Hansard Transcripts 1979-Mar-29 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Pauline M. McGibbon, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1980, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, March 29, 1979.

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege: Last Tuesday in the Legislature, on asking a question of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), I stated that three paediatricians at the Northwestern General Hospital and all of the anaesthetists at St. Joseph’s Hospital had opted out of OHIP.

I want to set the record straight because, in fact, all of those particular physicians are in the plan. Our information arose from a misunderstanding in the telephone conversation between our researcher and the head of department, in one case, and one of the other anaesthetists in the other. Perhaps this illustrates the difficulties the general public is having in determining whether or not doctors are in or out of the plan.

Mr. Conway: The researcher is now the NDP candidate in Mount-Royal.

Mr. Speaker: To set the record straight is not a point of privilege. That is a point of clarification or to set the record straight.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I think I have a point of privilege. On March 13, I asked a question of the Minister of Health regarding a situation that arose at Hotel Dieu hospital in Windsor involving overcrowding on one evening when 14 patients had to stay in the emergency room. The minister’s answer was misleading, I believe, in that he said the overcrowding was a result of a particular peak in one instance.

I would like to point out to the Legislature that in talking to the hospitals in Windsor I have found that since January of this year Hotel Dieu has averaged three nights per week on which it has had to use its emergency rooms because of lack of beds. Grace Hospital has also averaged three nights per week, and Metropolitan has averaged three nights per week. This clearly indicates there is a lack of active treatment beds in Windsor and that the information the Minister of Health presented to this Legislature was wrong.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider the comments of the honourable member and to talk with some of my staff who are regularly in discussions with the individual hospitals or the local health council. I do not have in front of me my exact response on that day, but I believe I pointed out that at this particular time of the year it is a period of peak utilization as a result of injuries and illnesses associated with winter and that it is not uncommon for there to be a peak utilization. But I will look at the member’s concerns and see if they have any substance which requires followup on our part.

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr. Lawlor: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: On March 15, 1979, the Minister of Health made a statement to the House that the average inpatient population at Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital over the past six months has been about 280. He has been misinformed, I put it to you, and has misinformed this House on this particular matter. It has been 337.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Again, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the information which certain individuals in this House and abroad, as it were, purport to distribute as being authoritative. Any information that I would give to this House would be based on a report from my staff. I am giving some thought to how we might effectively put to an end this growing spreading of incorrect information abroad.

Mr. Lawlor: By your being more accurate.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, any time any figure I use is wrong, I have said so. I can assure you that particular figure was one based on a question that was put repeatedly to staff, but I am always willing to ask the question again to make sure.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) will be here to introduce a bill to amend the Business Corporations Act, and he has asked that I read this statement at this particular time in connection with that legislation.

This legislation means the company that is incorporating -- not the government -- will have to make sure the proposed corporate name and articles of incorporation are not in conflict with the law.

The new Business Corporations Act will provide substantial benefit to business. In recent years the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has received numerous requests from business and from the legal community to speed up the process of incorporation. Unfortunately, the escalating volume of requests for corporate name searches and business incorporations received each year has made it increasingly difficult to handle them as quickly as business requires. Fortunately, within the past two years, facilities and technology have become available which will permit the government to hand over to the private sector the responsibility for corporate name acquisition. In practical terms this will mean the role of government in the process of incorporation can be reduced from 12 days to less than an hour.

On the subject of corporate name search, the Business Corporations Act states that a proposed corporate name should not be the same as or similar to the name of another corporation, association, partnership or individual if its use will be likely to deceive. Under the legislation as it now stands the minister must decide whether the proposed corporate name should be prohibited. The onus, of course, lies with the incorporator to select a proposed corporate name that will not conflict with the prohibition under the act.

Over the 1977-78 year, the ministry conducted almost 62,000 name searches. This represents a 70 per cent increase over the number of searches conducted in 1974. So, Mr. Speaker, you can appreciate the burden which this workload has placed on that ministry’s companies division. It now requires an average of five working days to clear a corporate name. In individual cases, the time to obtain a decision varies anywhere from three to 12 or more working days. This occurs before the incorporator even files the articles of incorporation.

Fortunately, within the past year and a half, three private search firms have begun operating a name search service directly to the public. These companies have on-line data terminals with access to the automated name search system operated by the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This system contains the trademarks and the names of all corporations from every jurisdiction in Canada, including foreign corporations carrying on business in Canada.

These search houses obtain for clients computer printout search reports from that system within 24 hours or less. The service means that this ministry can safely withdraw from the corporate names business.

The new act will privatize the name search and decision. To assist the business community in making appropriate name selections, the legislation will provide for expanded regulations and guidelines. These will require an ANS name search report to be delivered with articles of incorporation as evidence that a name search has in fact been made.

On the subject of articles of incorporation, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has experienced similar problems with the process of proposed incorporation. Under the present legislation, incorporators submit to the ministry articles of incorporation together with a cleared name search report and the prescribed fee. The staff in the companies division examines the articles to ensure they comply with the act. If the articles of incorporation conform to the law, and all prescribed fees have been paid, the division then issues a certificate of incorporation.

Once again we have been unable to handle requests for business incorporations as quickly as the business community requires. The average service time has increased to 8.6 working days from 5.3 days in 1974. Those delays have understandably generated a number of criticisms from the business community.

To alleviate this problem, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations last year introduced procedures permitting lawyers to file legal opinions to the effect that the articles conform to law. Under this procedure, the articles are examined only for proper execution and to ensure they are accompanied by the prescribed fee and cleared name search report. This has, of course, worked to the benefit of both business and government.

Under the new legislation, the incorporator would deliver to the minister articles of incorporation accompanied by an ANS name search report and prescribed fee. The staff will examine articles to determine that they are properly executed, that the accompanying name search report is for the name set out in the articles, and that the prescribed fee is paid. If these conditions are fully satisfied, the certificate will then be issued.

In conclusion, the amendment poses numerous benefits to both public and government. The service time will be reduced from the present average of 12 working days to, first, 30 minutes where articles are filed and the certificate of incorporation is issued, or, second, one working day where articles are delivered by mail.

Administrative expenditures will be substantially reduced, and the amendment is consistent with the 1967 recommendation of the select committee on company law that corporation law should impose minimum restrictions and afford maximum convenience and simplicity to incorporation and organization of companies.

The new Business Corporations Act will benefit everyone -- business, the public and government -- and it reflects this government’s policy of simplifying the procedure for dealing with government agencies and for privatizing functions which the private sector can perform more efficiently.

HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, if I may, in connection with the statement I am about to make, I would like to draw to your attention that in your galleries --

Mr. Speaker: Will honourable members keep down their private conversations, please?

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- among your guests today are Dr. William Vail, president of the Ontario Medical Association; Dr. Edward Moran, general secretary of the Ontario Medical Association; Dr. R. M. MacMillan, Dr. D. Y. Caldwell and other gentlemen from the executive of the Ontario Medical Association, as well as the members of the staff, and the president and the executive director of the Ontario Hospital Association, Professor John Wevers and Mr. R. Alan Hay respectively.

A solid, high-quality and universally accessible health system is, and can only be, the result of a partnership between health-care professionals, the medical community, the public and the government. This partnership, despite some difficulties, has worked well in Ontario.

As the members are aware, in recent months we have been meeting frequently with representatives of the Ontario Medical Association to discuss areas of mutual concern. We have also had discussions with the Ontario Hospital Association.

Today I will outline a series of actions for the House, based on the following mutually held principles: that accessibility and universality of health care services must be maintained; that patients have the option to go to the doctor of choice and doctors have the option to practise within the plan or bill patients directly; that the patient should know in advance if an additional charge is to be made by a physician; that if a patient is not so informed, the patient should not be obliged to pay that charge; that the principle of self-regulation by the medical profession must be maintained, and that physicians should receive fair remuneration for their services.

Flowing from these principles, I would like to announce the following:

First, both the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Hospital Association have agreed to begin joint discussions immediately to devise a mechanism to ensure that in every public hospital in Ontario the patient will have a choice of access to physicians’ services at OHIP rates. All parties have agreed this will be given the highest priority.

Secondly, the OMA, again recognizing the principle of accessibility to health services, will undertake to help citizens, in obtaining the services of an opt-in physician. The OMA will immediately begin to assist the public in this way from its main office in Toronto and will be announcing further details of this service which will take into account those living outside the Toronto area. It is envisaged that the local academies of medicine across the province may be of assistance in this service.

The third action relates to the process through which the government and the OMA conduct fee negotiations. The OMA and the government have agreed on the key principles of a new procedure, which recognizes the OMA as the sole negotiating agency for physicians in Ontario for the OHIP schedule of benefits and provides for the chairman of the negotiating committee to have the role of an independent fact-finder.

I am confident the new agreement will produce a level of remuneration for the services rendered by Ontario physicians that will be accepted as fair by both the people of Ontario and the medical profession.

As I have indicated, the OMA supports the principle that the physician should inform the patient in advance of any charges above those provided for in the OHIP schedule of benefits. Further, the OMA endorses the principle that the patient should not have to pay rates above the OHIP schedule of benefits if the doctor has not given the patient prior notification.

The OMA executive feels strongly this is a matter for which it must assume full responsibility, as a self-regulating profession. Since they view it as a matter concerning the integrity of their profession, they have undertaken to communicate this information to their members and, through existing mechanisms such as tariff committees, to help in the resolution of any difficulties that may arise between doctor and patient.

The OMA also recognizes that should difficulties persist with this issue, the government will have little choice but to consider some form of consumer protection legislation to address the problem.

It is worth reiterating that our health-care system in Ontario remains one of the finest in the world. It is based on co-operative, rather than master-servant, relationships. Reasonable people can always resolve their difficulties amicably, given a rational environment in which to consider them.

The actions I have outlined today, I believe, will help maintain that spirit of cooperation and the high standard of health care which we enjoy in Ontario today.

OMERS LEGISLATION

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, today I intend to introduce three acts for amendment. The first is the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Systems Act. I have two amendments to introduce in connection with the OMERS act. One is intended to give the OMERS board more leeway in investing surplus pension funds. According to the present act, OMERS may invest only a portion of its surplus moneys in the private sector; the remainder is to be paid over the Treasurer of Ontario in return for a province of Ontario debenture. The new provisions will permit the board to invest all its surplus funds in the private sector.

The second amendment is to do away with an inconsistency between the OMERS act and the year-old Family Law Reform Act. The OMERS act now prohibits any attachment of pension funds, but the Family Law Reform Act permits such attachment in the case of support orders. The new provision will allow exception to the general rule, making attachment of OMERS’ pension funds possible in the case of support orders.

BUDGET DATE

Hon. F. S. Miller: The second statement I would like to make is that on April 10 at 8 p.m. I will be presenting my budget to this Legislature.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CONFEDERATION

Hon. Mr. Wells: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis), I would like to make a statement today and table in the Legislature the second report of the Advisory Committee on Confederation. This report deals with the subject of the federal-provincial distribution of powers. It is available in the two official languages of Canada.

Members will recall that this advisory committee was appointed in April 1977 under the chairmanship of Mr. Ian Macdonald. Its mandate has been to advise this government on questions pertaining to the future of our country.

The recommendations in the committee’s second report cover the major issues pertaining to the distribution of powers, including many of the areas currently being discussed among the federal and provincial governments. The report is the culmination of a year of hard work and consultation by the committee.

Last April the Premier had the honour of tabling the first report of the committee. In that report, the committee made suggestions for constitutional changes in such areas as a new second chamber, the Supreme Court, fundamental and language rights, and an amending formula.

At that time the chairman of the advisory committee was asked to convene a small conference of Ontarians, both experts and non-experts, to analyse and evaluate the report. The result was Confederation 78, a most constructive conference held last June at Glendon College. This was organized with the co-operation of the Ontario section of the Council for Canadian Unity. The committee supplemented the consultative process by meeting privately with several people well versed in the field of constitutional reform to elicit their reactions to the proposals in the first report.

Following this consultation the committee prepared a followup to its first report, which clarified some of the proposals and modified others. The first report and its followup provided the basis for a presentation that the advisory committee made before the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution. This presentation was made last August.

Through the fall and winter, the committee has undertaken a heavy schedule of meetings, not only to provide counsel to the government on the ongoing constitutional discussions which have been carried on, but also in order to refine its recommendations on the distribution of powers.

I think this second report comes at a particularly important time. I hope its release and wide distribution will provide a valuable contribution to the debate ton the future of our country. The recommendations, like those of the recently released report of the Task Force on Canadian Unity, are thoughtful and very worthy of careful consideration.

As was indicated in the Speech from the Throne, this government is strongly committed to contributing actively and constructively to the urgent business of renewing the Canadian constitution. We maintain the positive conviction that with the co-operation of all the provinces and the federal government a new constitutional agreement can be achieved. Such an agreement would recognize the importance of a strong role for the central government in maintaining an effective national economy for the benefit of all Canadians. It would also recognize the necessity for the provincial governments to retain the tools necessary to reflect their regional interests.

I would repeat what has been said often before, Mr. Speaker, that it is possible for changes to be made in the Canadian federal system that we think will meet the basic concerns of the people of Quebec as well as those of Canadians in all provinces.

I am also sending copies of the advisory committee’s second report to the Prime Minister and to the Premiers of the other provinces as we table them here today. I am also tabling copies of the letters that the Premier is sending to these other people accompanying the copies of the report.

On behalf of the Premier and the government, I would like to thank the chairman of our advisory committee, Mr. Ian Macdonald, the very busy President of York University, and the other members of the committee, past and present, for the time and energy they have given in order to provide guidance to this government and to produce this second report.

I look forward to being able to continue to call upon them, as this government does, for counsel on all matters concerning Confederation over these next very crucial months ahead.

KENORA PLANE CRASH

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in this statement and I am confident that all members of this House will share this feeling with me.

Mr. McClellan: The Thursday filibuster.

Mr. Peterson: If the minister would speak up maybe we could hear it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I will send it over to the member.

Mr. Conway: What’s that?

Mr. Peterson: Don’t give away your hearing aid, Jimmy.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I asked for that.

Yesterday in the Kenora area, acts of bravery and determination were performed by two men, one of whom is a member of the staff of the Ministry of Natural Resources. The two men, one a pilot on our staff, the other a young helicopter pilot from a commercial company, rescued three people whose airplane had crashed in the Lake of the Woods. Unfortunately, a fourth person, a woman who was strapped in a stretcher and being flown to Winnipeg for medical attention, could not be rescued.

I would like to recount this incident in detail, from reports we have received during the last few hours from our ministry office in the northwestern region.

Yesterday afternoon, a twin-engine Piper Aztec with three women and the pilot aboard crashed near Kenora in the Lake of the Woods. Just before it went down, the pilot was in touch with Ministry of Transport officials who called our small airfield in Kenora to alert us that an emergency was in progress. One of our ministry pilots by the name of Bob Grant was on hand at the time. Outside the office was a helicopter belonging to Heli-Voyageur. Its pilot apparently was heading home from Edmonton to Quebec for a break.

Ministry of Transport informed Mr. Grant that a plane with both engines gone bad crashed and appealed for help. Bob Grant immediately enlisted the aid of the helicopter pilot, a young 23-year-old gentleman named Brian Clegg. They took off from the ministry airstrip and began searching the area where MOT last had radar contact with the troubled plane.

To give the House an idea of the flying conditions, earlier that day Mr. Grant had cancelled a flight because the weather was too bad. lit was snowing and gusty.

According to Mr. Grant, they searched the area for about 10 minutes until one of them noticed skid marks on the ice below leading into the water. The helicopter was flying at treetop level at this point.

Pilot Clegg dropped down and they immediately saw a man and woman on shore waving. It was the pilot and a woman on board who had managed to swim to shore through the icy water. The downed plane was nowhere to be seen. As they were turning toward shore, Mr. Grant noticed what looked like a coat floating in the water. He took a closer look and realized it was a woman just barely afloat. At this point she had apparently been in the water almost 10 minutes. Both men decided to try to rescue from the air rather than wait any longer.

[2:30]

Mr. Clegg brought the helicopter to within a few inches of the surface of the open water and held it steady in the gusts of wind. Mr. Grant then unbuckled himself and climbed out of the cockpit on to the skid, which he straddled. At this point he was in icy water up to his midsection. Bob Grant grabbed the floating woman and yelled to the pilot to lift off slowly. About 10 feet in the air, he was apparently unable to hold on because of the cold, his precarious position and the weight of the woman whose winter clothes were soaked with water. She fell back into the water.

Mr. Grant and the pilot decided to try again. At this point the unfortunate woman was stiff but still conscious. Mr. Grant grabbed her again and ordered the pilot of the small helicopter up again. Once again, he couldn’t maintain his grip.

Mrs. Campbell: This is unreal.

Hon. Mr. Auld: It seems almost unbelievable that they could continue to do this, given the weather conditions and the skill that it takes to control a helicopter under these circumstances, but they fried twice more and the results were the same.

Then Mr. Grant asked the pilot to fly sideways across the water and backward to the sheet of ice approximately 100 feet away. Mr. Grant all the while clung to the helicopter skid and dragged the woman through the water, He pulled the survivor onto the ice and the helicopter backed up again.

