Hansard Transcripts 1984-May-10 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

That in the light of the tragic event which occurred in the Quebec National Assembly on Tuesday, May 8, the Speaker convey to the President of that assembly the heartfelt concern and sympathy of the members of this House over the loss of life and injuries sustained by those dedicated men and women who have been servants of that House;

And that this House recognize and salute the Sergeant at Arms of the Quebec National Assembly for his selfless and courageous action to prevent further loss in the face of grave danger;

And that the members of this House join in extending personal messages of condolence to the President and all members of the Quebec National Assembly and to the bereaved and the assurances of the fraternal support of this House.

L'hon. M. Davis, secondé par M. Peterson et M. Rae, a proposé résolution 4:

Qu'il soit résolu que, suite à l'événement tragique qui a frappé l'Assemblée nationale du Québec le mardi 8 mai, le président fasse part au président de l'Assemblée nationale de la profonde sympathie qui anime les députés de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario face aux décès tragiques et aux blessures subies par des hommes et des femmes au service de l'Assemblée nationale;

Qu'il soit résolu que nous, de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario, rendions hommage au sergent d'armes de l'Assemblée nationale du Québec pour le courage et le dévouement dont il a fait preuve pour épargner d'autres vies;

Qu'il soit résolu que les députés de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario offrent leurs condoléances aux families des victimes de cet événement et assurent le président et les députés de l'Assemblée nationale du Québec de leur appui fraternel.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: This, I believe, affects all members of this House --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

REPORT ON TRUST COMPANIES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House for being premature in my intervention.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: My matter of privilege relates to an article that appeared on page 22 of the Toronto Sun yesterday, entitled "Trust Proposals Queried." It is a record of the report of the standing committee on administration of justice regarding its reference on trust companies.

The report is based on a press release dated May 8, 1984, released to the press gallery at about 6 p.m. on Tuesday in the name of the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn), the chairman of the standing committee on administration of justice. It specifically gives a number of the recommendations of the standing committee report, a report that had been prepared in camera and was to have been released in the Legislature probably next Monday.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention that this matter was raised by my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) on December 12 and 14, 1983; that at your request the matter went before the standing committee on procedural affairs; that the committee was discussing this very issue today; and that a number of us on the committee have declined requests from members of the press gallery to have an advance copy of the report on the assumption that all members of the committee intended to wait until the report had been made public by tabling in this House.

I would also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a note in a memo given to our standing committee just this morning from the acting clerk of the committee, Graham White, which states specifically it is crystal clear in Britain and in Ontario that the premature publication of a committee report prepared in camera constitutes a breach of privilege, not only by the informant but also by the reporter and the publisher.

I would therefore ask for the Speaker's consideration and his action on what would clearly appear to be a breach of the privileges of the members of this House with respect to both the press release of the member for Lakeshore and also the subsequent publication in the Toronto Sun on the basis of that report, with particular emphasis on the action of a member who is not simply a member of the committee but is its chairman.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I would like to point out to the honourable member that is probably more properly a matter of order than privilege. I would also point out it is a matter that would require the action of the House, not of the Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: I recognize that, Mr. Speaker, but I would ask if you could perhaps give the House some guidance with respect to this, since your officers are indicating to the standing committee on procedural affairs this is a prima facie case of breach of privilege.

Perhaps the next step would be for the matter to be referred to the committee on procedural affairs to determine whether or not a breach of privilege took place. I find it ironic that this should take place at a time when the standing committee is considering this very matter. In this case, our party happened to have a dissent to the majority report but had been unable, obviously, to talk to the press about it because we were playing by the ground rules and the chairman of the committee was not.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I will certainly be pleased to take a look at it.

[Later]

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a personal explanation respecting the premature distribution of a press release concerning the report on loan and trust companies by the standing committee on administration of justice.

A release was prepared for distribution to the media and others after the presentation of the report to the House and its adoption this afternoon. Through inadvertence on my part, it was released before the report was presented and adopted.

I wish to apologize to the members of the standing committee on administration of justice and to the members of the House.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Relating to a statement made by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) a couple of days ago with respect to the Hooker Chemicals S area court case, you will recall, sir, in that statement he made several references to me and indeed impugned the accuracy of some of my suggestions and comments in the House.

I am sure, upon research, you will find the honourable minister read very selectively from the transcript. When my staff requested the right to look at the ministry's copy of the transcript, they were denied access by the legal services branch director, Mr. Mulvaney, he, at that point, having the only copy in Canada. We have subsequently rectified that situation and we do have a copy.

On page 5 of his statement to the House, the minister dismissed the fact that the judge referred to his lawyer's argument as being silly, by quoting from two sentences. I can give chapter and verse. Volume 3(b), page 108: "I think it is a silly discussion we are having here but I am willing to listen to any question you want to put to Dr. McKay, so go ahead." That is a quote from Judge Curtin. The minister said this meant that his lawyer, Mr. Philip Sunderland, won the point.

A full reading of the transcript shows, first, that Sunderland did not win any point and that the judge did indeed think the line of argument being taken by the minister's lawyer was, as stated by me in this House, silly.

Later in the transcript, volume 3(b), page 134, the judge chastises Mr. Sunderland following his poor performance with Ontario's expert witness, Dr. McKay. The judge told Sunderland, "Be sure that the witness is fully prepared and that he is aware of what has gone forward with other witnesses in the case and has had available to him such materials as he should have" --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member please resume his seat? It is not a matter of privilege and it is not a matter of order, so I have to rule the member out of order.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, what is my remedy as a member of this House when a minister stands up and impugns the accuracy of my statements? Carrying it even further, he is factually incorrect when he quotes selectively, and only in a self-serving way, and the true facts are not on the record of this House. Perhaps Mr. Speaker will tell me what my remedies are as leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, as well as a member of this House.

Mr. Speaker: I would respectfully point out to the member that a motion of censure would probably be the appropriate way of debating it.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FUNDING OF THE ARTS

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce further grants of almost $10 million in the year 1984-85 to arts organizations assisted through the arts branch of my ministry. In each program, these grants represent a five per cent increase over the previous year.

With the $73 million in cultural grants announced April 5, we have committed to date more than $83 million in the year 1984-85 to assistance to the arts and culture in Ontario. It is very substantial proof of our government's continuing commitment. Let me share with honourable members some of the details.

1. There is $1,037,480 in core operating assistance for 31 community art galleries. These galleries will also receive assistance through the Ontario Arts Council for exhibitions and other programs.

2. There is $1,285,000 in core operating assistance for 26 arts service organizations. These organizations may also receive additional assistance through the Ontario Arts Council.

3. There will be core operating assistance totalling $665,000 for two major arts training institutions we are very proud to have in Ontario: the National Ballet School and the National Theatre School.

4. Last, and obviously not least, there is $6,707,243 for the 34 major arts organizations taking part in the Wintario arts challenge fund program. In all, the ministry will have paid out $18,018,168 under this program by the end of May. I have not included that sum in my overall figure. By comparison, $11,310,925 was paid out during the four previous fiscal years. The increase in the present year is substantial.

These grants, to be invested by participating arts groups, represent double the sum of more than $9 million in new donations raised by the groups from private and corporate sources during their three years in this unique incentive program. The core operating assistance grants help arts organizations serve their communities, aid the development of artists and arts groups and train performers.

The nearly $10 million spent in assisting these cultural services is, as I have said, in addition to the $73 million announced last month, which represents altogether a very solid investment in the vital resource of human imagination in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment. Apparently the opposition parties do not have copies of the minister's statement.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I will see that copies are distributed.

Mr. Speaker: They have been distributed.

PCB DESTRUCTION FACILITIES

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today proposals for the development, regulation and control of mobile polychlorinated biphenyl destruction facilities.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am glad the honourable member looks upon this as being good news. I look forward to his support.

I consider this initiative to be extremely good news and a positive step in our efforts to destroy PCBs in an environmentally safe manner. These proposals are based on a discussion paper which was circulated extensively in February 1983 to industry, public interest and municipal groups as well as to other interested parties.

2:20 p.m.

As the members know, polychlorinated biphenyls have been the subject of considerable public concern in Ontario and their use and storage has been rigidly controlled for more than a decade in Ontario. Some six million litres of PCB liquids are still in use and a further 1.5 million litres are in storage awaiting safe destruction. While it is possible under our existing legislation and regulatory structure to approve fixed facilities to deal with these wastes, there are no existing destruction facilities in the province at the present time.

Our current plan does not call for fixed permanent destruction facilities. There are two reasons for this:

1. Some 75 per cent of the total PCBs in use or in storage are concentrated in 18 Ontario communities across the province;

2. Effective technology for mobile facilities to destroy PCBs has been developed and proved and is in use in other jurisdictions, primarily in the United States.

On the strength of these factors, we are encouraging mobile facilities, taking the solution to the places where the problem exists. Our proposed regulatory measures are, in effect, a comprehensive design for safety standards under which these facilities will be permitted to operate. These standards will address environmental and occupational health, operation, materials handling, contingency, security, record-keeping and public information.

Specific details of our proposed regulatory package, consisting of draft regulations and testing requirements for these facilities, are now complete and will be released for public comment next week. Advertisements will appear shortly calling a series of public open house meetings in the 18 municipalities to encourage full public information and informed input to our proposals.

Following this consultation period, the proposals will be submitted to formal hearings this fall before a specially established hearing panel. I hope to see our regulatory proposals finalized by year-end, and then private sector proponents should be in a position to proceed with soundly based programs which achieve our objective, the ultimate destruction of stored PCB wastes to eliminate the environmental and public health risks associated with these materials.

SURVEYORS BILL

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to introduce a bill to revise the Surveyors Act of 1980. As the members know, Ontario has enjoyed a long and honourable tie with the surveying profession. Ontario's land surveyors have contributed greatly to the development of this province.

The Association of Provincial Land Surveyors was formed in 1886 by 36 Ontario surveyors. In 1892 it was incorporated as a professional organization with the passing of the Ontario Land Surveyors Act. Over the years, the act has been amended whenever technological advances warranted it. These revisions have refuelled the need to establish, maintain and develop standards of knowledge, skill, qualifications and professional ethics among professional land surveyors. The result of these revisions to what is now the Surveyors Act is a strong, professional Ontario surveying community.

As with any scientific and technical pursuit, surveying is a profession of change. My intention today is to introduce revisions which accurately reflect recent changes in the capabilities of this profession.

The new act will incorporate four different, but related specialized surveying disciplines under one statute. These four specialized fields are cadastral surveying, which deals with surveys to establish, define, locate or describe property boundaries and corners; photogrammetry, which is the science of obtaining information about land or structures through photography; hydrography, which is the science of surveying, describing and mapping seas, lakes and rivers, especially to determine their use for navigation; and geodesy, which is the science of determining the size and shape of the earth and the interrelationship of points on its surface.

The revised act recognizes the professional contributions of each of these disciplines. At the same time, it unites these professionals in a complementary and workable way.

I would remind the members that the Health Disciplines Act brought together dentistry, medicine, nursing, optometry and pharmacy under one statute. This revision to the Surveyors Act reflects a similar kind of thinking.

I would like briefly to inform the House of some other important aspects of these revisions.

First, the members of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors will be divided into two groups: those who are licensed under the act and those who hold certificates of registration. A licence will be required to practise cadastral surveying. Persons qualified in photogrammetry, geodesy and hydrography will be entitled to certificates of registration.

Similar to the Health Disciplines Act, the revised act will establish a number of committees designed to protect the public interest. They will cover such areas as complaints, fee mediation, disciplinary measures and other professional standards. Any regulations the association wants to make will be subject to review by myself and the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

As members can see, these revisions are designed to accommodate the increased specialization in the surveying field within one expanded professional association. They ensure that the profession will maintain the first-rate level of service that we in Ontario have come to expect.

I know members will join me in welcoming these revisions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GRANGE COMMISSION INQUIRY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), I have a question for the Premier regarding the Grange royal commission.

I am sure the Premier has been following the inquiry on a daily basis and is aware of some of the confusion that has developed with respect to the responsibilities and rights of the commissioner at phase 2.

Given the fact that in some minds at least there appears to be a lack of clarity or direction, will the Premier consider issuing a new order in council to clarify the responsibilities of the commissioner in that case to avoid more court cases, appeals and delays, so that everyone concerned understands exactly the intention of the Attorney General and the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is quite as simple as saying "the intention of the Attorney General or the cabinet."

I have followed the deliberations at the Grange royal commission very carefully and have expressed no views on the matter because I do not think it would be appropriate.

It has been my experience that in a number of instances the terms of reference for royal commissions have been handled by the commissioner himself with the assistance of legal counsel. Obviously during the course of this inquiry -- more so than in some, I guess -- a number of legal issues have been raised and some of them have been resolved.

I can only go by press reports as to whether something may come from the commissioner or the royal commission to the government with a request for further definition. As recently as noon today, to my knowledge, the Ministry of the Attorney General has had no request for something of this nature.

At this moment I would not want to indicate that there would be or even should be any changes. I am not in a position to make that assessment. However, I sense from some of the press reports that some request may be forthcoming from the commission. That is my impression. As I say, roughly as of noon today, there has been no such request or suggestion and it may be there will not be any.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: This royal commission is a creature of the cabinet in that the original reference came by way of an order in council. It has the powers prescribed to it as well as under the act.

I think we all recognize this is a unique situation. We recognize some of the difficulties. We know they are moving into phase 2 of the operation. which will be different from phase 1. To avoid going back to the court with appeals, cross-appeals and months of delay, would it not be a good idea for the cabinet to take the initiative, since it created the royal commission, and clearly define what it feels the responsibilities of the commissioner are? Surely this thing has been delayed long enough now.

Everyone is interested in getting the truth about the second phase, which happens to be the determination and report on the circumstances surrounding the investigation, institution and prosecution of the charges. Given that, I think the Premier could help the commissioner by giving him a clear definition. I would ask him to consider that, along with his caucus colleagues, sooner rather than later.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will make one or two observations. I recall very vividly in this House the rather extensive rhetoric by the Leader of the Opposition urging that a public inquiry of this nature be undertaken. My recollection is he suggested it should be in fairly broad and general terms and that there be very few limitations upon the function of this royal commission. That is my recollection, and I may be incorrect in that. The royal commission was established by order in council of the cabinet of this province, and I would remind the Leader of the Opposition he was very much in support of going this particular route. That is my recollection, and I think it is accurate.

In my experience, any time terms of reference for a royal commission are adopted, they are rarely totally definitive, to cover every possible legal discussion that might take place. I can sense a different scenario, in which the Leader of the Opposition would take great exception to the cabinet of this province "directing" the chairman of a royal commission to do certain things. I am quite prepared, as head of the government and on the advice of the Attorney General, if some alteration were felt to be necessary or helpful, to give that consideration.

I do not intend to give a commitment that we will as a government direct the chairman of the commission or give a guarantee that as part of this process there will be those occasions, even with greater definition, where some avenues for some will be in a reference to the court to adjudicate certain sensitive matters. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition is being realistic if he does not sense that, with the establishment of a commission of this nature, sometimes these references to the courts may arise. In my limited experience, I have never seen any draft terms or final terms of reference that can preclude that eventuality.

Obviously, as a government we are interested and concerned, but I cannot give the Leader of the Opposition an assurance that we will "direct" the chairman of this royal commission on what he should do.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Premier will agree, having heard such extensive evidence from the nurses at the Hospital for Sick Children, that the commission will at least be allowed to hear equally extensive evidence from the hospital administrators and authorities and from the police with respect to their conduct throughout the entire matter. Surely that is only fair.

