical history would be immediately available to physicians and hospitals when a patient moved from one city to another, or changed doctors.

It’s particularly important in cases of serious allergies, or when a patient is faking prescribed drugs with the possibilities of serious reaction as a result of the administration of a second type of drug. Some physical conditions may exist, Mr. Speaker, which could be adversely, even dangerously affected by drugs administered without the knowledge of the patient’s history. Even the mildest of medication can be contra-indicated for people with cardiovascular, diabetic or kidney ailments.

The proposed data bank would be operated and maintained by the provincial Ministry of Health. Every public hospital would have an outlet for the medical histories of persons using the hospital, if they so wished to have their medical histories sent to the data bank. Written consent of the person concerned would be required before the record would be stored in the data bank, and this medical history could not be removed without the written consent of the person and that person’s legally qualified medical practitioner.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the participation and the use of this data bank would be strictly on a voluntary basis. There would be no compulsion whatsoever. My suggestion is that social insurance numbers be used for identification, simply because practically everyone does have a social insurance number. If the members who follow in the discussion of this bill have another suggestion that may be a little more valid, Mr. Speaker, I would even consider that as an amendment to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, anyone knowingly furnishing false information or contravening the provisions of the regulations concerning the medical data bank would be liable to summary conviction with a penalty of a fine and/or imprisonment.

The idea of the data bank was not mine. It comes as a result of an individual in my community, a fellow by the name of Jack Norris, a very concerned and informed local citizen, who has gone through a series of medical adversities. He has travelled the length and breadth of this country and knows from past experience that had his data been centrally located, it probably would have resulted in better and quicker treatment for the ailment he suffered in his many years of travel.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has discussed with me the pros and cons of the implementation of such legislation. As a result of his suggestions to me, I had the opportunity of sending a questionnaire to my constituents. It asked the following question: “Would you agree to have your past medical history and future treatment filed in a computer centre, so that in case of an emergency your medical history could be made available immediately to the attending doctor?”

Of the first 3,200 people who replied, 83 per cent, or 2,641, said yes, they would like to have their medical history filed in a data bank. There was 13 per cent, or 427, who said they would not, for various types of reasons. Most of the reasons suggested were the invasion of privacy. Only four per cent, a very small percentage, couldn’t make up their minds. In fact, of the 10 questions that I did ask, the lowest percentage of those unable to make up their mind was in answer to that particular question. You can see it was quite significant, Mr. Speaker. The community to which I sent the questionnaire was vitally concerned and agreed with the idea of a computerized medical data bank.

Mr. Speaker, I know the legislation that I have introduced is not perfect. I depend on legislative counsel, or those who make the legislation, to frame the type of legislation that in my estimation, would be good. If some of the members who may follow can make suggestions for improving the legislation, I think they should do so, because you can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, this is going to be an accomplished fact in the not too distant future.

In spite of the fact that many will say that there is an invasion of privacy or a loss of confidentiality, the advantages of the data bank far outweigh the disadvantages. As far as the loss of confidentiality or the invasion of privacy is concerned, I think we and/or the federal government can legislate to prevent the invasion of that privacy. I don’t expect this government to do that, Mr. Speaker, because when it comes to automobile vehicle licences, that information likewise is confidential, but the government still sells it to Polk and Co., who could be making a substantial return on their investment.

Mr. Speaker, rather than discarding the legislation and throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I would suggest to members who will follow me to come along and make constructive suggestions for the improvement of this legislation.

When I first introduced this bill last year, Mr. Speaker, the Windsor Star, and a writer by the name of Harry Van Vugt, questioned some of the medical fraternity in the community as to the merits of the bill. I am quoting from his article:

“The president of the Essex County Medical Society, Dr. Ben Dunn, said: ‘My immediate reaction to the establishment of such a bank is that fundamentally it is not a bad idea.’ Mr. Dunn added he supposed a set of circumstances could be set up in which a medical data bank would have great value.”

There is the opinion of one doctor. He is not speaking for the medical fraternity; he is speaking as a private citizen. He sees the value of a medical data bank.