Mr. Grant, on surer footing now, climbed out and pushed the woman into the passenger seat of the helicopter. She was barely conscious, but apparently -- and these are Mr. Grant’s words -- “as stiff as a board” from the cold. Then, with Mr. Grant standing on the skid, half in and half out of the helicopter and with a grip on the woman survivor and the machine, they took off for Kenora.

Within a few minutes they were setting down in the main drive of the Kenora hospital. They delivered the woman survivor and then returned to pick up the others.

Mr. Riddell: It’s a good thing there were hospital beds.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s an excellent hospital.

Hon. Mr. Auld: These are the details of the rescue yesterday that were relayed to me by staff in Kenora. This report was done in a rush, but we believe the facts are accurate.

I’m sad to report the other passenger aboard the aircraft, who was being flown to Winnipeg, did not survive. I’m glad, however, to say the pilot and the two other women passengers, including the woman rescued from the water by Mr. Clegg and Mr. Grant, were released from the Kenora hospital this morning after being treated for exposure. All of them were understandably glad to be alive and anxious to get home.

I will be personally commending the actions of our staff pilot, Mr. Grant, and the pilot of the helicopter, Mr. Clegg, but I’m particularly proud to report that Mr. Grant, although he has only been flying with my ministry for two years, has demonstrated how he fits into the tradition of the Ontario air service that was begun in the early 1920s.

Once again, I am sure all members will join me in thanking those two gentlemen for doing a remarkable job under almost impossible circumstances.

Mr. Peterson: Even you made that sound exciting.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Premier (Mr. Davis), who I thought was going to be here today. The House leader believes he will be here? Perhaps I will save that question.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. S. Smith: I will ask my first question of the Minister of Health. I note in the minister’s statement, Mr. Speaker, that the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Hospital Association, and the ministry I presume, will be meeting to discuss how to guarantee that in every public hospital patients will have a choice of access to physicians’ services at OHIP rates. In the meantime, however, can the minister clarify what the situation is in those hospitals where all the members of one speciality, such as anaesthetists, have opted out? Is it within the ability of the patient now simply to choose whether or not the patient is to pay the OHIP rate or to pay the additional rate? Would the minister he very clear? I’m speaking, of course, of the conscious patient.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’d be glad to give a conscious answer.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s a change.

Mr. Ashe: Too bad we don’t have a conscious opposition leader.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In individual instances that come to our attention, either through our own surveys or through the efforts of members opposite or through the media, we will contact individual hospitals in the interim period between now and the finalization of the mechanism which the hospital association and the medical association are working on to assure that. Obviously, I don’t want to prejudge what the ultimate mechanism they recommend will be, but we will deal with it hospital by hospital to give effect to that principle of the right to access to services on an opted-in basis.

Mr. S. Smith: I think I understood the minister’s answer to be that in fact the patients can refuse to pay the opted-out rate. If I’m wrong in that understanding, I hope the minister will correct me.

I would like to ask by way of supplementary, stemming also from the statement the minister made earlier, how the minister proposes in those communities where the number of opted-out physicians is rather great to make sure that opted-in physicians are available. Is he now prepared to place health service organizations, or some other form of alternative inside-the-plan services, in those communities to make sure that access exists?

It is all very well for the OMA to say they are going to help people find these doctors, but what about communities where they are not in existence or are insufficient in numbers?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On several previous occasions I have indicated that we are indeed prepared to meet with and discuss with any potential sponsoring group in any community the possibility of the establishment of a financially viable health service organization. One community which has been very much in our minds recently is Peterborough.

Mr. Cassidy: You are starving the health service organizations. It is a hollow promise.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have been approached by two organizations there indicating an interest. One is a group of physicians, the other a group representing one of the major unions in the community. We are quite prepared to sit down with either or both of them to transmit the information about the basis on which such an HSO would be formed, and take them through the various stages associated with that.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the statement by the minister in conjunction with the OMA states only that the patient will have a choice of access to physician services at OHIP rates in hospitals, can the minister tell the House and the public of Ontario what proportion of services by doctors or what proportion of doctors within a hospital must be making their services available at OHIP rates in order to be acceptable to this new standard? Is it the 95 per cent which is comparable to the standard laid down by Ottawa for the number of people enrolled in the plan provincially? Is it 75 per cent, is it 55 per cent, is it 25 per cent; or is the minister simply saying that as long as there is one doctor in a particular specialty who is prepared to work under OHIP he will be satisfied? If that is his view, how does he then say there is universal access to hospital medical care at insured rates in the province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would invite the honourable member to reread that portion of my statement, because what I talked about was access to services at opted-in rates. He will know that in every clinical department of every hospital in the province the regulations provide for the right to form a billing group within a specialty, and for each one to have a separate billing group so that accounts can be billed directly to the plan, that is on an opted-in basis.

The principle here is the right of access to services to be provided on an opted-in basis. So really, I don’t envisage and I can’t foresee as part of the development of this mechanism that the hospital association and the medical association have undertaken that it would be a particular percentage of doctors. The principle accepted by everyone is that you or I or anyone, if we insist, will have access to the service to be provided on an opted-in basis.

Mr. Cassidy: If we insist?

Mr. Swart: How can you ensure that?

Mr. Warner: That’s your responsibility.

Mr. Conway: I have a supplementary with respect to the third action spoken of on the bottom of the third page of the minister’s statement. Can the minister clarify for me and members of this House what exactly is this new procedure involving the OMA in its negotiation of the OHIP schedule of benefits; how it is their input is going to be new and perhaps different from what has existed in previous years; and how it is he expects the chairman of this negotiating committee ultimately to act in some capacity as an independent fact finder?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have not dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s of that agreement.

Mrs. Campbell: You sure haven’t.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, don’t be so cynical. You want to bludgeon the doctors into submission.

Mr. Van Horne: Your ministry should plan a little ahead.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Smile.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The two key principles, as I indicated in the statement, are that we accept the Ontario Medical Association will be the sole bargaining agent with the government of Ontario for physicians’ benefits under OHIP, that is the OHIP schedule of benefits. The second thing is perhaps even more important, because as we strive to ensure a system that will achieve fair results --

Mrs. Campbell: I can’t believe it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- the chairman of this agency, as it were, will have the authority, on the motion of one of the parties, to examine the arguments and seek out information independently and make a recommendation. It is not unlike, I would suggest, what we have in the role of the chairman of the educational relations commission.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In choosing this route, is the minister now saying that in the next set of negotiations he will move to one approved rate of services for doctors? Will the same rules apply in that instance -- since we’re using trade union and normal negotiating terminology here -- will the same rules apply to the medical association as apply to other people who bargain and negotiate a salary rate, like teachers, like trade unionists; that is if you move to negotiate one approved rate for your services, then you must abide by that and you cannot opt out?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, we will maintain the health insurance plan in Ontario as presently structured, which gives options to the patients and to the doctors. I’m still trying to figure out what the policy of that group over there is. Last week their leader said he would opt all the doctors in; yesterday their leader said that he would avoid draconian measures. Last night he was speaking in Hamilton and was going to tell the world the solutions of the New Democratic Party for health care. Apparently he said nothing.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I understand --

Mr. Swart: You don’t even understand your problems.

Interjections.

An hon. member: I think you struck a nerve there.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I quite understand the policies of that party. I quite understand the policies --

Mr. Cassidy: If you don’t understand the principles of health insurance in Ontario, then you shouldn’t be the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- because I’ve seen the national health service, I’ve seen the disaster which their philosophy has wreaked on the United Kingdom; and they are not going to do it here.

An hon. member: Is the campaign still on, Dennis?

Mr. Makarchuk: Have you checked out the health services in Ethiopia?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

FORMER MINISTER’S SPEECH

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Premier:

Now that the honourable member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) is no longer bound by cabinet solidarity and appears prepared to speak out on his experience as a minister in the Premier’s government, has the Premier, as a matter of priority, today discussed with him the important and relevant remarks which he made last night to the North York Progressive Conservative Association? I might quote from his remarks:

“Legislative overload and abdication of authority has contributed to the transfer of political power to the bureaucracy. Ministries are manipulated by deputies and clever marionette-like manoeuvres. They, in turn, are managed by the Premier’s mandarins, with only the semblance of power at the elected level.”

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question in all of this?

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, since deputy ministers are appointed essentially by the Premier, and in view of this reference to mandarins in the Premier’s office who allegedly manage the deputy ministers, has the Premier asked his former Minister of Energy to provide him with information to substantiate these very serious charges being made about the conflict of democratic government in Ontario?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that very serious question, one of urgent public importance raised by the Leader of the Opposition, which has about as much relevancy as a number of questions he is prone to ask in the House --

Mr. Bolan: A heck of a lot more than the answers you are giving too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have never raised the question of the relevancy of my answers. They usually reflect the tenor of the questions that are asked, and this particular answer will be no different.

Mr. Bolan: Facetious.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, it will be a little bit facetious because the question was more than slightly facetious. t would say to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker -- and I am sure you will allow me the same latitude in reply as you allowed him in reading from the news report -- that quite honestly I have not discussed the particular matter with the former Minister of Energy. He is a very able member of our caucus, one who represents, as we do in the whole caucus, a Conservative approach, unlike the caucus opposite which is ultimately divided into Liberal and Conservative philosophy.

He is one who has never been reluctant to campaign as a Conservative either federally or provincially and not as a representative of a party who, if he goes into Scarborough West, will be faced with election signs saying “Ontario Liberal, Canadian Liberal,” or any other variety of Liberal you may wish to choose in this particular period.

The Leader of the Opposition is quite correct. We do have the responsibility of the appointment of our deputy ministers within this government. I am not one to become too expansive on any of these things. I am always very modest in my praise of individuals, except I would say that I think we have an excellent --

Mr. McEwen: Your halo is slipping.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, there’s a halo. To the hon. member opposite who is gesturing with his hand around his head, indicating some difficulty which we would understand on this side of the House, I would only say to him a halo he does not have.

I would also say I have great confidence in and great respect for the deputy ministers in the government of this province. Not only do I say that, but I am sure in a personal way I really reflect the views of the reasonable members opposite who on occasion do communicate with these deputies in order to get problems solved within their constituencies.

I am told they are always treated politely, cooperatively and in a way that does resolve problems for individual members opposite.

Mr. Makarchuk: You mean he is all wrong, in other words.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I happen to know that this takes place. While the hon. member in the speech apparently indicated some concern that all of us have expressed on occasion as to the role of the “bureaucracy” and that of the elected people, I can say, unlike the Liberal caucus, certainly we are a very independent group on this side of the House. I would say that I have the advice of some of the most able men and women in political life in this country who have never been reluctant either to differ with the deputy ministers or on occasion even to differ with the Premier in their approach to certain issues.

While I know the Leader of the Opposition had hoped in some small way, because of the by-elections, facetiously to embarrass this party, I can only say to him, unlike his party we do not discourage independent thinking. We do not discourage our private members from making observations, and at the same time, unlike his caucus the ministers of the crown in this government do express their points of view. Their points of view are understood by the senior level of administration --

Mr. Sargent: You have made a hell of a mess of it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- in this province and they do accept the ultimate political decision that is made. If the Leader of the Opposition wants me to expand upon this further, I am quite prepared, hopefully, to answer a supplementary question, or perhaps he now feels he has had enough.

Mr. Makarchuk: Any more?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can go on. I can even be provoked into commenting on Hamilton-Wentworth.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I won’t, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I really think the Premier’s answer has been expansive enough.

Mr. S. Smith: Since the Premier seems determined to take the question less seriously than it was intended --

Hon. Mr. Norton: You mean it didn’t achieve the result you hoped it would achieve.

Mr. S. Smith: I would like, by way of a supplementary, to ask whether the Premier is aware that because cabinet solidarity no longer binds the member for Prince Edward-Lennox the member is making some very serious charges about the conduct of government in the province of Ontario under the stewardship of the Premier. I want to know, therefore, whether the Premier intends, since he has obviously not already done so, to find out the specifics of the accusations being made by the member for Prince Edward-Lennox, whether he intends to share with the House any of the specifics that are involved, and exactly what the Premier’s opinion is of a situation where a former minister, finally free to speak of his experience, tell us the elements of democracy have been undermined by the way in which the bureaucracy acts towards its ministers and the way in which the Premier’s own appointees control the very top echelon of that bureaucracy. Does he intend I to take this seriously and find out what it is the former Minister of Energy is complaining about and what it is in the system of government in Ontario that may require change?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I take all serious matters seriously and I have every respect for the views of the very distinguished member of this caucus and former minister of the crown. I am delighted the Leader of the Opposition, for the first time since I have been here, is now himself paying some attention to the former Minister of Energy. If memory serves me correctly, he was less than complimentary, less than supportive, and hypercritical of that same individual not too many months ago. It is interesting to see the change that has taken place.

I would further say to the Leader of the Opposition, who has yet to gain some measure of experience in these matters I guess -- and I will just restate it, Mr. Speaker, because the supplementary really was the same as the original question -- that while all of us from time to time are concerned about the balances between the administrative people and the people who labour so conscientiously for the public of this province and that of the elected person, I can only repeat what I say: that I have confidence in the deputy ministers in this government. They are extremely --

Mr. di Santo: Time, time, time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen. My answer hasn’t taken as long as that rather rambling question.

Mr. Swart: Oh yes, it has.

Mr. McClellan: Spare us.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you having trouble with your fingers this afternoon? I don’t doubt it; you got burned earlier this afternoon. I would only repeat to the Leader of the Opposition that in no way am I upset or concerned --

Mr. McClellan: We got burned? Your minister was on fire.

Mr. Wildman: He went up in smoke.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- by what the honourable member has said. I would only remind him if he has something of a specific nature, if he has some criticism to make of the senior deputies in this government, then he should do so. He should not do as he did I in Hamilton, criticizing and in many respects going pretty far with respect to the employees of the Ministry of the Environment who can’t defend themselves; and in this he has not yet been big enough to apologize or take back what he said.

If he is saying to me as head of government that the “senior public service” are incompetent and that they don’t take political direction, then he should lust say so and we can debate it here in the House. I would be delighted to do so. I have never been reluctant to defend the public service of this province and that includes the deputy ministers.

I don’t want to go on too long on the subject. They are very able people, they take political direction, they take it from a very able group of ministers. I know that is frustrating the Leader of the Opposition; he only wishes he had in his caucus such ability to demonstrate to the people of this province.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary to the Premier: Since the usurpation of the legitimate rights and powers of the elected representatives by the growing bureaucracy in modern government is a well-known phenomenon that has been discussed ad nauseam in hundreds of political science classrooms, could the Premier inform us from which one of the thousands of texts his minister may have plagiarized those comments?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Knowing the honourable member who just asked the question is himself either an author or an editor, who in this House is a practising political scientist and in the academic community is a theoretical political scientist, who is one of those who does carry into theory some of the practicalities, as I read some of his material and as I have talked to some students to whom he has lectured, I might observe that perhaps the member for Prince Edward-Lennox borrowed some of his phraseology; I don’t know.

I hope he too is expressing at long last some confidence in, and appreciation for, the efforts given to the public of this province by the former Minister of Energy. He didn’t show such great interest not too many months ago.

Mr. Swart: That is a perfect non-answer.

An hon. member: Find out what books he has read.

Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier something arising from the original question and his answer. Does it not concern him that the honourable member who made the speech was Minister of Energy at just the time when Ontario Hydro was making the decisions which are at this time costing the consumers so much money and are above and beyond what is required?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Not really.

Mr. McClellan: You should have asked that a half hour ago.

Mr. Nixon: Is he not concerned that the democratic control of Hydro, which was supposed to have been operating through the former Minister of Energy, was in fact usurped by the bureaucracy and directly by the mandarins, whoever those are, in the Premier’s office?

Mr. Wildman: He certainly showed Smith how to ask a question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the baseball season is upon us and when the leader strikes out the pinch-hitters come up to bat; I understand that. Only I have to tell the honourable member that really, historically he is not correct.

Mr. Nixon: The Premier is making an absolute fool of himself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member I want to recall for him some of the observations he has made recently when we get into more general debate after the fifth.

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary question was quite specific.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was quite specific. Well then, trying to deal with it specifically, Mr. Speaker, my recollection, and of course the memory of the honourable member who asked the question is far better than mine, is that the majority of decisions were made prior to this time.

Mr. Peterson: He is better looking too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly he is better looking. He is better looking than you are, in spite of your wardrobe, in spite of your in-laws.

Mr. Sargent: That is pretty shaggy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are they going to be on the campaign trail for Joe? Sure they are.

I would remind the member who asked the question, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of the basic decisions which are now being debated, and the member for York South can correct me if I am wrong, really in essence were made by Ontario prior to the very former, at least the very distinguished former Minister of Energy having responsibility.

Mr. McClellan: He is very former.

Mr. Breaugh: He is very former.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No; the former, very distinguished, Minister of Energy. I think that is, from the standpoint of chronology, correct; so please don’t try to bail your leader out by asking a question that really is not totally based on the history of the situation.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Health; but first to remind him of what he said on Tuesday: “There is no evidence whatsoever, none whatsoever, that people have in fact been deterred from necessary medical care by our system.” He also said: “There is no evidence, there is no reason of any kind to believe that our health plan is any way at all being dismantled.” Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the conversion the minister has reflected in a statement he gave in the House today.

