Hansard Transcript 1986-Jan-14 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have in my hot little hands a news release from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) and a statement by him. Is this being made during ministerial statements today or is it being made in the debate?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It is on second reading of the bill, and that statement will be part of it.

Mr. Grossman: It came, appropriately, in a brown envelope.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, as it happens. He said in the House last Thursday, "If a hospital is experiencing a true financial hardship as a result of its insurance premiums, we will take a look at that and provide whatever assistance is required."

Can the minister indicate whether he is prepared today to commit that assistance to the Dixon Hall community centre, which, as reported in today's Toronto Star, has been hit with a 300 per cent increase in liability insurance and has consequently had to begin to lay off staff and stop providing services to seniors? Is the minister now prepared to undertake unequivocally to provide that assistance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Our market assist program, which has been operating since I announced it last Thursday, has been dealing with very many incidents, one of which, the member will recall, was that of the Wellington County Board of Education. We said it would get its problems resolved and it has.

I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) that this community centre contact our market assist program. If we cannot resolve its problem and if it does have a financial hardship, we will help it.

Mr. Grossman: This case was reported in the Toronto Star today, and as of 12:45 no one from his ministry and no one from the government had bothered to call the centre to offer the assistance of the ministry.

Further, with regard to the telephone assistance that he is suggesting will solve problems, we took the liberty today of testing the system. We called his insurance industry number to inquire about automobile insurance that had increased from $700 to $2,400. I want to report to the minister what the officer at his ministry indicated on his emergency line.

Mr. Speaker: By way of a question, I hope. s

Mr. Grossman: The officer said a task force is going to have a quick report prepared by the end of the month. She said the general insurance market had gone "out of sight" and that there was "no magic solution." She indicated, however, in a helpful way to the caller that the caller had "a legitimate complaint;" however, there is "a panic situation out there."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: This is all the advice and help his magic hotline gave to a concerned caller about an insurance premium. What assistance is that hotline or this ministry prepared to give since this is what has happened?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I cannot reply to that specific instance, but I can tell the honourable member, in reply to an earlier statement, that my people have been in touch with Dixon Hall and were in conversation with them this morning. We have advised them that if they cannot get insurance -- and we are working on it with them -- they will get help from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. We have assured them that no day care program will go unfunded or will have to close as a result of the insurance problem.

Mr. Rae: One of the features of the freeze in social service funding in the last 10 or 11 years has been that several centres, such as Dixon Hall and the WoodGreen Community Centre, both of which are mentioned in the Star article, have had their funding for elderly persons' centres frozen at the $15,000 level for at least a decade.

Can the minister give us a categorical assurance that the service that is being cancelled by Dixon Hall because of the increase in insurance rates will continue to be provided and that the government of Ontario is going to ensure that no van transporting disabled people or elderly people is going to be put out of business because of blackmail from the insurance companies? Does he have the courage to stand up to the companies that provide the benefits? That is the question here.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I can assure the honourable member that no services will be curtailed at those institutions because of the insurance problem. We will fund any difference as required.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. McClellan: Put some life into it.

Mr. Rae: Give it a little zip.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: Was it because of the introduction, or perhaps the breakfast the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) had last week? I would rather not have breakfast with him, thanks.

Mr. Breaugh: The feeling is mutual. That is why the member is where he is.

Mr. Grossman: I would rather be here with my caucus than over there with the third party.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: But not for much longer. The minister's hotline is clearly saying to callers there is a panic situation out there, there is no magic solution and they are waiting for a "quick report of the task force." No one has contacted the executive director of Dixon Hall and the hotline is not giving any answers whatsoever.

Will the minister now undertake that his alleged solution through the hotline will begin to find coverage and to say to callers that if their services are about to close down and they are social agencies, the government will without exception step in and pay the premium for them?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The information I have is at variance with the information the Leader of the Opposition has. I have a list of various calls that have been made to that hotline stating what their problems were and what the solutions were. In many cases we have been able to help these people. If people contact my ministry, we will help them with their problems and in cases where government funding is normally provided to agencies, if they cannot get insurance, we will help them financially.

Mr. Grossman: I understand that the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) will be here later. Is that correct? Perhaps we could stand down this question till he gets here.

Mr. Speaker: Does the House agree to stand down the question?

Agreed to.

2:10 p.m.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Perhaps he will comment on the fact that an Inco retiree, Ouila Letendre, who retired in 1972, has seen the value of his pension cut by 51 per cent by the ravages of inflation, and in 1984-85 Inco was allowed by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Pension Commission of Ontario to withdraw $105 million from the pension plan. As a result, the company is pleading poverty with respect to improvements in pensions generally.

Will the minister comment on the unfairness of a situation where a company takes out $105 million at the same time as it leaves its retirees out in the cold? Will he comment on his failure to do anything about the indexing of private pensions in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Under the present legislation, there is nothing illegal or improper about a company taking money out of its pension plan under certain conditions. We are going to bring in pension reform to address that. We are going to do it in conjunction with other jurisdictions in this country. When we do it, we will address that problem.

Mr. Rae: The minister says there is nothing improper. I cannot imagine a minister making a more unfortunate statement in this Legislature. When it comes to what is happening with the pension funds that belong to the workers of this province, he says there is nothing improper when companies take out millions of dollars. The Conrad Blacks and the Incos skim off the pension funds and the minister sits there saying there is nothing improper about it. I think there is something improper about it, and I think public opinion in this province thinks there is something improper about people being --

Mr. Speaker: Is that your supplementary?

Mr. Rae: -- forced to live on $400 or $500 a month, with nothing being done about indexing. How does the minister justify this province failing to take a leadership role when it comes to indexing at the same time as we allow companies to skim off the moneys that belong to the workers of this province?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: When the leader of the third party said that I said there was nothing improper, he referred to only part of the sentence. I said that under the present legislation there is nothing illegal or improper about doing it, as long as it is done under prescribed conditions. Under our pension reform, we are looking at that and we will address it.

Mr. Grossman: Given the obvious ability of many companies, such as those the leader of the third party referred to, to have a large earned surplus in the pension funds, can the minister share with the House his concern about inflation protection?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am concerned about inflation protection, but there are other problems as well. Without a surplus, the fund's ability to do certain things such as enhance pensions and things of that kind is inhibited. The members of the Conservative Party have been sitting on this thing for 42 years and, suddenly, they have religion.

Mr. Rae: In June 1984, a senior adviser on pension reform to the former Ontario Treasurer, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), was quoted in the Toronto Star as saying: "Inflation protection per se does not involve extraordinary costs. Pension plans already profit from increases in the inflation rate, which boost the returns on investments made by pension funds."

How can the minister justify a situation where in Ontario today the only people who benefit from inflation are the pension funds and not the workers of this province who have invested in those funds? How can the minister sit still and tolerate that situation in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I welcome the comments of the leader of the third party and we will be addressing them in our pension reform legislation.

DRUG SUBSTITUTES

Mr. Grossman: Has the Minister of Health been made aware of any suspected or reported cases of illness or harmful side-effects arising out of the use of generic drugs as a substitute for brand-name drugs? We raised one of these issues yesterday. Can he tell us whether he has been made aware of any suspected or reported cases of illness or harmful side-effects?

Hon. Mr. Elston: There have been indications in some of the meetings, particularly on the part of originator companies, that they are concerned about interchangeability.

As the member knows, it has been a matter of ongoing discussion between the originators and the generics -- generics being the manufacturers of the interchangeable product. That is why we have our committee available to review the items.

In particular, with respect to the issue the member raised yesterday, I want him to understand, because I am afraid he was not in the House when I brought back information, that the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee is receiving extra information on that. In fact, the federal people have given apo-ibuprofen a listing as interchangeable. There will be meetings held federally to determine whether or not the extra information requested of Apotex Inc. will result in any further action being taken.

That being the case, I have had indications from a couple of pharmacists that they are concerned about the coatings, and in the ibuprofen case it is the coating more than the active ingredients which the committee is going to be provided with some information to make a ruling on. But there have been some indications through the originators that they have some concerns about interchangeability.

Mr. Grossman: With respect, far more than simply the brand-name pharmaceutical drug manufacturers are concerned about the problem. A more objective observer, perhaps, would be the Ontario Medical Association.

I draw to the minister's attention that on December 2, 1985, the OMA communicated with him its concern about the acceptability of substitution in a broad range of drugs. I quote to the minister: "There is evidence to show that different formulations of a number of drugs," and it goes on to list a number, including digoxin and cimetidine, "have resulted in either decreased efficacy or increased toxic effects."

The OMA went on to say it had provided the ministry with "copies of reports received by its committee of perceived clinical inequivalency of drug products listed as `interchangeable' in the drug benefit comparative drug index."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: The OMA has raised, therefore, serious concerns with the minister after its analysis of some of the interchangeability. It informed the minister of that on December 2.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: Can the minister tell us why he has not taken any steps whatsoever to respond to the OMA or to remove from the shelves some drugs which may be dangerous to the citizens of this province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman will understand that the studies provided by the OMA are very subjective in nature. One of our goals is to provide an objective review and analysis of the reports that are made available to us.

There are indications on the part of some of the originators of these products that they have concerns as well. The issue of interchangeability is being thought out among generics and the brand-name people almost constantly. They are being reviewed at the federal level. They are again being reviewed by the committee which has been established in this province to handle those items.

We have a number of physicians who would disagree with that. I made a point of asking about the question of interchangeability. Some people have sworn to the efficacy of the drugs. Some people may have some indications that they think or they feel, or subjectively they have some indication of results perceived, as the member said, clinical problems. As a result, we are letting the professional group, the committee, do its work. We are also taking the advice of the federal people. As I said, with respect to the drug the member mentioned yesterday -- suggesting in error that it had been taken off the market by the federal people -- there will be meetings held very shortly.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Since, under the minister's proposed legislation, the onus for requesting an interchangeable drug lies with the customer under one of the proposals, and since there is concern out there about substitutions and whether or not the equivalency is there, which has been expressed by the Ontario Pharmacists' Association, by seniors' groups, as well as by doctors, and in view of the fact that his legislation says the regulations will determine which drugs are interchangeable, and there is no mechanism for determining who will make that decision other than the ministry itself, is the minister going to be proposing any change when we get the bill out to public hearings for clause-by-clause debate?

Hon. Mr. Elston: On the question of interchangeability, let me say that I have spoken to a good number of pharmacists with respect to the manner in which they perceive the interchangeable drugs working. Differences of opinion are being expressed by a number of pharmacists. I have just recently met with three pharmacists. Two of them regularly interchange; one does not.

This difference is based on the perceived results of analysis with their patients.

The mechanism for determining interchangeability will probably not be much different from what is there now. In fact, we will be using the advice of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee, which is composed of a number of experts in pharmacology. We accept the advice of those people in conjunction with the studies that are done on a weekly basis at the federal level. Once a licence is provided federally, we must then go along with the analysis done by that committee and with the suggestions it makes.