I know there are data banks at present. For example, in the province there is a Hospital Medical Records Institute that analyses medical records but only from a statistical point of view and not from a medical point of view. You can see, sir, that such records are being kept by an organization in this province at present.

Back on Sept. 7, 1973, at a conference in Halifax, Dr. Howard B. Newcombe, head of population research for Atomic Energy of Canada at Chalk River, said that computerized lifetime medical records would reveal events in people’s lives which could show influences that caused or contributed to illnesses. They would also show what happened after treatment. To quote him:

“Past experience will point the way to the prevention of disease and its more effective treatment in the future, Dr. Newcombe told the 31st annual meeting of the Canadian Association of Medical Records Librarians. Continuous medical histories will teach us how best to preserve and improve human health and could teach us not only how to save lives, but how to save dollars as well.”

I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that if this government is not interested in lives, at least it might be interested in dollars and so implement the programme. To continue the quote:

“Conventionally the physician attains a brief case history by questioning the patient about past illnesses, and this practice will probably continue. However, in the future, medical histories begun at birth could supplement their statements about past sicknesses with more reliable data from linked medical records summaries in computerized form.”

Mr. Speaker, you can readily see from Dr. Newcombe’s comments that there is real value in a medical data bank. For example, supposing an individual wanted to donate various organs of the body on his demise to some organization or to a medical association that could make use of them, that person’s wish would be immediately stored in the data bank. And, when retrieving the information from the data bank, likewise they would know not to dispose of the body, that there were certain organs in the body that could serve a purpose and perhaps could help another individual to enjoy a little more of life.

Likewise, haemophiliacs, heart condition patients and other patients could have their medical histories stored in the data bank, and upon retrieval there would be an indication to the medical practitioner as to the procedures that he or she might have to follow.

Mr. Speaker, there is always the general concern that there would be an invasion of privacy as the result of the establishment of such a data bank system. There is also the concern of some that once their information is stored in the data bank, someone who shouldn’t know may be able to find out that during their youth they may have committed certain types of transgressions where medical practitioner’s attention was needed.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, this would be voluntary. You would contribute your own medical history to the data bank on a voluntary basis, so someone who might have a history that he wouldn’t like to reveal doesn’t necessarily have to partake in the programme. That type of indiscretion might encompass some of us who are here this afternoon.

As for the right to privacy is concerned, look at all of the organizations that now have information concerning us. The Registrar General has records of births, marriages and deaths; and they are available to others. Newspapers publish biographies and stories of certain people. When you apply for a passport you have to provide certain information, and the same is true when you apply for OHIP. All of this is in some file computerized in various government offices. The old age security people know everything about you when you apply for the supplement; they know how little you have financially.

As you can see, a lot of personal information already is in a computerized form in some type of data bank operated by a government; information which was not put in there voluntarily but under pressure. My recommendation is that personal data should be placed there voluntarily. You should decide whether your information should be placed in a data bank before you apply for a social insurance number, workmen’s compensation, a driver’s licence and so on. In the United States, driver’s licences which have coloured pictures, are put into data banks.

In the schools we have student record cards. We know exactly the problems we’ve had with student record cards, but still records are being kept of students, this time by individual teachers on a confidential basis and simply discussed with other teachers as the need may arise.

When you apply for practically anything in life today, as long as you fill out an application there is a lot of confidential information that is provided by the individual. We in Ontario knew enough that when we revised the voters’ list regulations we did not put in the occupation of the individual. The federal authorities, I understand now will only ask on the new voters’ lists for the name and address of the individual; they will not be concerned as to whether the individual is married or the occupation of the individual. Even voters’ lists have a lot of personal information. And of course police records ad infinitum have personal data.

Mr. Speaker, as far as medical records go, today they are in the doctor’s office. The nurse knows about them and the nurse’s assistants may know. A dentist, a denturist or a dental therapist, a chiropractor, an optometrist, an oculist, an ophthalmologist, and even an acupuncturist, will have some medical history concerning the individual. Anyone in the health service field will have it. Psychiatrists come along and have it.