I would like to ask the minister a very specific question which relates to this question and relates to the comments made on Tuesday. Since the minister was insisting on Tuesday that it would be a violation of the Health Insurance Act to publish names of physicians who were in or who were out of OHIP, can he explain why and how it was a violation of that act on Tuesday to publish the names, but yet on Thursday it is possible to announce an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association where they will publish the names in some way yet to be determined in order to let people know how to get access to an OHIP physician?

Mr. Breaugh: That is the difference between Tuesday and Thursday.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it will be done in exactly the same way that the medical association has for years provided that service to the public when they are new in an area looking for a doctor of any kind. What I said was -- and again I cannot remember my exact words -- I said that I believed that under the provisions of the Health Insurance Act, specifically section 44, that could, in fact, be a violation. That is the section that deals with confidentiality. That is being checked out.

Mr. Conway: I wonder what Bert Lawrence would say if he were here today.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: But that is my understanding of it.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, supplementary:

Will the minister not agree that if section 44 was in fact intended to protect confidentiality it would apply as much to the local medical associations or academies of medicine as it would apply to the Ministry of Health in publishing the kinds of lists that we wanted, for each community in the province, of doctors who are opted in and opted out?

[3:00]

Will he also not agree that section 44 of the act is intended to protect the patients, but that it is not intended to be a legal smokescreen to allow the Ministry of Health to fail to inform the people of Ontario whether and how they can get service at insured rates?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the relationship between the government, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan and the profession is dictated by the Health Insurance Act. We are all hound by that. The confidentiality of information, whether it is about physicians or patients, must be applied equally.

The relationship between the Ontario Medical Association and the doctors is bound by the constitution of the medical association. Under the terms of that document, they have in the past answered inquiries looking for new doctors. They can and will give some names to individuals who call asking for help in finding an opted-in physician in their area.

The member is talking about a complete list, arid they are talking about giving some names to assist individuals in finding a doctor. They are really two quite different things; they are two different relationships: one to the association under the constitution of that association, and the other to the health insurance plan under the terms of the Health Insurance Act, which is binding on all of us.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Can the minister please explain what kind of choice -- since this is what he keeps insisting on -- an individual patient is going to have if he first has to phone up the Academy of Medicine, which is not listed in the phone books of the various cities and towns of the province and, in the second place, if all the individual gets from the academy is a list of two or three opted-in physicians who may or may not be convenient for the neighbourhood the person is phoning from?

Does it really constitute choice if there are other doctors in the area whom the person who is calling may know personally and whom he may wish to go to but he is not able to find out whether they are opted in or opted out?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, I understand the medical association will indicate in their announcement today the phone number for a Zenith line at their headquarters on St. George Street; so that information will be accessible throughout Ontario, through the Zenith line. That would in fact, ensure choice.

If the individual feels that on principle he wants to deal with an opted-in physician only, then he will be able to get this assistance, in addition to other normal inquiries one would make of fellow citizens in a particular community.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: On the question of opting out, since the percentage of opted-out physicians has clearly increased, could the minister indicate to this House either now or at an early opportunity what increased burdens this has placed on the OHIP administration? Obviously, a substantially increased number of cheques must he sent out to a much greater number of patients. Can he indicate of what order is that increase and what the additional costs of that are?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that I did put that question myself over the phone to the general manager of OHIP about three or four weeks ago. He indicated at that time that, as one would expect, there has been an increased volume of claims associated with patients being billed direct. He assured me that at that point they are able to look after that volume within the existing staff arrangements and that any additional cost would be associated with postage, in the main, and with paperwork, supplies and so forth.

Mr. Cassidy: I have another question, which I would direct to the Minister of Health, arising out of the statement he made in the Legislature today.

The minister states: “I am confident that the new agreement will produce a level of remuneration for the services rendered by Ontario physicians that will be accepted as fair by both the people of Ontario and the medical profession.”

Can the minister explain why the government intends to continue to allow a substantial number of doctors in the province to opt out and to charge fees that are very much in excess of the OHIP rates, if, as the minister says, the rates negotiated with the Ontario Medical Association for OHIP will be fair both to patients and to the medical profession?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It bears repeating, I guess, tune and time again. I really do not think, Mr. Speaker, that member is going to believe it or understand it, let alone accept it. We believe in freedom of choice for the patients, for the doctors. In fact, in any jurisdiction in this country, all of them having health plans, there are choices that have to be made. Even in provinces run by socialist governments, even in that place called the UK, your Valhalla, your Nirvana, there are choices that are made.

In Ontario we have been extremely well served by our system, which is based on these options of the patients and of the doctors and will be maintained in that fashion.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is saying, in effect, that the rate negotiated with OHIP will in fact be a fair rate both to the patients and the doctors, but then he is also saying that it will be open to doctors to charge a rate which by definition will, therefore, be unfair. Can the minister then say, as far as the so-called freedom of choice of patients is concerned, why he will not insist that patients have access to care at the insured rate, why he insists on trying to have this House believe that it’s a quirk of a few people in the province who insist on the principle of having services at the insured rate? Why will he not understand that for most of the people in the province of Ontario getting service at the insured rate is not a quirk, not some kind of eccentricity, but in fact it is a matter of dire necessity? Why, therefore, will not the ministry, having accepted the principle that some doctors names in OHIP can be published, publish all of the names for each community across the province of those doctors who are in the plan and those doctors who are out of the plan, so if the ministry insists on people having a choice there is a fair choice both for patients as well as for doctors?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if there are any quirks around here, if there are any eccentricities around here, they all come from Ottawa Centre.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, if you will look at the track record of this health plan, if you will look at the reality rather than the distorted perception the member is trying to sell, the people have the right of access, the people have the option. They have been well served by this plan.

It amazes me that for all his talk of this the people still support the plan; the people know that they have a health plan that does look after them.

HYDRO URANIUM CONTRACTS

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I had thought the Premier would have had a statement to the House today regarding the nuclear spill in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and that his power officials would be down there finding out what is going on. I have been in touch with that office now --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Sargent: I am leading into what I am talking about; and don’t start giving me the gears about a question after what has been going on here the last few months.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Sargent: You will hear my question now.

Mr. Speaker: Please put it immediately. Please put it right now, immediately.

Mr. Makarchuk: Tout de suite. That’s in the other official language.

Mr. Sargent: To the Premier, with regard to the $7 billion uranium contract, about which a lot of people are considering a class action verging on public fraud, and wherein he has given them a $2 billion profit before they have even started on the $40 to $60 a pound price, in view of the fact that the Wall Street Journal has said it can be bought at the mine for $1 a pound --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. member take his seat? Will the hon. member please take his seat?

Mr. Sargent: I will stand here all day to get this question.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member please take his seat?

Mr. Sargent: I will not. I want to get this question in.

Mr. Speaker: I have no alternative but to name the honourable member and ask him to withdraw from the balance of this sitting.

Mr. Sargent: You are impossible.

Mr. Makarchuk: Do you want me to show him out?

Mr. Sargent: We are talking about a $7 billion deal and we can’t get a question across. Who do you think you are?

Mr. Sargent was escorted from the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Cunningham: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. I would like to ask the minister if he is aware that the proposed equalization of assessment in the city of Hamilton has caused increases in both commercial and residential property, anywhere from 42 per cent to over 500 per cent. I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to take any action, as provided in the Municipal Act, to provide some relief for those people who will be facing very severe and radical tax increases?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I am aware that there are some increases in taxes and also some decreases. There is a balance there: those whose taxes will go up and those whose taxes have gone down. One has, really, to consider both sides of that coin.

Section 505 of the Municipal Act comes under the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs; however the municipality has the right, at any time, to make the request of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs if they want to use section 505 to phase in any part of the tax hike that might result from the reassessment.

Mr. Cunningham: The increases on some of these businesses will be upwards of 400 per cent and 500 per cent, especially on some small businesses. A similar effect may be imposed somewhat radically on individual home owners who are already facing the burdens of regional government in that particular area. I’m wondering if the minister would take it upon himself to meet, as soon as possible, with officials from the city of Hamilton to see that if any increases are going to be imposed on these people, that in fact the provisions of section 505 might apply and that those increases be very marginal at best and phased in over a period of time.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I might advise the honourable member that we did meet with the mayor of Hamilton yesterday in this regard. He has been advised of section 505. There is also another section of the Municipal Act, section 636, that could he applied as well. That action has already taken place.

Mr. Charlton: Would the minister inform us of what, specifically, he is prepared to do in terms of phasing in the increases in Hamilton? What form will the financial assistance take, and how much?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I have not made any commitment that there will be any financial assistance from the province whatsoever. Section 505 deals with allowing the municipality to make adjustments. Section 636 does the same thing in a different way, as I’m sure the member is aware. There have been no commitments from this government, at this point in time, for any financial assistance to Hamilton or any other municipality.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, that’s not what the Premier was reported as saying today.

PHYSICIANS’ SALARIES

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question of the Minister of Health: Will he explain to the House why his ministry decided to freeze the salaries of those general practitioners who are generally considered to be the lowest paid practitioners in general medicine in Ontario, those working in community health service organizations?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: My understanding is that in each case the salaries are negotiated with the individual boards. If the member has a particular case in mind of a doctor’s income being frozen in the health service organization in which he works, let me know and we’ll look into it.

Mr. Breaugh: If I could clarify it: We have some indication here that the ministry staff has indicated that because the ministry doesn’t have a contractual agreement to provide the increase approved in the OMA schedule, it is not, therefore, going to increase the doctors’ salaries in the community health service organizations. Is that the policy of the ministry’s program development branch?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I think that of the 28 or 29 individual contracts that we have, a number do have escalation clauses that relate to the changes in the OHIP schedule. A number do not. I believe, in fact, there was a presentation made to the select committee on that by Mr. Ray Berry, the branch director, around the first week of August, at which time the whole system of the HSOs was explained to the committee. If the member has a particular one in mind I’d be glad to look into it for him .

RAPE CASE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, on March 9, the member for York Centre, in a question addressed to the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Welch), asked whether or not my ministry would review the possibility of appealing the acquittal of an accused on a recent rape charge.

The member for York Centre referred to a story in a Toronto newspaper which purported to quote the assistant crown attorney as referring to a prostitute as an unrapable woman.

Senior officials of my ministry have reviewed this matter with the crown counsel in charge of the case and, as a result, is of the opinion that there are no legal grounds upon which any appeal may be based. I wish to make it abundantly clear that at no time did the crown counsel who prosecuted the case use the term, “a prostitute becomes an unrapable person.” I’m sure that the member for York Centre was quoting from a March 8 edition of a newspaper which apparently used this phrase. The reporter responsible for this article subsequently apologized to crown counsel for the fact that someone had rewritten his original story.

In the view of crown counsel, the jury in question was properly charged by the trial judge, and it is apparent that this case is one where the jury felt that the case simply had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

TOURISM

Mr. Eakins: I have a question of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, Mr. Speaker. In line with his efforts to reduce the province’s $660 million travel deficit, will his new director of tourism be investigating such practices as a tour operated by Cray Coach Lines, one of our publicly-controlled companies, to transport residents to Niagara Falls every day of the year and which offers accommodation on the American side of the falls only?

Mr. Kerrio: Shame.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, of course we will. I think we have some great facilities on our side of the border and we’ll speak to Gray Coach about that --

Mr. Kerrio: The best, the very best.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and see why it’s doing it and if it can’t do it on our side.

Mr. Eakins: A supplementary: While the minister is looking into this, will his director of tourism look into why they rejected a submission from the Canadian operators in Niagara Falls? I believe the operators were asked for a submission, they prepared it and they were turned down. At least, we ask for the opportunity for tourists to stay on the Canadian side if they wish. At the present time, they have no alternative.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I would. I would be very interested to learn the circumstances surrounding that since it would seem to me, in view of the dollar exchange, it would more than likely be cheaper to stay in any of the fine facilities in the great city of Niagara Falls on our side of the border than in the United States. I would be very interested to find out what happened in that situation and I’ll report to the House.

Mr. J. Reed: The minister doesn’t know anything about it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I may go out there myself.

DRIVER EDUCATION

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, of which he’s had notice, I believe, for some time.

In view of the increasing surplus of teachers in Ontario and in view of the discussions now under way in the ministry toward upgrading of driving education and the professionalization of driver instruction in the province, what progress has now been made in utilizing the skill of our surplus teachers to improve driving education in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the member did advise me some time before the recess that he was going to ask that question, but I must admit that I had almost forgotten.

I can’t tell the honourable member what specific action is being taken, if any, for the use of surplus teachers in the role of driver education Certainly no action is being taken at this moment by my ministry in that area. It may be that though the boards of education and the secondary school system some role is being played in this area for more intensive utilization of secondary school teachers in driver education.

As I’m sure the honourable member is aware, last fall we published a discussion paper on driver education which was distributed rather widely. I believe 3,000 to 4,000 copies were distributed throughout the province. We have had a fairly good response, but not as great a response as I would like to have had. We have had response from education officials, boards of education, driving instructors, commercial driving school operators and safety associations. These replies to our discussion paper are being tabulated right now, or have been.

I don’t intend to proceed with legislation on anything this spring session but, perhaps before the summer recess I hope to be able to either distribute draft legislation or table for first reading legislation for discussion purposes outlining what I will be proposing for dealing with the whole matter of driver education in Ontario. Then, during the summer months, I hope to have meetings and discuss this and perhaps proceed with something further in the fall to bring a more formal solution to the whole driver education system of the province.

Mr. Young: Supplementary: I would like to thank the minister very much for his reply. Certainly the urgency of this situation is underlined by the dilemma in which the Minister of Health now finds himself.

I wonder whether or not the minister is planning anything in the way of stepped-up driving instruction over this summer, or whether his program -- and I understand the difficulties here -- has advanced far enough that driving instruction can be stepped up during the summer months instead of being cut back as it was last year.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t expect that I will be able, in any way, directly through the ministry, to step up driver education. I certainly recognize the need. One of the things I have been very interested in over the past couple of years -- three years, as a matter of fact -- is bringing a more formal curriculum type of program to the whole driver education system. As the honourable member well knows through his committee on safety there were some valuable comments and recommendations made.

I am not completely happy with the driver education system we have in the province today. It’s fragmented; it’s not a uniform system. But the ministry directly is not in the business of supplying driver education; the boards of education are and the commercial driving schools are and a great many private individuals are. I will tell the honourable member right now it is not my intention to make a course of driver education, whether it be by a board of education or by a private driving school, mandatory to obtaining a licence, advisable as it may be. Ontario is a very large and diverse area of land with a lot of people --

Mr. Kerrio: We give up, we give up.

Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable minister be a little bit more crisp in his answer?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the area of the province to which I am referring now happens to be that great area which you represent a major part of.

Mr. Speaker: It has been crisp up there.

Mr. Breaugh: You’re right, Mr. Speaker; I was just there.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I recognize the honourable member’s keen interest in this; he has been very helpful. I look forward to being crisp and, by June, having draft legislation for us to consider.

MEMBERSHIP OF POLICE COMMISSIONS

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the member for Eglinton -- and I address him that way because I think the question concerns both of his portfolios.

In view of Kent county Judge G. Brian Clement’s refusal, because he finds he does not have the time, to act on the police commissions in four municipalities, would the minister either direct the judge to act in this capacity or, probably more preferable, appoint someone else to act in that capacity?

At the present time there are only two members acting on these police commissions; negotiations currently are under way regarding salaries and so on, and they feel a great deficiency in having only two people.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I cannot direct any judge to sit on any board or commission, and I was not aware of the particular problem involving this judge.

Part of the problem in some areas is caused by legislation which requires that the commission include a judge as a member. In my view, this should be changed, not to exclude judges as members, but to leave it up to the individual municipality to determine whether a judge is the appropriate member. I hope an amendment to the Police Act in this respect will be brought forward, certainly before the end of spring. In the meantime I will look into that particular situation.

Mr. Worton: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General has had correspondence from myself and from the mayor of Guelph in regard to additional members other than the three members in the municipalities, such as the regional governments have. Is the minister going to give consideration to that when he brings in this amendment to the Police Act.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, we are, Mr. Speaker.

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, my perennial question is for the Minister of Health. While the minister was away -- it is perfectly all right to go away; I am not saying much about that -- a goofy decision was made by some member of the ministry staff to close the special observation unit at Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital.

Is the minister aware of the case of a young woman, Theresa Bonnici -- we have permission to use her name -- 22 years of age, who had been in the hospital, involuntarily, whose condition was such that she had to be taken to the special observation ward? She was forced out last week because of the closing of the ward and is not locatable at the present time, and her parents are profoundly worried about her. Is the minister aware of this case?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Not that particular case, Mr. Speaker. My understanding -- I am looking for the note I had on that; I had asked a question about the special observation unit -- is that all the patients in the special observation unit are in secure wards at this time. I will check that out and confirm that.

Mr. Lawlor: Supplementary: Since there are many patients in these conditions, dangerous to themselves and even possibly to others, and many court referrals -- the ministry will be getting a lot of complaints from the courts, judges and police very shortly if it has not got numerous complaints already -- would the minister consider reconstituting the special observation ward at least until his further plans are developed?