Mr. Grossman: We are not talking about a subjective report sent to the minister by one of the drug companies. We are talking about a program set up with the support of the federal government. It is the OMA's committee on drugs and pharma --

Miss Stephenson: Pharmacotherapy.

Mr. Grossman: Yes, whatever.

Mr. Breaugh: Now we see why the member is not Premier.

Mr. Grossman: Oh, yes. It oversees the adverse drug reaction reporting program in this province, a very important program. This group of objective practitioners -- not drug companies and not pharmacists but an independent group of medical doctors -- is reporting to the minister, not to overstate it, that millions of pills taken every day in this province, by senior citizens in particular, may have dangerous side effects and may not be adequate substitutes.

The minister is playing a dangerous game with the health care of senior citizens and with pills. When it came to wines, they were off the shelf in 24 hours. Now he is studying the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: My question to the minister is very simple: Why will he not say, consistent with this government's reaction to the wine situation, that in order to protect seniors, he will exercise the authority he admitted yesterday he had, to take some of those drugs off the shelf until he has determined they are perfectly substitutable?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman knows full well, and of course his colleague the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) will understand full well, that there may be differences of opinion with respect to the efficacy of prescription drugs.

Suggestions have been made with our federal authorities. The federal authorities have determined that in those situations there is therapeutic equivalency. If they provide for us information that it is along that line and if I get the review from the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee, then I will take the necessary action.

However, in the light of the fact that with respect to the drug this honourable member spoke about yesterday, he was totally wrong, I will have to assess what he has told me now, because my suspicion was vindicated when he was wrong yesterday. He is probably wrong in what he is telling me today. However, I will report back to the House.

Mr. Grossman: It is incredible. If it is wine, it comes off in a day.

Mr. Stevenson: Kwinter for Health minister. We need somebody who really cares for Health minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rowe: Come on down, Monte, let's make a deal.

Mr. Gillies: Wine is important, pills do not matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The members are wasting time, and other members want to ask questions.

New question, the leader of the -- the member for York South.

Mr. Rae: Thank you very much. Whatever, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Davis: Do not make mistakes in the opposition.

Mr. Rae: The Conservatives have caught an issue that matches garter springs for technical incomprehensibility, and I want to congratulate them for that. They are doing well for the drug companies.

SPRAY PROGRAM

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I know the minister is going to be in Thunder Bay on Thursday, and it is my understanding that his ministry is going to announce a forest protection policy on that day.

Can the minister give us his categorical assurance today that no chemical spraying will be authorized by the government with respect to a program this spring, summer and fall? Can he give us that categorical assurance today that, just as chemical spraying is not taking place in Quebec, neither will it take place in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I cannot give a categorical answer to the member as it relates to the sprays being used.

Mr. Davis: In the fullness of time.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, that is not the way it is going to be. The member knows full well that Sevin is the spray that will be used in the greatest quantity. The window when we can project for the sprays to do a proper job of protecting the forests of this province is somewhat restricted with those kinds of sprays that can be ingested.

The threat out there is of such a magnitude that we will be asking for some latitude as it relates to some of the sprays that will not have an undue effect on the environment in particular areas. We will be doing it in a very responsible way. We are going to have to know in the future what sprays have what effect. The balance is going to be tremendously on the side of those acceptable sprays and the chemicals will be used in very small percentages.

Mr. Rae: That is an incredible statement. The minister is admitting today that he is going to be spraying chemicals that have never been assessed environmentally and whose effect on humans is frankly not known. That is what the minister is announcing today and its implications are quite frightening.

Mr. Speaker: Put your supplementary.

Mr. Rae: I ask the minister why the government is proceeding with a spraying program without a comprehensive environmental assessment being done? Can he give the categorical assurance that the government of Quebec could not give, that none of the sprays being used could possibly have a harmful effect on humans?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I did not say that we were going to be spraying indiscriminately in any way, shape or form. I suggested that the largest percentage will be done with acceptable sprays. However, there should be some experimenting done in a very minimal way, where it is going to be acceptable, so we are going to know how those sprays are going to impact. Without doing it, we cannot tell. What the member has described as chemicals that are going to be sprayed indiscriminately is no percentage of the sprays that are going to be used of any consequence.

Mr. Pope: Is the minister going to use 2,4,5-T, bacillus thuringiensis or 2,4-D in spray programs this summer?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The largest percentage of sprays that are going to be used, and I am talking in the 70 per cent to 80 per cent range, are going to be biological sprays. The chemical sprays are going to be used in a very minimal way, just to be able to examine the extent to which they are going to be helpful in the future. We could avoid spraying at all, but there are many people out there who are going to be deprived of very important jobs throughout northern Ontario. We are going to do it with biological sprays to the greatest extent. The very small proportion of chemicals that would be used would be experimental in the sense that it would let us know how those other chemicals impact on the environment.

Mr. Rae: The minister is using the north as a guinea-pig.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: It seems job protection has become the last refuge of the scoundrel. In view of the fact that spraying with Bt was very successful last year, particularly in the area I represent -- there were no problems with it at all -- and that 30 per cent chemical spraying, which is what the minister just implied, is hardly minimal given the potential danger for the chemicals to be used, could I have the assurance of the minister today that before any spraying program is approved, the companies will be required to engage in accelerated logging before the fact and salvage logging after the fact in order to have a spraying program approved?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Certainly, and I want to make it clear that we are not exchanging jobs for chemical spraying. That is going beyond a fair assessment of the circumstances. We are going to use biological sprays to the greatest extent. That is why this government is having those open house forums that will allow people, particularly in northern Ontario, to come before that open forum. We shall not jeopardize the environment by using chemical sprays to the extent there will be any impact. I promise that. I am working very closely with the ministry and the Minister of the Environment to see that does not happen.

2:30 p.m.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Health. We are proceeding this week with Bill 94 and, in the minister's statement on December 19, he linked fee negotiations to that bill. Is he now negotiating or does he plan to renegotiate a new fee schedule, or an increase in certain fee items in the Ontario health insurance plan schedule with the Ontario Medical Association, before the end of legislative consideration of Bill 94?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not think what the member says is correct, in the sense he says I established that as a prerequisite to the bill and indicted fee negotiation was part of it. I indicated I had an open mind with respect to developing the structure and, of course, the bill contemplates an openness in determining how the fee bargaining structure could be set in motion.

I have also indicated a willingness to discover and determine whether there are ways of rewarding certain people who have world-class or special qualities which should receive recognition as a result of the consultations which occur. It was indicated to me that was a deficiency in our current schedule. I am willing to receive input with respect to those items and the mechanism under which we are negotiating or determining the fees to be paid. Certainly that is open and I would be pleased to receive any suggestions which may be available, either through the association or individuals.

Mr. Pope: Now that we have heard from the minister that he does not plan to ease the confrontation between himself and the Ontario Medical Association by renegotiating fee items during the course of debate on Bill 94 and is not prepared to negotiate during its passage, which is what he just said -- which is why Bill 94 has that mechanism in it, because he is not prepared to negotiate now -- can he tell this House what he plans to do with the funds that are being withheld by the federal government? Are they going to be rolled into the fee increases to be negotiated with the OMA after the legislation is passed?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member has totally put his own peculiar twist to what was said. I indicated I am willing to listen to and discuss items with members of the medical profession. Whether they be individual professionals or groups, I am willing to talk to those people. I have not indicated in this House nor anywhere else that I am unwilling to listen nor, if there is a suggestion about how to ease the perceived difficulties, am I unwilling to meet with those people.

I am willing to receive any helpful suggestions and I will consider those helpful suggestions. To be honest, I do not think the member is being responsible when he suggests I have been unwilling to ease those tensions. I am open to receiving those indications with respect to the actual dollars. I have no indication of where or when that money will be transferred, but we are willing to undertake opportunities to discuss mechanisms to determine remuneration.

Mr. Rae: With respect to the opting-out action which has been announced and taken in Timmins, I wonder if the minister can give us the categorical assurance that no patient will be stiffed for a bill by a doctor and expected to pay prior to receiving reimbursement from OHIP.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Patients who attend at physicians' offices currently make their own arrangements for payment if there is direct billing. I cannot give the member that categorical undertaking at this time. I do not know how the mechanisms are going to be established in those offices nor what arrangements are to be made for the voluntary dollar donations to the hospital.

MINE SITE

Mr. Laughren: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources, concerning a very serious environmental problem surrounding the KamKotia Mines site near Timmins, with which he may be familiar. Is he aware that since that mine site was abandoned in 1972 there has been a steady runoff of very dangerous contaminants into the Kamiskotia River and Little Kamiskotia River in that area?

Since the property now belongs to the crown and is his responsibility, would the minister tell us if he has been briefed on this problem and what he intends to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, I have not been briefed on that issue but I will take it as notice and get back to the member.

Mr. Laughren: I wonder if the minister will now start to take seriously my admonitions to him about his officials giving him adequate information in order for him to run his ministry in a proper way.

Is he not aware that the Ministry of the Environment people are telling us the problem is getting worse? For example, if a penny is put into the water running out of there, it dissolves. Since the minister is going to Timmins tomorrow, does he not find it absolutely incredible that his officials have not briefed him about this problem?

Since the proposal is in his ministry's hands now, it is incredible that he would not know about it. Would he now get that proposal out of the hands of his officials who do not want to do anything about it and send it over to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) so something can be done?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would like to tell that honourable member that I am not going to beat up on the staff of my ministry. If he is suggesting there is some motive for what they are doing, I do not accept that at all.

Most things that happen in this government are the duties and the determinations of the minister of the day. This minister is going to examine the projects. If the member thinks he will make me feel bad by standing up and suggesting I do not know about this, he has another think coming. I am doing a good job over here. I am going to clean up the environment and I am going to do what should have been done in this ministry many years ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) has a nice short supplementary.

Mr. Pope: The minister knows that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) needs some announcements for Timmins. He knows the scene that is going to confront the Premier when he gets there tonight. He knows, or he should know, that all the studies for all the options were completed in June of last year. He knows, or he should know, that one of the options has been recommended by his staff to him.

He also knows, or he should know, that the Ministry of the Environment has also been involved in this issue. When is he going to get together with the Minister of the Environment and give the Premier some good news to announce in Timmins?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: If the member would care to put the questions to the leader, he can do that.

Mr. Davis: Give guidance to the leader?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, do not get too excited over there.

I will share with members the fact that they could expect, and reasonably so, that after one minister leaves a veil drops down and we cannot reach beyond that. Many of the things that should have been done were not done and we are in that process right now. I will also share this with them --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: -- if they would like to hear it, that the staff is pretty pleased that things are now being done that should be done.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting. The member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) wants to ask a question. Are the members finished chatting back and forth?

HEALTH APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Yesterday my colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) directed a question to that minister dealing with what appeared to be political patronage in the health care field. The minister reacted with some indignation, and right on cue, the designated apologist for the government, the member for York South jumped to his defence.

2:40 p.m.

I would like to know the minister's reaction to the resignation of the vice-chairman and one other member from the Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox and Addington District Health Council because of the appointment of a former provincial and federal Liberal candidate as chairman, in complete disregard of the council's recommendation.