When we talk about psychiatrists, they have a rather peculiar and unusual system of giving psychological tests to individuals in the United States, especially federal civil servants or those applying for federal civil service employment. They ask the following questions, to which he has to answer true or false: “I go to church almost every week. My sex life is satisfactory. At times I feel like swearing. I have used alcohol excessively. I am very troubled by constipation. I like poetry. My mother was a good woman. I do not always tell the truth. At periods my mind seems to work more slowly than usual.”

This now is asked in the United States in an attempt to get a psychological evaluation of an individual. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, how far they sometimes go to get information concerning an individual. Talk about invasion of privacy; what could be more of an invasion of privacy than the application for employment with some of the US agencies?

I bring this legislation up because here is the problem that an individual runs into when attempting to get medical information back from a doctor. This was a question asked on March 4, 1975, under the Star Alert column in the Windsor paper:

“I need my husband’s medical records for 1945 to 1959. Unfortunately, the doctor whose patient he was during those years has since retired and left his practice. He used to do most of his work at Hotel Dieu Hospital. We need the records to establish a veteran’s pension.”

Then it is signed by the individual.

They couldn’t get it from the doctor, as the doctor had left. They applied to the hospital. The hospital searched the record and couldn’t find any information. They did everything they possibly could, but all of that information concerning the individual’s health record was unattainable. By computerizing it and putting it in a data bank on a volunteer basis, Mr. Speaker, it’s there by dialing a number or punching out a number. By getting in touch with the computer, all of that could be returned to the individual.

As far as developing techniques, the Fujitsu Co. of Japan has now developed on microfilm a plasma-type medical data entry terminal that is absolutely astonishing. It’s extremely fast and can give all kinds of data right back, Mr. Speaker. Also it has a selection button and a light pen so that you can see whether what is being entered into the data bank is correct or not. You can make corrections even before it goes into the data bank. That is the latest thing out.

That news clip was in the Japan News of April, 1974, so Japan News will know that some of us do read the material sent to us.

Mr. Speaker, for a person moving from one country to another you could see the value of a data bank. The individual could come along and have his information given to him as he moves about this global community.

I do recognize there are some dangers in data banks, especially as we’ve found in the United States. For example, in the United States right now they have over 850 government data banks containing more than 1.25 billion records on individuals. There are records of only 200,000 people in the system; yet in the 850 data banks they’ve got 1.25 billion records of people.

Likewise, the data bank concerning, criminal records -- it’s called the National Crime Information Centre has over five million records of active files concerning people who have been criminally involved.

Mr. Speaker, in the minute or so have left, there is a lot one could mention concerning the value of a medical data bank. It is so important that even this government, in the Ministry of Health, is now establishing exactly what I’m talking about. The government calls it the cash programme. It’s a computer assisted school health system by which they have all of the records of the individual right from birth, practically; this is set up in conjunction with the schools so that they can forecast, simply by past experiences, certain types of health problems which may confront an individual.

Mr. Speaker, you can see that I have attempted to point out to you and the members of the House the value of a medical data bank. I ask them to support my bill. I likewise suggest to them that if they can make constructive suggestions to the bill not to hesitate to do this. You can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have a medical data bank in this province within a reasonable period of time and we are going to find that it is going to be of tremendous value to the health of the community, to the health of the individual and for the betterment of the province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Oshawa.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Bill 9, an Act to establish a Medical Data Bank.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): That isn’t a very enlightened approach.

Mr. McIlveen: What my hon. friend the member for Windsor-Walkerville didn’t mention was cost. In recent months we have had to look with growing concern at the rising spiral of health costs in this province. As my hon. colleague, the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), has pointed out on many occasions, the cost of health care delivery in Ontario is consuming a bigger and higher portion of the budget, a budget that must be used to cover all the province’s other essential services.

Ontario’s total public health bill rose from $2.2 billion last year to $2.5 billion in this fiscal year. Current estimates indicate this figure will increase to over $3 billion next year, forming by far the largest governmental expenditure. To continue to support these dramatic increases in health care delivery is to court financial disaster for our province within the next decade.

Hospital costs are, perhaps, contributing most of the overall cost increase in our health care system. At the present rate, by the year 1980 the operating expenditures for Ontario hospitals could be $400 per patient day, a figure we just can’t afford. In fact, in my own history as a medical practitioner, I can remember back to the year 1952 when I was chief of staff of the Oshawa General Hospital. Ontario county at that time raised particular Cain because they had to pay $4.32 per patient day for the care of ward patients. Our hospital in the city of Oshawa today has increased to a cost of over $98 a day and it’s rising annually.