[3:30]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’ll be glad to talk with the staff in the psychiatric hospitals branch to assure myself the decision that’s been taken is not causing any harm to the patients, because obviously the welfare of the patients is first and foremost.

The member’s comment about the requirements of the courts and so forth relates more to Queen Street, inasmuch as that’s where the METFORS forensic unit is located. Of course that is carrying on as presently constituted.

COMMUNITY SERVICE BOARDS

Mr. Bolan: I have a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs with respect to the community service boards which his ministry is proposing to establish in unorganized townships in northern Ontario. Is the minister aware his ministry officials who have been holding meetings in northern Ontario communities to explain to the people the proposed legislation of community service hoards are very uninformed when it comes to answering questions, particularly in the area of funding? Could the minister also tell us what would happen to existing contractual arrangements which some of the unorganized townships already have with respect to providing services to these unorganized townships?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As the honourable member is well aware, we’re moving around northern Ontario with the Northern Affairs staff to discuss a position paper -- a white paper if you want to call it that -- to get northern input, because something northerners really want is input into legislation before the legislation is written. There’s nothing in that position paper that says that what is there will be in the legislation. That is our purpose in going around.

I regret the member wasn’t at that meeting in his riding. He was invited; he did not see fit to attend.

I have to say to him I’ve had some discussions with my staff and I am confident they are fully aware, very much aware of the proposals we have brought forward. They discuss it in a very open manner, and they get input from the people in the unorganized areas. I must say both the UCANO groups in the east and in the west have been very much involved in the preparation of this white paper that seems to be acceptable to most of the people in the unorganized areas.

There are certain areas we haven’t really clarified. One of them is bequests to a municipality and another is the volunteer labour aspect which we’re working on. We’re getting their advice, and prior to any legislation being drafted of course, we will be back to those unorganized areas again to get their advice and their input to make sure that when the bill is introduced it will be acceptable to all parties on all sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.

PETITION

MENTAL HEALTH LEGISLATION

Mr. Lawlor: Pursuant to standing order 33 of the Legislative Assembly, we the undersigned members of the assembly hereby petition that sessional paper 19, compendium of background material on the Mental Health Act, Bill 19, tabled on March 2, 1978, be referred to the standing committee on social development for such consideration and report as the committee may determine.

There are in excess of 20 signatures from members.

REPORT

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the following report and moved its adoption.

Your committee has considered its order of reference dated October 24, 1978, and recommends as follows:

Once the order in which estimates are to be considered is determined under the provisions of standing order 47, that order may be changed either by substantive motion upon notice or by unanimous consent.

Mr. Breaugh: This recommendation from the committee deals with the matter that was referred to the procedural affairs committee by the House. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate circumstances in our last session when we ran into an occasion when the estimates had to be reordered due to the untimely death of one of the ministers.

It provides a suggestion by the committee of a way to handle it which offers the House two options. One is, if there is some emergency, to do so by unanimous consent. The other option, if that unanimous consent cannot be received, is by simple notice to put a motion before the House.

On motion by Mr. Breaugh, the debate was adjourned.

MOTIONS

DISCHARGE OF BILLS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Bill 2, An Act respecting the County of Middlesex, and Bill 7, An Act to amend the Milk Act, be discharged from the committee of the whole House and ordered for third reading.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that on Thursday, April 5, private members’ public business be set aside in order to resume the debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that this House endorses the following schedule for committee meetings during this session: The social development committee may meet on the afternoons of Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The resources development committee may meet on the evenings of Tuesday and Thursday. The general government committee may meet Tuesday afternoons and evenings, for the sole purpose of completing Bill 163, and regularly on Wednesday afternoons. The administration of justice committee may meet Thursday afternoons and Friday mornings. On Wednesday mornings no more than two of the following committees may meet unless authorized by the House: general government, resources development or administration of justice. The following committees may meet on Thursday mornings: public accounts, members’ services, procedural affairs and statutory instruments.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL NIAGARA HYDROELECTEIC SERVICE ACT

Hon. Mr. Auld moved first reading of Bill 29, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Niagara.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, this bill received first reading last fall as Bill 180. It establishes a new municipal hydro-electric commission for 10 of the area municipalities in the regional municipality of Niagara. The principal difference between this bill and Bill 180 is that the service area boundaries of the Grimsby Hydro-Electric Commission will remain unchanged until the Grimsby council directs its expansion to the municipal boundaries. In Bill 180, the Grimsby Hydro-Electric Commission was required to serve the entire municipality of Grimsby by January 1, 1980.

In addition, there have been some minor changes. First, the implementation date on which the new commissions must commence operations have been deferred to January 1, 1980, and other dates have been adjusted accordingly. There is provision, however, for earlier implementation as a result of agreement between a new commission and Ontario Hydro.

Second, under this bill, each municipal council will decide whether the transitional commission in that municipality will have three or five members. However, where there are two or more existing commissions in a municipality, the transitional commission must have five members, including one from each of the former commissions.

Third, the bill has a new provision retroactively deeming the trustees of the former police village of Queenston to have been created as a hydro-electric commission when the Regional Municipality of Niagara Act came into force in 1970.

All other provisions of the bill are the same as those in Bill 180.

YORK MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Auld moved first reading of Bill 30, An Act to amend the York Municipal Hydro-Electric Service Act, 1978.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Auld: This is a minor housekeeping amendment to clarify that municipal councillors can sit on the hydro-electric commission.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. F. S. Miller moved first reading of Bill 31, An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act.

Motion agreed to.

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. F. S. Miller moved first reading of Bill 32, An Act to amend the Audit Act, 1977.

Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT REPEAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. F. S. Miller moved first reading of Bill 33, An Act to amend the Agricultural Development Repeal Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 34, An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before the orders of the day I wish to table the answers to questions 93 and 94 standing on the Notice Paper; and, Mr. Speaker, may I have the unanimous consent of the House to call Bills 2 and 7 for third reading at this time?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 2, An Act respecting the County of Middlesex; Bill 7, An Act to amend the Milk Act.

[3:45]

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

KINDERGARTEN PROGRAMS

Mr. Grande moved resolution 2:

That in the opinion of this House the government should: (a) provide financial assistance to every school board that establishes or operates a full-day senior kindergarten program on the basis that each pupil enrolled in the full-day senior kindergarten program is a full-time pupil for the purpose of determining the amount of legislative grant; (b) establish prior to September 1, 1981, a maximum enrolment of 20 pupils for each class in grades one, two and three of the elementary school program.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I will reserve any portion of my 20 minutes that is left for the end. Before I begin I would like to express regret that the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) is not in the House to debate this very important issue. It is an issue with which the Minister of Education has certainly concerned herself, but going in the opposite direction. It is an issue on which the Minister of Education has said that what we need to do in this province is to increase the class size, instead of reducing the class size.

The Ministry of Education as a whole is making a mockery of the International Year of the Child. Their suggestions are laudable but their actions are at best superficial. The resolution I am presenting to the Legislature today speaks to a fundamental aspect of the education of young children in Ontario. The first four years of education from kindergarten to grade three are the foundation upon which a child’s educational future is built. All of us in this House must ensure that the foundations are built on solid rock and not on shifting sand. The future of our children depends upon the decision we make today. We must not let them down.

The NDP for a very long time has been committed to improving the quality of services in the primary years of the elementary school program. This resolution is important, particularly for those children whom the school system so frustrates that the only solution open to them is to drop out before graduation. We know that over 50 per cent of Ontario students never complete their course of studies. The government should be ashamed to allow this state of affairs to happen. Even although the resolution today is directed at improving the learning conditions in the first four years, it is also aimed at providing opportunities for those 50 per cent of the students who drop out, by providing them with the necessary skills and attitudes to succeed.

The resolution does two things. It allows local boards to receive funding for all-day senior kindergartens and it establishes a maximum class size of 20 children to one teacher in grades one to three. This resolution will give substance to the minister’s recent letter to the chairman of school boards encouraging them to honour the International Year of the Child.

In that letter the minister wrote: “Here in Ontario children have always been regarded as our most precious resource. Consequently, their growth, physical, emotional and intellectual, is uppermost in any objectives set forth by the Ministry of Education.”

Section (a) of the two-part resolution calls upon the government to provide, as I say, the financial assistance. I will not read that part of the resolution again; it is already in the record. This part of the resolution does not force school boards -- and this is important to point out at the very beginning -- to institute full-day kindergartens. It does not force the parents to enrol their children in full-day kindergartens. It simply allows the boards to establish such classes if they perceive the need in their communities. However, it does force the ministry to provide funding where the programs are established by local boards.

The standing social development committee last year found out during the estimates of the Ministry of Education that 7,500 five-year-old children across this province did attend full-day kindergarten classes, and legislative grants were given to the boards concerned to set up the programs. The resolution today calls upon the government to encourage all boards of education in that direction.

The previous Minister of Education, the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells), made a commitment in committee last year. He stated he would be willing to consider seriously proposals that boards might bring to him outlining special needs of five-year-olds. I think the previous minister said, “In some cases, that could be a viable program. If the city of Toronto were to come in with some proposals in that regard we could take a look at them and do it.”

To my astonishment and disbelief, the ministry made a retrograde decision in this year’s announcement of the general legislative grants in February which wiped out the 7,500 places for full-day kindergarten classes in the province. The decision flies in the face of the massive, incontrovertible evidence that reveals the extreme importance of the early childhood years in determining a child’s linguistic and cognitive growth.

The decision to wipe out the 7,500 full-day kindergarten spaces by September 1980 flies in the face of the findings of the Windsor early identification project funded by this ministry. The project report produced in 1976 states: “When children identified as high risk or high performers were isolated statistically from the full sample, prediction to criterion reached very close to 100 per cent accuracy.” What that means is that the Windsor early identification project was very successful.

Identifying children who are at risk in the system is not enough. As a matter of fact, some people believe it can be harmful and detrimental, because it might lead to labelling children as slow learners, brain-damaged, disadvantaged and a myriad of other terms that have pejorative meaning to the layman.

The Federation of Women Teachers’ Associations of Ontario in its brief to the commission of inquiry into the education of a young child put it in this way: “There is no point in early identification that merely identifies; such identification can be used to predict future levels of achievement or to label children. These uses, because they are not in the best interests of a child, are totally unacceptable. The only purpose for early identification is to uncover the child’s needs and to structure the learning system to meet those needs.”

In other words, providing the funding necessary to establish full-day kindergartens allows parents and teachers the means to develop programs that will meet the physical, emotional and intellectual needs of five-year-olds. This is the way of realizing the commitment the minister demonstrated in her letter to the chairmen of boards of education.

I mentioned a few moments ago the mass of incontrovertible evidence that exists to support the value of full-day kindergartens. Let me point to some of it.

Dr. Burton Wright, of Harvard University, who is recognized all over the world for the work he has done with young children, said in a paper entitled Reassessing our Educational Priorities, “Failures in the fundamental learning’s of language development, curiosity, social development and intelligence in the first years lead directly to underachievement in the elementary grades and beyond.”

Recent findings of Project Head Start programs in the United States point to gains in areas such as reading and the development of language. Those children in Head Start proved less likely in the long term to be held back in school and less likely to be assigned to special education programs than comparable groups that have not experienced such intervention.

Ken Fogelman and Peter Gorbach of the National Children’s Bureau in London, England, in a paper entitled The Relationship between Age of Starting School and Attainment at Age 11 conclude, “Our results provide as strong evidence as could be obtained that at the age of 11 children who started school before their fifth birthday are ahead on average of those who started school after their fifth birthday in terms of general ability, reading comprehension and mathematics attainment”

The Minister of Education commissioned Dr. Bienmiller of the Institute of Child Study to find out the effects of half-day, alternate full-day and full-day junior and senior kindergarten programs on children’s constitutional skill, emotional and behavioural development. The study included 340 children from urban and rural schools in Ontario. The children were selected on the basis of “thriving” “not thriving” or being “average.” The study suggests some tentative conclusions.

Conclusion one: “Thrivers tend to benefit more from school than non-thrivers.” I wonder if we needed this study to point out the obvious.

Conclusion two: “The lengthened school day provides no discernible short-term” -- and I underline the words short-term -- “benefits; neither does it prove harmful to students.” Of course we already knew prior to the study that the short-term effects cannot be readily measured. Studies that were done to find out whether Head Start programs were successful in the United States only began to report positive results after approximately 10 years of the program.

To be fair to Dr. Bienmiller, another of the tentative conclusions was, “The long-term effects of the program must be examined.” Precisely. Given the last conclusion one may be tempted to demand from the minister why no study was commissioned to find out the long-term effects of the full-day kindergarten since these classes have been in operation for at least the last five years in this province. One may be further tempted to suspect that the ministry did not want to find out the long-term positive effects that a full-day kindergarten experience would have on the five-year-olds of this province because, once the results were in, pressure will mount upon the ministry from every nook and corner of this province to establish full-day kindergarten programs.

In conclusion, the research is positive. It shows beyond a doubt that it is beneficial to five-year-olds in this province to have a full-day kindergarten experience. The research evidence reveals the extreme importance of the early childhood years in determining a child’s linguistic and cognitive growth. It shows that the Ministry of Education itself had thought that five-year-olds benefit from a full-day kindergarten experience because the ministry allowed boards of education and gave funds to those boards across Ontario to set up full-day kindergarten programs.

The former Minister of Education made a commitment to this Legislature that he would be willing seriously to consider proposals for full-day kindergartens on a special needs basis. The Windsor early identification project developed by the ministry would be useless if the only thing we do with the children that are identified is to label them. What we need to do is permit local school boards to lengthen the school day for kindergarten children so that programs can be developed early on in the child’s educational experience to short-circuit, so to speak, definite stumbling blocks in the learning process..

This is what prevention is all about. If the Minister of Education and her ministry want to pay the costs for the pound of cure tomorrow instead of paying the cost for the ounce of prevention today, then let the party opposite vote against this resolution. If they want to do something worthwhile in the education of our children and our future working force, as I hope they would, then let’s get the teachers, parents and ministry together and develop viable and vibrant programs for our five-year-olds in this province.

[4:00]

I have talked so far about the kindergarten year and the life of the young children. The three years following -- grades one, two and three -- are every bit as important, every bit as critical as the first full year of schooling. The second part of this resolution requires some planning. That is why I did not call for immediate implementation but rather am prepared to give the ministry close to three years to see that a smooth transition occurs.

In the past there was no consensus in the research literature as to which is the most suitable class size for optimum learning to occur. However, all the literature I have read to date has never researched the primary grades -- grades one, two and three -- and come up with even a modicum of proof to suggest that a small class size is not beneficial to the children.

The class-size report produced in 1977 and commissioned by this ministry, by Wright, Shapson, Eason and Fitzgerald, only refers to the effects of class size in junior grades -- grades four and up -- and makes no mention of primary grades. As a matter of fact, the researchers were careful to point out, “Caution must be exercised in generalizing the results of the study. They cannot be safely generalized to primary grades.”

Recent research done by the Educational Research Service in the United States, and reported in May 1978 by Education USA, a weekly education newspaper, showed, Where smaller classes do have an impact is in reading and math achievement in the early primary grades, when primary-grade pupils stay in small classes for two or more consecutive years.” Further, the research showed:

“Where smaller classes do have an impact is with students of lower academic ability or socio-economically disadvantaged pupils.”

Another important finding of the Educational Research Service is, “Smaller classes have a positive effect on pupil behaviour in elementary grades.”

The study done by Gene V. Glass, codirector of the University of Colorado Laboratory of Educational Research, whose evidence is based on nearly 900,000 students, concludes that, “A clear and strong relationship between class size and achievement has emerged. The relationship seems slightly stronger at the secondary grades than elementary, but it does not differ appreciably across different school subjects, levels of pupils’ IQ’s, or across several other obvious demographic features of classrooms.”

Here is the startling, sobering fact: “A pupil who would score about the 83rd percentile on a national test, when taught individually, would score at about the 50th percentile when taught in a classroom of 40 pupils.” To appreciate the significance of this quote, this Legislature should realize school boards in Ontario in 1971 that had 30,000 pupils or more enrolled in elementary schools have, in 30 per cent of the classes, 31 to 41 children to one teacher. In 10.4 per cent of those classes we find more than 41 pupils to one teacher.

I ask you this, how on earth can a child of six or seven years of age learn how to read in a class of more than 41 students? Where would a teacher find the time with a class of 41 children to assess a child’s needs and develop a strategy to look after those needs? The Minister of Education, who is a medical doctor, should appreciate this, should appreciate these facts. Would she not provide a better service to her patients if she diagnosed 20 patients in a day as opposed to 41 patients in a day?

These recent research findings I have quoted do not surprise the public at large, nor the parents of the children in the schools and, least of all, the teachers.