Will the Premier ensure that the terms of reference will not be changed simply to satisfy the objections of police counsel and that the public will be assured that, having put the nurses through such an ordeal, there will at least be an equal investigation and assessment of the conduct of those who were in positions of responsibility and authority from the time of the very first death until the time the charges were laid?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I sense a suggestion from the leader of the New Democratic Party that we should not interfere with the existing terms of reference or give directions to the commissioner. I cannot give any guarantees about exactly what will occur at a commission hearing of this nature. The leader of the New Democratic Party knows this. It would be improper for me to express points of view.

I have been following the inquiry. I cannot say I am totally knowledgeable about all the arguments that have been made or the points of view that have been expressed by the legal counsel who are there. I think it would be unfortunate if the head of government or the Attorney General were to express a point of view.

I hope the leader of the New Democratic Party understands that I am not in a position to give assurances of one kind or another. The commission is there; it is doing a very difficult and sensitive task, one that has been difficult for all of those who have participated. I am sure this is the case.

As I said to the Leader of the Opposition, if some communication comes to us from the commission, if there is some request for something to be considered, of course it will be. But I suggest, with respect, that it is premature to make any commitments or even to suggest that such a request will be forthcoming.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the commissioner has now said publicly that he either needs assistance in defining the terms of reference, understanding exactly what his rights and responsibilities are, or there could be an appeal by way of a stated case that could take six months --

An hon. member: Or could not.

Mr. Peterson: I am just quoting what the commissioner said.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Given the fact that this second phase is investigating the conduct of certain police officials, the police -- people directly under the supervision of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) -- would the Premier not feel we should proceed with dispatch and clear up this matter now?

The second phase is different in many respects from the first phase. Why would the Premier not take it upon himself to give the commissioner the direction to move with dispatch to clear up this matter which has been lingering for so long?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, although the Leader of the Opposition says, in spite of what I assume has been some exposure to the practice of law and to what is meant in the judicial process, that we can give direction that a commission of this nature will move with dispatch, etc., we are talking here about the rights and reputations of a number of individuals. While I know we are all anxious to see the royal commission come to some form of conclusion, I think it is fundamental that it be done in a proper, appropriate and legal fashion.

I want to emphasize that I, too, hear these reports and, to my knowledge, as of early this afternoon there has been no communication or request from the commissioner for any alteration in the terms of reference. I would be the last one to disagree with the commissioner, nor would I comment on the way the commission has been handled except to say that it has obviously been extremely difficult.

But my limited knowledge would indicate that if it is the judgement of those involved that the wise course is to go by way of stated case, then I do know of stated cases that have been heard and dealt with in a matter of days, not months. That may not be the norm, but I know it has happened.

Mr. Speaker: New question. I would just point out that we have spent an inordinately long time on the first question.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware that we have had many discussions in this House about the shortage or misallocation of hospital beds and any influence it has on the premature death of people who are waiting for those hospital beds. He has consistently stood in this House and defended it and said this was not the case.

How does he respond to the comments of Dr. Druck of the Toronto Western Hospital, a cardiologist, who said: "Two of my patients have died while waiting for over two months for a cardiac catheterization. This means they did not even have a chance to be put on the list for those awaiting cardiac surgery because of the bed shortage."

Here is a doctor saying that people are dying because of the shortage or misallocation of hospital beds. Is the minister now convinced there is a problem? When is he going to take the leadership to do something about it?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member were to check any other jurisdiction at some of the most reputable facilities for the performance, in this case, of cardiac surgery, he would find that our waiting lists here, or the period during which one might wait for a procedure to be performed, are quite in line with those in other jurisdictions. There is not an inordinate length of time to wait in this jurisdiction.

I have discussed this matter with physicians across this province, and I have been assured that where a physician has reason to believe his or her patient's condition is deteriorating, that patient can be placed at the head of the list for emergency surgery.

For a physician to make a statement that sounds as conclusive as the one the member has quoted to me in the House, one that suggests conclusively that the demise of the patient was directly attributable to the length of the waiting period, is not consistent with what I have been told by other persons who, I am sure, are as qualified as the person to whom the member has attributed that statement.

Mr. Peterson: I am not sure of the minister's position. Is he denying the veracity of this gentleman's statement? Is he now admitting that people are dying because of lack or misallocation of hospital beds, but we are doing better than other places and so it does not matter?

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Does the minister not think there is a problem? Why does he not address it? There are instances in his own town of Kingston. There has been a public case of a cancer patient who died prematurely because of the lack of a hospital bed. Surely the minister is aware of that.

How much evidence, how many cases, how many deaths and how many statements from practitioners, doctors and experts does the minister need before he is prepared to say we have a problem and we are prepared to do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the member was not able to listen because his attention span would not allow him to listen to the answer I gave to the first part of the question, I suggest he might choose to read the Instant Hansard because I did answer his question.

I reiterate that the decision with respect to the admission of an individual to a hospital, and the decision with respect to the prioritization of that patient on a waiting list according to the severity of his condition, is not a decision of the Ministry of Health; it is the decision of physicians and the hospital. The member knows that.

As to the particular case the member has chosen to raise with respect to the cancer patient in the city of Kingston, that patient was resident, if I am not mistaken, in Prince Edward county. I have checked into that very carefully, and I think the kinds of statements that were made by the individuals in that situation were not responsible. When one looks at that case and discusses it with the physicians involved, I can assure the member, one gets quite a different picture from the statements that were quoted publicly.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, with great respect to the minister, he cannot deny the hard fact that decisions with respect to priority are being made in a climate of scarcity, in a climate of a limited number of beds, and he and his ministry are responsible for those conditions. He is responsible for the fact that there are a great many people who are waiting for beds who cannot get them and that the priority decisions are made in the most difficult of circumstances. In that sense, it is grossly unfair of him to blame either hospitals or physicians for the fact that certain patients are going without operations. The minister is going to regret that kind of remark and statement.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Specifically, will the minister comment on the fact that because of Toronto Western Hospital's very difficult financial situation, that hospital is going to have to close an unusually high number of beds for three months this summer, and that is going to further increase the waiting list for much surgery which, while it is called elective, as the minister well knows has a dramatic effect on people's health and even on their survival.

Is the minister aware of that fact, and what does he intend to do about it to ensure that all the people of this province have access to health care when they need it and as it is determined to be a priority to save their lives and guarantee them good health?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I was not blaming anyone for anything.

Mr. Rae: The minister certainly was.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No. I was trying to point out for the honourable member's edification and that of the Leader of the Opposition the way in which those decisions are made.

I do not know whether the member has tried to do this; however, if he would take the time to sit down with those physicians who are involved, as I have --

Mr. Rae: The minister certainly knows I have.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the member is suggesting they tell him one thing and me something else, then that is a problem for which we will have to find a solution.

When I have discussed the issue of the prioritization of waiting lists of patients for elective procedures, I have been assured that in most hospitals in this province there is a daily review of that list by the physicians. The priorities are shifted according to any indication of a change in the condition of a patient.

In this way, they do address the matter of a patient who may have a deteriorating situation which results in it becoming more critical. I think we will always have those individuals who are saying there are insufficient beds in a given community. It might be true in some cases, but generally that is not the problem. There are other problems that have to be addressed, and I have identified those in previous answers in this House.

With respect to Toronto Western Hospital, which I suppose was really sort of a second barrel in the same question, yes, I am aware it has had some very severe administrative problems which have given rise to some rather difficult financial problems. The board of that hospital has taken hold of the situation and is now in the process of addressing it.

I have been assured by them and by the inspector whom I have placed in that hospital that the proposals they are making to bring their spending within their budget projections will not impact upon patient care. Based on those assurances, I have no further comment to make.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister can talk about priorities and about passing the blame off to physicians, as he did in his letter of March 4, when the minister was confronted with the situation at St. Joseph's Health Centre in Toronto, where the grandfather of Mary Anne Kalt was in such a condition that he was suffering spinal meningitis. He was in a near leukaemic state because of his anemia. He had pneumonia and an enlarged prostate. He was told to go home because there were no beds available in the hospital.

What is the minister's response to that? It was to blame the admissions process and to blame the doctors in question. Why does the minister not face up to his responsibilities and realize that the situations at St. Joseph's Health Centre, Toronto Western Hospital and Kingston are not isolated situations? They are symptoms of a system that needs drastic reorganization.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honourable member it will get reorganization. Again, she persists in throwing the matter of blaming people at me. I was not blaming anyone.

Mr. Wrye: It just sounded that way.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am just questioning the loose use of the English language. I may be pointing out where a focal point of responsibility is, but that is not the same thing as blaming someone or trying to pass the buck. If I or my ministry were making the decisions with respect to the admission of people to hospital, the member would be the first person in the province to scream bloody murder.

2:50 p.m.

I am not going to identify any specific case in saying this. However, I will say I was contacted by the family of an individual. They were very concerned that they had been told by the physician for their father that he was not admitted to hospital because no beds were available. This was pursued with the physician, and his immediate response to us was that it was not the reason at all. The gentleman had a terminal condition where hospitalization would not have helped in any way whatsoever, but he did not tell the family that.

It is easy for some people in very difficult situations, when they have to face a bereaved family, to blame the government or to say there are not sufficient beds. In cases where there were not sufficient beds, I would not hesitate to admit it. I have investigated case after case where that has not been the cause of the problem and where the government or the ministry has been an easy target. It is so much easier to say, "There are not enough beds," than to say, "I am sorry, but there is nothing we can do."

Mr. Rae: The minister has managed to turn a question of priorities into a question of Russian roulette.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier has to do with another kind of roulette, interest rate roulette, now being played regularly in this country. The Premier may want to know that as of two o'clock this afternoon the Bank of Canada rate was at 11.72 per cent, which means that in the last two weeks the Bank of Canada rate has gone up by almost a full point.

I am sure the Premier will also know what this really means is that because of the relatively low rate of inflation in comparison with the interest rate bingo that was being played a couple of years ago when the rates went crazy, the real rates for first mortgages and for borrowers of all kinds from farmers and small business people to families are at almost historical levels.

Given that fact and given the shaky nature of the recovery currently being experienced in this province, does the Premier not think it is time to move to provide some kind of assistance for the people who are once again going to be affected by intolerably high rates?

Does he not think it is time for this province to state clearly that it is going to take steps to ensure that the interest rate madness which affected so many people two and three years ago will not be allowed to repeat itself this year in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have followed the career of the leader of the New Democratic Party for many years. I guess the one disappointment I have is that, having moved from the major leagues to the minor leagues here after so effectively raising this issue in the House of Commons and laying the total responsibility for interest rate policy on the then government of Canada, he comes into this Legislature and forgets all the speeches he made some years ago.

First, I thought he would have rectified the matter while he was in a position to do so in Ottawa. Second, I really did not think he would have the temerity to come down here and tell me that he expects Ontario to be able to deal with the Bank of Canada.

There are two points I want to make. Obviously, we share the concern. No one can project with total accuracy -- we have experienced people of that nature before -- but our best assessment is that there is every reason to believe we are not going to get into the situation that existed two years ago. Second, I think the recovery the honourable member calls fragile is more significant than that terminology would indicate.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swan) can shake his head. He should talk to his friend the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), to his friends from Windsor and to the distinguished member for Oakville (Mr. Snow). He should take a look at what has happened with respect to the balance of trade payments, even in this past month. He should see just how significant what has happened in the auto sector has been, and then he can shake his head all he wants.

I do not object to the honourable member shaking his head, because he has been such a negative personality all his life and that is not going to change. I do not really accept the principle that the recovery is fragile. There are still concerns. I have said that publicly myself.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: "Fatuous" fits better than I thought.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If anything I do is better than the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) thought, that is an improvement. I accept that compliment.

I reiterate to the leader of the New Democratic Party, who is a self-professed expert on economic and financial issues, that he knows full well this government and this province cannot affect or impact on interest rates set by either the Bank of Canada or the government of Canada, whichever term he may wish to use.

Mr. Rae: I know it is the Premier's intention to turn lethargy into an art form, and he is coming very close to succeeding in doing that, but I would like to tell him we have always taken the view that it is the job of government to help people who are affected by policies, whether their origin is federal, provincial or international.

We believe in our party it is the responsibility of the government of Ontario to assist people who are being hurt and who are being hit by high interest rates. That is the position of our party, and it is quite a consistent position. I think it makes a lot of sense. It is the commonsense view of most people affected by high interest rates.

The Premier is putting forward the position in terms of the rates that this is only a temporary blip. That is the same view that was expressed to me by Gerald Bouey -- or Bouey XVI, as I call him -- in 1978 when the rates first started to go up. The Premier does not know whether they are going to stay up or go down.

What kind of rates will it take for him finally to decide, as did the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, that he is going to start taking steps for farmers, for home owners and for other people who are affected by these high rates and ensure that interest rates will not be allowed to choke off the recovery that is so vital for the working people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I realize I will not succeed in an appeal to the leader of the New Democratic Party to consider that one approach that is not helpful or constructive is to raise fears on the part of the consuming public.

Mr. Rae: Why does the Premier not write a letter to Henry Kaufman?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member's colleague from Oshawa is smiling, but he knows exactly what I am saying. I know the leader of third party thinks it serves his narrow political purpose to go around saying that because interest rates have moved up now, we are headed once again for situations that existed in 1981. I know that is his approach, and I have lived with it for generations. He can say that his concern is for "the people" and that we have done nothing for the farmers, but even the farmer from Welland will tell him we have done a great deal for the farm communities.

Mr. Swart: Less than any other province.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Come on. Less than any other province? Who is kidding whom?

The member can call Mr. Bouey whatever he wants; I do not object to whatever terminology he may wish to use. But I do forewarn everybody in this province that the approach and the solution he and his party have to our economic problems, interest rates, etc -- that is, the nationalization of the banks, which is endorsed by the federal party of which he is a part -- would not work and would be a disaster for the economy of this country.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario government may not have any direct control over interest rates in this country, but the government certainly can provide some protection to farmers who are losing their farms every day because of high interest rates they cannot cope with, such as 14.58 per cent, which is now the farm credit loan rate; even interest rates at eight per cent they cannot cope with.

What does the Premier intend to do to prevent further bankruptcies from occurring in this province in connection with the tremendously high interest rates farmers have to cope with, along with the other high input costs and the low prices they are receiving for their products? This is something he does have control over. What is he going to do for the farmers of this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member raises a series of rather complex issues. With respect to the interest payments farmers are paying on mortgages, I think this government has taken a very significant initiative in that fundamental area, which is the main capital asset in most farms I know.

With respect to the cost of inputs or the ultimate price for the commodity from the agricultural community, I think the member opposite would acknowledge, in regard to marketing programs and in regard to a measure of stability within certain commodity areas, we have done quite well in terms of legislation and process here. It is fair to state in that area we are perhaps somewhat in advance of some of our sister provinces.

3 p.m.

To say that we have not been of assistance to, concerned about or dealing with a number of problems in the farm community is totally erroneous. The member should understand that the number of farmers I still know, and I still know a number, are appreciative of the leadership and direction given by this government, particularly by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell).

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Premier said nothing the government of Ontario does has any impact on interest rates. Perhaps he is aware that the extent of Ontario Hydro's foreign borrowings -- foreign borrowings, not domestic borrowings -- now means the flow of interest payments out of Ontario is dramatic; in fact, Hydro's interest leakage is greater even than the dividend outflow from the foreign-owned oil companies in this country.