Will the minister tell us whether this decision indicates a new government policy that will see health councils precluded from selecting their own chairmen, or is this just an aberration?

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to that health council, the honourable gentleman will know we made seven reappointments on the recommendation of that council. We chose not to follow the recommendation of the health council with respect to designating the chairman. There is something I cannot quite understand. The same recommendation was made to the preceding Minister of Health. He chose not to follow it, and I chose to follow that same recommendation. We have reappointed seven people who were suggested to us by the health council.

We have made appointments of chairmen who have been recommended to us by other health councils. After a review of the personal attributes of the people, we make a decision as to whether certain abilities are not available in the candidates. We search, reach out and try to attract the best people we can throughout the province. We are working hard at putting together a community-type response to membership on health councils.

Mr. Runciman: The best people as long as they are Liberals. No one is going to accept that explanation except perhaps some people in the gallery. No one in this assembly is that naïve.

An hon. member: It is okay with the member for York South.

Mr. Runciman: Yes; it is okay with him. The minister did not answer my question. This is something new for the government, involving itself in the selection of a chairman.

Hon. Mr. Elston: That is not true.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, it is when we are setting up health councils.

Will the minister assure the hundreds of conscientious individuals who serve on district health councils across the province that he will stop playing partisan politics with them and start listening to the valuable and independent advice they provide?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The gentleman has obviously taken exception to the fact that a person who perhaps is a prominent member of the Progressive Conservative Party was not appointed as chairman of that health council. We have accepted nominations as chairmen of health councils of people whose political allegiances are not Liberal. That is an indication that there is no playing politics and no pork-barrelling in the way those members would have played the game. We are reaching out for the best members we can find, not only for health councils but also for all the other advisory groups.

Yesterday, it was not appropriate for those members to suggest a possible conflict with respect to politics in the case of a medical person for whom I have no responsibility. In that case, I had appointed a provincial representative, the former mayor of Paris, who could not be indicated to be partisan in any way. Today, they are wrong again. We have made a number of reappointments on the recommendation of council. We are continuing to do that with respect to other health councils. We will continue to reach out and get the best community people despite what those guys say --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the members that question took more than five minutes.

SPRAY PROGRAM

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.

Given the announcement that has been made in an offhand way by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) with respect to chemical spraying, does the Ministry of the Environment approve of the use of chemical sprays that have not been tested for long-term use? In particular, does the minister approve of the use of the sprays fenitrothion and Matacil, in addition to the biological insecticide bacillus thuringiensis, which has worked so effectively in the last year, as was stated by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren)? Does the minister approve of the use of those two sprays and can he give us the categorical assurance of his ministry that they will not have any short-term or long-term bad effects on the environment or on people in the north?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First, the Minister of Natural Resources did not make an announcement in this House today. He was asked about a variety of options that would be available to him and indicated those to the members. He did not make any particular announcement in this House and I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any potential announcement the honourable member seems to believe is coming.

Mr. Laughren: I remind the minister that his colleague said there would be between 20 and 30 per cent chemical spraying in the forests. I do not know to whom he was listening, but that is what was said.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Laughren: This spraying is being done at public expense. It is not enough that we provide the silviculture and build some of the roads in the forests; we also do the spraying for the pulp and paper industry. Will the minister announce that all spraying in our forests will be subject to an environmental assessment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: All environmental considerations will be applied to any announcement that is made in this regard and to any spraying that would go on in Ontario. Full environmental consideration will be given to those announcements and to any of the substances that might be used as a result of the considerable problem that has been identified with the spruce budworm.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Obviously, some of the members of the New Democratic Party do not want to hear the answer, but I can indicate that environmental considerations will be applied to any program of spraying that takes place in Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Fish: We should be clear. We are talking about Sevin, a broad-band insecticide that is one of the prime honey-bee killers in this province and was abandoned by the agricultural community years ago for that very reason. Has the Minister of the Environment approved the ordering and purchase of these chemicals for spraying and has he specifically approved the spray program proposed for this spring?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I can indicate to the honourable member, as I did to the leader of the third party, that no announcement of spraying has been made for Ontario.

Mr. Bennett: She did not ask that.

Ms. Fish: Now the minister will approve the order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No announcement has been made of any spraying program in this province. I will express all due environmental considerations to any of the substances that will be used for any spraying purposes in Ontario.

2:50 p.m.

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES

Mr. McGuigan: I have a question for the Minister of Labour.

Given the current labour dispute in Kent county involving the public health nurses and the Kent-Chatham Health Unit, will the Minister of Labour consider using his good offices to encourage the prompt resolution of this problem, which is causing a fair bit of discomfort in the area?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: If memory serves me correctly, the dispute has been under way since mid-October and, as the honourable member knows, a tentative agreement was reached towards the end of November.

My colleague has spoken to me and raised these concerns privately with me before. I can advise him that Murray Lapp, the mediator in the dispute, has scheduled a meeting with the parties on Friday of this week. It is the first meeting in some time.

Following the municipal election, there was some delay while the new board of health was put in place. The inaugural meeting of that board was on January 7. There is a further mediation meeting scheduled on Friday and I am hopeful that matters will move to a swift resolution.

Mr. Gillies: When the Windsor-Essex public health nurses were on strike and the minister was the Labour critic for his party, he indicated to the public health nurses that he felt such disputes should go to binding arbitration. Does the minister still believe that is the appropriate way to settle these disputes?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am not too sure there was any strike while I was Labour critic. There was a dispute this fall. Since I am the Minister of Labour and we allow the right to strike, that will continue to be the position I will hold as a member of the government.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Does the minister not agree that the issue in dispute in the strike in Chatham is pay equity with hospital nurses? Does the minister support pay equity with hospital nurses for public health nurses, and if he does, will he talk to his Minister of Health to make sure the funding flows so we can end this labour dispute?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am not sure the honourable member, who is right on so many things, is right on this one. My understanding is that the difficulty may be between the public health nurses and the public health inspectors, but if the member wishes to ask a question of the Minister of Health, I hope he will go ahead and do so.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. His assistant deputy minister has acknowledged that any new building by the private sector is going to be in the high end of the market and that this luxury housing will become the affordable housing for people in approximately 20 years. Is this the minister's new policy for helping those on low incomes and the homeless?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If the honourable member had read the assured housing policy document, he would have seen what the policy of this government is. If he has read something in the paper that said my assistant deputy minister had given a viewpoint, he should go back to the assured housing policy. That is the policy we have.

Mr. Gordon: That is the government's policy. The minister states in his housing policy that to meet the unmet need, he is expecting, through nonprofit housing, to be developing in the neighbourhood of 12,800 units over the next five years. When there are more than 40,000 families in need at present and he is going to be producing only about 2,560 units a year, that policy is a sham. When is he going to start providing housing for the people in this province who need it?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am glad the member is correct in two phases of this. First, there are 40,000 families on the waiting list. That did not come about overnight. It came about from the neglect of 42 years in not providing affordable housing for the people of Ontario. He is correct in that instance.

He is also correct in saying these commitments were unmet. He must realize that if he wants us to meet all those unmet needs of 42 years within six months, he really wants me to be a Jesus Christ. I cannot do miracles.

Mr. McClellan: I have asked this question before, but I will ask it again. Why is the minister and the government wasting $75 million by way of subsidies to the private sector to produce, by his own admission, 5,000 units of affordable housing when the same $75 million invested in the nonprofit housing sector would produce at least double and probably triple that number of housing units. Why is he wasting his investment?

Hon. Mr. Curling: My honourable friend is very consistent. He expresses his view, which is a philosophy different from that of the Liberal Party. We believe in the free enterprise system, and we think the private sector can bring about affordable units too.

If his party ever forms the government, he can introduce his philosophy. We are the government, and we will encourage the private sector to bring in affordable units.

SPRAY PROGRAM

Mr. Rae: I want to go back to the Minister of Natural Resources and ask him a question. Can he tell us whether his ministry has purchased or approved the purchase of chemical pesticides for use in potential spraying this spring, summer or fall?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Let me share one very important aspect of the spray program. When I was discussing the mix with the ministry, I wanted to leave some option with respect to the percentage we might be talking about.

Mr. Martel: Yes or no. Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am leading up to the answer, if the honourable member will give me a minute. It is quite important, especially to people in northern Ontario.

The fact is that no commitment has been made. It may be that we will spray with all bacillus thuringiensis. That is why we are having the open houses; perhaps the member does not understand that. We are going to talk to the people affected, and the possibility is that we will spray with all Bt.

How could I have ordered it by now? We have not ordered chemicals or sprays that are acceptable, because we are going to have the open houses first and see what those people have to say about the effects.

I am suggesting to members, and I would like them to attend those open houses, that if a good case is made that we should spray only with Bt, that is the way it is going to be.

Mr. Laughren: The minister's answer is remarkable in view of the fact that I always understood that if one is going to use a spray that has to be used in the early spring, one has to make the purchase before the end of the previous year. We will see as time goes by whether what the minister has said is an actual fact.

Is the minister really serious that after all the input from the open houses, which begin on Thursday in Thunder Bay, has been through the ministry, the final decision will be made by the end of the month? Finally, why is he not having an open house in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The decision has been made that we will spray. The major spraying program is going to be made with Bt; there is no question about that. If I were to step out and order 80 per cent Bt, or if it has been ordered, it is fine with me, because all we are talking about is a small component. If the public opinion is that we should not use any chemicals at all, that is the way it is going to be: we shall not use any chemicals.

That is being practical and honest, and having the open houses is going to prove we will accept input from the public.

Ms. Fish: I am appalled at the minister's answer. There is no experimentation required on Sevin; it is a well-known insecticide. Its appalling, damaging and serious health effects are well documented and well known. It was abandoned by the agricultural community years ago. How can the minister purport to come before this House, or before anyone anywhere in Ontario, and suggest he is going to experiment on the residents with what is already known and has been abandoned elsewhere in this province?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: There will be no experimenting. Only those things that are put forward as approved by the government of Canada can be used, and we will not talk about experimenting with anyone. We are talking about a small portion in some areas where there has been severe infestation. I am telling this House today that if it is the general opinion and if it is acceptable to this ministry that we should use only Bt, that is all that will be used in the spraying program.

I have no problem with that. Why is the honourable member suggesting there is a problem? As soon as there is public awareness and as soon as we have our open houses, I can tell this House right now that we will not spray with anything that is not acceptable.

3 p.m.

SALE OF PLANTS

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) raised a number of questions last Friday about pension benefits for employees of Manville Canada Inc., which is being sold to Manson. I am told the Port Union plant of Manville is one of three being sold to Canron Inc., which will in turn sell the Port Union plant and one in Montreal to Manson. The sale is being finalized February 1. Representatives of the Energy and Chemical Workers Union had asked their current employer certain technical questions pertaining to benefits for nonvested employees under their current pension plan when the sale is finalized. The Canadian subsidiary did not have the answer and has been pushing the parent company in Denver to respond to the union's questions since the matter was raised by officials of my ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) contain themselves, please?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am advised by the Pension Commission of Ontario that in the event of any windup of the plan all employees, including those who are nonvested, would receive full and automatic vesting of all accrued benefits and that in the event of a transfer of the plan to a purchaser, the plan membership is deemed to be continuous and employees are credited for previous years of service. This matter will be relayed quickly to the union.