In February 1972, a report entitled Quality of Education in Ontario -- Survey of the Parents’ Perspective, conducted by Adams, Buckland and Tribbling for the Ontario Department of Education as it was known at that time, was published. This study asked two very important questions. The first was:

What do you consider to be the most important thing that should take place in the schools? A tremendous percentage of those people insisted the most important thing for the children --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I’m sorry, the honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Grande: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I hope the ministry, or whoever will talk on behalf of the ministry, will respond to this crucial question in kind.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I wish to debate the resolution introduced by the member for Oakwood. Before doing so, I would just like to clarify a point for him. He referred to the absence of the Minister of Education and I would note that she is out of province today on government business. Indeed, she is very much aware of the resolution, so it is not a lack of interest on her part but of necessity. She is not able to be in the Legislature today.

Mr. Warner: That’s probably why she left.

Ms. Gigantes: It’s a habit of hers to miss important things.

Mr. Jones: This is a private members’ hour, I believe, and while he was directing some of his comments to the ministry, no doubt they are being recorded as we submit them to Hansard today. I can reassure him that the minister has very much awareness of the debate taking place and the subject.

Mr. Warner: She is big on red schoolhouses.

Mr. Jones: As a member of the Legislature, I, as the mover of the resolution readily acknowledged, find the resolution is almost two in one. I could find myself being sympathetic with one side of it -- and I’ll touch on that in a moment -- but at the outset I have some very real curiosity because I find parts of the resolution to be ambiguous in many respects.

I’d like to just read it quickly again: “In the opinion of this House the government should provide financial assistance to every school beard that establishes or operates a full-day senior kindergarten program on the basis that each pupil enrolled in the full-day senior kindergarten program is a full-time pupil for the purpose of determining the amount of legislative grant.”

It seems to me it behooves us to look at what this means in practical terms. I suggest it means that all school boards in Ontario are being enticed with the taxpayers’ money to establish full-day kindergarten programs whether or not there is a community demand for these services.

Mr. Grande: How do you translate that?

Mr. Jones: I know the mover of this resolution went to considerable pains to say it does not force the school board, it does not force parents. But it does force the ministry.

Mr. Warner: Here it comes.

Mr. Jones: To do that -- I’m coming hack to practical terms -- human nature being what it is, dollars and cents and constraints as they relate to the different levels of the ministry and school boards, being what they are, I do say it is an enticement that is being suggested to those school boards.

Mr. Grande: It is providing programs for kids.

Ms. Gigantes: Are you offering 100 per cent funding?

Mr. Jones: We’d be pretty naive if we didn’t recognize that, under this resolution, school boards would be encouraged to canvass the neighbourhood for students, to fill their classrooms with pre-schoolers, as a fund-raising venture. There’s no other description for it.

Ms. Gigantes: Oh, come on. Are you offering 100 per cent funding? Is that what you’re talking about?

Mr. Warner: Is that the way you run things over there?

Mr. Jones: The honourable member proposes that the number of enrolled, full-time pupils would be the basis for determining grants. In other words, the more tiny tots the board can gather up and bring into the regular school system for a full day, the more tax money it would receive from provincial revenues.

Ms. Gigantes: And the more they have to raise locally too.

Mr. Grande: That’s the way it works.

Ms. Gigantes: Oh, boy. You need some elementary math.

Mr. Jones: If the members would just let me proceed, I would suggest one has to take into account that we already have -- and I believe it was acknowledged a moment ago -- I guess two points that we should touch on here. The way I see this is that I would question whether this is a responsible way I of dealing with school boards. I’m uncomfortable with a proposal that dangles money before the eyes of trustees. Again, the fact is, it’s human nature. I don’t think trustees would want to be part of any such scheme.

Ms. Gigantes: What nonsense.

Mr. Makarchuk: As a matter of fact, all you can see is money. You can’t see the kids at the bottom of the thing.

Mr. Jones: They are urged to use those little toddlers as pawns, I suppose, in a fight for a bigger share of limited taxpayers’ dollars.

Ms. Gigantes: Oh, my heavens, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Warner: What a view of education. A warped view.

Mr. Jones: Just be quiet. The member, as he moved the resolution, talked about this government making a mockery of the International Year of the Child and all that nonsense.

Mr. Warner: No wonder you were good at selling insurance. Spoken like a true insurance salesman.

Mr. Jones: I’d just like to explain this as it reads, not as pie-in-the-sky philosophy but the way it would actually be applied.

Mr. Warner: You don’t care a whit about the system.

Mr. Jones: In my mind, this resolution fails to deal with many basic questions. Let’s look at one: What would be the cost of full-day kindergarten programs created by school boards?

Mr. Makarchuk: What is the cost of the reform schools you have to build afterwards?

Mr. Jones: The honourable member didn’t mention it. He didn’t allude to any of those estimates of cost. We’re responsible legislators. We have to deal with dollars and cents.

Mr. Makarchuk: Of course you’re responsible.

Ms. Gigantes: Just say your piece and sit down.

Mr. Jones: The members opposite raise it in question period. We can’t ignore it; it won’t go away. It’s a practical world. The member doesn’t know how many school boards might participate -- I didn’t hear any reference to that -- so I’m working from this financial void, as it were, because I didn’t hear the figures mentioned.

Mr. Grande: This is discussing principle.

Mr. Jones: The member is suggesting, I would have to think, that we should offer the school boards an open-ended funding scheme without any thought as to whether the taxpayer can afford it, and this hardly sounds responsible to me

Ms. Gigantes: You are so mean you squeak.

Mr. Jones: Secondly, what effect would this scheme have on the existing day-care services that are already offered to pre-schoolers?

Ms. Gigantes: The what? The what? Mr. Jones: The answer would have to be that it would drive a lot of them, if not all of them, out of business.

Ms. Gigantes: Oh, now we get it.

Mr. Jones: At the present time there are 618 --

Ms. Gigantes: Now we get the real story: competition of the private day-care services.

Mr. Jones: Just a moment. There are various kinds of those services. There are 618 licensed day-care centres in Ontario right now offering full-day programs to some 50,000 children, and more than half of these licensed centres, some 321, are operated by volunteer parent co-operative boards. I have a youngster, thee years old, who is in one of those very same programs.

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you sell them a policy against the threat?

Mr. Jones: The family involvement is very real, very vital, contributing to the proper upbringing of tiny children.

Mr. Makarchuk: Have you ever looked at the records of the kids in the reform schools?

Mr. Jones: I was polite to the member for Oakwood as he put his case --

Mr. Makarchuk: Have you ever looked at their backgrounds?

Mr. Jones: -- so could the member for Brantford just contain himself for a moment and listen to a couple of facts --

Mr. Makarchuk: You stand up and come across with absolute baloney about conditions that are totally different from conditions in our society.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jones: -- that were not contained in the member for Oakwood’s proposal.

Mr. Warner: He made more sense.

[4:15]

Mr. Jones: Most of these licensed centres do not receive direct funding at present. In fact, only 212 centres operated by municipalities, Indian bands and charitable organizations receive subsidies totalling close to some $35 million a year. These are funds provided on an equal basis by the Ontario and federal governments. In addition, the Ontario government provides a further $5.5 million a year program for mentally retarded children.

Mr. Makarchuk: And when you don’t do it, you give it to the minister sitting next to you.

Mr. Jones: Clearly, we already have an existing, extensive, excellently run network of licensed centres with strong parental and community involvement.

Ms. Gigantes: You guys are not for real.

Mr. Jones: Significantly, the people who work with these little children have taken special training under the early childhood education courses offered at most community colleges in Ontario.

Ms. Gigantes: Reuben, isn’t this making you nauseous?

Mr. Jones: If the school boards were to opt for the tax-paid, state-run scheme the honourable member proposes, then the competition between these qualified, experienced, community-rooted centres would be intense.

Mr. Grande: Talk about education, you don’t know anything about it.

Mr. Jones: In the end they would be driven out of business as tiny tots are transferred to what appears to be a free service in the school system, and we all know that isn’t true. A third question that I suggest this resolution has failed to face focuses on demand. Who is demanding this elaborate state scheme? The school boards?

Ms. Gigantes: All the people who don’t have day care.

Mr. Jones: I am not aware of one singular proposal by school boards or petitions to extend the school system back towards the cradle, as the member talked about the studies that dealt with the first four years of a young person’s total age.

What about the parents? Are they clamouring for a province-wide program to sweep their children into the system before they are hardly out of diapers?

Ms. Gigantes: They want it in their own area.

Mr. Jones: I haven’t heard that either. Perhaps the honourable member believes that this plan would benefit single parents. If so, I would like to examine that. We all agree that single-parent children face a special plight these days. That is why we can now utilize subsidized day-care facilities that we have and that is why we have an Income Tax Act that permits them to deduct up to $500 per child from their taxable income for child care expenses, and that is why we have family financial assistance programs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Jones: I cannot support this resolution that attempts to place little children in auction in a battle between different levels of government.

Mr. Sweeney: I would like to begin by complimenting the member for Oakwood for introducing this resolution. I have already spoken to him about it. He knows, and I would so advise this House, that I concur completely with the spirit and the thrust of this resolution.

I have some concerns with some of the specifics but the general thrust of the resolution is one which I support wholeheartedly. That thrust, as I understand it, both from reading the resolution and from speaking to the member, is that it is far better for us to assure ourselves that the young children in their early days in school get the best possible education.

We have learned, not only from research but also from practical experience, and I can say this personally, that allowing our primary grade children to be in smaller classes does pay off in the long run arid it pays off in two ways. It pays off in terms of the ability of the student himself or herself to be able to benefit from the subsequent range of education. It also pays off, I suggest, in terms of the later costs if we don’t do it at the early age.

I know from experience, and the research once again has shown clearly, that those children in the primary grades who do not get the individual attention they require, and this is only possible in smaller classrooms -- now whether or not the figure of 20 is the magic figure I am not prepared to argue; it is as good a figure as any to start with -- if they don’t get that kind of individual attention in the primary grade, then we know -- there is no dispute about this, it is a confirmed fact -- that those youngsters are going to have serious learning problems in the junior grades, in the intermediate grades and in the senior grades.

One of two things happens: Either we spend a great deal of money and time, in terms of both human and financial resources, to try to remediate the problem we should have caught earlier, or we allow those young people to fall by the wayside. I would point out to the government members that the number of students falling by the wayside is becoming scandalous in this province.

A very recent study, of which I am sure the member for Mississauga North is aware, has just been finished by the director of the school board in the Mississauga-Peel area. The study clearly identifies that even in that area -- it is not what I would call a downtrodden area of the province; it is a very affluent area of the province -- 52 per cent of the young people who start in grade nine do not successfully complete grade 12. The director, as part of his open, public discussion with his school board, clearly identified as one of the reasons -- not the only one, but one of the reasons -- inadequate educational attention in the younger grades.

One of the things that I have seen happen myself is that those children who do not in their primary grades get a sense of success of accomplishment, a sense of being able to deal with school work or educational matters, continue to have problems in subsequent grades.

If for no other reason, we would support this kind of resolution to be sure that the young people, particularly in the primary grades -- I know there is some dispute about class sire once you get beyond the primary grades but I do not think there is any dispute with respect to the primary grades -- are given that sense of accomplishment or success at school work, at school types of things, because it is going to pay off in the long run. It is going to pay off in human terms and it is going to pay off in financial terms.

It is strange that one of the reasons -- as a matter of fact, from my talking to people, one of the main reasons -- that many parents pull their children out of the publicly supported school system and put them in the private school system, where in many cases they have to pay very high tuition fees, is the smaller classes. There are other reasons too, but for this reason as well they prove there that it does pay off.

What we have in this province, then, is that double standard: Those people who can afford it are able to get their young children in privately funded schools, in smaller classes, and to get them a better education. I do not think that was ever the intent of education in this province.

With respect to kindergarten, the evidence coming out of the Ottawa-Carleton area is pretty clear now that if you want to get children in French immersion programs -- this is referring mainly to English-speaking children now -- they do better starting at the kindergarten level. There doesn’t seem to be too much dispute about that for most children.

We know, as has already been suggested, that the former Minister of Education accepted the premise that even in an area like Metro Toronto there are children from immigrant families, where for all practical purposes there is no English spoken in the home, who could benefit from that same kind of English-language immersion program, if you want to call it that. That is a second place where there would seem to be that kind of need.

If I can go back to the comments made by the mover of this resolution, that he was primarily concerned with defining a need, I do not really believe that the member was advocating, as the member for Mississauga North suggested, that it be spread throughout all the province, whether there was a need or not.

Where there can be a clearly identified need and where we can find some mechanism -- and here I pause, because I know it’s difficult; we have had problems with this before -- where we can find some mechanism to limit it to those areas and boards-and those parts of boards, if necessary -- where there is a defined need, then I could support that part of this resolution. I cannot support it if it means we are going to go out on a selling job and encourage school boards all across the province to start full-day kindergartens where there really is not a serious need.

As a matter of fact, speaking very personally, I have some reservations as I to whether it is desirable in all eases I . I know the research is divided on this. My own personal opinion is that I am not sure it is desirable in all cases for five-year-olds to be in school all day long. I think there is some question about that. If we can’t define a clear need that, hopefully, can be met in this way, then I don’t think we should encourage it, but where we can define the need, then I think we should encourage it.

I would point out to the member for Mississauga North who spoke on behalf of the government that one of the observations the Minister of Education made about a year ago was that any of those boards that wanted to do it on their own could do it from the local tax base, There is one little catch in that and that is it is probably possible for public school boards to do this, but it is not possible for separate school boards to do it, as I am sure the member quite well appreciates. The separate school board simply doesn’t have the local property tax base from which to draw sufficient funds to support these kinds of programs.

I would hope if there’s any way the government can see its way clear to do it in those places where the need exists, they would continue to recognize that differentiation that is necessary between public school boards and separate school boards. I will recognize they have done that in all other areas of public versus separate school education in this province.

The question of costs came up. I don’t want to get involved in a discussion of costs because I don’t think that is the central issue but nevertheless, it is part of the question. The difficulty, and what we would like government members to come back with, is what cost are we talking about? We heard figures last year from the former Minister of Education that it would cost $65 million, ranging all the way to a figure that in Metro Toronto alone, it would only cost $2 million. That’s a very significant difference. I think if the government members are going to speak about the cost factor here, and I recognize it is a legitimate aspect of this question -- it can’t be ignored -- it is incumbent upon them to bring forward some realistic cost figures so we can end up with something other than a potential spread from $2 million to $65 million. We just can’t handle those kind of figures.

Mr. Bounsall: I have many comments I would like to make on this excellent resolution presented by my colleague from Oakwood. I will try and limit myself to five minutes however, so as many speakers as wish to do so can get in on this debate. I support fully this resolution, which is a very simple one and whose intent should not have been muddied by the member for Mississauga North in his comments.

Hon. Mr. Walker: It was clarified by the member for Mississauga North. You should compliment him for keeping the record straight.

Mr. Bounsall: This does relate to the kindergarten grade only, when children are five years old. It was sort of interesting, however. I always wondered what the problem was but the member for Mississauga North indicated to the House this afternoon that he didn’t get out of his diapers until close to age five.

Mr. Jones: I don’t remember.

Mr. Makarchuk: After that speech, we even questioned that.

Mr. Grande: You still are in diapers, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Bounsall: This would establish a full-time pupil funding for those boards which in their wisdom decided there should be full-day kindergartens in their jurisdiction in whatever board area they are in the province.

Secondly, it has been very well studied and very obvious and clear conclusions have come from those studies, of which there have been more than one, in North America and in other jurisdictions. They show the smaller the class size one can get in grades one, two and three, the more efficient is the learning and a greater degree of learning can occur. We are talking in that case about the normal child who would have learning increased tremendously, not just that problem child who has a problem in learning, who, if you don’t have numbers of fewer than 20, does not have that much of a chance to have their particular learning difficulty identified -- nor, even if it is identified, is time spent on that child to alleviate that learning difficulty.

[4:30]

The closer we get to 1984, dismayingly, the more Orwellian become this government’s behaviour and attitude towards education in this province. On the one hand, you have the Ministry of Education sending out a letter to the school boards across the province reminding them, as if they weren’t aware, that this was the International Year of the Child, and urging them to do something about it. Yet, on the other hand, through the completely regressive ideas contained in her trial balloons, in her policies, and in her lack of provision of sufficient funds for education --

Ms. Gigantes: Come on in, Tom, we need you.

Mr. Bounsall: -- this minister is engaged in nothing short of child-hashing in this International Year of the Child.

We have in this government a minister for social development who doesn’t, in principle, believe in child care. We have, in the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton), a minister who believes in the daycare system, but he does not believe that there should be education in that daycare system. He has consistently refused to deal in any positive manner with any briefs presented by the early childhood education specialists around this province; briefs asking that a decent education program be made available in those daycare centres for the pre-five-year-olds in Ontario.

The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) is engaged in dismantling, through financial starvation, the education system in Ontario, just as surely as the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) is dismantling the health system in Ontario.

I have been Education critic now for only some five weeks, but I am dismayed at what I see happening to the education system in Ontario and the exceedingly short-sighted view of this government; a government which used to -- I think with some validity -- be able to say that the education system in Ontario was second to none. It was not perhaps the best, but it was hard to find one that you could clearly identify as being better.

Ms. Gigantes: That was with Robarts.

Mr. Bounsall: In the last year, with their funding the way it has been -- and it was interesting to note that the member for Mississauga North dwells almost solely on the funding aspect --

Mr. Jones: He didn’t deal with it at all.