Why has the Premier not at least taken steps to ensure the extensive borrowings Hydro has to undertake are carried out within Canada and in Canadian capital markets? Why has he not ensured there is not the kind of capital outflow that is having an impact on our dollar and on interest rates? Will he at least ensure that the borrowing practices of the government do not contribute to a weakening of the Canadian dollar or to the rise in interest rates, which have been so hurtful to the real economy of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Did the member really take economics?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not take economics.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the leader of the third party is an expert in the field, but my understanding as a layman is that if we were to require Ontario Hydro to restrict its borrowings totally to within Canada we would then increase competition for what is still limited capital within this country. That competition would then tend to escalate interest rates internally.

The member fully understands that the total amount of borrowings by Ontario Hydro, whether within Canada in New York or in western Europe, is totally insignificant in terms of the policy of the Federal Reserve or of what is happening to the interest rate policy in the United States. It has nothing whatever to do with it.

The member knows full well that whatever determination is made by this government with respect to Hydro or even some of our own borrowings, will not affect interest rates.

Mr. Foulds: You must be kidding.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It does not.

Mr. Rae: That is a contradiction of what the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) said last year.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You are silly.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for --

Mr. Peterson: Two economic giants going at it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That's right.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Bellwoods cannot be heard by the chair.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Thank goodness.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

ILLEGAL RENT INCREASES

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about the cost to tenants of fighting illegal rent increases.

The minister will remember the case of the tenants at 2 Nursewood Road, where the landlord was ordered by the Residential Tenancy Commission to roll back a 47 per cent increase on the grounds that he was attempting to pass through new financing costs from the sale of the building to members of his own family.

Does the minister think it is fair the tenants of 2 Nursewood Road have so far had to pay $4,500 in legal fees to be represented at two hearings of the Residential Tenancy Commission? The landlord is now appealing to the Supreme Court of Ontario and intends to raise his rent in order to pass through to the tenants the costs of his legal fees before the Supreme Court.

Does the minister think it is fair the tenants now will face an additional burden, a third burden, in the area of $10,000 in order to have legal representation before the Supreme Court of Ontario, even though the RTC has ruled in their favour? Is this the way rent review is supposed to work in Ontario: a blizzard of litigation and a bloodbath of legal fees?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I can only say the government has indicated its commitment to the whole process of rent review with the expenditure of a considerable amount of money with respect to that rent review process. That amount of money has undergone quite significant increases in the past two years.

I do not think the member was saying individuals should not have the right to appeal the decisions of administrative tribunals. That is in keeping with the common law process and the judicial traditions we have supported in this province.

Mr. McClellan: They have the privilege of paying for it too.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The noise got the member excited and he wanted to speak a little louder. He will have his chance in a minute. The member should relax. His turn comes up next. Take it easy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order. The minister will answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member will have his moment in court. I do not know if he wants to go to court, but he will have his moment in court.

There are processes in place with respect to the appeal process. We have a legal aid program in the province. We have legal aid clinics for those who are unable to afford it. That process is in place.

I am not quite sure what the member is suggesting. If he is suggesting there should be a further increase in what are now considerable expenses on behalf of the public for this worthwhile process, then I think he should say so and indicate how one should raise those funds. The Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) will be interested in that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware of the tenants at 3015 and 3017 Queen Street East. Last February they won their first case before the Residential Tenancy Commission and last June they won an appeal about illegal rents. Many of the tenants have been paying $400 a month and more in illegal rents for the last two and a half years while their landlord takes this to the Supreme Court, using their money from illegal rents to pay his legal bills.

Would the minister give me some idea how he can help these people? These tenants will have to wait for the Supreme Court ruling before they get their money back. They will have to continue to pay the high illegal rents all this time. Not only will they have to wait for the landlord's new application for the 1983-84 pass-through of funds, but they are also going to be told that anyone applying for return of more than $3,000 in illegal rents cannot be heard by the Residential Tenancy Commission and will have to go directly to county court.

What assistance can there be for these tenants, many of whom have become unemployed in the meantime and are paying these double rents even though they are illegal? What can the government do to help them at this point?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I do not have the luxury the member has of being able to say certain things are illegal when they are before the courts. That may be a luxury he feels he has.

From the humble beginnings and learning I had in the process, in which the Treasurer thoroughly and carefully instructed me when he was a student at law school, I do not understand that those processes could be named illegal until a court has made that determination.

As I understand it, the landlord renovated those premises and rented them. A hearing was arranged before the residential rent tribunal as to whether or not they were new units. The Residential Tenancy Commission said they were not new units and made an order with respect to rebate of rents. That order has been appealed to the courts. I do not think that should be offensive to anybody in society. That is an example of a system working well.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, first of all, is the minister aware of the fact that one Bob Spencer asked for a 99 per cent increase in rent in his building on St. Clair Avenue, given the fact the building was worth about $1.2 million according to his estimates? Second, has he asked his ministry officials to investigate this tremendous, huge, unconscionable increase by Bob Spencer?

Mr. McClellan: Did the member say "Spensieri"?

Mr. Breaugh: Why is he attacking Spensieri?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I could hardly hear the question because of the outcries of the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan). Would the member repeat it for me, please?

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Epp: I would like to accommodate the minister. I am not sure whether he heard it, but I would gladly repeat the question, because it is important that he understand the situation.

The Acting Speaker: You have 16 minutes left to repeat it.

Mr. Epp: There is a trustee in the city of Toronto by the name of Bob Spencer. He, in his reasonableness, asked for a 99 per cent rent increase on his apartment building.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, The minister is going to hear it this time.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am always being interrupted by the New Democratic Party.

The Acting Speaker: Pose the question, please.

Mr. Epp: Given the fact that there is a six per cent ceiling before these increases are supposed to go to the Residential Tenancy Commission, and given the fact that this was far in excess of six per cent -- in fact, most reasonable people would say it was very unconscionable even to ask for such an increase -- will the minister investigate this increase and report back to the House?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, and I know all members of this House endeavour to be fair and nonpartisan in these issues, I am not one of those who think we should make those determinations about that rent review application when we have a process in place whereby it can be adjudged by an administrative tribunal.

Mr. McClellan: Returning to the question, since he obviously does not understand what is happening with his own legislation, I want to ask the minister how much longer is he going to allow landlords to use loopholes in the rent review laws to harass tenants out of their buildings? One of the loopholes obviously is costly and expensive litigation which amounts to tens of thousands of dollars of additional costs to tenants.

How much longer is the minister going to permit the laws of this province to be flouted by landlords and tenants to be penalized when they try to have these laws enforced, and how much longer is he going to hide behind the Thom commission on residential tenancies before he brings in legislation?

Perhaps he can tell us whether the Thom commission intends to deal with this in part 1 or part 2 of part 1. Or will it be dealt with in part one and a half, which starts next week and which will run on until some time in the far distant future, or in part 2, which is not even scheduled yet it is so far off?

How much longer does the minister intend to hide behind the commission before he deals with some of these problems instead of giving us all his smart-aleck answers?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I know one should not answer the prologue, but with your forgiveness --

The Acting Speaker: There is a question in there.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: You and I both know there was a question somewhere in there between the prologue and the epilogue. Does the member know what an epilogue is? He does.

The Acting Speaker: The minister will answer the question that he finds in the question.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Very frankly, I understand the honourable member's anxiety about the fact that he and I have both expected that part 1, or phase 1 of the Thom --

Mr. McClellan: I cannot hear the minister.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Is the member having difficulty? I heard him yelling a minute ago when the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) was speaking. I do not know why he cannot hear me.

The Acting Speaker: The minister will answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I know the concern the member has that it should come out as quickly as possible, and I want to assure him quite sincerely I have the same concern that it be released as quickly as it can. I have conveyed that view to the commissioner; he is well aware of my view.

In saying that, however, I do not think either the member or anyone else in this House should be critical of a man who I think has the confidence of all and who has a great deal of esteem in the community. We should be privileged on behalf of the public to be able to get people such as him to do jobs such as this.

Mr. McClellan: The minister is hiding behind the commissioner.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: There is absolutely no hiding. What the member is hiding is the fact that even at this moment, although it may need some alterations and revisions, we have in place a rent review program in this province which I say has no equal in the country. Nobody in this country has a better program, including the member's beloved friends in Manitoba. We should be proud of the fact we have a program in place that is serving the tenants of this province well.

The Acting Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture and Food has the answer to a previously asked question.

Mr. Wrye: Will there be a private member's question today?

Mr. Renwick: I think this is an all-time record.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have been accused of many things but not that. My Stetson is blue.

The Acting Speaker: The minister will answer the question.

VETERINARY DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) posed a question which I took as notice. In his question and supplementary, the member suggested the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is in the process of phasing out diagnostic services by the veterinary laboratory services branch.

I want to assure the member this is simply not the case. There has been no reduction in diagnostic services nor is it our intention to do so.

The member also suggested a $12,000 loss incurred by a Charing Cross farmer was attributable to the fact that the government diagnostic laboratory would not pass on samples after it had made the diagnosis. This is also incorrect.

The unfortunate loss of swine by the farmer in question was not attributable to the lack of services by the government laboratory. Lung samples from hogs were passed on to a private laboratory which the practising veterinarian had asked to prepare a bacterin. The private laboratory was unable to culture the causative organism from those tissues.

The private laboratory's first request for release of the culture from the Huron Park laboratory was made on April 9, 1984, and permission was granted that very same day. The following day, April 10, the private laboratory picked up that culture.

The member suggested there had been a reversal in policy and change of procedures with respect to the availability of cultures and bacterins. There has been no change in policy regarding the release of pure cultures of pathogenic bacteria. In fact, cultures have not been released for many years.

Our laboratory stopped production of bacterins to encourage the privatization of non-diagnostic functions, thereby giving our staff more time to devote to our primary function of providing diagnostic service to the livestock industry of the province.

The member asked, "Will the minister reverse the policy because it has an impact on human health?" All of our policies relative to the veterinary laboratories have, as a basic objective, provision of the best possible diagnostic services with the end result being healthy livestock and a quality product, safe for human consumption.

The use of bacterins is not a complete answer to controlling this type of pneumonia in swine. Judicious use of antibiotics and good management procedures are also necessary.

I want to assure the member, the House and the livestock industry that in the development of our policies and in the delivery of our programs, we place a high priority on disease prevention and control and on the production of wholesome products for the consuming public.

TOMATO PROCESSING

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It concerns a request by Topaz Canners in St. Thomas to the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development for assistance to expand a tomato processing operation.

In view of the fact a request for assistance was made some time ago and this expansion would give a needed boost to the farmers and the economy of the area, which has been hit hard by the recent cut in tobacco quotas, with the effect that as many as 800 farmers could be going out of production, can the minister inform us whether assistance will be granted and when we can expect an announcement?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the member will be pleased to know that the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) has regularly been making representations on behalf of the farmers.

I suspect there must be a setup here. Did the member ask that question so I could point out how much the member for Elgin has done in representing this company in its application, and the growers in Elgin and surrounding counties?

This is the second time this company has made application for a BILD grant for the processing of tomatoes. The first time we did not feel we could justify making a grant, so the company went ahead with the first phase of its program.

I met with the company on several occasions through the auspices of the member for Elgin. I indicated to them a number of months ago that I was prepared to look at an application for the next phase of their plant.

3:20 p.m.

Since that time, officials of my ministry, as well as officials of the development corporation, have been dealing with the company in question. As recently as yesterday, I instructed officials of my ministry to contact the company and indicate that we are prepared to make a grant to the firm in question under the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program when it answers a number of outstanding questions about its finances.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I am well aware that the member for Elgin has been requesting an answer. I also had calls and I too have talked to the minister every day on the phone trying to get an answer. I do not know whether or not the minister, who lives on the pavement in Toronto, understands how one farms, but if one does not have an answer now when it is time to plant, he cannot plant when the summer comes.

Would the minister not agree that there is an urgency in making a decision on this matter, especially in view of the fact that an agreement with the Ontario Vegetable Growers' Marketing Board to allow a five-year discounting on prices for tomatoes to encourage tomato processing had a sunset clause that expired on April 30?

Can the minister tell us whether this discounting agreement still applies in this case, since the submission date of the proposal occurred before that expiry date? Can he also tell us whether the proposal is supported by his ministry and by the Ontario Development Corp.?

As a matter of fact, 10 farmers have told me they will walk off if they do not get a contract, and the plant is in a position in which it may well close down if it is not granted some assistance through the BILD program.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am very familiar with these arguments; they have all been made by the member for Elgin repeatedly.

I would repeat and remind the honourable member of what I said a few minutes ago. We have indicated to the company that we are prepared to make a grant to it under the BILD program. I hope that if this comes to pass, the vegetable growers' marketing board would, since it is so close to the expiry of the agreement, honour an extension to this application. By the way, there are two applications; there is a second company that we are looking at at the same time.

I would say to the member that if I went ahead and approved a grant to any company that has not yet answered all the financial questions we have put to it, he would jump right down my throat and he would do it with great justification.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGISLATION

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that there was a 92 per cent increase in patient-initiated incidents -- that is, patient violence against staff -- from January to November 1983 as compared to the same period in 1977 at the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital? This is one example of a serious overall increase in violent incidents against staff in institutions in the health care sector, which are directly related to inadequate staffing resulting from government cutbacks in funding.

If he is aware of this, is he prepared to assure the House and the health care sector workers that the occupational health and safety regulations for that sector will not only provide for the installation of mechanical alarm systems, as is now proposed, but will also address staffing levels and staffing schedules as well as patient classification?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member is aware that we have a draft regulation for health care facilities. It has not met with the approval of the various unions involved; as a result, we have agreed in principle to establish a joint labour-management committee. In fact, the group met with me a week or so ago and presented nine suggestions, six of which I agreed to in principle. I said I would take the other three under consideration and get back to them.

In respect to the member's question, once this committee is in place, we will be able to look at circumstances such as he has described in great detail, and we are looking forward to the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the minister's response regarding the committee. Can he also provide a commitment to this House that his ministry will provide the resources necessary -- that is, the funding necessary -- to this committee to enable it to carry out its meetings and the research needed to ensure that satisfactory, specific and enforceable regulations come out of its deliberations, instead of just agreeing to a committee without giving a commitment for the proper resources?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Let me go back again to the nine points that were presented to me by the delegation from the trade union movement. As I said, I agreed in principle with six of the nine. I indicated I would get back to them with respect to the other three.

The other three all involve funding. I am having a rather dreadful time, as many of my colleagues are, in finding the funding for the normal activities of my ministry. Therefore, I could not give a snap decision that day as to whether or not I could locate the necessary funding.

I am trying to do that. I am looking into it. I made a commitment to the trade union movement to get back to the delegation and I will do so within the next few days.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is fine for the minister to stand here in the House and say he has agreed in principle with six of the nine recommendations. However, if he fails to provide a guarantee of funding, he realizes his promise to support in principle the other six recommendations is absolutely hollow; it means nothing.

Will the minister agree in the House today that this issue is important enough to take precedence over the kind of money being spent across the province on things like bicentennial celebrations? Perhaps he can divert some of the funds currently going into those kinds of celebrations to the issue of the health and safety of workers in public health facilities across this province. Does he not think it is a little more important than buttons and bookmarks?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well I am responsible for the budget of my ministry and not responsible for the budget of the province. I have to get by with the money that is allocated to me each year.