With regard to the second question on the monitoring of employees exposed to asbestos, I can tell the member the --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a long answer? Perhaps we should reply to the question that was just asked.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am reaching the end of it.

Mr. Speaker: Make it fast.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Every six months, the ministry visits Manville and employees, based on experience, are tested every six months, annually or biannually.

Finally, with regard to the question the member raised about the situation at Ellensweig Bakery --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: With respect, I appreciate the minister answering previous questions, but it is obviously of such a length that it should be a ministerial statement. I would ask you to add at least one minute to the question period today.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Take five.

Mr. Timbrell: Okay, we will take it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the member getting up on a point of order. I asked the minister to complete his remarks. At that time, as I have in the past, I would consider whether it was too long or not. However, question period has expired.

Mr. Mackenzie: It is an important question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was advised it was a response to a question. I did not know how long it was going to be until I heard it. I will in the future again consider it. I appreciate the member's request but time has elapsed.

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Given the outrage expressed by the member for St. George about the use of the chemical spray Sevin, I think the House would be interested to know the last time this was mentioned was on July 4, 1985, when her colleague the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) asked the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is an interesting point of information.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES REPORTING ACT

Mr. Martel moved, seconded by Mrs. Grier, first reading of Bill 99, An Act to require Disclosure of the Use of Hazardous Substances.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: The bill requires disclosure by employers of the production, use, storage, emission or disposal of substances designated by the Minister of Labour as hazardous to human health or to the environment, and provides for access to disclosure reports by any person.

The ministry is required to supply, on request, health and safety information with respect to each hazardous substance. The names of persons requesting information are kept confidential. Employers are required to adequately label hazardous substances kept in the work place and to institute programs for workers on the proper handling of hazardous substances.

I hope the minister will move second reading of the bill.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

DISABLED PERSONS EMPLOYMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Charlton, first reading of Bill 100, An Act to provide for the Employment of Disabled Persons.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to provide employment opportunities for disabled persons. The bill requires that employers hire disabled persons to constitute at least three per cent of the employer's work force. The bill permits the minister to vary this percentage requirement in cases where the minister considers another quota to be more suitable. In addition, the ministry may exempt an employer or class of employers from the operation of the statute.

The bill establishes a register of employable disabled persons to be maintained by the ministry for the purpose of facilitating efforts by employers to meet the quota established by the bill. The quota set by the bill is similar to quotas set in many European countries and may help us solve the 85 per cent unemployed problem with disabled people.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, may I prevail upon the House for unanimous consent to revert to petitions? I did not hear you in the general hubbub.

Agreed to.

PETITION

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, in particular to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio):

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: That a complete reassessment of the moose lottery system now in effect be implemented by the Ministry of Natural Resources."

This petition is signed by approximately 190 residents of the Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma districts. We hope it will lead to us receiving a reply to the issues that were raised back in October and to which the minister has not yet replied.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SCIENCE NORTH ACT

Hon. Ms. Munro moved second reading of Bill 95, An Act respecting Science North.

Hon. Ms. Munro: As the House is aware, I introduced this bill for first reading on December 19 to establish Science North in Sudbury as an agency with schedule 3 status.

I journeyed up to Sudbury on December 20, and I must say the action was received with good spirits there. I feel this action will make Science North more accountable, with a stronger management, and will allow us as a government to facilitate and reinforce many of the economic, education and research functions that agency is being legislated to provide for the north.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Gordon: This bill, An Act respecting Science North, meets a need that has been there for some time. Science North was the brainchild of former Premier Davis, of the people in the regional municipality of Sudbury, and of Inco in the guise of its chairman at that time. Science North is a world-class tourist attraction that has been developed in Sudbury over a period of years. It is our deep hope that over the coming years it will develop into one of the pre-eminent world-class centres, not only in Ontario but also in Canada.

As the members are well aware, the north country has a number of tourist attractions. We have the Agawa Canyon at Sault Ste. Marie. We have the very fine tourist area in the Nipissing and North Bay area. We have great fishing. In the summer, we have beaches and various tourist lodges. As well, in the winter there is excellent cross-country skiing at North Bay, and if one goes a little further towards Ottawa there is the Mattawa area with its fine downhill and crosscountry skiing.

It is very important to the north that a science centre such as Science North be located in the Sudbury region. If one is setting out from the Sarnia area, for example, and wants to go on a holiday tour, especially in summer, one can go up the peninsula to Kincardine and Tobermory and take the Chi-Cheemaun across to Manitoulin Island. When one reaches Manitoulin Island, one is reaching one of the largest freshwater islands in the world, one that is renowned for its fine tourist lodges, restaurants, fishing and general overall recreational gifts.

When one leaves Manitoulin Island, one can turn left and go on to Sault Ste. Marie, see Algoma Steel Corp. and the beautiful city of Saint Ste. Marie, and take a train trip up the Agawa Canyon, particularly in the autumn. That is the time when the leaves and foliage change and it is a gorgeous trip. Americans from Michigan and other states and many Canadians take the Agawa Canyon tour.

If one decides not to go left and go to the Sault, one can take Highway 17 east into Sudbury and visit what is becoming one of the fine world-class science centres in Ontario, Science North.

In the beginning, there was a great deal of talk in the city as to exactly where we should locate the new centre. I was mayor of the city and I can recall the regional municipality quite distinctly. At that time the chairman of the regional municipality was Mr. G. C. Lund. I recall him coming to my office and talking to me about how important it was to find a site that would be central and close to the major highways, a site that would enable tourists who were on the bypass around Sudbury, to easily come in and visit the centre.

After discussions with my governmental affairs adviser, David O'Brien -- I might add that David O'Brien went on to be the chief administrative officer of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton -- and after looking at various sites through the parks and recreation department, we finally settled on the site near Bell Grove Park, which is on Ramsey Lake. Since that time, we have seen erected there perhaps one of the most beautiful buildings -- I am partisan when I am talking about Sudbury -- one is going to see anywhere in northeastern Ontario today. That is the snowflake-shaped science centre called Science North, which was designed by Raymond Moriyama from Toronto in conjunction with the very well known and reputable firm of Townend Stefura Baleshta and Nicholls in Sudbury.

That firm has been responsible for most of the very important public buildings built by the various institutions in the Sudbury region. Townend Stefura has been responsible for the very fine architecture and the construction supervision of such buildings as the Civic Square in the heart of the city, as well as Laurentian Hospital, the former nurses' residence near the Memorial Hospital, Laurentian University of Sudbury and Cambrian College of Applied Arts and Technology. I could go on and talk about many very fine public buildings whose architecture they have been responsible for in the city of Sudbury and the regional municipality of Sudbury.

The plan for the new science centre was that it would have a focus not only on the latest scientific achievements and hands-on type of scientific experiments that students and adults could participate in, but it would also be a science centre that would focus on some of the natural resources we have in the Sudbury region.

Quite fortuitously, the site of Science North at Bell Grove Park, next to Lake Ramsey, is the one area where there is a major fault running through the rock. This was discovered as they were excavating and as a result, they planned the building in such a way that from the circular staircase running up to the various floors and exhibits, visitors to Science North can see this fault.

Science North also has a cavern in its bowels wherein it has the very latest photography and motion-picture equipment that can give a three-dimensional, in-depth movie on a giant screen. This has been one of the attractions many people have commented on, both people from the Sudbury region and tourists from afar.

Some time ago, on October 19, 1983, I told the board of Science North I thought it would be better if Science North were to become an agency of the provincial government. At the time there were some who resisted that idea, and understandably so. In this world we all have our own thoughts on things and it is only natural that we all think what we think is right.

Interjections.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Gordon: The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) thinks what he thinks is right and I think what I think is right. I know the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) knows darned well what she says and does is the right thing since she is the minister.

There was a minor furore in the Sudbury region when it was suggested that Science North become an agency of the provincial government. It was quite clear at that time, despite the fact that the private sector has contributed significantly to this centre, and I should point out that such firms as Inco and Falconbridge have been most supportive, that it was not going to be possible for Science North to develop into the world-class science centre it should be unless it received provincial government support.

As a matter of fact, the board of Science North, under the very capable direction of George Lund, had launched quite an extensive fund-raising campaign throughout Canada. It met with some success, but it was obvious to the board that over a period of time the centre just was not going to be able to be self-sufficient in financing.

After a number of meetings with the various ministers who held the portfolio the minister is currently holding, such as the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), a decision was made at the very highest of levels that it would be proper for Science North, since it already had a significant portion of provincial money in it, to become an agency of the province.

This will mean that Science North is going to have the financial muscle to avoid the kinds of deficits that all too often occur with public institutions of this nature. As well, it will mean that Science North will have the kind of moneys that are necessary in order to change exhibits when it is appropriate and timely to do so, and so we will not have a science centre that is a flash in the pan or that attracts tourists for only a limited number of years. Rather, it will be a science centre that will grow and become more exciting and more entertaining for the people of this province as well as for the people from other countries over the years.

I might add that I would like the minister to have her staff investigate and perhaps do a study on how we can attract more of those tourists who turn up on the shores of British Columbia and, after seeing the mountains, decide that is Canada. I see from the papers and from recent broadcasts that the Prime Minister of Japan has been in Ontario. It would be very helpful if the minister looked at seeing how we can attract more people from that part of the world to Ontario. I think they would be truly impressed not only with Science North but also with the north itself.

Northern Ontario, especially in the summer, is a very scenic land. It has a rugged beauty; it has many attractions. One of the things that would really impress people from that part of the world is the lack of crowds. Perhaps someone in that ministry would advise the minister that she should do everything possible to attract tourists from that part of the world to cities like Toronto, Ottawa and so forth. However, I think what these people would really appreciate seeing much more is the other side of Canada, the uncrowded side of Canada.

Perhaps her very capable staff could set up a tour to take them from Toronto to North Bay and around to Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie, then perhaps back down through Manitoulin Island, across on the ferry to Tobermory and back to Toronto again. Nevertheless, I leave that to her capable staff. I am not a tour director, but I am sure she has some people who are quite capable in that regard.

As well, I would like to thank the minister. I understand that she has seen fit to listen to the suggestions of the members from the Sudbury region that the auditors for Science North remain the same as they were in the past. They are local auditors. I think this shows a sensitivity to the need for jobs in our region, and I thank her very much for that consideration.

I do not know what else I can say at this time about Science North except that I am very pleased it is going to become an agency of the province. I am sure the minister will watch over it very fondly since she is putting the cap on things.

Mr. Laughren: I rise in support of this bill to make Science North a provincial agency. I believe very strongly that it is a step in the right direction, and I commend the minister for bringing in the amendment requested by the Science North people in Sudbury.