The time has come for restraint and a realistic appraisal of where our expenses may be reduced. Yet, Mr. Speaker, here we have before us legislation calling for the establishment of a medical data bank in which could be stored the medical histories of persons in Ontario.

It is suggested that the Ontario Ministry of Health operate and maintain the central bank and that every public hospital in the province maintain a computer outlet. The cost of such a sophisticated system would be prohibitive and would hardly reflect a responsible approach to solving the medical care cost problems we currently face. In addition, such a plan would carry the risk of creating an even greater bureaucratic maze than presently exists.

In this bill, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville suggests that the data bank would be of assistance to medical practitioners and hospitals when a patient moves to another city or changes doctors. To this I would answer that all hospitals keep records of patients in perpetuity. Resumés of medical records are available on request at any time, with the patient’s consent. I must add that in most hospitals these complete records are available in their original form for several years -- in our own hospital, for instance, for seven years after the service is rendered. Then the records are placed on microfilm, after which time they are readily available on request to any doctor.

Although there is no overall agency for computerized medical information in existence, there are a multitude of agencies which code specific conditions. For example, such groups as the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Addiction Research Foundation, maintain up-to-date registries and significant medical histories of patients who have been treated. Such records can be made available to a physician on the request of the patient and with the permission of his examining doctor.

The Canadian Medic-Alert Foundation, is a privately-funded, autonomous organization which exists to serve individuals with specific medical problems. For a minimal fee of $9, an individual can join this association, whereupon he receives a card and a bracelet outlining pertinent information. The history of the individual is subsequently stored in a computer and updated annually. Should the member become ill or disabled while away from home, the Medic-Alert Foundation offers a toll-free telephone service which the attending physician may use in order to obtain a more complete medical history than appears on the Medic-Alert bracelet.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us suggests that the data bank would be of assistance when a patient is involved in an accident. I contend appropriate treatment must be implemented before the information can be retrieved from any data bank. In addition, information, such as blood group typing, cannot be accepted from any service because of the possibility of an error in the recording or transmission of such information. All transfusions, except in extreme emergencies, must be typed and cross-matched on an individual basis. This information must be ascertained in each individual case at the time of the accident, irrespective of pre-existing data. Information concerning drugs or other medication a patient is taking might also, in an emergency situation, prove to be misleading in the event that the input into the data bank was not fully up to date.

Mr. Speaker, what is perhaps the most disturbing component of the entire data bank proposal is the breach of confidentiality which could occur. Medications prescribed for certain kinds of ailments, such as venereal disease, are often indicative of the condition treated. The common availability of such information could have serious detrimental effects upon the personal life of that patient, to say nothing about the effects on some marriages.

Further to this, the confidence and trust upon which the entire doctor-patient relationship is based could be seriously undermined by the very existence of a computerized information centre. I believe that in an increasingly mechanized existence it is virtually impossible to overemphasize the role of the privileged doctor-patient relationship in our system of health care delivery.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Parkdale.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker, the bill addresses itself to a major issue for both the medical profession and the patients. Storing medical data is obviously of some importance both to improving health care in Ontario and just as much to streamlining the technical proficiency of the system itself. But the issue of storing medical data is complex and needs a thorough examination before we proceed with it.

If the idea is useful, it is only useful, I would say, if it is universal. Nowadays people collect information in our society in the form of tax data, the various credit bureau, social security numbers and OHIP. Everywhere we turn around we collect information about individuals. It would not be that much more upsetting to collect more information. What is important to remember is how access to the information is controlled. That is the relevant and important point, not whether the information is stored or not. I think we can probably devise a method of controlling the access to information which will not destroy individuals. It can, in fact, protect both their jobs and their well-being without being subject to abuse. It can be done.

Before we agree with having a data bank, we have to have some kind of safeguards. Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker.

A colleague of mine has a daughter about 12 who is a diabetic. Now, her diabetes was discovered three or four years ago and it has been very progressive. Because of her inability to control her diet, the child has been subject to fainting spells, and potentially could pass out in public or alone.