Mr. Bounsall: -- in its funding they are ensuring that our system will be second and third and fourth and if this continues any longer than a year or two, probably tenth in Canada in terms of education available to the children of Ontario.

This resolution from my colleague from Oakwood would try and reverse some of that trend. It would require some additional expenditures, without doubt, by this government in the area of child education; an area in which it should be placed and in which it could be most beneficial.

This government -- which had a reputation and an interest in education in Ontario; which had programs and studies indicating that it did take a long-term view in education; and which may be looking for solutions for the best education of this province’s children -- is now turning its back thoroughly and completely upon that whole concept. Its financial restraints starve and restrict virtually every school hoard and every activity in which the boards can engage in Ontario. That must and should be reversed. This is the prime area in which a reversal of that attitude should take place.

Mr. Speaker, I will end by saying this. In addition, I just wish to point out that this ministry and this government is engaged in bashing all property taxpayers in this province. It is doing this through a steady and progressive shift to the property tax base from the provincial tax base for education costs. Now the province picks up only 53 per cent --

Ms. Gigantes: It is 51.5.

Mr. Bounsall: It is 51.5 per cent, I am corrected -- of the costs to local school boards in the area, as opposed to 61 per cent just a few short two years ago.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a few remarks to this debate.

The decision of the Ministry of Education to limit the funding of kindergarten to one half day per pupil enrolled is predicated on the fact that there are limited financial resources available to support elementary and secondary education.

At the present time there are approximately 165,000 pupils attending junior and senior kindergarten of which approximately 8,000 pupils attend school on a full-time basis. If a significant number of these students were encouraged by school hoards seeking grants to attend school on a full-time basis the additional cost would be tremendous.

Mr. Grande: What are they?

Ms. Gigantes: What are the alternative costs?

Mr. Watson: The provincial government does not have the revenue to increase its grants to school boards. An increase in local property taxes for this purpose I think would be asking just too much Of the Ontario taxpayers at this time.

If there is no restriction placed on enrolment of kindergarten pupils eligible for grant and if all the senior kindergarten pupils were to enrol in classes on a full-time basis, the additional total operating costs have been estimated at $85 million per year.

Mr. Grande: You know that is mythical.

Ms. Gigantes: Wow, a new figure.

Mr. Watson: This is based on additional full-time equivalent enrolment of 56,000 pupils multiplied by an average of $1,500 per pupil. It is estimated that the increased enrolments would create the need for approximately 2,000 additional classrooms. This could be achieved in part through the use of existing surplus rooms, but in many cases it would require the building of additional facilities or the conversion of existing facilities. Regular classrooms are generally not well suited for kindergarten classes with washrooms, coatrooms, smaller desks and that type of thing.

Assuming that existing surplus rooms could accommodate 50 per cent of the increased enrolment, the additional capital cost would be approximately $50 million. That comes from 1,000 classrooms at about $50,000 per classroom at today’s cost.

Ms. Gigantes: Did you write this speech yourself?

Mr. Watson: Money is not the only question although I think it is the most important one to be addressed here today.

Ms. Gigantes: Who wrote this speech?

Mr. Watson: To be fair however, there are social combined with educational reasons for involving some of the four- or five-year-olds on a full-day every-day educational program.

Ms. Gigantes: This is the front line of educational thinking.

Mr. Watson: Any assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the full-day versus the half-day programs for senior kindergarten children must take into account the variables arising from the fact that the quality of the experiences available in the home environment varies more widely than the quality of opportunities provided for young children in school.

No doubt there are some five-year-olds who will profit from an extension of the time spent at home; others would gain significantly from an earlier and continuous exposure to the rich variety of opportunities and care provided by a good primary teacher.

Mr. Grande: You don’t think the boards can make these decisions?

Mr. Watson: Generalizations based on evidence taken from either extreme would be faulty and consequently dangerous. The fact that parents may choose not to enrol their four- and five-year-olds in school is a safeguard that should be maintained. It is also one which I fear may be endangered by legislation being proposed here today.

Ms. Gigantes: What?

Mr. Watson: I would like to discuss the second half of the resolution in a little more detail than did my colleague on this side of the House.

Questions relating to the size of the class have been thoroughly researched both in Canada and internationally. However, there are no defensible data to support the belief that the simple lowering of numbers of children in a classroom would improve the quality of learning or life in the school.

Ms. Gigantes: Nobody has asked.

Mr. Watson: I think it is obvious that there are many variables which may be taken into account. They are important contributing factors to the quality of a child’s learning experiences and they are just as important as the class size. The perception by a teacher of what is a small or what is a large class; the teaching style of the teacher; the methods used in being taught; the student learning styles preferred; the subject matter to be presented; and so on.

I question also whether the Legislature should consider the determination of class size when this has been traditionally a local school board prerogative. The government may be seen as interfering with local autonomy by legislating the class size without providing appropriate funding. The resolution does not mention --

Ms. Gigantes: Well, provide the appropriate funding.

Mr. Watson: -- financial assistance in lowering the class size of grades one, two and three. It also makes no mention of the kindergarten class size.

I understand too that in some jurisdictions where primary division class numbers have been kept low, financial constraints have made it necessary to inflate the junior division class numbers, adding pressures there. There would be some basis therefore for school boards to argue that since primary division class size is subject to legislation, so should junior division class size be predetermined, and the questions of funding are consequently of the utmost importance.

The enrolment in grades one, two and three as of September 30, 1978 is approximately 400,000 pupils at an average class size of 28.5. The number of classroom teachers in grades one, two and three is approximately 14,000. If the enrolment for each class in grades one, two and three was limited to a maximum of 20 pupils, the number of classroom teachers required would be 22,222, an increase of 8,222 teachers over the current levels. The direct instructional cost of that additional 8,222 teachers, including salaries and fringe benefits, would be approximately $180 million.

Ms. Gigantes: Oh, no. Another figure.

Mr. Watson: That is 8,222 times about $22,000. Is that arithmetic wrong?

Ms. Gigantes: I just love your math.

Mr. Watson: Of course, there would be additional operating costs, administration and that sort of thing.

Mr. Grande: So why spend $2 billion in education if you are worried about it?

Mr. Watson: The capital cost for the additional 8,222 classrooms is difficult to estimate. These classrooms represent more than 10 per cent of the existing number of classrooms and represent approximately two classrooms in each school offering grades one, two and three.

In many cases, surplus space as a result of declining enrolments could be used. But these spaces are already being used by smaller class sizes, additional special education rooms, French rooms and things like that.

Ms. Gigantes: Are they really?

Mr. Watson: For example, it is estimated that the decline in elementary school enrolment has resulted in approximately 4,000 surplus classrooms; however, approximately 3,000 of these have been equipped as French-language teaching centres.

I think a lot of us have come up through schools that had no kindergarten pupils, where we were in classrooms with 30 and 40 students. Maybe we haven’t succeeded very well in life, but there are a lot of advantages in having been in a school where you had to learn to work on your own.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for the resolution as proposed by the member this afternoon. It would be nice if we could afford to have a tutor for every single pupil in the province, but we have to saw off some place. What we are discussing here this afternoon is something which involves an enormous amount of expenditure and which, considering our restraint policies, would be impossible to justify. Philosophical questions aside, I think the financial burdens attendant on these two proposals make both limiting of class size and extending the kindergarten programs quite impractical at the present time.

Ms. Gigantes: It is your government that makes it impractical.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk until 4:47 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: I have no hesitation in supporting the resolution with the greatest enthusiasm. I trust it will be allowed to go to a vote later this afternoon. I intend to stand in its support.

Coming from a rural area, I can recall the times when kindergarten was not available, for the same reason that the member for Chatham-Kent has just explained; that is, there did not seem to be much money available for it. When money was made available, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it has been to the advantage of the young people and the whole of the community concerned. I would very much like to see full-day kindergarten made available right across the province with the appropriate grants.

I can think of no more effective way for us to spend the money than to see that the young people in the province have an opportunity to begin the more formal aspects of their education even sooner. I would add as a rider which is not found in this resolution, that I would trust such education would mean the children would begin second-language education at those early ages before they become self-conscious about practising a language and when theft brains are of a receptivity which is not equalled at any other time in their whole lives.

I am very much concerned also at the honourable member’s comments about class size. Many years ago I used to teach and I may have that opportunity again. It is true that in the senior grades a good teacher can, I suppose, stand a class of 40 or maybe even 50. I am modest enough to say I was able to teach some of the laws of thermodynamics under those circumstances. But when you are dealing with young kids aged five, six and seven, that is where there is without doubt value in reducing class size.

I reject out of hand honourable members saying that this is outside our jurisdiction. We have the total responsibility for the quality and the costs of education right in this House, nowhere else. It is given to us by the constitution of the country and when we fob it off elsewhere then we are shirking those responsibilities.

[4:45]

Since time is limited I want to say something about these very costs. The member in his comments indicated that if we were to establish this the administrative costs themselves would be great, and this is probably one of the greatest detriments in our education system. These very administrative costs have simply become so top heavy that we can’t even contemplate improving the situation because of the inertia and the costs of the administration that has been set up by our very statutes and regulations and under the leadership of the various Ministers of Education over the last 15 years.

There is no doubt in my view that if we were to rationalize -- a word that the Ministry of Health uses frequently -- the costs of administration in education in this province we would be able to have all-day kindergarten without any problem at all. The positions of the directors of education and the very salaries they were paid were dictated by the government, led through the Minister of Education at that time, who is now the Premier (Mr. Davis). We were the authors of this top heavy administration which has seen the multiplication, the addition, the duplication with no subtraction, of all of these administrative personnel.

For one thing, they have been good teachers taken out of the classroom to the detriment of the value of the system as a whole. We have turned them into small-p politicians, all of them vying for advantage in crawling up the administrative ladder or more of this funny ersatz authority that seems to be so important to them, and appointing those people under them as special subject consultants and assistants to special subject consultants, and seeing that people in the classrooms themselves are given every advantage, surely for more pay -- and I’m not prepared to object to that at this time -- heads of departments who teach half days, assistant heads of departments who will teach two or three periods a day, people getting lots of money having less responsibility and, in fact, a very, very soft approach to the job of education which should be one of the toughest ones anywhere in the province.

I think the resolution is a good one and it contains within it the requirement for a total reorganization of the administration, which I think is about to sink the ship of education in this province. I have asked the Premier, and he made a good response just a few months ago, if the Minister of Education was going to reduce the costs of administration at the same time that the student enrolment was going down, and he said he felt that was reasonable. The Minister of Education got up the next day and said: “Well, we must realize that the threshold for reduction is very difficult to achieve.”

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Nixon: I was particularly offended when I got a letter from one of the administrators indicating that he had selected my words and the worth of the Minister of Education to send out to his colleagues, this little cabal around the province, whereas they didn’t send out the words of the Premier indicating that there should have been a reduction. Anyway, I am going to support the resolution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That completes the allotted time for discussion of this resolution and it will be dealt with further at 5:50.

REGISTRATION OF LOBBYISTS

Mr. Rotenberg moved resolution 4:

That in the opinion of this House, the government should give immediate consideration to legislation which would require the registration of lobbyists and a declaration by them stating in whose interests they are working.

Mr. Rotenberg: Before getting into the discussion of this resolution I would like to thank Mr. Dave Stewart of our caucus office, who has prepared the research for me on this and has been of great assistance by getting the details for me.

I want to make it very clear at the outset that what this resolution is asking for is registration of lobbyists, not regulation of lobbyists. I want to make it very clear that there is no thought in my resolution of limiting the access of anyone to government, or its committees, or its boards. There is no thought of restricting lobbyists. We just want to know who they are. If someone has a hired gun we want to know who he is and for whom he is working.

Sometimes the terms pressure groups, interest groups and special interest groups are considered to be somewhat sinister. Sometimes members of the media and the general public seem to think there is something wrong. They conjure up views of self-seeking, vested interest and manipulation. Sometimes there’s even a charge of robbing politicians and public officials. But I think this stereotype is quite false. It fails to recognize the realities of today’s political process; that is that in our increasingly complex society for groups with limited financial resources governments have become legitimate arbitrators between competing interest groups and the general public.

Lobbying is really simply the presentation of an interest group’s views to the government, to politicians, to civil servants, and indeed to other members of the general public in the hope of making some change which this group feels is beneficial -- a change in legislation, a change in government policy or a change in programs administered by the civil service. I feel that lobbying is necessary, and that lobbying operating in full public view is a natural and important part of this legislative process. As I say, my resolution would not regulate lobbying, but simply bring the practice out into the open.

Interest groups, in my opinion, are necessary for good government, and society must occasionally admit that government can act against the best interests of society. But the problem is: is public opinion being properly gauged? An organized interest group represents a concentration of power and a means by which certain individuals, or individuals combined as groups -- whether it be business groups, agricultural groups, labour groups, ratepayer groups, consumer advocates or on and on and on -- a means by which these groups are seeking to have and to gain a greater impact upon the public and public affairs; and these groups have a tremendous advantage over the individual private citizen.

A well-organized lobby may solicit great numbers of people and do so in a short time, but that does not necessarily reflect a true opinion of the general public. Some of these groups are often large. They give free membership and from time to time they beef up their membership through promotional organizations. They add members to their membership lists of, say magazine subscribers, and in this way they say they represent a great number of people.

Probably the best, or the worst example I’ve come across of this kind of well-organized, one-issue lobby, is the gun lobby in the United States. They are so well organized that as soon as some congressman proposes any form of gun control, someone in Washington or Denver -- I’m not sure where -- pushes a button on the computer and some several million people get a letter or phone call from the local gun lobby representative.

Mr. Nixon: That’s the way your fundraisers work.

Mr. Ruston: Yeah, we are getting them every day.

Mr. Worton: They don’t miss anybody.

Mr. Rotenberg: Within several days a member of the US congress will receive hundreds and thousands of letters from his community against this legislation.

Mr. Nixon: They push a button and it goes to all the Conservatives. I got one.

Mr. Rotenberg: This is all being done by one lobby and one organization.

Mr. Ruston: the trouble is I didn’t send them a cheque.

Mr. Rotenberg: The impression is given that a whole bunch of people out there, all by themselves, suddenly wrote letters to their congressmen; when really there’s one, very well-organized and very well-financed lobby.

I’m not saying this lobby shouldn’t happen. What I’m saying is that the legislators should know how this was organized and what happens so that they can properly assess public opinion. What is really happening is what I think is very necessary gun-control legislation in the States is being blocked by this very well-heeled, well-organized, well-financed and well-staffed lobby.

I think paid staff of any of these interest groups should be registered as lobbyists, just like private interest lobbies or business lobbies should be registered. Just because a group says it is a non-profit group acting in the public interest --

Mr. Ruston: Colin Brown.

Mr. Rotenberg: -- if it has paid staff, I think we should know who those people are and what they are doing. Registration of this kind won’t hinder their activities. It will allow our legislators to better assess who they are, and whether they are properly representing public opinion or whether it’s simply a well-organized group putting pressure on the legislators.

The same should apply when we have so-called expert witnesses coming before various committees or commissions or agencies in this House. We should know who the expert witnesses are, whether they are paid or are they simply part of a voluntary group. Again, I wouldn’t want to restrict expert witnesses from coming before us. I simply want to know who they are and where they come from.

I would say registration of lobbyists, far from being undemocratic, would help enhance our democratic procedures, although it has sometimes been charged that pressure exerted by interest groups on policy may make legislators take illegitimate or even illegal stands and may have some unfortunate consequences. There are charges from time to time that there is a possibility of bribery, blackmail, questionable practices and so on being carried on by lobbyists. But I feel that if the lobbyists are out in the open and we know who they are, if they are registered, it is far less possible -- although maybe it is still somewhat possible -- for these people to carry on any questionable practices. In my opinion, there is far greater danger of questionable practices being carried on if the lobbyists operate in secret and we do not know who they are.

Mr. Burton: The trouble is I didn’t send them a cheque.

In short, the purpose of my resolution today on lobbying is to ensure that all this activity is conducted in the open so that people know who is trying to influence whom, and knowing this can respond properly. Lobbying done in the open, and without improper practices, will help everyone concerned, and I think the decisions made by committees will become more acceptable.

There is one other important aspect to this registration. Lobbyists deal, as I said, with the legislators; but they often deal with our civil servants, who also have a responsibility to the public. A civil servant has equal responsibility, I think, in knowing with whom he is dealing. A civil servant does not have the same free-wheeling ability as we as politicians do. In assessing who comes at them and who makes the presentations to them, I think they would appreciate knowing if a person is acting for himself, for a group of which he is a legitimate member, if he is a paid advocate of this group, if he is a hired gun for this group, or if he is a professional lobbyist who simply has been hired to bring this before the civil servant.

There is a positive aspect to the activities of professional lobbyists. Sometimes there are citizens’ groups -- legitimate citizens’ groups, interest groups and so on -- who want to come to this Legislature, or a body of it, to make a presentation, but they do not know how to go about it; they do not know where to start, where to go and so on. They are not as sophisticated as some of the others. They do not know the rules of the game.

If there were registered professional lobbyists, if people knew who they were and what their area of expertise was, an interest group could go to such a person and hire him for a fee --

Mr. Nixon: That could be a nice, new legal specialty.