There has never been any question about the architecture of Science North. People are very pleased with that striking building. At some point, I would like to see every member of the Legislature have a tour through that facility. I wish more members could get to facilities such as Science North. I understand the problem, but it is unfortunate members do not get to see it. I think of Old Fort William at Thunder Bay as well. I wish all members could visit those types of facilities.

Although there has never been a question about the fine architecture of the building, there has been a question about the exhibits at Science North during the past couple of years. They have been lacking and I hope this will improve with Science North becoming a crown agency; that they will be beefed up in consultation with the local people.

I would like to pay tribute to some of the people who made Science North possible. There are an enormous number of local people, but one I would single out is the person who was the director. I am not sure of his precise title, but Dr. David Pearson was seconded from Laurentian University to Science North for about three or four years. He did a magnificent job in that role. He is not there now except on an advisory or part-time basis.

If I were not so shameless, I would also pay tribute to all the volunteers who helped make Science North tick the past few years, including my two sons who worked three days a week all one summer and one day a week all winter as volunteer guides in the facility. Being bilingual is one of the major benefits of the way Science North is set up. I am pleased that is built into the bill. It is terribly important that the services of Science North be bilingual. It would be unacceptable if they were not.

I am not any kind of expert on the development of tourism, but I would like to see more themes developed at Science North. I can recall going to the Ontario Science Centre in Toronto when it had the Chinese exhibit a couple of years ago. It was truly magnificent. That kind of thing can be a major attraction to a facility. It will take a while, but I hope, in the years to come, that kind of thing will be developed at Science North as well. That is the way it will become not the Sudbury science centre but an Ontario facility that will attract people from elsewhere as well as from Ontario. In particular it will become a major northeastern Ontario tourist attraction.

There have been attempts to co-ordinate other facilities in the region with Science North, such as the road system and motels and hotels being built near it. There are a lot of hopes that Science North will go at least part way to giving Sudbury a more diversified economic base. This is just one way of doing it. I and my colleagues in the Sudbury area have always stated that we do not see tourism as being the answer for rebuilding the Sudbury economy but simply a component of that process. We should never make the mistake of thinking we can hang our hat on tourism in Sudbury. The problem is much more serious and complex than that. That alone will not resolve our problem.

With those brief remarks, I would like to make sure the minister understands she has the support of the local members in trying to make Science North a major first-class facility that will attract people from within the province and from outside it as well.

3:30 p.m.

Mrs. Marland: As Citizenship and Culture critic, I am happy to rise in support of Bill 95. I am pleased to be able to speak briefly on this bill and to acknowledge the wisdom of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture in continuing the policy for Science North that was initiated by the Progressive Conservative government and fought for so hard by my colleague the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon).

Since its inception in the early 1980s, and through periods of financial uncertainty and administrative differences, the member for Sudbury persevered. His dedication to the economic, educational and cultural welfare of his constituents has played a major role in establishing this great facility for education and entertainment that now exists in Sudbury. The city of Sudbury must indeed be indebted to and appreciative of the member's efforts not only for the benefit of his community but also for the benefit of the greater northern community of our great province.

The establishment of Science North as a crown corporation will ensure that Ontario can enjoy another world-class facility of this nature, further examples of which are institutions such as the Ontario Science Centre, the Royal Ontario Museum and other international partners.

Today, because of the dedication of my colleague and the foresight of the Progressive Conservative government, Science North offers an opportunity for its visitors to explore both our natural and our technological heritage. In developing and promoting a northern perspective, its exhibits include everything from small northern creatures to fitness and human performance, from geology to computers to communications. Because of a hands-on theme that is very much a focus of its service, visitors can learn to interpret the blips from its state-of-the-art weather system predicting an approaching storm, and computers teach visitors the basics of programming. Its communications theatre deals with everything from bird songs to the development of human speech. The history of this great nation is explored through the Franklin exhibit, which depicts the agony and glory of the search for the Northwest Passage.

In short, Science North exists as a testimony to the realization of the objectives of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture that were established by our Progressive Conservative government. In making the decision to establish it as a crown agency, we recognized just how important it was to ensure that a facility of this nature be established for the benefit of northern Ontario. Our ministry had a strong regional orientation and was responsive to the needs of Ontarians in all areas of this province.

The economic viability of the Sudbury region is, of course, of great concern to my colleague from that city, and we recognize the hand-in-glove relationship that exists between the success of such a project and the tourism industry in northern Ontario. To date, I believe the completion of Science North has coincided with plans for two hotels in Sudbury, and more than 400,000 visitors to the centre are predicted annually. The local economy has further benefited from the many thousands of permanent and part-time jobs that have been created as a direct result.

The opportunity to learn, to grow and to explore together has been secured. On April 16, 1985, when the then Minister of Citizenship and Culture, the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), announced additional funding in the amount of $1.6 million to cover operating and capital costs, she reaffirmed the importance of viewing Science North as a community-oriented project.

Before I finish my remarks, I want to say that I hope the present minister will respect this intention, particularly with reference to the composition of the board of directors. I know this will be appreciated by the many who have already made such a tremendous commitment to this project.

As a member of the Progressive Conservative Party that initiated this bill, I am delighted to support it in the Legislature today.

Mr. Martel: After listening to the last speaker, I nearly gagged, if I can put it so bluntly. It is a typical Tory approach. "Throw them a crumb and they will be happy." Science North is a great facility. However, when I hear somebody saying it has created thousands of jobs, that is a lot of bunk. It has created a handful of jobs. It is an excellent facility, but the Tory attitude to the north for years was, "Throw them a crumb in the north and they will be satisfied."

I should tell the member that it was her Tory party that wiped out the fourth largest employer in the Sudbury basin. With the snap of their fingers they closed Burwash, the industrial training centre, and 225 permanent jobs went down the drain. That little crumb and Sudbury 2001 to which Bill Davis gave $600,000 were supposed to resolve the problems of the Sudbury basin when Inco had dropped from 19,000 employees to 6,500, and Falconbridge from 3,500 to 1,800 hourly employees. That is the crumb the Tories were going to give us.

During that time, they wiped out the fourth largest employer in the Sudbury basin, the Burwash correctional farm, and opened a new prison in the riding of the former Minister of Transportation and Communications, James Snow.

An hon. member: In Oakville.

Mr. Martel: In Oakville.

They did wonders for the Sudbury basin. One has to go there to believe it. We have had an outflow of 15,000 people in the past five years and we have 15 per cent unemployment, and that member gets up as though we just had the Taj Mahal given to us.

I was going to say kind words. Here we have a move -- nothing socialist is sacred any more. The Tories would make Science North a socialist institution. Just a couple of weeks ago they talked about government-sponsored auto insurance. I do not know what Bob Runciman is going to do soon in that party, everything is becoming so socialistic.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member for Sudbury East please refer to other members by their riding names.

Mr. Martel: The member for Leeds.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the member please get back to the bill.

Mr. Martel: That is what I said, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Insurance is not connected with this bill.

Mr. Martel: No, but I said they were making a crown corporation out of this, and that is a socialistic move, is it not? Is that part of the bill?

The Deputy Speaker: The chair does not really answer questions.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You bring me back to my main remarks.

Science North is a great place, but it is not going to resolve the economic problems of Sudbury, and anybody who comes to Sudbury and says it is going to do that is stretching the credibility of people. It adds to Sudbury and it induces people to go there who otherwise would not, but to suggest it is going to resolve the economic problems of the Sudbury basin is simply ridiculous. I wish the member would withdraw her remarks, because she cannot convince anyone of that.

Mr. McClellan: She should retract her entire speech.

Mr. Martel: To retract the whole speech might be a good idea.

I am delighted the minister is prepared to accept the proposal a number of us have contacted her about; that is, to hire local auditors. I checked with Mr. Archer, and he has approved it. I am pleased to see the government is responsive. If I had tried to do this two years ago, I would not have got --

Mrs. Marland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I heard the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) refer to Science North as being crummy.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not an appropriate point of order.

Mr. Martel: I did not say that. Heaven help me. I said it was a great facility. It was her crummy response that it was a solution to all the economic ills of the Sudbury basin that was a lot of nonsense.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Now back to the bill.

Mr. Breaugh: It was mindless pap.

Mr. Martel: I will withdraw that. It is not crummy. As my colleague says, it is mindless pap.

We are pleased we are going to put this on a sound economic footing. That is what the attempt was, and I give the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) some credit in influencing his colleagues prior to this to look in that direction. Science North was, as the minister is aware, in some financial difficulty. This is going to make Science North a viable drawing card to the Sudbury basin.

At the same time, one of the things the community has been after so we can keep people there is the promise that was made by the previous Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). This would be an advantage to Science North. For a number of years, I have been asking the government to put some funding in to develop a huge park in the Sudbury basin. One of the Ministers of Natural Resources announced 1,250 hectares for that. We had been on about it for 10 years.

In the 1983 estimates, the member for Cochrane South guaranteed that $3 million in funds would be provided in 1985 to develop the park so it could tie in with Science North. People could go there in a trailer, and we would have a park a short distance away, for day and night use, that would tie in nicely with Science North, to keep tourists there for more than one day.

I have tried to understand why the previous government failed to deliver that, even though the minister is on record in Hansard as saying that approximately $3 million would be given in 1985. I hope my friend is listening to that. The previous government did not come through with its promise of $3 million to provide an added attraction to one of the nicest parks in northern Ontario.

I have been to see the current Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), who says he is prepared to look at it; but he is still not prepared to commit the $3 million that would make Science North a much more attractive place for people to visit if we simply finish the park. While we have set the land aside, one has great difficulty getting there; the road is a disaster.

I ask the minister to check with her colleague. If we are going to make Science North as viable as we want it to be, we have to attract people to the north and keep them there for a while so we can shake them loose from some of their long green. We can then leave some of that cash in the Sudbury area to help the Sudbury economy. I ask the minister to look at that.

I was diverted from my remarks a few moments ago. I wanted to say to the minister how much I appreciate her willingness to move an amendment that will see the accounting being done by people in Sudbury, because jobs really are a problem.

It was interesting. Just recently the Ontario Lottery Corp. advertised a job in Sudbury. There were all kinds of applications. When 15,000 people are unemployed, there are lots of applications. Someone in the lottery corporation decided to send someone from Toronto to fill the job. I got hold of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins), and in about an hour that had been cancelled. He said, "You need the jobs in Sudbury."

Again, we appreciate that sort of thing because jobs are scarce. As with the auditing, I hope the minister finally will be able to shake loose from the Minister of Natural Resources the $3 million that was promised to me in committee.

In conclusion, I too want to compliment the people who developed Science North. If one has not seen it, it is a first-class institution. However, we need some other things in the area in the form of tourist attractions that will keep people there. If we expand on those, then we can lay the basis for some jobs, and I hope the minister will see to that.