To get to the point, I would hope to make funding available but I am not in a position to do so now. I committed myself to looking into it at great depth. I have not been given the full opportunity to do so as yet. As a result, I will not give a commitment today that I will be able to find that funding. However, I am looking for it. If I am not able to find it, I still think a great amount of work can be done in developing a health care regulation without expending a large amount of money.

RESPONSE TO ORAL QUESTION

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, while the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker) is here --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Is this a point of personal privilege or a point of order?

Mr. Wrye: It is a point of privilege. The Provincial Secretary for Justice gave us an undertaking 10 days ago to report on the status of the judicial council review on Judge Lloyd Henrikson. I am here today. I think there is a great deal of interest in our community. I would appreciate it if he would get that report as soon as possible.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. You have made your point.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: May I bring to your attention the fact that we spent an all-time record of 48 minutes and 30 seconds on questions today. This meant only two back-bench members were able to pose questions. I suggest this is an abuse of the rights and privileges of the members of this House and something should be done about it.

[Later]

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record. I believe when I referred to the 48 minutes and 30 seconds, I omitted the word "leaders" in question period. I was referring to leaders' questions.

NEWSPAPER ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, also on a point of personal privilege: This is a matter which violates not only my privileges but the privileges of all the members of this Legislative Assembly. This matter has only now come to my attention.

I would like to draw your attention to two items published in the Toronto Star within the past two weeks. On Tuesday, May 8, in the Community Calendar section of that newspaper, an announcement appeared under the heading "Ontario Legislative Assembly." It reads: "The Great Energy Debate: Nuclear Power or Alternatives, 8 p.m., OISE auditorium, 252 Bloor Street West, free," and then a telephone number.

3:30 p.m.

On April 30, in the Community Calendar section of the same newspaper, an announcement appeared, also headlined "Ontario Legislative Assembly," with this notice: "Public forum on poor children and the law with Richard Johnston, MPP for Scarborough West, 7 p.m., committee room No. 2." To my knowledge, the Legislative Assembly is holding no such formal hearings with regard to either of those matters, nor is this assembly sponsoring any such events.

It seems to me appropriate action should be taken to ensure that our privileges do not continue to be abused in this fashion.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, under standing order 81(d) about written questions: On December 6, 1983, I placed questions 250 through 256 in Orders and Notices.

I was given a temporary answer on March 27. As recently as April 13, it was in Orders and Notices that I would receive a final answer on May 4. It is now May 10. I have not received any answers to my questions and I believe my privileges have been abused.

The Acting Speaker: The member has put it on the record that he has not received his answers, but it is not his privileges that are being hurt.

PETITION

ADMISSIONS TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is customary to present petitions without much of a preamble, except what is spelled out as legitimately acceptable by the Clerk, but there is a bit of a background to this.

The Acting Speaker: There is no allocation of time for a long preamble.

Mr. Van Horne: I will simply pass this on, having pointed that out, and the minister concerned will understand.

"To the Lieutenant Governor and members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, urge that the lottery system for programs at community colleges not be used for admission in lieu of academic achievement."

This is signed by 70 people from my riding.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Sheppard from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the Association of the Chemical Profession of Ontario.

Bill Pr15, An Act to incorporate Baptist Bible College Canada and Theological Seminary.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr15, An Act to incorporate Baptist Bible College Canada and Theological Seminary.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Kolyn from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the report on the white paper on loan and trust companies and moved its adoption.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Gillies from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Provincial Auditor be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Office of the Provincial Auditor: administration of the Audit Act and statutory audits program, $4,151,900.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding standing order 64(a), private members' public business will not be taken up on Thursday, May 17, and also that on Thursday, May 24, private members' public business will be taken up at the evening sitting, not in the afternoon, as provided in standing order 64(a).

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ramsay moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Bernier, first reading of Bill 62, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the bill proposes to amend the act in two respects. The first amendment is to enable an employee either to elect to be paid severance pay immediately upon the termination of employment and forfeit any right to recall, or to retain the right of recall and be paid severance pay if he or she is not recalled within a year of the permanent discontinuance of the business. Where the employee elects to retain the right of recall, the severance pay will be held in trust by the director of the employment standards branch and paid to the employee if he or she is not recalled within the prescribed time, or to the employer if the employee is recalled.

The other amendment relates to the awarding of interest by referees appointed to hear cases under the act. In the case of an application for review of an order of an employment standards officer by an employer, section 50, it is proposed that the wages currently paid to the director in trust be paid into an interest-bearing account for distribution with accumulated interest to the party who is found by the referee to be entitled to them.

Where the director appoints a referee to hear a case following an officer's report that the employer may have failed to comply with or is attempting to circumvent the act, section 51, the amendment authorizes the referee to award interest on amounts found to be owing to employees. Such interest is to be calculated in the same manner as prejudgement interest in the Supreme Court.

SURVEYORS ACT

Hon. Mr. Pope moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. McCague, first reading of Bill 63, An Act to revise the Surveyors Act.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before orders of the day, I would like to table the answers to questions 249 to 256, 277, 291, 306, 315, 316, 319 and 320, and the interim answers to questions 300 to 305, 307 and 310 [see Hansard for Friday, May 11].

3:40 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Foulds, seconded by Mr. Stokes, moved resolution 16:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that access to health care treatment and facilities should be a right and not a privilege and should not be subject to geographic or economic barriers, the government of Ontario should incorporate as a fully insured service under the Ontario health insurance plan the cost of medically necessary travel, as determined by a qualified physician, in excess of 200 miles; and further that the government should begin by instituting such coverage for residents of northern Ontario (that is, for those living in the territorial districts north of the French River) within two years of the passage of this resolution and that coverage of the rest of the province be phased in over a four-year period; and further that in the case of a child needing such medically necessary travel, the government give consideration to covering the costs of travel for one parent or guardian of such a child.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of it for windup.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I will reserve any remaining time for a windup.

I consider this debate to be the most important debate of my political career. If I could persuade the government of this province to accept this resolution and implement its provisions, I would consider my entire political career justified and a success.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Would you resign then?

Mr. Foulds: I would even make the offer that if the Tories implemented this resolution and this coverage, I would be willing to resign my seat and run against them on the issue.

Interjections.

Mr. Foulds: I mean quite seriously that I am in my 13th year now in this place, and I can think of no other thing that I feel so deeply about with respect to getting equality of health care for the people of my riding and the people of my part of the province as this particular resolution.

Ontario used to bill itself as the province of opportunity. In a sense, all my efforts in public life have been an attempt to make it a province of equal opportunity, particularly for the residents of northwestern Ontario, my part of the province.

Unfortunately, when it comes to one of our most fundamental rights, the right to health care, Ontario is not yet a province of equal opportunity. My resolution is an attempt to establish equality of access to our health care system for all the residents of Ontario.

Very simply put, people who live hundreds of miles away from major medical centres in Toronto, Ottawa, London, Hamilton or Kingston simply do not have the same access to medically necessary care as do the people in these centres.

The passage of this resolution would make medically necessary services a reality for people all over this province who now face payments into the thousands of dollars to get the same medical treatment and services that a resident in Metro Toronto can get by calling a taxi, taking the subway or being driven in the family car.

What is medically necessary travel? First, it is not travel that is taken frivolously. Second, it is not air ambulance travel. It is travel that is necessary because the home physician of the patient has made a determination that the patient's condition is serious but that the doctors in his or her home community cannot treat the condition. In other words, it is travel that is vital to the patient's health and often to his or her life or death.

As well, I submit that the home doctor must indicate the travel is necessary. But it is not travel that requires the patient to be hospitalized in the home community in the first place. For example, I have had cases where doctors' letters, both from the home physician and from the physician here in Toronto, have indicated the treatment was necessary. If the treatment is necessary and if it is available only here in Toronto or in Winnipeg or in another centre in this province, then surely the travel is necessary medically as well.

As one doctor wrote, "If to make Mrs. Blank eligible to have her air fares paid it is necessary to have her admitted to hospital for these treatments, this is possible but, of course, represents a waste of beds and a completely unnecessary expenditure of the Ministry of Health money on the home hospital bed." To give this particular doctor credit, he did not hospitalize the patient. But I had to take that particular case to the appeal board and fight on behalf of that patient; and we won the case.

It should be taken as a matter of course when the treatment is necessary and when the patient's health will be impaired if the treatment is not carried out. Therefore, I submit that the travel is as medically necessary as the treatment itself. That is why it should be covered by the Ontario health insurance plan. We must remember this travel is not taken for social or economic reasons in any normal sense of the word. The travel occurs simply so the patient can receive the medically necessary treatment.

Without the treatment, the patient may lose his or her vision, may die because of an impaired heart or die a slow and lingering death because cancer is not treated early and sufficiently enough. Without travel, these patients cannot receive the treatment. It is that simple and that direct.

I also point out that section 10 of the Ontario Health Insurance Act says, "The Ontario health insurance plan is continued for the purpose of providing for insurance against the costs of insured services on a nonprofit basis on uniform terms and conditions available to all residents of Ontario, in accordance with this act...."

Note that the act says quite clearly, "providing for insurance...on uniform terms and conditions...." The section does not say, "similar terms and conditions," or even, "parallel terms and conditions." It says quite clearly, "uniform terms and conditions."

I submit that by making residents of Ontario in excess of 200 miles away pay their air fares, bus fares or any of their transportation costs to Toronto or other centres and back, OHIP is forcing those patients to pay an extra fee to obtain medically necessary services. In other words, they are being extra billed. That payment goes to the airline, but it is a form of extra billing. It is a form of extra premium for the person to get the services. Therefore, these services are not covered by the plan because the travel is not covered by the plan.

I admit without reservation that there has been an enormous improvement in air ambulance coverage when a patient is transferred from one hospital to another. Other necessary treatments for things like leukaemia, cancer, heart treatment, bypass surgery, kidney diseases, ostomy, laser treatment for eyes and specialized children's services are simply not covered when a patient does not need to be hospitalized in his home community. Often this is ongoing care, particularly for children, and for diabetics who require laser treatment for their eyes.

I also admit that an increasing number of these services are becoming available in northern Ontario, but a good many of them are still not available there or in other outreaches of the province.

The interesting thing is that in southwestern Ontario and eastern Ontario, people do not have to travel to Toronto except in exceptional circumstances because they have specialist hospitals at the University of Western Ontario in London and in Kingston, Ottawa and at McMaster University in Hamilton. There would be some people in southern Ontario who would have to take advantage of the provisions of this resolution, but they would be few in number.

3:50 p.m.

Let me mention some statistics for my home area. Almost 1,000 patients a year from the district of Thunder Bay alone now travel to Winnipeg and Toronto annually for specialist treatment not available in our area. The average cost per patient is $1,395 each year. There are some instances where families I have known have been faced with costs of more than $18,000 over a three- or four-year period for leukaemia treatment for one of their children.

I believe there is support for this resolution throughout the province. Since I first raised this issue again this year, some three weeks ago, I have received more congratulations and support than I have ever had in the last eight years of raising this issue.

When I conducted what I admit is an unscientific survey of my constituents, the results were as follows to the question, "Do you think OHIP should be extended to cover medically necessary travel?" "Yes" was 78 per cent, "No" was 15 per cent, and "Don't know" was seven per cent.

A number of volunteer organizations support needy children in particular, but others as well, by helping their families to meet at least part of the cost of transportation of these children to Toronto. Why should the Canadian Cancer Society in a place such as Thunder Bay have to spend 39 per cent of its budget on health transportation instead of spending it on much-needed local services? In other words, there is double discrimination.

Today I received the following telegram completely unsolicited: "As a club that spends thousands annually transporting disabled children to hospitals and doctors in Toronto, we support any move to improve the universal application of medicine in this province. Much Success."

It is signed by the Kinsmen Club in Thunder Bay.

Clubs such as the Kinsmen Club deserve enormous credit. Every single day their committees see needs that are not being met. Members, in particular government members, may be worried about including the cost of such travel expenditures in the health care budget. Based on the research I have been able to do for the district of Thunder Bay, I estimate the total cost for the whole province would be about $4 million annually.

I emphasize this is a ball-park figure and it does seem a lot of money. However, the total health care budget is $7.5 billion; the total expenditure for OHIP is almost $2.4 billion. The total cost of this health transportation would be 0.053 per cent of the total health care budget for the province or 0.17 per cent of the total current expenditures on OHIP. Surely this province as a whole can absorb those costs so that everyone, from whatever corner of this province, can truly share in the province's opportunities for first-rate health treatment.

Four million dollars does seem a lot of money. However, it is coincidentally exactly the amount of money by which the government increased its advertising budget in the last year.

I had a note from the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) earlier today that his ministry was trying to get figures for me but did not have them complete at this time. I would be willing to continue the debate once this resolution passes this afternoon.

The new Canada Health Act reads that we have a right to "reasonable access to health services without undue financial or other barriers."

Coupled with a quotation I gave the members from the Ontario Health Insurance Act, I submit with all my heart and all my spirit that the bills of hundreds, thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of dollars that are experienced by families, particularly in northern Ontario, are an undue financial barrier to health services and should be prohibited under the Health Insurance Act.

I submit that having to pay to travel 300, 500, 1,000 or 1,200 miles is an undue barrier to getting health services. I therefore urge the Minister of Health -- and I regret he is not in his seat, but I notice the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) is here -- and the government to remove the geographic and financial barriers to "reasonable access to health services" for people all over this province. We all pay the same medicare premiums and we should all have access to the same services.

If this resolution should pass, and if this government should implement its conditions, this will be, frankly, the proudest day of my political life. If this resolution should fail, or if the members of the government party should block it, I and my party will fight again and again for health services, for access to health services and for health transportation for the people of this province; and I will do that as long as I have breath to speak and a position as a representative of a riding in this Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Port Arthur has some five minutes remaining.

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, before I start my remarks, I wonder if we could have the usual comments from the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes).

The Deputy Speaker: I do not think that is in order. The member for Cochrane North will carry on.

Mr. Piché: I was just trying to trap the honourable member.

I would like to stand in the Legislature today and support the resolution being debated. What I want to support is the major premise of the member for Port Arthur's resolution, namely, that medical travelling costs place a heavy burden on northern citizens who visit southern treatment and medical centres and that a solution to this problem must be found.

M. le President, c'est avec beaucoup de conviction que j'appuie le principe de la motion devant nous aujourd'hui. Le coût du transport pour des raisons médicales représente un fardeau énorme pour les gens du nord. Je crois que nous devons trouver une solution à ce grave problème. Ce problème ne touche pas seulement la population du nord mais également la population du sud de la province. Nous avons en place un système qui ne prend pas en considération les besoins uniques des communautés du nord de la province.

I believe that not only the other northerners who are elected members of this assembly but also all other members of the Legislature are just as concerned about northern issues as I am, and this is a very important issue. As an example, the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) has on numerous occasions discussed this important matter with me, and he has indicated his full support for the comments I am making today.

All members know that our present health system is not ideally suited to serve the unique needs of people in many northern communities. It has also been pointed out that health costs are rising dramatically. I want to add to this that in the north these factors are compounded by the problems of distance and isolation as well as because of the difficulty of attracting medical personnel.

Northern medical facilities suffer from the same monetary problems as in the rest of the province, only to a greater extent because they cannot take advantage of economies of scale; so the fact is that we just do not have the kind of services that are available in large urban centres.

The current policy concerning medical travel is that when a doctor decides a person needs care not available in his community, the doctor can arrange for the person's transfer to a centre with the proper facilities. The cost of transportation in the case of a hospital-to-hospital transfer is covered by the Ontario health insurance plan. As has already been pointed out, problems arise when a patient requires ongoing treatment. In such cases the costs of travel and accommodation can become very high.