Mr. Rotenberg: It already is a legal specialty. But, if they were registered, people could go to them. It does not necessarily have to be a lawyer. People can hire someone to come and make theft case for them and to help them through the system. If it were the choice of a citizens’ group, in my opinion, it would be an advantage of a citizens’ group to do this sort of thing.

In summary, this kind of legislation does not originate from any distrust on my part of interest groups. The registration, in my opinion, does not cast a slur on the term “lobbyists” or impede any free expression. Registration, in my opinion, does not translate into regulation. The intention is to not put obstacles in the way of any volunteer group.

The matter of registering lobbyists alone will let us know what a lobbyist can or can’t do.

Who are lobbyists? We know that a person who comes on his own as a citizen is certainly not a lobbyist. A professional who is hired is a lobbyist. There are some in-betweens. If we proceed with this and try to draft legislation which will require the registration of lobbyists, there will be some gray areas between who is a total volunteer and who is a totally paid lobbyist. There may be some difficult questions in drawing some legislation.

I am not asking today to get into the nitty-gritty details. I am simply asking this Legislature to adopt a principle which states that we feel -- as I feel and I hope as the members will feel -- that those who are paid to appear before our committees, those who are hired to appear before our committees, those who are paid to make representations on behalf of someone else, should be registered so that everyone knows who they are and what they are about. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the support of the members of this Legislature for my resolution.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Brant-Oxford-Nixon.

[5:00]

Mr. Nixon: I’ll second the motion, Mr. Speaker.

I used to read Time magazine every week, as a lot of precocious teenagers used to, and perhaps still do, and I was very much interested in the work of the lobbyists in Washington. I remember reading about the debates back in the 1940s, when the statute went through to register them; there was a feeling that, once everything was out in the open, then the approach of lobbyists to government would be in no way injurious, or against the public interest.

I understand the bill is not up for review in Congress. The view expressed there is that, if anything, the bill has been misleading and gives a false sense of security. The public lobbyists and those guys who are sort of guns for hire, in case you have a special lobby you want to put forward, are well known and some of them may or may not be affected.

I suppose it is the same thing as happens here in Ontario. The real lobbies will in no way be revealed by the bill the honourable member is suggesting, or in any of its ramifications. He says, “We don’t want to deal in detail.” But I can think of no bill that would reveal the functions, such as they are, of people like Bill Kelly, Coln Brown, Gerry Moog, Eddie Goodman -- just to start a short list that may be lengthened by others who search their memories. The real lobbyists are the ones who go to breakfast on Tuesday morning with the Premier and a select handful of favoured, upwardly-mobile ministers, like the Minister of Revenue, who is slated for great things, he tells me.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I was there once.

Mr. Nixon: Yes. They are the people, really who decide how the public moneys are going to be spent; surely, number one, for the public good, and secondly, to reap the largest harvest of votes and influence.

Hon. Mr. Walker: They just want a good breakfast.

Mr. Nixon: But the soon-to-be minister, as I said, the honourable parliamentary assistant, has suggested that such a bill would enable a person who may in fact be a lobbyist to have a card printed. He can hand it out to anybody who might want to approach the Legislature or its various emanations, such as the public accounts committee, or the government, and he would be able to indicate his track record. Imagine the elaborate résumé Bill Kelly himself could put on his card: “Satisfaction guaranteed. Rates negotiable,” for example. That’s the sort of thing I think really leads us to regard the resolution as something that is, well, unsupportable.

I really can recall, over the years, very strong approaches from the community on a number of subjects; for example, the famous “cats and dogs” bill. A number of members here recall When the poor, innocent, then Minister of Agriculture, who is now a senior member of the board of Ontario Hydro, was going to make it easier for dogs to be utilized f or research. The spontaneous outpouring from around the world that came in here in letters and petitions and lobbies has been unequalled, I think. It took almost all our time. The thought that anybody there, such as the person hired by the humane society, should be registered -- it just sets up another needless bureaucracy.

It may be that the honourable member who is proposing this is thinking that if his career does not mature the way he hopes he could be chairman of the registration board and I could be chairman of the registration appeal board.

Mr. Rotenberg: You’ve got a deal.

Mr. Nixon: Under those circumstances, and if we could work out an agreement, the bill might have some residual usefulness. Otherwise, I really think such a bill might tend, in fact, to chill the approach. A citizen might feel that he and his group -- whether it’s the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Federation of Labour, or the Community Homophile Association of Toronto, or any of those groups -- are somewhat restrained from approaching the individual member of the Legislature. “My God, I’m not registered and somebody might hear that I approached a member, therefore I hesitate to do so.”

We should encourage in every way possible approaches from the community on matters which concern individuals or groups. As a matter of fact, I’m sure we all belong to pressure groups of one sort or another. I pay my dues to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I also pay a nominal fee to the Liberal Party of Ontario for which I get tremendous returns.

Mr. Breaugh: Which Liberal Party is that?

Mr. Rotenberg: What about the federal Liberal Party?

Mr. Nixon: Whether a person is a teacher or a lawyer or a doctor or even unemployed

-- otherwise unemployed -- the person belongs to some sort of pressure group. The value of our system is that members of the Legislature are wide open to receive information, prejudiced or otherwise, from individuals and groups. It is up to us to make our decision. A person may be advised by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture or the Ontario Federation of Labour or even by his wife around the kitchen table as to how to vote, but we can only thank God that when the electoral decision is made, When he/she goes into the ballot place, the magic of democracy works and an individual decision and a judgement is made, a decision which we say holds great expectations for the Liberal Party of both Canada and Ontario.

I would say that the same approach applies to us. It is up to us as individual members to listen to our friends who are objecting to or are in favour of the wolf bounty, who are concerned about the control of denturists, or the control and the payments of chiropractors and other cervical manipulators. It is up to us to make those decisions.

I personally think if we went forward with this resolution we would be simply selling up another bureaucratic hodge-podge of meaningless registration and I simply find, with the information available to me, that it would be impossible for me to support the resolution.

Mr. Samis: I rise in support of the resolution. I can’t quite agree with my good friend from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk -- not Nixon -- although I do share some of his sentiments.

I congratulate the member for introducing the bill. Considering his right-wing views, I am a little surprised that he has come forward with such a constructive piece of legislation. I don’t think it goes far enough, though, and I will outline the reasons I don’t think it does.

Lobbyists are not necessarily a necessary evil, but a fact of life in Canada, the United States and probably in most western democracies. Most of us in the House don’t like lobbyists, don’t want lobbyists, but we accept their existence.

Mr. Nixon: Not even Cliff Pilkey?

Mr. Samis: We have to accept all sorts of things in this life, don’t we, Bob?

In the United States I think the lobbying industry is probably in the most developed, most intense, most powerful, most well-financed condition of any society in the world. I read an article recently which said it is estimated there are upwards of 15,000 active, paid lobbyists in the city of Washington, which is an army unto itself when you consider the number of legislators and you work out the ratio of lobbyists per legislator.

Mr. Nixon: A lot of free lunches there.

Mr. Samis: I noticed Senator Abraham Ribicoff, the Democratic senator from Connecticut, said, and I quote: “Lobbying has reached a new dimension and is more effective today than ever before in history. It has become a big, computerized operation in which the Congress and the public are being bombarded by single-issue groups. The Congress and the people should be aware of who is trying to influence them, why and for what.”

Obviously in the States it is an extremely difficult situation that they have to contend with in view of the numbers, the power, the size and the financing of the lobbyists. In fact, they are so powerful that I understand when the bill alluded to by my friend from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was introduced in 1976 in the American Congress, a small group of lobbyists lobbied very intensely against that very bill, which is similar to the resolution introduced and facing us today. They were able to scuttle that one.

That one did go further, though, than the resolution introduced today. That bill not only wanted some form of registration; it is my understanding they wanted to know who paid the lobbyists, whom were they being financed by, who did the lobbyists represent in the various activities, and they had in some way to delineate what issues they were seeking to lobby and so shape government policy or congressional policy. That bill was successfully scuttled by the efforts of the lobbyists.

Then I understand there was a weakened or watered-down bill after that one. That one has now been scuttled and put into limbo. It did go to some committee in Congress and I gather it is now dead as a doornail, especially in view of the upcoming election. Despite the active intervention of President Carter, that weakened bill is now in limbo, which shows the power of the lobbyists in the American congressional system.

If anyone thinks it is just an American intervention or an American problem he is kidding himself, because as we all know, in Ottawa, in every provincial province --

Mr. Nixon: You are certainly downgrading the intelligence of the elected member.

Mr. Samis: -- in every provincial capital we know lobbyists are a fact of life. The headline on an article in the Toronto Star is kind of interesting: “Hard Sell on the Hill is $100-Million Business.” If we are talking $100 million in Ottawa, I think that gives us some idea of the scope and the presence of the lobbyists.

In 1976, the same year as the bill was presented in the States, I believe Walter Baker, the member for Grenville-Carleton, introduced a bill very similar to this one which would provide for registration. Like many private bills, that bill right now is in limbo, although Baker somehow clings to the hope that, if the Tories were to get into power, Joe Clark would give it some credence and pay some attention to legislating it. I think Walter Baker is living in a fairy world if he believes that; he doesn’t even believe it himself, I’m sure.

There is one trend I notice in our society that is even more disturbing than the mere presence and power of lobbyists; it is who the lobbyists are. If you look in Ottawa, for example, the trend there seems to be that some of the most powerful and influential lobbyists are former mandarins, bureaucrats or members of the government. Some of the people who are on the list of lobbyists make you wonder about the excessively close connection between the bureaucracy and the lobbyists.

David Mundy, former Assistant Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, now is head of the Air Industries Association. Henry de Puyjalon, formerly of the Treasury Board, represents the Canadian Construction Association. Ernie Steele, a former Treasury Board official, heads the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. We all know about Bill Lee and David Morley, another former bureaucrat. We all know about Simon Reisman from Finance, and Jim Grandy, from Industry, Trade and Commerce in the famous Lockheed affair. What Mr. Trudeau had to do was come out with guidelines for ex mandarins within a space of two years. So it is a serious problem in that sense, the excessively dose relationship between some of the lobbyists from government and the private sector.

My colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has outlined some of the more famous lobbyists in this particular city: the Goodmans and company people like that.

I would point out again that I am of the opinion that this bill does not go far enough. I think we have to know more than just who are the lobbyists. I think we must have some idea of what the lobbyists are doing.

I noticed that, in a speech in the American Senate, Senator Chuck Percy outlined some of the criteria he would set down for a bill. Obviously this was not accepted. He said, first of all, he would want to require every lobbyist to be registered; which is in keeping with this bill.

Their committee adopted provisions which dealt with certain concerns beyond just registration, and they delineated who would not have to come under the scope of the bill -- even the registration aspect -- and who would.

For example, they said individuals and volunteer organizations do not have to register; nor do organizations with paid employees unless they are paid staff and engage in a threshold amount of lobbying, as they call it. Organizations located out of Washington and with a total budget of less than $75,000 do not have to register. Organizations which make a single lobbying effort of six days or less during a year do not have to register -- which is a pretty exotic category, I must say.

Then they delineate who they want to register. They say organizations with a paid staff which spend at least $1,750 in a quarter to hire professional lobbyists would be covered. Then they say organizations whose own paid staff communicate in person or by phone at least 20 times in a quarter with members outside their home state delegation or with congressional committees would be covered. They also talk about an organization with a lobbyist spending more than $5,000 in a quarter on a single grassroots solicitation. Then they talk about information as to disclosure as well -- who is putting up the money

-- and they go to even further delineation.

But I think you have to say registration does not solve the problem. We all want to know who these backroom boys are, true enough. But I think we want to know also, who do they represent? I think we as legislators have a right to ask, in an annual report, for some brief delineation of their activities. Obviously we are not going to ask how many times they went out with a Premier, or a cabinet minister or one of the big mandarins. But I think we could define it in terms of what causes or activities they were representing on behalf of a particular group, and how much money was spent on that particular lobbying effort.

If this bill would go beyond the simple question of registration to deal with who contributes the money and who they represent, and have some form of delineation or explanation of the activities or issues upon which they lobby, I could support that with far more enthusiasm than this particular bill. But I do recognize this bill as a first effort towards bringing the lobbyists out into the open, to making the public aware of who they are, and in that sense I am prepared to support it.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate today with regard to the resolution that is before the House -- not a bill, but a resolution -- presented by the member for Wilson Heights. I do so because I feel that this is an important matter that has too long not had the appropriate attention of this Legislature.

[5:15]

There are really two elements that make up the life-blood of governments in the free democratic societies that we have today and two of those elements happen to be the right of lobby and, also, the right of financial contribution to ensure that the political party or party process can continue to function.

The very essence of the democratic process is to have people, such as you and I, as elected public figures serving as the vehicle by which an individual, or group of individuals, or some other vested group or groups can approach that person and make known their views with regard to certain interests that may be of a broad public nature, or may be of a specific nature that pertains only to their specific problem or area of endeavour. Nevertheless, were it not for the right of those people to be able to come freely and without fear to their elected representative and clearly make known their views, their concerns, perhaps theft objections, then the democratic process sorely would not function properly.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, lobbying is an integral part of the democratic process and, as has been noted by a number of members, it is unfortunate, notwithstanding that fact, that there is an unsavoury connotation applied to the term “lobby” or one who is involved in the lobbying process. It’s unfortunate and regrettable that this unsavoury or sinister connotation is applied, because it is as legitimate and appropriate a form of political activity as you can find. It’s the heart of the democratic process in that sense.

The other aspect of it, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that political parties, political representatives, you and I as candidates during elections or serving as members in a Legislature, cannot continue to function without financial support and contributions from people or organizations or unions or companies or whatever who have confidence in that individual or the political party that that person represents. Yet as soon as the matter of political contributions is raised in certain situations, an ugly or sinister connotation is applied inappropriately to the involvement of the passing of money to a political organization or into the campaign coffers of a political candidate. It is regrettable that not a few people in the public sector have this view, this cynical view of politics and the involvement of lobby and of financial contributions.

Today the resolution before us addresses itself specifically to lobbying, but the reason I make reference to financial contribution is because all the members, I think, have referred to the American experience as one that we should be looking towards when we consider having this matter referred to committee for further assessment and consideration as is suggested in the resolution. In the American setting there is a substantially different arrangement from that in this jurisdiction, because in the United States, while they do have professional lobbyists, an integral part of lobbying is the provision of financial contributions up on the table and through the professional lobbyists to elected representatives, through the organizations that the lobbyists represent. An essential and important difference I think, Mr. Speaker, is that what is being proposed as I understand from the resolution is that we would remain separate and apart from the type of lobbyists who are designated in the States as financial interest lobbyists. They represent large corporations, large unions, other large vested interests. They are designated specifically to arrange for financial support or assistance, or if they wish to assist they must at least record what financial support is being put forward.

In this jurisdiction the matter of financial contributions to parties and to candidates is kept separate from the lobbying concept. We have some of the most enlightened legislation to be found anywhere in our election finances reform legislation, which separates the lobbying element from that of legitimate financial contribution to parties and to candidates during and between election periods.

In the United States, as has been pointed out, it has been a way of life for some period of time. I believe the federal legislation in the United States was enacted in 1949 and virtually all of the states of the union followed suit. I believe that without exception every state of the union also has its own legislation that regulates and controls the professional lobbyist.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk had suggested that it just would serve as another opportunity for the legal profession to broaden its horizons. I am well aware of his biases with regard to the legal profession, but I think, as the sponsor of this resolution pointed out, government today is so complex that in order to deal with it in a meaningful and knowledgeable way the people have to be educated as to what is going on, what legislation has been passed, what the procedures are in dealing with ministries and government people and elected people.

It is only appropriate there should be people who are trained professionally to deal in this fashion so that if some group -- say from Kenora or from Winchester, Ontario

-- had a problem and might not have the resources to go to Toronto and know the ropes as to who they should see and what their background should be in preparing a brief to submit to the politicians, if there were professionally recognized and registered lobbyists, they could engage their services and have these people who would be trained in this area, such as lawyers and engineers and doctors are in their particular professions, to deal with people whom they are well acquainted with and whose workings they understand as far as the process of government is concerned.

So in my mind it is an entirely legitimate and wholesome type of undertaking that should be recognized in a more professional manner by permitting the registration of the professional lobbyist. But I would make two observations here. I would make one exception to the observation made by the sponsor suggesting they should not in any way be regulated. I would disagree with that. I may have misunderstood his point, but I feel that in registering professional lobbyists they should indeed be regulated.

The other important consideration is that they should not have the right to engage in any way in lobbying that involves financial aid or contributions to parties or candidates, and that this should he kept separate and apart in the way in which it is in our jurisdiction today.

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

Mr. Williams: I think there is sufficient merit in the resolution to warrant it being referred to committee, as asked for by the sponsor of the resolution, and I would certainly encourage the House to support this resolution.

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the debate on the resolution of the member for Wilson Heights. I personally do not favour the registration of interest groups and I really haven’t seen any need for it in the time I have been here.