Hon. Ms. Munro: As the members have noted, I intend to propose an amendment to section 13 of the bill, which refers to the auditor. I will read the wording later, but we will suggest that a local auditor be appointed for the reasons articulated. First, we feel local knowledge and input are important to this government at this time, and if we hire someone who is able to liaise with the government on financial issues relating to the operations and expenditures of such a facility, it will make us feel more comfortable here in Toronto.

The other item was well taken: It does maintain another job for Sudbury, and as the Minister of Tourism and Recreation has demonstrated, he is also very sensitive to this and very willing to work with all members of the Legislature.

I want to ask the Speaker whether an amendment can be put forward now, if we go into committee of the whole for a short time. I would like to read the wording, if that is your direction.

The Deputy Speaker: No. It can be put when the House goes into committee of the whole.

Hon. Ms. Munro: Fine.

I want to spend a few moments responding to some of the positive comments made by members of the opposition parties. I will start with those of the member for Sudbury. I agree with him most wholeheartedly that Science North is a marvellous structure. I wish to acknowledge all the commitment and the efforts of the previous government and of the previous opposition parties in allowing that dream and vision to become a reality.

I also take very seriously the honourable member's suggestion and question on how we might attract more tourists to the Sudbury area.

Science North as it is viewed now will maintain its status as a partnership of local and provincial governments and private industries, but through a close liaison with this government, it will be able to provide more advice and accountability from a management and financial point of view.

When I was in Sudbury on December 20, I said to the people gathered in that marvellous auditorium how much I felt that Science North was a jewel in the crown of the north, and I truly mean that. In previous visits to Sudbury -- and I have taken the time to visit the agency, not just to read about it -- I was very impressed by the volunteer workers and by the honesty of the board and the members of the community, including Laurentian University, Inco and Falconbridge, and their desire to make sure this agency becomes viable.

3:50 p.m.

I have taken seriously the suggestions by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) on the architecture of Science North. I join with him in paying tribute to all the people involved in the development of Science North in Sudbury and area, including not only this ministry and Legislature but also the federal government, Inco, Falconbridge and Laurentian University.

I concur with the honourable member that the addition of language services in both French and English was a marvellous signal by this government in recognition of the true character and personality of the north. It was embraced by citizens of Sudbury and has continued to be referred to in their representations to the ministry on their future development.

The suggestion from the member about Science North looking more at its themes is a good one and, in fact, was developed by the board on my visit towards the end of the summer.

I believe Science North should be playing a much more important role in research and development in developing, marketing and selling its exhibits and perhaps entering into co-ordinating arrangements with our other agencies so we are not only financially accountable within our crown agencies but also able to share and support northern dreams.

I appreciate the support of the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland). We appreciate that the provincial Conservative government initiated this whole idea. I am sure any member of the Legislature who has not visited this fine agency will see not only the work that has gone into it but also what it can become.

We support the original intention of Science North and acknowledge all it will be in the future.

We are very sensitive to the problems of the board and staff in areas of management and financial accountability. I wish to assure the honourable member that we will be working very closely with the board to sort things out.

We commended the board for its honest approach to the government in the summer of 1985, when it came to us at one of the first opportunities. We journeyed to Sudbury to talk, after viewing the facilities, about what crown agency status might mean in respect to a better partnership.

I point out to the Legislature that it will be a schedule 3 agency, which I note once again is a reflection of our faith in Sudbury and Science North and of our commitment to the arm's-length principle and status. We believe a world-class scientific, education and tourist attraction can operate in an accountable and independent fashion only by according it this status.

In closing, and I am referring to the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), Science North in the first year of operation has been able to contribute 580 person-years of employment to the Sudbury economy, as of the fall. To inject $15 million into that economy is a far cry from stimulating the entire economy, I agree, but it is a very positive step forward.

When discussing the whole issue of crown agency status for Science North, I think the Legislature should be aware that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) was very supportive of seeing culture as one of the very important cornerstones in development. Therefore, he embraced the idea in the context of tourism, recreation, economic stimulation and the social aspects of the north.

Other ministers who were very supportive included the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), who I will lobby to take a look at the park land facility. I also mentioned the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), who was very pleased to see that French-language services were becoming a reality in the north. I am hoping that as the agency continues to develop, all peoples of the north will feel it is their science centre, including our nation's first people.

I appreciate all the concern and interest of members of the Legislature.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

AMUSEMENT DEVICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved second reading of Bill 97, An Act respecting Amusement Devices.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It is my pleasure to introduce for second reading the Amusement Devices Act, an act intended to help increase the safety of amusement rides and other attractions used by the Ontario public.

At present, the regulation of amusement rides is the responsibility of municipalities and local authorities which, in accordance with the Municipal Act, have permissive authority to inspect and license such rides. A recent survey conducted by the technical standards division of my ministry, however, determined that very few municipalities have the financial resources or staff necessary to carry out this responsibility.

Statistics indicate some risk is associated with public use of amusement rides. Since 1962 in Ontario, there have been 10 amusement ride fatalities in addition to at least six serious go-kart accidents resulting in three fatalities. Available data indicate the majority of serious amusement ride accidents result from operator error or rider misuse. In some cases, accidents could possibly have been avoided through a proper program of licensing, regulation and inspection.

While inspectors with my ministry have had no formal authority to investigate amusement ride accidents, they have been invited to contribute their expertise to investigations on numerous occasions by the Ministry of Labour, the Ontario Provincial Police or local authorities. On more than one occasion, inspectors have noted flaws in design, assembly or operation of an amusement ride which almost certainly would have been detected during regular inspection and corrected prior to continued operation.

The purpose of the Amusement Devices Act is to put an inspection program in place throughout Ontario in the interests of riders or users. Under the act, qualified inspectors will be appointed and will have the power to order maintenance or alterations to rides as well as the power to close down rides considered unsafe.

Field inspections, however, are only one facet of the regulatory program. In addition, owners of rides operating in Ontario will have to be registered with the province, and their rides will have to be both inspected and licensed by my ministry. Ride owners and operators will be required to maintain a log book, which will include records of daily safety equipment checks, original design, alterations, repairs, accidents or any unusual occurrences.

Before any new ride sets up for operation in Ontario, its compliance with adopted standards will have to be confirmed by an Ontario registered engineer and then reviewed and registered by the elevating devices branch of my ministry. Rides that undergo major alteration will be subject to a similar approval and registration process.

Ride owners will also have to ensure that operators and attendants are qualified and that maintenance is performed by qualified mechanics. Owners will have to install signs, where necessary, to educate the public about safe usage.

In addition to traditional amusement rides and go-kart tracks, this act will govern the safety requirements of other attractions, such as water slides, now operating in the province.

The regulations in support of this legislation are being finalized and I expect they will be completed in ample time to allow for the registration, licensing and inspection of the province's go-kart tracks in time for the upcoming season. I anticipate that the regulations and necessary inspection staff for all remaining amusement rides will be in place by the end of 1986.

Throughout the preparation of this legislation, representatives of my ministry have worked closely with representatives of the Ontario amusement ride industry. By and large, the industry has been very supportive of our effort to create a set of definable standards governing the safety of rides and attractions.

The great majority of owners and operators will not be faced with prohibitively high costs as a result of this program. Inspection fees will vary from $25 to $300 for each device, depending on size and complexity. There will also be fees for design and owner registration, ride registration and other services.

There are more than 1,000 individual rides operating in Ontario, mostly restricted to summer use, but some operate indoors on a year-round basis. A large segment of the Ontario amusement ride industry is transient, with rides moving from town to town on a weekly basis throughout the season.

4 p.m.

It is also an industry growing rapidly in technical sophistication, as theme parks and other operators introduce more exotic and complex attractions. This growing sophistication also places greater importance on the need for standards governing design, registration prior to operation and an effective inspection program.

The Amusement Devices Act will help improve the safety of amusement rides operating in Ontario and will provide a more consistent, efficient and effective system of regulation than incomplete coverage of existing municipal programs now in place.

Mr. Runciman: Our party is going to support this bill. The minister is going to have something of an easy ride, so to speak. Perhaps many of the people under the gallery can go back to earning their salaries at 555 Yonge Street. I want to compliment the minister -- I know he is not used to receiving them from me -- for carrying through with this initiative that was begun by the previous government.

We have some concerns that have been relayed to myself and to other members of our caucus that we wish to put on the record. Several of my colleagues will be doing that shortly. From my perspective, even though these concerns are out there, I think this legislation is needed. In my riding a couple of years ago a young lady was riding in a go-kart -- the minister mentioned the number of go-kart accidents -- and caught her hair in the motor mechanism and was literally scalped while riding that go-kart.

Although I know the bulk of operators in this field are excellent and very safety-conscious -- their industry has a remarkable safety record -- we as legislators cannot turn a blind eye to the occasional instances of serious neglect that have resulted in serious injuries and, in some instances, in the death or maiming of individuals. Obviously, this sort of thing is required.

Because of some of the things the minister mentioned in his statement, the great majority of owners and operators will not be faced with prohibitively high costs. No doubt that is true, but one concern brought to our attention, and I am sure to his, is the impact this might have on county fairs. Many of them now are in a financially difficult position and have a very tough time affording the entertainment and amusement organizations they retain to perform during the fairs. This is something we have to take a close look at over the next couple of years, following implementation of the act, to see how it is impacting on those organizations.

That is our point, the point other members are going to be making today. Although there are some concerns, we do not feel they are something we should support at this stage in terms of amendments to the bill. However, we urge the minister and his staff to monitor the implementation closely to see what kinds of problems occur as a result of it, and to see that the individuals and companies are not faced with overzealous inspectors who make unreasonable demands on them that could result in closure of their businesses.

From my perspective, that is all I want to contribute to the debate at this time. Since I am going to have to depart, I will indicate that there shortly will be an amendment we can support, depending on the minister's contribution. If he and his staff have real concerns about the amendment, we are prepared to listen and make our decision at that time. However, on the surface of it, I indicated to the other critic we were prepared to support the amendment.

Mr. Swart: I want to indicate immediately that I and my party are supportive of this bill, at least of the principle that is incorporated in it. The minister might agree that is put very concisely in the explanatory note, item 5, which says, "It will be an offence to operate an unsafe ride or to operate it in an unsafe manner." None of us can disagree with that principle.

I commend the minister for having dealt with this at a rather early stage in his government. I presume he expects it will be law before the main amusement season starts this year. It is only fair to point out, as he has done in a press release, that up to this point we had been behind other jurisdictions in this nation, and for that matter behind other jurisdictions in North America and in most of the western world, in not having such legislation.

As has been stated by the spokesman for the Progressive Conservatives, the previous government did bring in a bill or start the process, but the simple fact is that it had 42 years to do so and did not accomplish that. It is not unfair to commend the new minister for considering this important enough that he brought forward the legislation and is going to deal with it expeditiously.

The permissive legislation which authorizes municipalities to license and inspect amusement devices was not adequate, and again, it is not unfair to point out that my party said at the time it was introduced that it would not be adequate. We are, therefore, now pleased to see more comprehensive legislation.