How can such costs be reduced? The member for Port Arthur suggests that travel costs be subsidized under the Ontario health insurance plan. I am not sure this is the answer. However, I do think many other possibilities and arrangements exist.

4 p.m.

I want to remind this House that the cost of northern transportation has long been a concern of many of us. Members of this House will recall that I introduced a resolution last fall calling for a transportation commissioner for northern Ontario. On many other occasions I have spoken at length in the Legislature about improvements to both rail and air service linking the north to the southern part of our province.

I have suggested, for example, that closer co-operation between different levels of governments might lead to arrangements where unused seats or compartments in trains and even in scheduled aircraft might be set aside for medical travel purposes.

During my speech in the debate on the speech from the throne I described the advantages to the north of the introduction of the new Dash-8 aircraft and its possible use for medical transfers.

Did the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) hear that? I thank him.

I must also stress I contacted the Minister of Health about this very matter long before the printing of today's resolution. I wrote to the minister last fall, and again some weeks ago, pointing out that the complexities of public transportation in the north add to the problems associated with health care. I received a very sympathetic response in which the minister informed me that his ministry, in co-operation with the Ministry of Northern Affairs, is reviewing the transportation problems of patients who must regularly travel to the south for medical attention.

In describing the difficulties of travel and transportation in the north, I think one drawback is the lack of familiarity of most Ontarians with the north. Southerners often do not understand the huge distances involved in travelling in the north. For example, do the members realize we are sitting 50 miles closer to Halifax, Nova Scotia, than we are to Kenora? Incredible as it may sound, the distance from Sioux Lookout to Toronto is almost the same as that from Sioux Lookout to Vancouver.

Once people start to understand the great distances involved, they will also start to understand how expensive it can be to travel. For example, to fly from Cochrane North to Toronto costs more than $300.

In all fairness, with respect to medical travel, the Ontario government has accomplished a lot by working with other jurisdictions to try to make it easier to transport patients from various locations in the north to other larger centres in the north as well as to other parts of the province.

The air ambulance system has been of great assistance to northern travel. It has brought about quick attention to serious injuries and has saved many lives. For example, in 1982 the air ambulances transferred approximately 9,000 persons in need of medical attention. The air ambulance system includes four aircraft: a helicopter at Sudbury, a jet at Timmins, a helicopter at Thunder Bay and a King Air at Sioux Lookout.

This past winter, Wilson Memorial General Hospital in Marathon completed a heliport that will provide 24-hour service out of Thunder Bay. This is in addition to the 24 heliports already set up in northern Ontario which are all paid for by the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

There is still a lot to be done in the area of northern health care. On the other hand, those of us who live in the north are very much aware of the positive changes that have come about in recent years: the medical clinics, the nursing stations, the mobile dental units and the extended care facilities.

The whole thrust of the provincial government's policy has been to make the north self-supporting in its health care delivery. We have seen the development, as the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) tells me, of the cancer clinic in Thunder Bay. This is a facility second to none in the province. There are other units in Sudbury which are also notable achievements.

When we consider that the north contains 90 per cent of Ontario's land mass and only 10 per cent of its population, the progress in developing a viable northern health system has been remarkable. The members opposite should give this government credit where credit is due.

I have been pleased in past debates to see that opposition members have recognized the government's efforts and have paid tribute to government initiatives that have provided needed programs and facilities in the north.

One exciting development is that the north is being linked to southern facilities through the use of modern communications technology. For one, the Northern Ontario Ambulance Radio System, which became fully operational in 1982, joins six hospitals and seven ambulance services covering nearly 20,000 square miles. Furthermore, a $3-million telehealth program creates a two-way television hookup allowing doctors in the north to consult directly with specialists in larger centres.

Telemedicine for Ontario is another part of the telehealth program. Funded by the Ministry of Health, the project will be run jointly by five health science centres and the Toronto General Hospital. The telehealth program has been a major health care benefit to northern communities and is an extremely significant way of coping with the barrier of distance. That barrier can be bridged; nevertheless, it still exists. For a number of unfortunate northern citizens, it creates insurmountable obstacles to access to first-rate health care.

I fully support the policies of my government, but as a northerner it is also my responsibility to point out areas where improvements are needed.

Our system is good; we have taken many progressive steps. I believe it is possible for us to go one step further. I believe we must go one step further and solve the problem of medical transportation to those in need in order to achieve true equality of access to medical services by all citizens of this province. We can ask or expect no less.

J'appuie la politique du gouvernement en matière de santé. Cependant, en tant que Nord-ontarien, c'est également ma responsabilité de chercher des solutions aux problèmes auxquels font face les Nords-ontariens.

Nous avons à present un bon système en Ontario. Nous avons fait un progrès remarquable dans ce domaine. Je crois quand même que nous pouvons faire un pas en avant, même que nous devons faire un pas en avant.

Nous devons régler le problème du transport pour raisons médicales, afin d'assurer que l'égalité d'accès aux services médicaux existe pour tous.

The Deputy Speaker: I would remind the member his time has expired.

Mr. Piché: In closing, I would like to add, on ne peut se satisfaire de moins que ça.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution. I do so on my own behalf and on behalf of our critic the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps), who has about three different commitments at this time. Since she has been our Health critic for the last couple of years, she has spoken loud and long, and I hope very effectively, on behalf of the people of northern Ontario and, for that matter, of all Ontario. That may be the best starting point I can use, because it is important for people in this province to think of themselves as Ontarians and not as southern, eastern, northern or western Ontarians.

It is too bad the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) has to leave the chamber at this point, because he often reminds me there are not too many people speaking on behalf of the north. I want to remind him and others that we take every opportunity to say what we have to say on behalf of all Ontarians.

As evidence of that, I mention the Liberal health task force that travelled this province in the spring of 1982. In the report called On the Critical List, which we presented in the summer of 1982, one whole section was devoted to the needs of northern Ontario. In addition, I have been personally involved in the north. I joined the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché), who spoke a moment ago, and others on the Dash-8 trip. I also spent time travelling north with a couple of committees, the select committee on the Ombudsman being one of them, to make myself more aware of the needs of that part of the province.

Quite frankly, I find the regional aspect and the needs of the north which have been spoken of by the member for Cochrane North and the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) -- and surely the member for Lake Nipigon will have a chance to say a few words too -- are not really too different in many respects from the needs of people right across this province.

As far as health services are concerned, these needs include such things as active treatment beds, care for senior citizens, cancer treatment, psychiatric care for adults and young people, additional physiotherapy in certain parts of our province, francophone service in certain parts of our province and air ambulance service. There is a multitude, and one can find a universality in the needs because the need for active treatment beds in London, Ontario, exists as it does in Thunder Bay.

4:10 p.m.

I want to make it abundantly clear that my colleague our Health critic and I, as the critic for Northern Affairs, support this resolution wholeheartedly. The member for Port Arthur addressed one small aspect of the needs of the north when he referred to the cost of travel. There are many other aspects of treatment he could have dealt with as far as rationalizing finding enough doctors and/or dentists to accommodate the needs of certain parts of the province is concerned. We do not have to go much farther than Ignace, Ontario, to find a need in that area.

I am trying to hurry a lot of observations into the few minutes I have. Let me submit the need is such that my own family dentist, a gentleman I have known for years and whom I respect tremendously as a person and as a professional, Dr. Robert Wainright of London, Ontario, will be devoting part of his summer to dental treatment in the northwestern part of Ontario. One can find very obvious reasons for the need for that gentleman to travel. The obvious reason, of course, is that the community is simply not able to attract and hold a person of that calibre on a year-round basis, so it has to reach out and find assistance in other parts of Ontario.

We take the opportunity to speak on behalf of the citizens of northern Ontario as we do for those in all parts of Ontario. When we in the official opposition travelled throughout the north in 1982, we found many concerns to which the government should address itself. As far as the travel aspect is concerned, I know members of the New Democratic Party have made some public pronouncements on this and there is a recent press release in which specific names of people in northern Ontario are listed. Specific reference is made to costs and the medical problems the persons have.

I am not at liberty to use the names of people I spoke to in northern Ontario in order to give specifics in the House, but I can give examples not unlike those provided today by the New Democrats. Let me take one example. The member for Port Arthur and I am sure the member for Lake Nipigon will be aware of a situation in the Thunder Bay area a couple of years back when a woman in the community was diagnosed as having a problem that required the assistance of an endocrinologist. That community did not have such a specialist and, on the advice of her general practitioner, she sought assistance in Metropolitan Toronto.

Ultimately, this woman not only came from Thunder Bay to Metro but, further, had to be referred to London, Ontario, the community from which I come and one with many fine health services. She had to spend about two and a half months in southern Ontario over the course of the year. Unfortunately, that involved not a single trip, but a variety of trips. Her husband also had to travel and there were other upsets within the family. None of that travel was covered.

There are other aspects of this involved kind of treatment that add to the costs, aside from the upset within the family. Again, the member for Port Arthur could have addressed himself to the wide spectrum, but he is zeroing in on only one aspect of this, which is a very important aspect to the people of northern Ontario. They have as much right to service as we do here in this part of the province, and this right should be accommodated, given that we all accept the breadth and distance of travel and the geography of the north.

I think it is high time we did more than pay lip service to northern Ontario being big. We all know this, for heaven's sake. Why then do we not accept this fact? Why does the government not accept it? It may not be fair to be too critical of some of the members of the government side. I know the member for Cochrane North on occasion takes the odd poke at his own cabinet colleagues.

I would submit to the members opposite it is time to quit the jabbing and it is time to let loose with a couple of haymakers. Why do they not really insist that the Minister of Northern Affairs, the Minister of Health, and the Premier (Mr. Davis) quit paying lip service to the north and do something about the costs people have to face in so far as this topic of transportation costs is concerned?

In conclusion, it is a pleasure and an honour for me to be able to support this resolution, and I hope all members of the House agree with it.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, I will be supporting this resolution. The contents of it are something I have advocated on a number of occasions and for many years in this House. I have taken advantage of every opportunity to bring to the attention of the appropriate minister that it is unfair for people, wherever they live in Ontario, to be paying Ontario health insurance plan premiums at the same level as everybody else. People in the south take essential services for granted which are denied to the 800,000 people who live north of the French River and who still are charged the same OHIP premiums as those who take these essential services for granted.

It seems to me that every time we who live in the north bring in a resolution like this, for a variety of reasons, or advocate a different way or a better way of delivering services, there is a lot of sympathy over across the aisle; they say they really would like to be able to do something, but that is a fact of life in the north and there are tradeoffs one must make. If the weather is colder, that is what northern Ontario is all about; if distances are a lot greater, that is what northern Ontario is all about; if transportation costs are higher and if the transportation options are much fewer, that is a tradeoff people must make for choosing to live in the north.

I want to remind all members of this House that while we occupy five sixths of the geographic entity of Ontario, and while we have less than 10 per cent of the total population in this province, were it not for the people who chose to live up there to manage our resources, to keep our lines of transportation and communications open, Ontario as a whole would not be as successful from a social or an economic point of view as it is in large measure as a result of the people who choose to live in northern Ontario.

4:20 p.m.

Members have often heard those of us who come from the north say that if we can equalize the cost of beer or the cost of other alcoholic beverages that are under the control of a ministry and an agency of this government, why do we have such difficulty in coming to grips with levelling out the costs of something that is as important and essential as health care and the delivery of health services to all of the people in Ontario regardless of where they live.

My colleague the member for Port Arthur has given instances of specific cases where families, regardless of their ability to pay, have spent tens of thousands of dollars in going to get essential diagnostic services and medical treatment in the southern part of this province and in some cases in Winnipeg and even much farther afield.

I have had constituents who found it necessary to go to Montreal for services that were not available in the region and not available in Toronto. I have had others who had to go as far away as New York City. I have had many constituents who found it necessary to go and get treatment and diagnostic services at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, not because they chose to go there, but because it was the only place where these services were available. Yet each time we bring up a resolution like this, everybody is sympathetic and everybody empathizes with the plight in which those who live in the north find themselves, but nothing is ever done about it.

I was pleased to hear the member for Cochrane North speak in the way he did this afternoon, and he associated the member for Fort William with those comments. The Minister of Northern Affairs did not stay around. I am sure he had something equally important to do.

If this resolution is going to succeed, it is going to be because fair-minded people on all sides of this House, from all parties, see to it that it should when one is dealing with something as important and as essential as this, something that is not a privilege but a right for those who keep the health care system going, whether they do it through their OHIP premiums or through other subventions from the general taxation revenues in the province. It will only succeed if we have a sufficient number of fair-minded people who say, for something as basic, something as essential and something as important as health care, we can allocate sufficient resources to make it possible for people who need these essential services to get them wherever they have to travel.

I could bring out a specific example of a little seven-year-old girl from Terrace Bay who had a very serious throat condition that could not be dealt with in Thunder Bay. They had to bring her down to a specialist in Toronto, and they had to do it every two or three months just to save her life, not to make life more comfortable. It was a matter of life and death. She had to travel with her mother. I could give the precise figures of what it cost, but I will not.

I had another seven-year-old from Longlac who suffered from a similar ailment. I could give the precise figures of what it cost on a two- or three-month basis. I want to report, and I am happy to report, that as a result of those regular trips down there and getting that kind of treatment, for all intents and purposes those two little citizens have been cured. Although it is not necessary, they come down periodically for checkups just to make sure everything is all right.

Prior to that, it was a matter of life and death. In both cases, the father was temporarily unemployed and they had to find the resources to fly the mother and the little child down here. If not for the beneficence of some of their neighbours, it would not have been possible for them to do that.

In many instances when I am flying down from Thunder Bay to Toronto, I recognize children suffering from cystic fibrosis on the plane. All members of this House know just how debilitating an ailment like that can be and the facilities required to allow them to lead a normal life. With the kind of treatment they get down here and the mountains of pills they have to take, if those facilities were not available in Toronto, I do not know where they would have to go.

If members of this House have to have chapter and verse, all the documentation that makes is necessary to convince members this is a resolution worth supporting, I am sure I could give them access to my files, as could the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), the member for Fort William, the member for Port Arthur, the member for Cochrane North and the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). Anybody who lives north of the French River could recite chapter and verse about the literally millions of dollars many needy families have to spend to get the services available down here.

We think if this House and this government want to do something that is fair, just and equitable, they should support this resolution.

Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, the resolution introduced in the House today by the --

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, is it in order for me to move that the member for Fort William now be heard? He was on his feet before the other member.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) was the first one I saw. I did see another member down that way. I have a note that if time permits, and perhaps other members could keep it in mind, if a little time accumulates towards the end, then the member for Fort William is noted as wishing to speak.

Mr. Breaugh: They should not be trying to muzzle Mickey.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the other speaker to give way to me because I live in northwestern Ontario and I am very concerned about this bill. I mentioned to the member for Cochrane North in caucus that I would like to speak on this bill. I do not know why I am not allowed to speak. I am concerned.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to that, I was not being facetious. I saw the member get up. There is a provision in the standing orders that when two members stand up at the same time, a member may move that a certain member now be heard. I was not being facetious and I am not trying to be mischievous. I know the honourable member wants to speak and I just wanted to bring it to your attention, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: I am aware that the member for Fort William did wish to speak to the resolution. As a matter of fact, the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) was standing, for other reasons I am sure, and blocked the member's view. My eye did catch the member for Durham-York and I will have him speak. Perhaps other members could assist by keeping the remaining moments of this discussion short so there would be an opportunity for the member for Fort William to have a few words.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The reason I was in the way was that I got a note from Hansard that they wanted some comments about my up-and-coming resolution. The time of my standing was unfortunate because it did block the view of the Speaker. I wonder if we could have the unanimous consent of the House to allow the member for Fort William to speak.