Now, as many diabetics do, she carries a band on her wrist which suggests what to do. If there was a central data bank -- whether it was in emergency treatment, a hospital, or otherwise -- a physician could immediately assess the information, which would give relevant data pertaining to treatment of this child. And that, obviously, would be very useful.

Now, let us think of another case. Suppose we live in a society where to have diabetes would be inimical to holding a good job. Now, we know it’s controllable and to have diabetes is not something contrary to holding any type of a job.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Yes it is, and epilepsy too.

Mr. Dukszta: Okay, the member for Sandwich-Riverside said that in some parts of our society it is inimical. But I disagree; it shouldn’t be. Let me put it this way. It should not be a reason for not being able to hold most of the jobs that I can think of. In our society if we made a rule that diabetes was inimical and some people with diabetes wanted to get a job and the data bank information was publicly available, then of course they couldn’t get a job. That’s an extreme example of what would be wrong.

Again, I come back to the point which is that the access to the information is more important than the information itself. If we come to the mental health problems which have been defined as within the purview of medicine, and if those were included in the medical data bank, then I think we are in real problem in terms of civil rights, because in our society there is a prejudice against patients who have been in psychiatric hospitals. There is a prejudice in terms of work availability, job opportunities, advancement -- even emigrating to that august country south of us, the United States.

There are difficulties if you have been in a psychiatric hospital. Access to this type of information would be of great detriment to some people.

I agree that the bill allows for voluntary information. I am picking that point out, because I do not believe that any system can really work unless it is universal. But this type of information, if it is ever stored, must be recorded very carefully; because in mental health problems we are dealing with notional ideas and not with well defined entities in terms of medicine.

There are a couple of other points I would like to make. How would we make sure that information is available only to people who can be trusted? That’s a major point for us to determine. A doctor who has been asked by a patient to take care of his health, obviously is an individual who should have access to it. If access is allowed only by permission, it would be a preliminary state of controlling it.

One of the more difficult control factors is that whoever is actually in charge of the computer could have immediate access to the information in the data bank. One way of preventing this or making sure that it doesn’t occur is that people seeking access to the information must know both the name and the code number before they can have access to the information.

A lot of psychological research being done right now has this double security, this guarantee that only people who are allowed to have access to this information can do so, and other people who haven’t got the code number or the name are not able to do it. Potentially, therefore, this is a very good safeguard, which has worked so far.

I should like to mention that in some other jurisdictions, such as Holland, medical data banks now are in existence. I have no information as to how the Dutch one works, what issues are involved, how people have objected to or praised the system there, but I assume that one can get data by writing to them. It has been in existence for some time and it has worked well.

One added safeguard, which has already been mentioned by the proposer of the bill -- I think he implied it more than said it -- is that this type of data bank should not be in the control of a private company. I can’t imagine control of this information in the hands of IBM.

Mr. B. Newman: That’s the trouble with the US banks.

Mr. Dukszta: Yes, I tend to agree. It should not be in the control of IBM, and especially of a branch plant, so to speak. If we’re going to set it up, it should be under the full control of the Ministry of Health, with all of these safeguards built into it.

Let us just think for a moment, if we are going to implement something like this, about the technical difficulties of implementing it. I do not accept the fact that it is going to be such an overwhelmingly expensive technological augmentation of our already expensive technology that it will bankrupt us in the way the previous speaker has suggested.

Every physician obviously could not have an outlet that would be connected to a central data bank. Only hospitals or community health and social services centres could have this type of an outlet. The outlet itself is not expensive. At the moment -- and I’m certain if the government went in to it it would be even cheaper -- the rental of an outlet -- is only about $200 a month, which is not overwhelmingly expensive. The running of the computer itself, of course, is expensive, but if the government had one major computer the costs would be virtually minimal when it finally comes to do it.

The advantages of it are enormous, because once the proper safeguards are introduced, almost all the information could be stored in the computer without any problem. But I want to stress that if every physician were to have it, I think it would be impossible to implement it. Therefore, if we’re going to implement this type of a system, this type of technology demands once more, I think, that we must come to grips with what we have not been able to face, which is the immense changes in our whole system of organizing and delivering health care in Ontario.