I accept the argument of the minister that there is a need for it, although I think he recognizes that, by and large, the amusement industry in this nation has been a relatively safe one. Most accidents that have occurred have not been caused by faulty equipment, although there has been some faulty equipment.

In the Ottawa area just this last year there was a Ferris wheel in operation on which, somehow or other, one seat did not turn, and when it got up in the 180-degree position, the seat was upside down. The people in it hung on to the bar for dear life and, if they had not been strong, might have fallen and been killed. That seat was faulty. We also know there was a ride initiated at Canada's Wonderland which caused some real problems at the beginning. Some accidents have been scary, and this legislation is needed to ensure they will be eliminated as far as possible.

I accept the minister's statement that there has been consultation between his ministry and the amusement industry, although the latter's reports to us indicate it has not been as extensive as the minister might lead us to believe. The industry would like to have seen a greater amount of consultation.

4:10 p.m.

In this part of my comments commending the minister, I want to state that I believe he has been wise in providing, as he has indicated -- although it is not in the legislation and cannot be -- for relatively nominal fees for the operators. They will not be enough to put any of them out of business or cause any major reduction in their operating property or increase in their operating costs.

They had made representation to him. I have a copy and I am sure my colleague the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) has a copy of the representation made to the minister about the industry's concern with any major increased costs because of the poor financial viability of many of these operations. He is obviously taking that into consideration.

I am one of those who believes that, with many of these government regulations providing for safety or public benefit in some way, it is not unfair that the costs be borne by the public to a large extent. I have some concern when I see planning departments in municipalities assessing large costs to somebody who wants a change in planning. If the municipality wants to have a planning law and there are people within that municipality who want to make a change and the public interest has to be considered, then maybe that cost should be chargeable to the public. I use that as an example and I see the minister has followed this example here. I commend him for it.

I and my party have some concerns with the bill. I hope the minister will answer these concerns when he rises to wind up the debate. I have concerns about this legislation, as I have about other legislation that has been brought before this House. Under clause 17(1)(n) there is the provision for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to exempt "any amusement device or person or class or type thereof from any provision of this act or the regulations."

That means if the minister wanted to, there could be an operation of at least one amusement park that did not have any of these safety provisions, any inspections or any licensing. It says "any of the provisions of this act." In many acts, this is a sort of standard provision, but I raise it as a matter of principle. If the government wanted to provide exemption from any of the regulations under this act, I could buy that, but when it comes to exempting the act -- I am not suggesting the minister is going to do it. That is not the intent. Nevertheless, that provision in an act such as this bothers me.

I do not think it would weaken the act if there were limited provisions for exemption instead of exemption from the whole act. I am not moving an amendment on this because this same kind of provision is in other acts as well. It is something the government should take a good look at. It should not be setting up government policy -- in this instance a very good principle in government policy -- saying the Lieutenant Governor in Council would have the power to exempt any person or any device from this act in this instance. I hope the minister will comment on that when he rises.

I also hope the minister will say it is his intention, perhaps under the regulations, to adopt the safety code for amusement rides. There is general agreement between him and his ministry that the federal code is a desirable one. Although it applies only to new rides and new construction, I hope it will be adopted and that he will give that commitment when he rises.

I also have some concern, although one cannot write these things into an act, about inspections. I have the impression there may be an inspection of the equipment once a year before it goes out on the road and that this may qualify as the total in the way of inspections. When the minister gets up to reply, I would like him to tell us that there will be comprehensive spot inspections when these are in operation during the season, or during the year if they operate for the whole year.

If this act is going to be meaningful, we know very well it will have to be policed. Although in most regulations of this kind we recognize that the majority of the operators are good and will live up to the act, there may be some who will not. Therefore, I would like to hear him say there are going to be comprehensive spot inspections of these amusement rides when they are in operation.

Another matter that concerns me somewhat -- perhaps only slightly, but I think it would improve this legislation if it were remedied -- is that the section of the Municipal Act which now permits municipalities to license, inspect and require safety measures should be repealed so we do not have two such licensing bodies for these amusement rides. I suspect most municipalities will be glad to get out from under it. There might be some that will want to be tough, but I think the legislation we have should be adequate. There should be only one government administering these inspections.

Finally, as the minister knows, I have some concern that there is no requirement in the act that amusement business operators have liability insurance. We have had some discussion on this and it is my understanding the minister will agree to an amendment that is to come forward, an amendment that has been modified in accordance with the wishes of legal counsel. However, I do want to put on record my concern about passing legislation that does not have any such provision.

It is perfectly obvious that while there is no requirement for insurance, as there is now no requirement, most operators, for obvious reasons, will have it, but there may be some who will not. If somebody is injured or killed on an amusement ride and if there is no insurance, there will be a new complication for that person. At a time when we are seeing liability settlements in the millions of dollars -- I am not suggesting they are right, but we are seeing them -- to permit an amusement ride to operate without any insurance does not seem very reasonable.

I am not suggesting this is the minister's intention; I do not think it is. I know the problem he is having these days with insurance and he probably does not want to have a hassle raised on this issue. However, I suggest that if this Legislature decides there should be a clause in there, it may lessen the hassle for him as a minister.

From my point of view as a member of this Legislature, I do not want to see any legislation of this kind pass that does not require that there be insurance coverage. Although I trust that the minister will have such coverage, I am not prepared to have the Legislature pass legislation without ensuring that this is the case. I think it would to some extent be faulty legislation.

4:20 p.m.

Because there have been some changes in the amendments which have been proposed and I would like to give advance notice to the Conservative Party, I will read the amendment which I will propose when it gets into committee so its members can have time to consider the newly-worded amendment.

"I move that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

"3a Every person who carries on the business of operating amusement devices shall procure and maintain liability insurance with respect to the operation of the business in an amount not less than a prescribed amount."

I will then move an amendment to section 17.

"I move that subsection 17(1) of the act be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

"(a) prescribing for the purpose of section 3a the minimum amount of liability insurance that applies to any class or type of operation."

As the House will see and the minister will also recognize, I am not trying to be tough in this kind of amendment. I still leave the authority with the minister to determine the amount of insurance which should apply to the various classifications of rides. I realize the need for classification, but I am also living up to a principle about which I feel strongly, that this legislation should not go through without having in it the requirement for insurance.

I am glad to have had the opportunity to make some comments on this bill and to say to the minister that I hope the amendment I will be introducing in committee will be considered by him, a friendly one. My criticism of what I feel are some of the inadequacies of the bill is given in a friendly way. I hope he will see fit to comment on them and give the kind of insurance I and others would like to see in this bill.

Mr. Offer: It is with pleasure that I rise in support of Bill 97, An Act respecting Amusement Devices.

This particular act is intended to improve the safety of amusement rides and other attractions used by the Ontario public. It focuses on safety standards and their establishment. This new legislation will require that ride owners be licensed by the province and that each ride be licensed and have a permit to operate.

Again, the legislation focuses on an inspection of these rides at regular intervals by provincially appointed inspectors empowered to order repairs relating to safety or, and maybe most importantly, to close down rides considered unsafe. This does not mean to say there is a problem with respect to the amusement ride industry, but it does mean it is time the provincial government should have the right, in the event certain rides are considered unsafe, to follow a regular, routine procedure to safeguard the interests of persons using those rides.

In addition to the traditional amusement rides and go-kart tracks, the new legislation will also govern safety requirements of other attractions. As we know, especially around the Toronto area, these types of attractions are growing each year, as they become technologically feasible.

This legislation is long overdue. I am happy to hear the member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) and the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) indicate their support. Let us remember, we are not so much talking about wide technological advance or what is in amusement parks, as we are talking about people -- the users of those rides and other attractions -- and tragedies which have befallen some of the users. Let us not forget that in the past number of years there has been a growing incidence of accidents involving amusement devices. It is important to keep in mind that since 1962 there have been 10 fatalities and at least six serious go-kart accidents. Over the years, there have been repeated calls for the legislation that is before this House today.

It was to a degree well said some years back in a letter from Sheila McDade. I am going to read from it because it deals with a go-kart tragedy. She recalls the lecturing by the parents of the children, the lecturing that came from home and parents. They received cautions about, for instance: "Be sure you know where the brake is. Do not go too fast." They all gathered together at her house to await the rest of the group. She indicates she can still see the smiling, happy faces of the children as the car pulled out of the driveway to go to the go-kart race track. Little did she know that all the parents' caution had been misdirected, because none was aware where the true danger lay.

This is a factual situation. She relates this about the last lap and a little girl by the name of Becky: "Her hands flew to her head and her go-kart ran into the centre of the field. Her beautiful, waist-length, blond hair, which had never been cut since her birth and which had been done up in one long pony tail down her back, was tightly wound up in the motor of the go-kart, her head pinned against the motor in the back, and her scalp lifted with the pressure.

"The employees at the track did not appear to be trained to handle an emergency such as this one and so, until the prompt arrival of the ambulance attendants, only the parents in her group, along with a very capable lady passerby, were left to try and cope with and offer assistance in this nightmarish situation." It is something she is sure will live in their minds for a very long time to come.

Miss McDade goes on to indicate that this young girl, Becky, who was an incredibly brave little girl, "was conscious throughout this whole incident for the approximately 15 minutes it took to extricate her from the machine, then to transfer her to the hospital. At this point, it was felt her injuries might necessitate her transfer to Kingston for a consultation with the surgeon, and then she finally got to sleep through another hour and a half of surgery. She was so proud of her hair. She realized it had been cut, but she had no idea of the extent of her injuries." Miss McDade indicates, "What a needless tragedy in the life of a bright and pretty 10 1/2-year-old little girl."

She goes on: "To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Think about it. If only we had known, this whole thing would never have happened and she could have continued to enjoy the rest of her day with her friends. Because we could not even imagine the possibilities of anything like this happening, we have all paid a high price for our new-found knowledge."

4:30 p.m.

I remind the members that we are talking about, for the most part, untold tragedy happening to children. There was that one-hour-and-a-half operation, but that does not indicate the many days, weeks and months of further operations that one has to go through, and there is the psychological damage one might have.

To the minister and his staff, it is time to compliment and applaud the action taken in such a very short time and to indicate that just last summer, a young girl in my riding of Mississauga North was the victim of a similar go-kart accident.

These accidents are not unique to one particular person. They continue. We cannot undo what has already occurred but, by this legislation and by the action of this minister, we can ensure as best as possible that amusement-ride and go-kart tragedies of the past shall not happen in the future.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I rise to support Bill 97 and compliment the minister on a good piece of legislation. I point out that when the government drafts good legislation, it will receive the support of this side of the House as well.

Dr. Elgie, the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, in a memo dated February 26, 1985, was in the process of drafting similar legislation, so it has been in the process of coming to light for some time. I would like to go back even further than that and suggest it is very similar to a bill introduced by my good friend and former colleague, the former member for Middlesex, Bob Eaton. He introduced legislation that was entitled at that time, Bill 159, An Act respecting the Licensing and Inspection of Amusement Rides in Ontario. It was introduced on a Thursday afternoon in private members' hour and received the unanimous support of the House.