The Deputy Speaker: The chair is totally in the hands of the members.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I was not aware of any discussion within caucus about the order of speakers. I simply volunteered as a speaker and my name was on the list. I am prepared to go along with whatever the House orders are.

The Deputy Speaker: How would it be if we recognized the member for Fort William, and if there are no objections, perhaps the member might keep his speech to five minutes and give an opportunity for five minutes to the member for Durham-York? That might accommodate everybody, and then we will go back in rotation to the opposition.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to get on the record, and I will be very pleased to give the member of my party the same opportunity I am getting.

This bill is very important as far as I am concerned. Being from the same area as the member for Lake Nipigon and the member for Port Arthur, I know exactly what problems exist in the Thunder Bay area. They involve the welfare and the health of the people in northern Ontario.

Many people are caught in a financial bind when it comes to going down to Toronto, Duluth or wherever it may be. Some people do not have the funds and they are therefore caught in a very precarious position when somebody is very ill and it is very difficult to get him moved. Sometimes people do not qualify for social services and they are in a very bad predicament.

When the medical services are not available in Thunder Bay, I do not think these people should be penalized in that respect. If one cannot get it in Thunder Bay, OHIP should provide for adequate medical attention anywhere it will suffice.

I have spoken to many people regarding this motion and I support it wholeheartedly. I honestly think it should be a right for the people in northern Ontario, not a privilege.

The Deputy Speaker: In rotation we are going to the member for Essex North, mindful that we are trying to preserve time in our rotation for the member for Durham-York.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I apologize that the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) cannot be here today. I know he wanted to speak on this.

As a resident of Essex county, where we are quite fortunate in having access to many health services, and having worked in a medical co-operative association for many years, I have had the experience of people in our area who have to go 100 miles to London to obtain services. Mind you, it is not that far, considering the mileage one has to drive in the north to obtain services, but even travelling 100 miles and getting facilities to stay there while one has loved ones in the hospital is of great concern to me. I saw it personally when I was involved in the medical co-op before OHIP took over. I always thought there should be some method whereby things could be evened up.

I suppose it is similar to what we have in our constituency offices now. If somebody lives 10 miles from the constituency office, he can call toll free, whereas if somebody lives 100 miles, or in our own case perhaps 45 or 50 miles away, it is hardly fair that he should have to pay for a long-distance call just to speak to his representative.

We have taken care of that through our constituency office funds. I myself have a very large riding and put that Zenith calling facility in on my own line a number of years ago because I felt it was only fair that if somebody had access to me toll free, it should also be available to people 100 or 50 miles away.

In effect, we are talking about the same thing here with regard to medical coverage. We also have our Ronald McDonald House where people can stay. I have a granddaughter who has had to come to Toronto for 14 years now on an average of once a year and sometimes stay in the hospital for two or three weeks. I often think how difficult this would be for someone who did not have facilities. We were so fortunate to be able to stay either at my own place or with some relative when I did not have an apartment at that time and stayed in a hotel.

But it is a very trying thing and very expensive, so I think it is our responsibility that health care facilities be made available and equalized throughout Ontario. I think it is very important and I want to be very supportive of this resolution today. I have relatives and in-laws who live up in Timmins and in different parts of northern Ontario and I know very well what they have gone through in the past. So I want to be on record as being fully supportive of this resolution.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would be glad to cede the time we have left to the member for Durham-York, provided I could have four or five minutes to wrap up the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: We will keep track of that.

Mr. Stevenson: Do I have 10 minutes? What time is left?

The Deputy Speaker: Three minutes.

Mr. Stevenson: I have three minutes. That is terrific.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on the motion. I have no argument with the points that have been made, particularly by the representatives from the north regarding their desire for equal access to quality health care for any resident located anywhere in the province.

My question comes from the situation of whether this is the most efficient or most economical way to try to resolve the problem of quality health care in the north. Any one of us can sympathize and empathize with the emotional stress and financial worries of trying to cope with a major illness in a family, particularly when on top of that are placed the concerns and anxieties of having to travel long distances to get the illness looked after. It can cause major trauma, not only for the person who is ill, but also for the family that must deal with that person and try to soothe that person in whatever manner it can.

Some of my colleagues, particularly the member for Cochrane North, have reviewed a number of the positive steps that have been taken in medicine in the north. I want to mention a few of them quickly. The underserviced area program that started in 1969 has had a major impact and has won international recognition in getting physicians and dentists into more remote areas.

There have been many programs to try to get specialists into the areas. The province funds two university programs to assist in getting professionals to northern Ontario. The Ministry of Northern Affairs has a number of programs, a few of which have been mentioned, particularly in the telecommunications area.

I waited until after two o'clock to come here because I was trying to get some estimate from the Ministry of Health on the costs of this program. They are very preliminary figures. As I say, I almost did not get them because they were so late in coming. In 1982-83, there were 50,000 people in the province who had to travel outside their own regions of the province to get some type of health care. Many of them would have travelled in excess of 200 miles. The estimate of the Ministry of Health that I received expects this program would increase to in the order of $50 million a year.

There are concerns from people in the north, particularly health care professionals, that the 200-mile limit would gradually be reduced to lower numbers because of political pressure. They feel that more and more people would want access to the program, and in the long run that would put a financial burden on medical funding and might slow down access to gains in quality health care in the north.

I support putting more of our money into continuing the development of health care in the north and not putting as much money into transportation. For that reason, as a matter of the means of getting quality health care into the north, I am going to oppose this resolution.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak directly to the member for Durham-York. I plead with him to reverse his vote. I plead with him with every sense that I have, not merely for northerners but for other people in this province. The most efficient way to spend health care dollars is to provide transportation for those medically necessary services.

We know in the north that we will never have the full facilities of a Princess Margaret Hospital, although we do have fine cancer facilities in northern Ontario. We know we will never have the full facilities of a Hospital for Sick Children in the north, although we do have good paediatric services in many of our hospitals.

We are saying: "Do not let the people of northern Ontario, who are suffering these health problems, suffer them now. Let us not wait for 50 or 100 years when they are all dead to provide those services in the north. Let us take some action now."

Even if it costs $50 million, that is less than one per cent of the total health care budget. That is one lousy per cent for equality, one lousy per cent for justice, one lousy per cent for health care for our children, for our elderly and for our middle-aged. Is it too much to ask for equality of health care in this great province? I say it is not.

I have deliberately kept this resolution limited. There are many other health priorities; I know that. There are many other things in northern Ontario we think we deserve and would love to have in health care, transportation, education and social services, but I say nothing is more important than life, nothing is more important than health.

I plead with all members not to vote on parochial or partisan lines, but to vote on the lines of humanity and for the life of human beings, to vote for good health for our kids. We ask that as a right; we do not ask that as a privilege.

I do not consider this to be subsidy for northerners or for anybody in the outreaches of this province. We pay the same taxes. The government rightly gives grants for the specialist services at Sick Kids' Hospital. We help to pay for those grants. Our kids deserve access to those services.

The question is a very simple one. In this Legislature, do we really believe in the principle of equality? Do we believe people should not die if they lack the money to come to Toronto for health care? Do we believe people should suffer prolonged bouts of illness that could be cured or alleviated because they or their parents do not have $20,000 a year, in some cases, to pay for the transportation? Do we believe health care is a right for all the people of the entire province?

Northern Ontario is so huge in geographic area that one of the reasons I put in the 200-mile limit was to weed out travel that could be accomplished within a day. There are places in northern Ontario, in the riding of the member for Lake Nipigon or the member for Kenora, where people have to travel 200 miles within the area to get to a hospital, say in Thunder Bay. That should be covered.

I plead with every member of this Legislature, with all that is decent and humane and with all that says to us that health is a right and not a privilege, to vote unanimously for this resolution. Members of the government party should not let their cabinet veto it or dictate to them how they should vote on this very urgent matter.

The Deputy Speaker: I thank all members for their remarks in the debate, and for the courtesy of the member for Fort William. Time has expired.

EMPLOYEE SECURITY IN RETAIL BUSINESSES

Mr. Cureatz, seconded by Mr. Kennedy, moved resolution 17:

That in the opinion of this House, in order to give local municipalities power to pass bylaws related to employee security in retail businesses, the government should amend the Municipal Act to allow municipalities to pass bylaws to require retail businesses that are open to the public between 10 o'clock in the afternoon of any day and five o'clock in the forenoon of the following day to install such security devices as may be set out in the bylaw.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have 20 minutes. I would like to try to reserve some time at the conclusion of the debate. It behooves me to mention that I would like to extend my appreciation to you and to the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy), who worked along with me in the preparation of this ballot item.

I represent a good portion of the city of Oshawa, and in my riding of Durham East I am very happy to say we have not had the terrible experiences that have taken place in Mississauga. Notwithstanding that, I think we have to think ahead and look at what has happened in the Mississauga area. We should be thinking in terms of a debate such as we are having today in the assembly, to have comments from all members of the House and see what they think about this proposed resolution. If we do have support from the members of the assembly, we can proceed from that conclusion.

It was brought to my attention earlier by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), who is present, that members might be disappointed the resolution was not in the form of a bill. I acknowledge this fact. The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) also brought it to my attention. I had contemplated formulating my proposal in the form of a bill, but I wanted to allow all members to have some say and input first and to allow the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to evaluate the possible success of the resolution.

I do not personally have the extensive staff some of the ministerial people have to develop further --

Mr. Breaugh: The legislative counsel will do it for nothing.

Mr. Cureatz: Would they? I am thinking in terms of investigative work, speaking to the various stores that are affected, such as 7-Eleven and Mac's, and the technical problems that might arise in terms of video cameras and still cameras; the kind of detailed work that is not available to private members such as myself and the member for Oshawa.

As a result, I decided to proceed with a resolution. In that light, I do have some specific comments I want to make. I want to ensure they get on the record, so I will continue with those comments and hope to have some time left at the conclusion of the debate.

There has been a strong reaction on the part of the public, the media and the police to recent acts of violence associated with convenience store robberies. An 18-year-old was killed while on duty at a Mac's Milk store, just a few miles from the Becker store where another 18-year-old was left paralysed by a bullet wound. The outrage expressed at these cases in Mississauga is, I feel, appropriate. It has done much to bring the issue of the security of employees in small retail operations to the forefront in Ontario.

The terrible consequences of violent crimes are especially vivid when they touch our own communities. Nevertheless, the problem of violent crime is not limited to one neighbourhood or one municipality in the province.

4:50 p.m.

As the representative of the riding of Durham East, a riding that has its share of convenience stores, I have a special interest in this issue. Today I am introducing for the consideration of the members a resolution which will, if adopted, assist our efforts to ensure the safety of employees in small retail establishments. I ask that this House, by supporting the resolution, give municipalities the right to enact bylaws requiring additional security measures in convenience stores.

As responsible members of society, we are obligated to do our best to curb the apparent increase in violent crime around us. Criminal justice falls within the federal jurisdiction. I understand there is a debate going on at present with regard to amendments to the Criminal Code which address the violent offender. Having said this, I must also express my conviction that the problem of violence in our society is deserving of our action on many fronts.

I have introduced this resolution with the hope of accomplishing two things. First, I hope the debate on this resolution will provide a welcome opportunity for members to bring forward their thoughts and concerns on this issue. Recent events in Mississauga have brought with them a sense of urgency about establishing means to prevent similar tragedies. I do not want this sense of urgency to fade when our news media turn their attention elsewhere.

Second, and perhaps more important, it is my hope that this resolution will encourage concrete action to create a safer, more secure environment for employees of convenience stores and consequently reduce the likelihood that these stores will continue to be a target for violent robberies.

A study has been conducted by the Peel Regional Police, examining 1983 data on actual robbery occurrences in the area. The analysis compared convenience store robberies to robberies in general and several significant findings have emerged. I would like to review these findings, as they shed considerable light on the best means to approach worker safety in small retail establishments.

The number of robberies taking place between 10 p.m. and midnight is significantly higher in convenience store robberies than in the general category. Weapons are carried by culprits in a greater percentage of the incidents. Convenience store robbers are three times more likely to show up armed than thieves in general.

While firearms were involved about the same number of times, gunshot wounds were more than three times higher. Other offensive weapons, such as knives or blunt instruments, were far more likely to be used in convenience store robberies. Clearly, thieves are not afraid to use these weapons.

In convenience store robberies, recourse to violence always involved a weapon. Fully 20 per cent of convenience store robberies involved physical force with a weapon. The culprits in all cases were male, usually in their teens or early 20s. The victims tended to be female and alone when the robberies occurred. Employees were alone in almost 70 per cent of robbery cases involving convenience stores.

As revealing as these findings are, perhaps the most startling figures concern the usual take in a convenience store robbery. The amount of money is smaller than robberies in general. In almost half the cases, the amount involved was less than $100 and none involved more than $1,000.

I think all members are aware that early store closings have been strongly voiced in some quarters as a solution to convenience store robberies. We often hear debate about how we can make convenience stores safe, framed solely in terms of hours of operation. In my mind, a ban on all-night stores is not the only strategy available to us by any means.

There are two recommendations contained in the Peel study, made on the basis of identified trends that are particularly relevant. These deal with time and staffing. The report stresses the assurance of the proper level of safety for workers, and I would like to take a moment to examine the reasons for this.

While more than half of the convenience store robberies take place between 4 p.m. and midnight, only 17 per cent occur between midnight and 6 a.m. Of the more than 200 milk store robberies in Metro Toronto since 1981 police could point to only three that happened between midnight and 6 a.m. Police say the most popular time for holdups is when stores are closing; in many cases, around 11 p.m.

The evidence suggests early store closings will not limit the bulk of this criminal activity. The report concludes early store closings would not be effective as a deterrent since the culprits would just show up earlier.

Closing stores earlier could have the effect of simply moving back the whole schedule of crime. This retreating stance could be taken to the extreme. To safeguard the stores completely, why not close them altogether? Clearly, this is not a solution worth considering.

I am pleased the member for Oshawa is here, because he was probably a member of the Oshawa city council at the time of the passing of bylaw 154-75, which stated:

"All retail food stores in the city of Oshawa are required to be closed on each day of the week, Monday to Friday both, inclusive, at the hour of 12 o'clock in the afternoon of each day and shall remain closed until the hour of five o'clock in the forenoon of the next following day throughout the year." The city of Oshawa moved on this matter a number of years ago.

By the same token, from my investigation of municipalities across my own region of Durham outside the city of Oshawa, the municipalities of Newcastle, Ajax, Pickering, Whitby and Scugog have no such specific bylaw in relation to having convenience stores close during the hours roughly between midnight and five o'clock in the morning.

I would like to point out that this idea of closing stores between those hours has been debated in the Metropolitan Toronto area. I bring to the members' attention an article in the Globe and Mail of some three weeks ago, entitled, "Alternatives Seen to Enforced Closing of Overnight Stores." It said:

"Municipal politicians across Metro Toronto appear convinced there are better ways to curb crimes in 24-hour convenience stores than by ordering the stores to stay closed overnight.

"A committee of Etobicoke elected officials yesterday voted not to proceed with imposing a bylaw to force a midnight-to-dawn closing on convenience stores, and Etobicoke council is likely to endorse the move next week."