A logical system would require that you have a centre, based in a geographical area -- a catchment area, if you like to use jargon -- in which all the problems of the people are dealt with in one particular centre, a centre that has 24-hour service, a plethora of various professionals, and supporting services --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s time is just about up.

Mr. Dukszta: Well, I think I did actually manage to finish, but let me just say, as a final sentence, that to implement this we would need to implement at the same time a different way of delivering health services, and obviously one way of doing it would be through community-based health centres.

Mr. Speaker: I might just draw to the attention of the three remaining speakers that there is 21 minutes left. Could we possible get our remarks over in seven minutes each?

The hon. member for Welland South.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to lend my support to the second reading of Bill 9, An Act to establish a Medical Data Bank, introduced by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

It is important that the government of the day support the bill in principle. Any programme to improve the survival rate in the case of an accident or a sudden illness by a simple procedure called a data bank, I think, should be enough to say that it should be in force.

I was surprised by the hon. member for Oshawa stating that it would bankrupt the government of Ontario. I cannot quite agree with that. I don’t think he has provided sufficient evidence to say that it would bankrupt the Province of Ontario.

I think any information that is available should be readily available in the case of an accident. I can think of the accidents that occur along the highways, or industrial accidents that occur in industry and in the mines of Ontario. Often the first person at the scene of that accident is a first-aid attendant or an ambulance driver, and it is not too often there is an MD present. I think when a serious accident arises pertinent information should be available to that person, because if wrong treatment is given to an injured person it could cause more serious complications and perhaps mean a longer recovery for that patient.

If we look at the United States where they have paramedics, I think perhaps in the near future we are going to have them in the Province of Ontario, because at the present time the access to the medical doctor in Ontario is getting less and less all the time. It takes quite a time for a person with any sickness at all to get in to see an MD. On that basis alone, information through a data bank would be most helpful in emergency treatment.

In the matter of the records being in the hospital, I know that a number of patients who have received medical attention do have records in the hospital now. Perhaps through a system of the electronic age that we are living in today, by pressing a button that information could come back to the first-aid attendant or to the ambulance attendant in an emergency, as well as being directed to the hospital.

I suppose when we look at it we have records presently being held by the police forces in Ontario, as well as the federal police force, and, through some sort of Telex I guess it is, in a moment they can obtain the information related to the person in question, and that information is most helpful. We find at the time a youngster goes into kindergarten in the school system in Ontario that there is a data bank there which is computerized and gives all the information related to that youngster. In fact, I suppose in time they will have on record all the different shots that a youngster received for communicable diseases. So in a sense the medical information is already available through certain data banks.

On the question of the cost, again I can’t quite agree with the member for Oshawa. I don’t think that is sufficient evidence to say that he does not support it. I think we have to look at the end result. If we can save a life I think that is more important than any cost. I am surprised that an MD would shake his head and say, “No, I am not concerned about saving the life of a person.” I don’t think he intends to shake his head to that.

Mr. McIlveen: I didn’t quite say that. It is on the record.

Mr. Haggerty: I do support the value of the medical data bank in Ontario on a voluntary basis and I think the government should be moving in that direction. If they don’t move this year they are going to have to move on it eventually. Perhaps in the year 2000 we will have to have it, because the doctors are getting further and further away from the patient all the time. The patient is going to have to look to some source to get the treatment that he requires, and I think through this source the information is there, and it is particularly valuable when it deals with emergency situations. I think my main concern is the emergency situation, so that the person has proper medical treatment at the scene. On that basis I support the bill of the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, on Bill 9, in terms of principle I must support my friend from Windsor-Walkerville. I think that he has touched upon something that is very necessary in the evolution of our medical and our hospital techniques across the province. To say that this data would have to be collected originally is not exactly true, because since the introduction of the computer into the Ontario Hospital Insurance Plan many of the ailments that are peculiar to the individual who has been insured, as well as the length of hospital stay, are already, for practical purposes, stored in a data bank. Mr. Speaker, if we can come out once or twice a year and say how many diseases or which particular diseases or ailments are afflicting so many, or on the opposite end of the scale, so few, residents of Ontario, means that actually for about 95 per cent of the people we have collected, within a given period of time, particulars of the ailments.