The member for Wilson Heights has stated the tactics of some pressure groups could be responsible for pressuring the government into ill-conceived legislation and so forth. Personally, I haven’t seen the response to representations to this government acted on so well as to make that a worry for any of us.

The matter I would really like to question is what is a lobbyist? Who is termed a lobbyist? We have many groups come in from time to time. Every day members are approached by a sporting body, a group of labour representatives, or various groups, all of whom are trying to point out to the members of the Legislature the benefits of such and such an action towards that particular group.

Personally, I have found I benefit very much from meeting with people who are really knowledgable in their field of activity. It is quite readily understood that all of us are not familiar with the needs of all the groups of people within Ontario. We don’t understand what happens. A bill can be introduced in the House and I might very well say it is a bill worthy of support. In approaching the matter, I can see it is perhaps going to handle a situation that may cause problems. However, if the group that is going to be affected most by that bill can come in and in a professional way and in a technical way point out what really are the ramifications of this matter, I am the one who benefits. The people who really benefit from it are the people of Ontario. Then we are going to get better legislation.

I don’t believe that everybody who comes to speak to a member of the House, a committee of the House, or a group of people, or a caucus, are people who are coming here to try to do something that is not in the best interests of the people of Ontario as: a whole. Most of the people come to show how legislation can be formed to benefit specific needs in the province.

For instance, I can see we can benefit very much from a lobby group of farm people. Many of us have never lived on a farm a day in our lives and know nothing about it. We can benefit by that. This resolution, while not saying so, seems to imply something sinister. I don’t believe there is necessarily anything sinister in the whole situation. It is really just the thoughtful actions of a group of people who feel something can be bettered. If there is anything sinister about lobbying groups it really isn’t the group, it is the member of the Legislature who could do the sinister things because of a lobbyist activity.

Since I have been here, we have had lobbying groups, if that is what you want to call them, from everything ranging from labour organizations to farm groups, senior citizens, Catholic Women’s League and Gay Alliance of Canada; all of these things. I have listened to them all. I could buy the views some of them were placing before me. In some of their eases, I benefited very much by certain information of which I was not aware before. I think, to a certain extent, it probably has been responsible for certain responses I have made to that group.

[5:30]

I want to repeat that there is nothing sinister in a group of people coming and frying Ito influence our decisions. There is nothing sinister in the lobbying of a group of people who see something that could be bettered in the way of legislation. The only thing that could be sinister, as I said before, is the fact that certain people in the Legislature may act in a sinister manner after having seen that.

There has been talk this afternoon, in debate on this resolution, about what is happening in Washington, for example. That is really a different field from what I consider to be the lobbying going on in Ontario and here at Queen’s Park. If there are any lobbyists here at Queen’s Park that we ought to watch and maybe register, it might be a few people with names like Bill Kelly and Eddie Goodman -- people like that. They are the ones who seem to be successful in their lobbying of this government.

Mr. Conway: Shame. Fifth column.

Mr. Blundy: I would like to mention also that I was told recently by a journalist that a year or two ago the Toronto Star was planning to do a feature story on lobbyists at Queen’s Park and in Ontario. As they usually do, they did some initial spadework, some investigation, and they contacted a number of people with a view to lining up the material that would go into that feature story. What did they do? They dropped it. Why did they drop it? They didn’t drop it because they were afraid of uncovering something; they dropped it because they knew it wasn’t newsworthy, there was nothing in it. There was nothing bad, there was nothing sinister that they felt they had to expose. So I don’t really feel registration is necessary.

I would like to touch on one other matter in this resolution. We talk about the registration of lobbyists. The member for Oriole said yes, indeed, there was a need for regulation of lobbyists. Other speakers have mentioned looking at the financial background of lobbyists, people who come to us and so forth. Here we are, on the threshold of building another bureaucratic setup that is going to cost the people of Ontario more money, or we are building up a committee or commission which will be a haven for Tory party hacks and former members to serve on.

Mr. Kerrio: Right on. We don’t need any more of that.

Mr. Blundy: If there is anything that this province doesn’t need it is more regulation, more registration, more bureaucrats to look after it and more havens for retired and tired-out party hacks in Ontario.

Mr. Kerrio: There will be more all the time as we defeat them.

Mr. Blundy: Anyway, I have not been convinced in the debate this afternoon of the need for such registration of lobbyists. I don’t think we can register a group of labour representatives or a group of professional people on the one hand, or, on the other band, a small group of people coming here about some athletic endeavour and so forth. Who are these people? They are the people we govern. They are the people who ought to be able to help us to decide what the government of Ontario should do.

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

Mr. Blundy: The members of this Legislature are not the only people in Ontario who know what is best for Ontario. We can profit by hearing from those people out there whom we serve.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution that is before us. My comments will be brief, but it is something that does concern me. I have to ask the question myself as to why we are dealing with a resolution only and not a bill. I presume it’s probably some more of the government’s kite-flying to try to find out just exactly what people think. It is certainly not very clear in the resolution which just asks the government to give immediate consideration to such legislation.

I support the resolution with some serious reservations, but I want to indicate why I support it and what the reservations are. I don’t think we can hide our heads in the sand in this province. The practice exists; lobbying is going on. It’s going on by a variety of groups, some of which are a little easier to take than others, and I suppose one’s biases enter into that as well. If it does exist, then I think it should be out in the open.

Certainly if we are going to register lobbyists, we want to be sure to get not only the labour people, which I am sure would be a target for some of my colleagues across the floor of the House, but, as has been mentioned here, the Goodmans and some of the lobbyists that were much in evidence, such as the HUDAC people, when we were going through some of the first rent control bills. I expect that it might have been useful if we had had a registration of lobbyists federally when we were into the famous Sky Shops affair involving the senator, with the pressure in Ottawa at the time.

Like my colleague from Cornwall, I don’t think this resolution goes far enough. If the government is going to consider it, there are a few other minimum steps that have to be taken, not only the registration as a lobbyist, but a clear indication of whom the lobbyist is acting for, what the limitations are in terms of what a lobbyist can do, can there be money passed out, how many meals and gratuities is he allowed to give in terms of the attempt to influence people on an issue and, above all, if we’re going to bring in this kind of legislation, what kinds of standards or what kind of a code of conduct is expected of a lobbyist and what can he do or not do in terms of influencing the members of a House.

I say that from some personal experience with lobbying in the United States. I had the privilege of working for a little better than a year on Roy Reuther’s staff with the UAW out of Windsor. That meant I was across to Detroit to Solidarity House a number of times. While I wasn’t personally directly involved, I can remember a number of the lobbying efforts.

The offshore oil deals of a good many years ago in the States was one of them: where I was absolutely appalled at the kind of information, the kind of tactics and the kind of pressure that was exerted. We were obviously on one side of that particular issue. I forget the exact numbers, but there were something like four or five registered lobbyists in Washington for the union I worked for, the UAW, at the time.

What we were up against, I can recall at that particular time, was some 90-odd lobbyists registered by Imperial or Exxon dealing with that particular oil issue. As we attempted to line up some of the members in the US Senate and in the House of Representatives, we found that the professional lobbyists, by the very fact that they were registered as professional lobbyists, had an awful lot of influence and also had access to the members on the US side. We’re naive if we think we arc that far removed from this kind of situation.

One thing that they listed was a total voting record on any issue of every member. There’s nothing wrong with that at all as I see it, but they also listed their preferences, whether it was in booze or in entertainment or in women. They listed their hobbies. For example, could you get to them because the guy was a gardener or a stamp collector or a coin collector? They listed the things that they liked and they didn’t like, such as the kind of movies they would like to attend if they did get out. They listed the kinds of trips and the places they went on their vacations.

It was an eye-opener to me, a good many years ago, to see the kind of information, the kind of book that was made on every single one of the members across the line. There is no question whatsoever that the pressures were exerted in terms of a specific bill or a specific piece of legislation, how you could influence, how you could badger or cajole, or how you could actually pressure and threaten a member into voting your way on a particular issue. That made an impression on me, and it bothered me at the time.

What I wonder is do we take one small step along that road here by the registration of lobbyists? Do we give them, as individuals, a lot more power than they now have in talking to us as the president or as an executive member or as a committee member or an organization, whatever that organization is? That’s a much looser and a much more informal way of lobbying that we have in Ontario and in Canada at the moment.

By registration, do we set up some kind of status for these people? I tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, that you’re going to find these people developing their skills, importing some of the techniques they can get away with that you’ll find across the line, in an effort to do their job. If you have registered lobbyists and if they’re paid to do a lob, their effort is going to be to produce. That’s how they’ll pick up the contracts they’ll have in future, that’s how they’ll make a name for themselves. There’s a danger that could lead to the kind of personal pressures, the kind of personal, bookmaking if you like, on each one of the members in an effort to be able to influence them on individual issues.

That bothers me; and that’s why I say if we’re going to go this route in the province we have to take it a step further than just the registration. There has certainly got to be some standards, some code of conduct, some things that are do’s and don’ts, and they’ve got to be very clear; and we have to at all times know whom a lobbyist is working on behalf of.

Those are my reservations. I think those things have to be done if we’re going to support this bill. I think because lobbying does exist and because we seem to be more and more moving into that kind of an American sphere, we’d better take the precautions now and make sure that if a bill like this comes in it does have some of the safeguards.

My belief and my trust, and my real love of our own party system in this country as against the American system, is simply that I thought you couldn’t get away with that kind of lobbying here, that you were going to have to lobby an entire party. I know that’s done, and I know you have your various interest groups you listen to more quickly than others; but that at least was a protection against the kind of lobbying of individual members that could be done that we found across the border.

The point I’m making is that once we start registering them -- and it now exists so maybe the time has come to do it -- they are going to start developing their skills and trying to find ways and means to be able to deliver when they decide they’re going to sign on with somebody to try and get a particular point of view put across in this House. If that is going to be the case -- we have them now, they will certainly develop their skills a step further -- let’s make sure that in the legislation, if such legislation comes into this House, we very clearly set the kind of standard we’ll accept, the kind of conduct that’s acceptable and what can or what can’t be done in the job of a lobbyist.

Voicing those reservations, Mr. Speaker, I will support this initial resolution.

Mr. Rotenberg: I wasn’t planning to use the whole seven minutes left, if another speaker wanted two or three minutes I’d like the last two or three minutes.

Mr. McCaffrey: Let me first congratulate my colleague, the member for Wilson Heights. I think this is an important resolution. By the way, I’m not at all sure I’m going to support it, and I’ll make some of my reservations clear.

I think raising an issue that deals with this sometimes sinister word “lobbyist” is important in itself. I share with the member for Sarnia his concerns about what registration might mean, if there would be additional costs, because my basic concern is that this exercise of lobbying legislators -- or educating, I prefer to think of it that way -- of educating legislators, is an important exercise, and I for one would like more people to do it and to do it openly and to do it enthusiastically. I am just a little bit afraid that any kind of registration or disclosure of information might preclude the very thing we all, I believe, want to accomplish.

[5:45]

I was surprised and frankly never thought I’d live to see the day that I would be supportive of a couple of points the member for Hamilton East made.

Mr. Warner: You’ve come a long way.

Mr. Samis: He may reconsider his position now.

Mr. Warner: He is going to rewrite his speech now.

Mr. McCaffrey: He suggested that lobbying, or educating if you want to call it that, is going on -- that it is happening and it is happening regularly -- and, in that case, why don’t we open it up and recognize it. I support that sentiment. I think that’s an important part of the exercise. At the same time, he suggested there should be guidelines made clear and I think very public for all these people who would opt to be classified as educators or lobbyists. I think that is an important part of the thrust of this resolution.

I can’t help but go back to some of my own experiences as an MPP in the last year or so.

The member for Hamilton East did mention HUDAC in the context of the committee looking at rent review in Ontario. That committee is still meeting. I think the member was talking about the earlier phase of that committee. I think he’s quite right that HUDAC was one group that did come before us to represent the concerns of the landlord part of that exercise.

I think it’s only fair and important to point out that during the whole life of that committee, and it’s still operating, we have been blessed with some excellent lobbying, educating or monitoring -- all of those things -- by extremely active and articulate tenant associations. The Metro Tenants’ Federation is one. There were people from the Tenant Hotline there assisting many of the committee members throughout the months of our exercise. I don’t think their presence there should be in any way seen as sinister and I, for one, don’t see it as sinister. I think they should be complimented publicly by other tenants in Ontario. All of the members who have been aware of this new legislation should be complimented for the work they’ve done. But I think it would be a little unfair --

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has about a half a minute.

Mr. McCaffrey: Thanks very much.

It would be unfair to single out HUDAC, simply because they represent the other part of that argument, as somehow being sinister.

I think one of the key observations was made earlier by the member for Sarnia when he said that we as legislators have a great deal to learn. We know society is becoming more complicated. Legislation is obviously reflecting that -- becoming more complicated too -- and our real need for expert advice, be it from tenants’ or from the landlords’ side, to use that committee again, is pressing.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I have several comments on the speeches this afternoon.

I’d like to point out to the members of the Liberal Party, who do not seem inclined to support this resolution, that at no time did I indicate we would try to inhibit, in any way, individuals or groups of individuals from coming before us and presenting information. As a matter of fact, I think I tried to make it clear that these types of groups, the voluntary groups, would not have to register. My feeling about legislation that may come from this resolution would be that they would be exempt from registration. And as my colleague from Armourdale said, I did not imply in any way anything sinister about lobbyists or that type of lobbying.

I’m not suggesting setting up bureaucracies and all types of new civil servants for simple registration. Simple registration of lobbyists could probably be handled by one clerk in the Ministry of, say, Consumer and Commercial Relations. I’m not talking about setting up bureaucracies and so on.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Can we have some order, please, out of deference to the person who legitimately has the floor?

Mr. Rotenberg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My own colleagues were interrupting me so I didn’t want to say too much.

I want to thank the members of the New Democratic Party for indicating support for the resolution.

Mr. Nixon: The same old gang.

Mr. Rotenberg: I’ve been asked by the member for Hamilton East why it is a resolution and not a bill. Frankly, I feel that in this as in many things in private members’ hours, a resolution is more appropriate to get a general sense of the feeling of the principle, to get some of the details, to find out what details we agree and disagree on, before being bound by the explicit details of a particular bill. But I would say to the member for Cornwall, and I thought I indicated it in my presentation, that I certainly agree registration of a lobbyist has to include who pays him, whom he is representing, in any particular instance or in a general way.

Mr. Bolan: That would be very embarrassing for your party.

An hen. member: You’ll find some way to exempt all the Tories.

Mr. Rotenberg: Without this kind of information as to whom he’s representing, the whole point of registration just doesn’t make any sense.

Mr. Bolan: That would amount to disclosure. You wouldn’t want that, would you?

Mr. Warner: Eddie Goodman will be on his way out. He’s packing his bags now.

Mr. Rotenberg: The member for Hamilton East raised the problem of a code of conduct for lobbyists. The code of conduct is for the members of this Legislature, not for the lobbyists. I :have no qualms whatsoever about the conduct or the honesty of any member of this Legislature. If a lobbyist is trying to do something improper, trying to bribe, trying to give whatever benefits to a member of this Legislature, that, in my opinion, is contrary to the criminal code of this province. If any person does come to any member of this Legislature with improper overtures, I would hope that member would report it either to the Speaker or to the Ontario Provincial Police. I don’t think that kind of conduct is necessary.

Mr. Mackenzie: There are things other than money, and you’d better realize it.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, in asking for support for this resolution from my colleagues on all sides of the House, I am simply saving that we do not want to inhibit anybody from coming before us; we just want to know who they are, those who are paid to come before us. We want to know who they are, who pays them and what they are doing. That is the simple point of the resolution.

Mr. Wildman: In other words, the rich lobbyists don’t register.

Mr. Bolan: What about those who don’t pay?

KINDERGARTEN PROGRAMS

Sufficient members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on resolution.

REGISTRATION OF LOBBYISTS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rotenberg has moved resolution 4.

Those in favour will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Resolution concurred in.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, prior to rising for the supper hour, may I indicate, pursuant to standing order 13, the order of business fur tonight, tomorrow and next week?

This evening, we will debate the motion standing in the name of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) with respect to interim supply, following which we will take into consideration the supplementary estimates which were tabled earlier this week by the Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague), in this order: Ministry of Community and Social Services, Ministry of Treasury and Economics, Ministry of Northern Affairs, Ministry of Correctional Services, Ministry of Natural Resources and then the Ministry of Health.

Tomorrow morning, we will continue with, and hopefully, finish, the supplementary estimates.

Next week, on Monday, we will have the reply to the throne speech; Tuesday afternoon and evening, reply to the throne speech; Wednesday, April 4, the general government committee, resources development committee and administration of justice committee may sit in the morning; Thursday, both afternoon and evening, reply to the throne speech; and next Friday morning, reply to the throne speech.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her chambers.

Clerk Assistant: The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour has assented:

Bill 2, An Act respecting the County of Middlesex; Bill 7, An Act to amend the Milk Act;

Bill 20, An Act to amend the Residential Premises Rent Review Act, 1975 (second session);

Bill 74, An Act to establish a Code of Procedure for Provincial Offences;

Bill 75, An Act to amend the Provincial Courts Act.

The House recessed at 5:58 p.m.