I think the move is not to have stores closed between the hours of midnight and five o'clock in the morning. In relation to this, I had the opportunity of contacting the police force in the region of Durham. I know the member for Oshawa will appreciate what I am about to say. When he was critic for the Solicitor General, from time to time I saw him speaking to Chief Jenkins. I am sure he was lobbying to try to find out the latest angle in terms of the Solicitor General's offices.

Notwithstanding that, it has been brought to my attention that in 1982 in the region of Durham there were 134 robberies, with 26 in convenience stores. In 1983, there were 100 robberies, with 18 in convenience stores. Interestingly enough, 80 per cent of all robberies occurred between 10 o'clock and 10:30 p.m.

The point is that closing down the stores in the late evening and early morning is not the route we should consider going.

Because robberies are generally carried out against female clerks working alone, the Peel study strongly recommends that at least two employees be on duty during the late night and early morning hours. The study also suggests that a minimum of two staff be on hand when the manager or store owner is not present or when a young part-time person is working. Young people, the report suggests, should never be employed during night-time hours and never alone.

I bring that comment to the attention of the House. I am not convinced that having two people in a store is the way to go. We run into some practical problems right away. What happens if one person cannot show up? Does that mean the store automatically closes? Does the person in the store then get paid for the hours he or she might have worked, but did not work because the other person did not show up?

While there are practical difficulties with requiring that at least two people work in each late-night store, there is also the consideration that having two people behind the counter does not necessarily deter thieves.

I also feel the report contains a great deal of common sense in its comments on the importance of staff education and training, particularly regarding its recommendation that young people never be left to work alone during a night shift at a small retail operation.

For the few minutes I have left, let us look at the record of our milk stores in the province. Mac's Milk has 450 stores in the province and 700 across Canada; 500 of these are open for 24 hours. Robberies are down 23 per cent this year at Mac's Milk stores. It is worth pointing out that the young victim was the first homicide in 22 years of operation.

I have some other statistics on Becker's operation, but because of the time I will not quote them.

5 p.m.

There is a real need for stores with late-night hours. Widespread changes in our work patterns have meant that the average suburban community could have between 30 and 40 per cent of its wage earners working shifts. The old idea of a job as a nine-to-five affair no longer holds. Other areas of our lives, such as shopping patterns, also have to adjust.

We should bear in mind that we are not witnessing an epidemic of violent robberies of convenience stores. While incidents of violent crimes are on the increase -- for example, bank robberies in Metro Toronto were up 58 per cent between 1982 and 1983 -- to treat the recent events in Mississauga as epidemic would be rash.

However, at the same time, we must be careful not to underestimate what is a serious social issue. Those who work in small retail establishments are in a vulnerable position and in my view that is not open to debate.

The issue of employee security against criminal activities is a critical one. The Employment Standards Act's primary purpose is to prevent the exploitation of workers, but it does not specifically concern safety. The Occupational Health and Safety Act deals with safety of workers, but is restricted to hazards created by the work places themselves.

Turning to other jurisdictions, we find no province, with the exception of Alberta, has legislation specifically aimed at employee security. Alberta prohibits employees under 18 years of age from working alone. This legislation apparently came about in response to the deaths of four minor employees in eight years.

I believe the resolution I have introduced will provide the appropriate instrument to combat the problem of violent robberies of convenience stores. My own conviction is that preventive security is the prudent route to take. In the prevailing situation, additional security measures for employees of late-night stores are clearly needed.

There is a wide range of highly sophisticated technology which can substantially reduce the risk to which employees in small retail operations are exposed. These security measures are readily available and are not beyond the means of retail operators. There is much that can be done to create a safe and secure working environment for employees in terms of store location, layout and appropriate advertising displays. The education and training of staff is also a responsibility that store owners should take seriously. With an adequate safety system in place, convenience stores will lose their attractiveness as targets of violent criminal activity.

I would like to limit my remarks to a more general issue for the moment. It seems that everywhere one turns these days there is evidence our society is experiencing an increase in violent crime. Why so much crime? Some social trends, such as weakening of family ties, increases in drug and alcohol abuse and high rates of youth unemployment may have an effect on our crime rate. The reasons for crime and its increase are the subject of much debate, and it is unlikely this debate will be finally resolved.

What we can be sure of is that we are seeing a change in our attitude towards violent crime. The public is becoming more aware of domestic violence issues and the destructive consequences of drinking and driving. As well, individuals are becoming more actively involved in the prevention of crime; that is, keeping our homes and businesses safe and secure.

We can see the situation of late-night store employees in our province deserves our positive attention. I have introduced this resolution with the hope of stimulating discussion and interest among my colleagues. We have a grave responsibility to the people of Ontario to prevent the repetition in our own communities of the tragedies that have occurred in Mississauga.

I would like to reserve the three minutes I have remaining for the conclusion of my resolution.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the discussion of this resolution put forward by the member for Durham East, and I commend him on putting it forward. I only hope he has the support of his own colleagues. Looking at the number of bills or resolutions his colleagues have blocked in the last few weeks, or the ones they have opposed, it is quite a negative record. I just hope a few more people on his side will support him in this very worthwhile resolution.

Mr. Kerrio: They do not block blue bills.

Mr. Epp: Oh, just the other colours.

Irrespective of that, I do think this very important and serious subject needs to be discussed by the members of this Legislature. After the paralysis suffered by one of the milk store clerks and the deaths, or whatever the case might be, it is a subject that needs to be attacked, particularly by the office of the Solicitor General and by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. They have the enforcement problem. They have the problem of setting forth and enforcing the regulations under which the stores stay open in Ontario.

Some of the mayors in Metropolitan Toronto have referred to the measures Mississauga was trying to take in order to curb milk store hours as "a knee-jerk reaction." I know Mr. Godfrey referred to the action Mississauga took as "a knee-jerk reaction." Mr. Lastman indicated he did not think closing milk stores for a period of hours during the night was the proper approach to take.

I think I would agree with both of those gentlemen. I do not think we should have to close the stores nor should we overreact to this matter. Nevertheless, I think action has to be taken. The suggestion of the member for Durham East that security in stores should be tightened up and made more elaborate is one way to go.

One of the problems we have had in the past is that milk stores try to get the cheapest help they can and that means the youngest help they can. There are people who are 16, 17 or 18 years of age working in these stores, trying to earn a few extra dollars to pay their expenses. They often come from poor families where they need every cent they can get to buy clothes, school supplies or whatever the case might be. The robbers who take advantage of them know this. They feel the immaturity of the clerks will help them to get away with it.

The data comparing the robberies of milk stores and banks in 1983 show there were about 101 milk store holdups and 249 bank holdups. The average take in milk stores was $310 compared to $1,200 in banks. These are interesting comparisons. In the case of a lone thief as opposed to more than one person, there was a lone thief in 85 per cent of milk store robberies compared with 95 percent in banks. That is fairly comparable. In milk store holdups, 95 percent of the robbers were under 25 while 75 per cent were under 25 in bank holdups. There was a weapon involved in 90 per cent of milk store holdups and only 38 per cent of bank holdups. Injuries occurred in under five per cent of milk store holdups and there were none in banks.

Regarding cases solved, and I think this is important, 25 per cent of milk store robberies were solved compared with 52 per cent of bank holdups. I do not think there was less evidence when milk stores were robbed. They should not be treated as less serious crimes. I do not think the people who were robbing milk stores were more sophisticated, yet only 25 per cent of milk store robberies were solved as opposed to 52 per cent in banks.

Perhaps part of the problem is the fact that law enforcement agencies have not taken milk store robberies as seriously as bank robberies, because of the amount of money involved or for other reasons, and have not tried to enforce the law as far as those areas are concerned.

In looking at milk stores, there is one other point I would like to raise. It has to do with the things convenience stores can do in order to prevent robberies. Some stores such as Mac's and 7-Eleven have gone into quite a bit of research. They have consulted the convicts who committed the crimes to find out what can be done to prevent crimes.

5:10 p.m.

In looking at some of the research that has been done, both 7-Eleven and Mac's have followed certain guidelines. They have their clerks greet all customers with pleasantries and so forth -- in other words, disarming them psychologically -- and they try to remain anonymous. They keep signs to a minimum. The cash register is always in plain view from inside and outside the store. They put up height markers so that store staff can gauge the height of any robbers. It helps police and it is also a psychological deterrent.

Above all else, they do not keep much cash in the till. It is not worth a robber's time to hold up a store. Mac's and 7-Eleven set up safes in stores so that staff can make a deposit whenever there is more than a small amount of cash available. The safes are also cash dispensaries and staff can open them. When they do open them there is a time delay.

If there is any delay when robbers try to commit a robbery in a store and if they cannot get the money as quickly as they think they should be able to -- often within about 90 seconds; if they plan on robbing a store that is about the average -- it is found they will leave without the cash rather than wait around and run the risk that someone may come into the store.

I want to commend the member for Durham East for putting this forth. I think security devices are the way to go rather than having an extra clerk in the store, because that is a very expensive proposition and I am not sure it is the answer. Having electronic devices connected to the police station or some other law enforcement agency, such as security agencies, would be one way of at least discouraging robberies from taking place.

Certainly, in-house cameras that take pictures of the thief have proved to be very valuable for banks and would also prove valuable in the stores.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, we all share a sense of shock when we read about the tragic deaths or the maiming of young employees who are working in these stores. They are working solo and often late at night. We all agree there must be some method of preventing those tragedies.

We should recognize that in most cases the stores that operate at late hours or overnight are staffed by a single young teenager, mainly because the proprietors are not willing to be there at that hour and also because they can get the teenagers below the regular minimum wage for employees over 18. Therefore, if we continue to operate these kinds of stores after 10 o'clock at night, we will be putting this group of young people at very serious risk. We must see how we can protect them against that risk.

The member for Durham-East has suggested one possible way and, in the absence of any other way, I would support the installation of security devices. They are certainly better than nothing and they should be required wherever a store is operated by a single person at any time.

He dismisses too quickly the idea of limiting hours, however. If stores were closed by a provincial law that would require all stores in every municipality except for an emergency drug store to operate after hours, it would reduce the risk considerably. Leaving it to the municipalities to adopt local-option store closing bylaws does not result in that kind of restriction on operating during the very hazardous hours. We all know there are a number of conflicting interests when it comes to limiting store hours.

Under the Municipal Act, local governments do have the power to limit store hours between 6 p.m. and 5 a.m., but how many of them do it? Perhaps they do it for supermarkets to see there are only two night openings, or that there is a limited number of night openings. There is general agreement among the supermarkets that they rather like that kind of limitation. As far as all the other stores go, very few municipalities exercise their option to limit hours.

The reason is, as we know, there are three groups concerned. There are the retailers who want the right to operate at any time they choose. Their bottom line is, does it make money? There are the consumers who want convenience, but only a small minority could not have its needs served at other times. Then there are the employees, and I think we have to look at the quality of life for them. That is a very strong argument for limiting store hours. I do not think it is much of a quality of life to say that teenagers have the right to work between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. at great risk to their lives.

I think that was in the mind of the government when it brought in the Retail Business Holidays Act. It was the quality of life regarding Sunday openings and having one family day when most businesses were closed that was the countervailing argument for a compromise bill that allowed certain stores to be opened on Sundays but said the bulk of them, including supermarkets of more than 2,400 square feet, were to be closed.

We have to look at this bill in the light of its effect on existing variety stores. There are basically two kinds of variety stores: the ones operated by independents, by mom-and-pop families who share the operation of the store, and the ones operated by chains. This bill would favour the chains, which could afford to put in security devices, but the small mom-and-pop stores would not be able to add this extra cost, which would probably eliminate their profit. As a result, they would go under.

They are already threatened with going under by all the illegal Sunday openings that are going on in this province. I have been in touch with the Ontario Korean Businessmen's Association and a number of stores in my riding operated by immigrant people, who, by operating convenience stores, are trying their best to maintain a business and not go on welfare. Both this kind of legislation and more Sunday openings would destroy their business. The whole idea of the Retail Business Holidays Act was that we keep convenience stores because we all benefit by them.

We have to took at that aspect. There would have to be, it seems to me, some method of equalizing the costs if they are going to put in security devices. Perhaps it could be made a condition of employment under the Employment Standards Act, but with some assistance to the convenience stores to make sure they are able to afford any security devices that are needed.

I would prefer to see substituted for this bill a uniform, province-wide, store-closing bylaw that would keep all those stores closed, any stores except emergency stores or emergency gas stations, between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. That is the only fair way to do it. Otherwise, if this resolution is passed, the government is putting more unfair competition on the mom-and-pop stores and they will ultimately go out of business. I think we have to face up to that. I hope the member, if his motion passes, will bring in amendments when we get to the committee stage to provide some protection for those stores.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to share some thoughts on the resolution before us this afternoon. We in Mississauga were deeply touched by the very sad recent events, where we have had the deplorable acts of one young woman left paralysed, as members would know, and in another situation a young man of great promise snuffed out so very early in his life.

The question has been raised by those members from Mississauga, and certainly by our community, of whether or not this matter could be addressed by this Legislature and recommendations be made for the improvement of security, particularly in these convenience stores during the late hours, in order to bring the proper kind of protection to bear and to do right by the young people who are so clearly at risk in the late hours in these stores, where criminal acts can cause them to be prey to the types who brought about the two situations we had so sadly in our community.

I would share with members that in our municipality we did see a voluntary closing of the stores. Those of us who were involved with the issue did have an opportunity to see the effect on the community and to sample the opinions of people within the community at large.

Unlike the previous speaker, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), I really do not see uniform bylaws as the answer, with all due respect, across the whole of the province. As this resolution proposes, in those areas where there is need for the stores, it should be for the operators to make the argument for their need. Failing their ability to make this argument, when they are totally unnecessary and yet bring this kind of risk to the community and to the young people who work in these stores, then certainly the local municipalities should be the ones best able to identify whether their community needs those conveniences in those hours. If they do need them, then those stores would have the minimum requirements of safety for those young people who work there and are otherwise at risk.

It is fine for Mr. Lastman and others to speak for their communities and disagree with that opinion. To my mind, this is what autonomy, responsibility and accountability to one's electorate are all about. In our municipality there are very strong feelings, certainly in the case of the most recent death, that we have to question the necessity of this store to be open for convenience, because just one short block north of it there is another very similar store. When you study how convenient the store actually was and how much was sold from it, as we did, you really have to doubt whether all of the hazard this young person underwent was really at all necessary.

Since this last tragedy, we in Mississauga have had a study by community leaders, the convenience store operators and the chains as well as the so-called mom and pop people. There has been a debate and there has been disagreement; yet one conviction seems to be shared by all, namely, that where the minimum requirements of safety that have been demonstrated by the police in their input can be implemented in these stores where it is found necessary that they be open in these so-called convenient hours, nobody seems to want to deny those young people who are otherwise at risk those basic needs.

In fact, our Peel Regional Police, who worked with the Ontario Provincial Police and others as we had this review, clearly set out basic requirements they felt from their study needed to be implemented. Of course, this will be something for the municipalities under this resolution today to look at for their particular cases.

As they indicate, such things as locating an area where pedestrian and vehicle traffic has a clear line of vision into the store just make common sense, I would think, to anybody who has looked at the issue. Avoiding sites at the rear of plazas is also something that seems to make common sense. As to the layout of counters and where cash registers are located and such things as having cameras and video equipment, we know from other applications of these units that they are preventive. They know that people otherwise case these stores, and these act as a preventive measure. Jewellery stores and others have found them to be highly effective.