To take another tack there is the fact that we can prosecute physicians for abusing OHIP. We can tell how many doctors treated the patients and what they supposedly treated them for; so that documentary evidence is available. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, in principle, I don’t think there is any question that Bill 9 is a logical extension of practices which already exist. That is not to say that Bill 9 does not fill a need in this province because for everybody who is insured or who has a number from OHIP or who gives the right number from OHIP, there are a great many others who are not, have not and do not.

Let’s disregard the ones who didn’t pay. OHIP only starts to take regard for individual people under the age of 18 when they go to work. We have teenagers and we have married housewives who haven’t worked -- I realize that’s a phenomenon which may not last throughout our lifetime but, nonetheless, it is there. These people do not have individual or distinctive OHIP numbers.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that what Bill 9 is really talking about is that when someone goes to a centralized place for medical treatment -- I don’t think the author of Bill 9 has any concept of going to an individual doctor’s office; he would have to dial or make some procedure. Nonetheless, when the person who was afflicted or who wanted medical consultation -- regardless of the accident, regardless of the emergency -- went to a centralized medical place a relatively accurate description of his past health practices could be obtained which would be a benefit to the medical practitioner. I think that’s what he is getting at.

Mr. Speaker, in principle, I have no opposition to that.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): But?

Mr. Drea: No, I have no opposition to that. That may astound the member and I realize it’s difficult to be over there and be astounded but he is going to be astounded.

I have no opposition to that at all. I think that makes very good sense. Where is the sense in a hospital of having somebody brought in at midnight, whom they don’t know anything about, who appears to be in this state, that state or the other state? If they knew that the person was a diabetic or was this or that -- I’m not familiar with all the medical conditions -- they could treat them in a proper manner. When they don’t know, it’s trial and error. I know it’s very gruesome to say but that’s what it is. As I say, I agree in principle.

One of the particulars that concerns me a great deal is the question of where we have the multi-service facility. As I’m sure the drafter of this bill knows, more and more on this continent we’re getting to a situation that doesn’t just embrace the medical nor the dental. I suppose if it was only medical and dental there wouldn’t be that much of a problem but it’s getting into the medical, the dental, the social, the what have you. It’s not because of social diseases; I want to emphasize that any concern that I have isn’t because of the number of ailments that are called social.

One of the things that has always been there to protect the practitioner is the fact that the practitioner didn’t have to turn over his records to anybody outside of the particular patient. One of the difficulties -- and as I say, it’s not in principle -- in the mechanization or the implementation of a bill such as this is, that when they get into the multi-service facilities, when they are looking at the social sphere, when they are looking at the economic sphere, when they are looking at the legal sphere, when they are looking at the medical sphere, and when they are looking at the hospital sphere, the whole bit, where does the medical data bank stop?

It is all very well, Mr. Speaker, for you and me to say -- and I know a great number of people say this today -- that if it wasn’t for poor health, particularly poor emotional health, someone who is over here on the heap would be you or I who are very successful. What concerns me about the medical data bank is who punches into it. I realize the author of the bill has gone to some lengths in principle to determine who exactly can punch the code numbers or what have you to get out the particular report on so-and-so.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that in principle I support the bill. I don’t think it would be terribly expensive. We’ve already compiled the bulk of the data. I think it would be very beneficial to those who are brought into a hospital or a medical situation who are unable to give their own definition of their own medical history. But I would like to say that the thing that concerns me is exactly how far in the light of a very changing world that particular medical bank goes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In rising to make a comment or two on this Act to establish a Medical Data bank I do so with experience in my own case that would be rather useful. I am prone to having kidney stone attacks, Mr. Speaker, and they never occur when I’m at home, it seems. I think they’ve occurred once when I was home, and that was in the middle of the night. So I’ve been faced with appearing at an emergency ward of a hospital.

If anyone has ever had a kidney stone attack, he knows the intense writhing pain he has with it, writhing around in the emergency ward while someone copies down or tries to get from him his case medical history in its entirety. As I writhed around on the bed, all this --

Mr. Burr: And the OHIP number.