Let us look at some of the recommendations. There are recommendations in there related to staffing which I would ask members to consider. There is strong opinion in my community that, where it is proposed there be late evening or night-time hours, two staff be present when the manager or the owner is not in the store, or if youths are employed part-time. This is a very clear recommendation made by the Peel Regional Police in its report and by others who have looked at it.

During the inquiry in my community, I had a considerable number of disagreements with certain operators, although on the whole I saw co-operation and a sincere desire to seek out the types of safety measures that could be implemented.

However, one of the chains said it was really opposed to all of these safety measures, be it protection for the operator in the form of some kind of shield which might come into place at a certain hour or the cameras or some of the other things that were suggested. It tried to kid the inquiry that this only provoked the criminal mind, as it were, and would put the operator more at risk.

I do not think those of us who sat through the inquiry necessarily agreed with some of those arguments. We have had some lively debates in our community about what effective measures could be implemented by any individual community. What might be appropriate in downtown Toronto and what may be needed as a convenience may not be needed in the outskirts of Mississauga where there is access to expressways. It might be entirely different for a very remote store.

I know I have paid some attention to how convenient the stores are in the late hours. I have to think that anything we have not bought by 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. really cannot be terribly necessary, given that we do have drug stores and service stations so that we are not left without emergency outlets for certain things. We have hospital dispensaries and other things within our community.

It causes me to think that some of these conveniences are more in the nature of one chain trying to say to the other that it is more convenient. This is the reason for their 24-hour approach. That is certainly the case in our community. Therefore, this resolution proposes enabling legislation so an individual municipality with its own accountability can make appropriate decisions for its community.

The mover of the resolution mentioned that a considerable amount of this debate has to do with just plain law and order in our communities. He notes how the federal government is looking at a review of the Criminal Code and some of our basic law and order legislation, such as Bill C-19. The federal Minister of Justice is looking at a more balanced system of criminal justice. We all have thoughts about that which derive considerably from the tragedy of this last young life that was lost in Mississauga.

I would just urge all members to support the resolution. I, too, would have liked to have seen a bill and have had a draft of it. However, I was anxious to hear the debate and to have a chance to persuade the members to consider that, basically, we are talking about young people who at unusual hours are very much at risk.

There are many things that can be done by the operators to give them the basic security to which they are entitled. This can be considered in the kind of bill this resolution proposes and which some of us are clearly anxious to see come forward to this Legislature. I believe we have a responsibility and that local autonomy, rather than province-wide bylaws, is the correct route to go.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I look forward to hearing other members' comments.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution. In the first instance, as I consider this serious problem, any resolution that is going to be helpful, even in the short term, is to be welcomed. This resolution takes on the form of enabling legislation that would allow municipalities to address themselves to the installation of security devices. I am certainty in favour of enabling municipalities to put in legislation or bylaws that would help, but that is only a short-term measure. My real concern about this obvious crime involvement is deeper, and I think it will take much more determination to resolve it.

The average citizen was told that the capital punishment issue was going to be resolved in such a way that criminals who caused death were put away, so there was no chance of them getting back into society and repeating that kind of damage. Such was not the case. It is abhorrent to me that some of the cruel involvements we have seen across this nation, and more particularly in Ontario, were crimes for which one would think the criminals should be put away with very little chance of any kind of parole. Yet we saw very recently where someone convicted of killing four women was out on the street with a credit card and having lunch with someone who was supposed to protect the citizens from such an event.

I accepted that. I am certainly not the kind of vindictive person who feels we have to take a life, but a promise was made. Yet, as some of these horror stories unfold before us, we see a case where a person gravely harmed someone else and, before the victim can recover a very limited function, the criminal is out on the street. I have a great feeling about our police officers when they respond to the acts I am suggesting many citizens commit.

In the September 25, 1983, Toronto Star there is a headline, "Police Fear Violent, Armed Robberies on Increase." The article says, "A teenaged girl is paralysed by a gunman's bullet, a variety store owner is recovering after his head was sliced open by a machete -- just two of the latest victims of what police fear is a growing wave of violent robberies." Here is the point I am trying to make: "'Light sentences, quick bail, easy parole -- what have they got to lose? There doesn't seem to be a deterrent,' says Metro Police Staff Superintendent Jack Webster."

I think that is very prevalent in many crimes. These that unfold before us in such huge numbers certainly should not make us accept that we have lost the battle in our society to protect small store owners and small entrepreneurs. It is not very easy to put any kind of real security into all small stores, some of which are borderline operations. When I talk about real security, I am talking about something that would have the clerks who are up very late protected in such a way that they could not be reached. When they might have to move about the store, that is practically impossible with people who may have come in with the single idea of holding them up.

I do not know if we might be able to ask some small operators to have two people on duty. In many instances the borderline operations do not carry a second person on staff. Many of the large stores that have night clerks stocking shelves, etc., can stay open with hardly any increase at all in staff except for a few cashiers. The small entrepreneur does not have that advantage.

I hope if this resolution passes and those kinds of surveillance tools are put into place, such as cameras, that there is widely accepted research done in training clerks as to how to conduct themselves in the circumstance of a robbery. They are going to accept the fact that they should protect themselves at all costs, that they should hand over the moneys, which is an accepted practice, and be in the position least likely to cause themselves bodily harm.

Having done all those things, having done everything we could possibly do for the small entrepreneur -- and it has to be province-wide -- some of the responsibility has to be taken here to give those people the research capability they would not necessarily have.

I would like to reinforce the position that relates to a deterrent. We must get into that with all crime. There must be a way to tell the person who is inclined to participate in criminal activities that the door is not going to swing open again for him quite so easily and he is going to have to pay the price. I mean that in a way that would uplift the dignity of the person who has been hurt. We have not been doing a good job in relation to the people who suffer the indignities, harm and sometimes lifelong results of crime, while the criminal has been let out.

When I talk about retribution, I cannot believe we could still have a society where some major crimes are committed and the person can hang on to his ill-gotten gains even though he is convicted of a crime.

When we get down to corner store robberies, to the things we are trying to accomplish here today to protect the small individual, we have to think in terms of retribution. If they have not committed bodily harm, retribution might be in the fashion of work to help small entrepreneurs to show them how difficult it is for people to earn a living.

It seems tragic when we think about Nizam Ali. In that instance, a grade 13 student had bought his mother a red rose to share with her the wonderful situation that he came home with straight A's on his exams. He was struck down by some individual who will probably never do anything meaningful in his whole existence, in his whole lifetime. It appears to me we have a responsible role to play.

The young people I have described are generally people who have more motivation. It is a high-quality young person who is willing to go out and help this family, help himself further his education or help at home by taking on a job at night. It seems more unconscionable that they should be the ones who are threatened by the type of individual who is free to roam about at night and do those sorts of things.

When the member for Durham East is considering the aspects of the resolution he has related, I hope he will also take into account getting his government to suggest that we deal more harshly with those people in the future, that there will be some deterrent and that we will not accept losing the battle to the young hoods or criminals who roam the streets at night.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, it would be easy to pick apart this resolution as being rather inept and as not addressing itself to the major problem. It is not a bill that would become law; it is a resolution that has really no effect. It would be relatively simple to say it really will not help anybody and in the end, if it were successful and if it were possible to do anything by a resolution here on a Thursday afternoon, the net result would be different standards of safety for people working in these stores in different municipalities.

I worked for a long time with people who had learning disabilities, and I understand what the member for Durham East is trying to do here. He is trying in his own humbling, inept way to address himself to a very serious problem. In fact, once one has examined it a bit, one would see it is a very complicated problem as well.

A number of things could be done that would help various portions of the problem without really getting at what I consider to be the major one. The major one is that this evening, between 11 and 12 o'clock, there is a very good chance -- "a very bad chance," I suppose, is a better way to put it -- that at some little convenience store outlet there will be some young person, working probably for minimum wage or less, who will be at considerable risk.

The problem is compounded by the fact that many of these outlets are in shopping plazas and at that time of night they are relatively isolated. There are no people around to monitor others' behaviour, to come to someone's assistance or just to make someone stay away. They are at considerable risk, and we know that.

For example, a little bit contrary to what the member said previously, in my own municipality we have had the same incidence of crime in that time period in that kind of situation as just about everybody else.

The difficulty is that when we examine the profiles that have been drawn about who commits this kind of crime, we know it is not a professional thief who is looking for a lot of money, because generally there is not much more than $100 available; it tends to be much smaller amounts that are actually taken.

The person who commits this kind of crime is probably a young male, with or without a weapon of some sort, someone who is highly excited, someone who may have several other emotional and psychological problems. In other words, it is probably the most volatile situation one could find oneself in, a very dangerous piece of business. The fact that there have not been more serious injuries resulting from this type of crime is just good fortune rather than good planning.

When we move to correct it, we run into some complicating factors. First, in many communities the idea of a 24-hour operation, however impractical that might be from a business point of view, is becoming more and more attractive, particularly to the chains, essentially because the competition is doing it.

I am not convinced there is a lot of business out there, but I know that in shift-work towns, their version of "What do you do after work?" is different from mine. They also are forced to work hours that are not the normal business operating hours; so there probably is a market out there that needs some response, and I have no great difficulty with that.

One could say, "Why do you not just close them down between 11 and 12 o'clock?" I would suggest that although that is currently the prime hour, the prime hour would simply shift. So it is a very dangerous situation out there.

We could insist on cameras to monitor who enters the store, and that would help the police to try to apprehend someone accused of this kind of crime. We could go to American-type security schemes. My reading of the studies of that kind of experience indicate that anything one might do inside the store probably makes the situation worse, probably aggravates an already volatile situation.

In the end, I think most police officers would say the safest thing is to give them whatever they want, let them get outside and let the police, who are professionals in this kind of thing, apprehend them.

That would probably lead me to believe that one simple thing that would be of great assistance in lowering the risk factor would be simply to install some device that would alert a local police force that a robbery was in progress there. It could be a simple warning device of that nature. The difficulty is that studies of the American experience show that can increase the risk factor; so we are caught in a very awkward situation.

A better way to approach this would be from the employee's point of view. From an economic point of view -- and oddly enough, I think this was the case for a while -- the police officer says: "This is really a pretty minor crime here. This is not a serious crime." The difficulty is that it is a volatile crime and people can be injured and can die from this kind of risk situation.

A better approach would be to take it from the point of view of the employee's safety. All of us would agree that losing $50 out of a cash register is not a disaster, but if a young person is threatened, it can be disastrous. If a young person is injured for life, it can be a disaster. That would have been a preferable way to go with this concept.

It would have been better to put it into an Ontario law that for those stores and businesses that stayed open during those hours and put their employees at risk, the employees were guaranteed some safety measures as opposed to some security measures. None the less, that did not happen.

I intend to support the resolution because I think this is a problem that unfortunately is complicated and will most likely continue to dog us. There are more types of businesses staying open on a 24-hour basis. At many banks and trust companies there are 24-hour tellers now, so there are people with money in their hands at rather isolated spots. Thus we do need to address that problem, which I believe to be very serious and rather complicated. It is not quite as straightforward as many members would like to have it.

I commend the member for his initiative in at least putting the problem before the Legislature this afternoon. I wish we had a more constructive and comprehensive solution to the problem, but I am happy to support the resolution as it stands. I think it is a matter that will be before the Legislature again. There is a necessity to change some of our labour laws to see that young people working for minimum amounts of money are not put at great personal risk to have these convenience stores open.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, for the moment that remains, I would like to indicate my support --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): There is not sufficient time for the member for Mississauga South. There are three minutes remaining and they will be taken by the original speaker.

Mr. Kennedy: I just wanted to indicate my support of the resolution. I realize the sponsor has two or three minutes remaining, so I will turn the floor over to him.

I support what has been said and I support the resolution, particularly getting a little tougher with those who commit violent crimes.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, in the two and a half minutes left, I would like to review some of the comments made by those honourable members who have spoken to the resolution.

The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) indicated a total closing of stores between midnight and five in the morning is not necessarily the way to proceed. He pointed out that the security devices in banks at present seem to have been successful.

I appreciated the comments of the member for Beaches-Woodbine. She felt security devices would be one method of proceeding but indicated a total province-wide closing would be most appropriate. I again bring to her attention my remarks that between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of wage earners in the average suburban community could work on shifts. The whole idea of a nine-to-five job no longer holds. Other areas of our lives such as shopping patterns have to adjust as well. That is what I am indicating. Closing convenience stores totally is not necessarily the secure way of approaching the problem.

I appreciate the concerns of the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones). He indicated very aptly that after the incidents in Mississauga, there was a voluntary closing of stores. I think this was only a stopgap measure. We have to look at the long term.

He also indicated that some chains thought the implementation of any kind of devices would only enhance the possibility of crime. I agree with his comment that this is not necessarily so. We have to be thinking about the young people who are working those late hours. Some kind of technology to deter and monitor what is taking place in the store would be of benefit and would be a protection to them.

I always appreciate the comments of the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) in some form or fashion. He took a look at the global aspect. He was more concerned about the problems of the light sentences and parole board rulings, notwithstanding which he felt the resolution would be appropriate on a short-term basis.

Last but not least, my colleague from the region of Durham, the member for Oshawa, started off with a whimper indicating he was not too happy about the resolution, but he ended with a bang by supporting the resolution. However, I was a little concerned and confused. He indicated there should be a guarantee of employee safety and not surveillance. In my humble opinion and in my bumbling way, it seems to me that surveillance of the store would mean safety for the employee.

5:50 p.m.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that an overwhelming majority of those who have spoken today indicated support for the resolution. I am concerned about the further details of investigations of technology. Notwithstanding that, we hope the resolution will be supported by the House. I would proceed by following up with a bill and its implementation by, I hope, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

5:56 p.m.

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

The House divided on Mr. Foulds's motion of resolution 16, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Bernier, Birch, Bradley, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Cassidy, Cunningham, Cureatz, Di Santo, Eaton, Edighoffer, Elston, Eves, Foulds, Gordon, Haggerty, Havrot, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Jones, Kerr, Kerrio, Kolyn, Lane;

Mancini, McCaffrey, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Philip, Piché, Pollock, Ramsay, Renwick, Riddell, Ruston, Samis, Scrivener, Swart, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Walker, Welch, Wells, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Dean, Gregory, Kennedy, MacQuarrie, McCague, McLean, McNeil, Robinson, Runciman, Sheppard, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Watson, Williams.

Ayes, 52; nays 17.

EMPLOYEE SECURITY IN RETAIL BUSINESSES

The Acting Speaker: Mr. Cureatz has moved resolution 17.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the remainder of this week and next.

Tonight we will do the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services, and when they are finished we will continue the adjourned debate on the reports of the standing committee on public accounts.

Tomorrow we will do second readings of Bill 36 and Bill 37 and committee of the whole on Bill 142.

On Monday, May 14, we will do the estimates of the Office of the Premier.

On Tuesday, May 15, we will have routine proceedings at 2 p.m., followed by a short recess until 4 p.m., at which time the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) will make his budget address. The House will not sit on the night of Tuesday, May 15.

On Wednesday, May 16, the usual three committees may meet.

On Thursday, May 17, budget replies will be made by the Treasury critic of the official opposition and the Treasury critic of the third party. In the evening we will have budget debate.

On Friday, May 18, we will continue the budget debate.

I might just indicate that we will begin Monday evening sittings effective May 28.

The House recessed at 6:02 p.m.

May 10, 1984