Mr. Bounsall: -- and my OHIP number, the whole bit -- the procedure gets longer and longer. I’ve now had seven kidney stone attacks. I am asked: “Have you ever had a kidney stone attack before? Yes? Where was it? What was the treatment? What happened?” It takes a half an hour just to get the kidney stone history of previous attacks out of me.

Mr. Burr: The member should get a copy made.

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, I should carry around a copy in my wallet that I can provide.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Does the member for Oshawa take that along?

Mr. McIlveen: That is what they should do.

Mr. Bounsall: It would be much simpler for them, surely, to be able to punch a button under my name and my social insurance number or whatever number is chosen and get the darn printout that would be handed to the doctor so that he can sit there and look at it.

I disagree with the member for Oshawa on the expense of this. I don’t believe the setting up of a medical data bank would be expensive.

Mr. McIlveen: To heck with the expense --

Mr. Bounsall: I’m advised by my colleague, the member for Parkdale (Mr. Lawlor), that it costs about $200 to $215 to rent a terminal, or it used to when he was using it. That’s not very costly. They can be placed in all hospitals. Most doctors could have one in group practice offices. They could be in health-discipline medical centres, which we hope this province will have in a widespread form in the near future as a means of delivering health care.

Mr. Ferrier: The member for Oshawa is just trying to make the work more difficult for the doctors.

Mr. Bounsall: I appreciate some of the comments which the member for Oshawa has made, but I think he’s being a little bit conservative in saying that if we have this medical data bank, then one would therefore each time, or particularly in an accident, have to check the person’s blood type. I think you could clearly take that from the record produced by the medical data bank.

I would like to say a couple of things about the record in the data bank. I think patients should certainly have the right to be able to look at their own medical records on request. Now we don’t want them all belting in once a week to have an up-date, but they should be eligible to have the information that is in that bank provided to them once or twice a year upon request.

Also, as my colleague from Parkdale mentioned, I think for the system to work it’s got to be universal. I don’t think someone should have a choice as to whether or not the medical data is kept on himself or herself; and I agree with the member for Parkdale that there must be control on who can get that data out of that bank.

You know if you go into a hospital now for any sort of an ailment, Mr. Speaker, the whole hospital, or the nursing staff on your floor, all know what your problem is; and the various doctors you deal with get your whole patient history. None of us fear that very much, so I can’t see why, for reasons of confidentiality alone, we shouldn’t have it all in a data bank.

One has to work at keeping the data coming from that source confidential. A nurse can get it out by pushing a button and she hands it to the doctor in charge of the case, with the regulations saying that unless asked by the doctor, she must not in fact peruse the information therein, and that would apply to whatever technician might be taking it out.

To those who fear inclusion in one’s data information on any sort of social disease, I would say that perhaps in that area you could say social disease information, unless it is of a continuing nature or an intensive medical problem in its advanced stages so that it really deserves to be included as one of the major contributing factors to health, could be excluded. If it’s a case of a social disease having occurred in earlier years, with one incidence which has been cured and isn’t continuing, isn’t a major factor in one’s medical history, that can be removed at the patient’s request and need not be included in that medical history.

So there need be nothing in the medical history, if one’s social disease contact has been on that basis, that would embarrass anyone.

Basically, the idea is a sound one. I can see it being very useful in the event of highway traffic accidents. I can see it being very useful -- this readily available information -- as information related to organ transplants. Experts can code these computers so that if a kidney of a certain blood type and blood grouping, or whatever is required, turns up, the blood grouping of the kidney which is to be donated can be quickly matched through the central computer with that of someone in the vicinity or across the province and the operation for the transplant of that kidney undertaken.

By and large, Mr. Speaker, I support the principle here. The details of it need some working on. I would disagree with the bill in that it requires consent for the data to be recorded. I would certainly require it. I think that’s the only way it would be completely useful and worth the cost of setting it up.

I do not believe it is that costly to set up; and in regard to possible failure of the computer, it can be stored in a couple of computers so that if there is a problem with one, it is still readily available in another.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This completes this order of business.

It being 6 o’clock p.m., the House took recess.