For the information of the House and the record, I would like to read the explanatory notes to Bill 159.

"The purpose of the bill is to provide for the licensing and inspection of amusement rides in Ontario. The bill requires that all amusement rides be licensed. A director, appointed under the act, is given the authority to revoke the licence for an amusement ride that does not comply with this act. The act provides for inspectors and specifies that the inspectors must apply the midway safety code when conducting their inspections. It is an offence under the act to operate an amusement ride that is not licensed or that is unsafe, or to cause or permit an amusement ride to be operated in an unsafe manner."

That was debated in private members' hour and it shows the power the members, as individuals, have to change and enact legislation that is beneficial to all Ontarians. It was, as I mentioned, supported by all three parties in the House. Bill 97 comes very close to duplicating this bill and is one I very strongly support. On a personal note, I had the honour to second that bill and also to speak in support of it, so I feel quite personally involved with this legislation.

In my riding, which is a rural riding, I have 21 municipalities and many of them have fall fairs. Approximately 12 fall fairs are held on an annual basis in and adjacent to my riding, and nearly all these fall fairs rely very heavily on the amusement rides to attract people to the fair. It is totally unacceptable that very small children and people who do not have the knowledge to make an intelligent decision about whether a ride is safe should be put in jeopardy because we do not have an inspection.

I support very strongly the principle that we should have inspectors. I was disturbed that we had to rely on local municipalities to provide the inspectors because, quite frankly, very few of the small municipalities can provide an inspector for just a few days a year and that is basically what would be required. The expertise to be able to determine whether a ride is safe would not be available in many instances and, therefore, children or people making use of the rides would be in jeopardy. I support the concept that it should be provincial government inspectors who certify whether that ride is safe.

One of the members indicated earlier there was a question of whether the ride should be allowed to carry on if there is any question of safety. I am not sure that was quite the wording, but I do not think we should take any chance whatsoever. If a ride is not considered safe by an inspector, under no circumstances should it be allowed to have a licence.

Concern was expressed about liability insurance. While I am mainly concerned with the safety aspects, I certainly would go along with an amendment for liability insurance if the minister could accept it. I leave it to his discretion.

I have only a couple of other comments to make. I would like to take the opportunity to refer back to Bill 159, presented by Robert Eaton. I would like to mention that, in the debate, it was pointed out: "I firmly believe legislation is needed to ensure that the people, especially the younger children who frequent these amusement rides, are protected, and that someone has inspected the rides, assumed the responsibility of certifying them safe and has so indicated."

A comparison could be made to elevators. The majority of us take the safety of elevators for granted. When we step into an elevator we have complete confidence it is safe, that someone has inspected it and certified it is so. It should be the same with amusement rides.

We owe it to the children of this province to provide that same degree of safety, and to the parents to provide that same degree of security. We can achieve that through this bill before us today. I would like the minister to know he has my support and, I am sure, the support of our caucus.

Mr. Barlow: I would like to speak very briefly on this bill. I really had not intended to do so, but it coincided with a letter that recently came into my office from a local amusement operator, Blade and Homeniuk Amusement Rides. He raised several concerns and questions on what, at the time, was an impending bill. He had been briefed by a member of your staff, Mr. Speaker, that this was going to be happening.

One of his concerns is the question of the experience of the licenced inspectors; whether they had been duly qualified and had the right information at hand for the inspection of the various rides they would be looking into and trying to address to make sure they were safe.

I must say, I do not have a big concern about the introduction of this bill, which I basically support. There may be some way the government could achieve a better insurance rate in that industry if everyone, including the insurance company, knows the rides are totally safe. It may be able to affect, in a positive way, the insurance rates they are paying for the liability.

There are several questions these operators are asking. I told them that, in the normal course of events, I would write the minister and ask him to respond. In fact, I should put them on the record today and in his response, maybe the minister can address these particular questions.

4:40 p.m.

There are four of them:

"1. The cost of registering or licensing each ride before it operates in Ontario and the delays that may be caused if a ride is purchased or contracted from out of the province. If it is a late replacement for any reason or delivery has been delayed and speed is of the essence for fulfilling a fair date, can the procedure be completed in a few hours or over a weekend?" -- that is, the inspection procedure. "Will this procedure being done during irregular hours provide a further expense?

"2. The cost of each inspection has been estimated at $25 for a child's ride and from $100 up for an adult or a major ride. It is further suggested that there would be two such inspections each year. If an inspector deems it necessary to make return checks on equipment to confirm any directives have been completed, will additional charges be levied? Once again, if this is done during irregular hours, will this incur a further expense?

"3. Some municipalities already have inspection procedures for mobile carnival operations and some `user fees' are charged. It is not clear whether these will continue or be waived if a provincial inspection system is operating." I think the minister has already answered that.

"4. Will these inspections be carried out by qualified and experienced inspectors who are knowledgeable with the ride industry?"

I leave those questions with the minister. Perhaps he can address them in his response.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank all members who participated in this debate for what I gather is their unanimous support for the bill.

I do not want to take credit for the bill. I think it is an act whose time has come. It is something we absolutely require for a very special reason. No death, no accident is acceptable to anybody. However, when a young child goes to an amusement ride, a fair or an exhibition, if one has ever seen a young child with his wide eyes, his amazement and his anticipation of the fun he is going to have, to have that turn into a tragedy, not only for the child but also for his family, when it is such an elective and supposedly happy procedure, is something that, if any death can be categorized, is probably the most difficult to come to terms with, because for the rest of one's life as a parent, a sister or a brother one ponders why this thing had to happen.

It is important that we take the actions we are contemplating today to see whether we can minimize that risk. As I noted, I do not take any particular pleasure in saying I brought this forward; it is something we collectively are bringing forward. It is something we should do, and I am delighted this House has that sense.

I would like to address some of the questions that were raised by members in the debate. The member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) correctly pointed out the danger of the economic effects of the act on small operators and fairs. We feel that if they are operating in a businesslike way and maintaining their equipment, the economic effect will be minimal. There is no reason this should cause any great economic hardship, and I can assure the honourable member we will be monitoring the situation closely. This bill will be followed to make sure that it is effective and that the things being done under its mandate will be reasonable but will also provide a degree of safety for the consumers and the public of Ontario.

I thank the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) for his support. I agree with him that the Municipal Act does make provisions for amusement rides; however, they are not effective. There is no doubt that with this new act, we should be able to get some uniformity of inspection. We should also be able to get experienced people doing it, which will be a very welcome addition to the industry.

I also point out to the honourable member that this act and its implementation are going to cost the citizens of Ontario money. We are going to be charging people, but it is not going to be 100 per cent cost recovery. Our estimate varies depending on the time of the year, but we are looking at a cost of about $400,000 a year. That is a cost our government feels is worth while. It will provide competent technical people able to go in and do a professional job.

One of the things I noted in talking to other jurisdictions was that some of them felt, although they have legislation, it is in many cases just lipservice. The legislation is there, but it is honoured sometimes more in the breach than in the execution. That is not going to happen in Ontario. The people in our technical standards division are going to be trained in their usual way, as when they service elevators or ski lifts, and know what they are doing. They will have specific training as far as amusement devices are concerned, and I am satisfied they will provide a good, professional service.

I want to address some other concerns raised by the member. He talked about clause 17(1)(n) and the exemption. I assure him that exemption is not meant in any way to be a cop-out, to abdicate our responsibility. It is a good, prudent legislative statement in case there is some area where there is dispute about whether a device is an amusement device.

Where there is a grey area, we would like to have the discretion, from a legal point of view, to make that determination and say, "Yes, that is an amusement device under the act," or "No, it is not." Whatever man can devise, who knows what is liable to come up tomorrow or next week? That clause is not meant in any other way than to provide a mechanism in the act to deal with that kind of situation.

I appreciate the member saying that although he is not thrilled with that provision, he is not prepared to move an amendment. I welcome that, and I hope my explanation satisfies him.

The member also wanted a commitment from me that I would implement the Canadian Standards Association's safety code for amusement rides, Z267-M1983. I can tell him without any hesitation that we will, and it will be a part of our process. We may have to modify it because it may not apply to certain things, but the thrust and intent of that safety code will make up the basis for our inspections.

He also mentioned inspections. I hope I have touched on that to his satisfaction. They will be comprehensive, thorough, professional and comparable to those done under the Elevating Devices Act. They will be done on a spot-check basis. The devices will be inspected regularly and will be dealt with in a proper manner.

4:50 p.m.

Another concern the member raised, one we have no trouble with, was that the sections of the Municipal Act that govern amusement rides will be repealed. I have met with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which is delighted to have this legislation. They are very supportive of it. We have also got agreement from them as to how we can enforce it; that is something I can assure him will be done.

With respect to his last item of concern, the insurance liability, I want to assure him that when I was going over the briefing for the presentation of this bill, the thing we spent the most time on was liability insurance. Members on all sides of the House will appreciate that I have a particular sensitivity to liability insurance at this time and, as a result, it was not something we overlooked. It was a conscious decision that, rather than put it in the act, we would put it in the regulations.

Having said that, I have no quarrel or objection to the act being amended to reflect the necessity for liability insurance. It will be a part of the act. I assume the members of my legal staff have worked out with the member an amendment that is acceptable. When we go to committee of the whole, as I hope we will, I will be delighted to entertain that amendment.

I want to speak briefly to the comments made by the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson); I thank him for his support and welcome his reference to Bill 159. As I said earlier, I have no pride of authorship. I am delighted to be in a position to bring this bill forward; it is the result of an accumulation of concerns that have been expressed by all parties, and I welcome that. I hope this bill will acknowledge that. I have no problem with that at all.

I also agree with him about the problem of provision for nonoperation if a ride is not certified. That will be in the regulations; if the device has any mechanical failure or is found to be in an unsafe condition, it will not be put back into service until it has been certified by a competent inspector.

I have already addressed the matter of liability insurance. It is obvious that any operator of one of these devices should have insurance. If he feels he cannot, that is all the more reason why we should make sure he has it. I have no problem with having it included in the act.

Last, I want to address the comments of the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) and acknowledge the letter from Blade and Homeniuk Amusements. It raises four questions, and I hope I have addressed all of them.

One, I want to assure the honourable member that our inspectors will be qualified. There is no question about that. They will be highly trained. They will have all the necessary equipment and expertise to do their jobs, and that is a given.

As to whether these inspections will be done at times convenient to the operators, I can assure the member we recognize this is a rather unusual business. It is a transient business; it travels here and there from time to time. We will make every effort to accommodate operators, understanding there are limitations on our manpower and their locations. Whenever possible, we will try to accommodate them, understanding the problems they have in their industry.

To address another question, about whether there will be many visits by inspectors, I can assure the member that the only visits the inspectors will make will be if they identify a problem. If they are required to go back several times in succession, that means there is a problem. That is the whole reason for the act and that is what they will do.

The other point, and I have already touched on it, is that the provincial legislation will supersede all others and make any municipal regulations redundant.

With respect to one of the last concerns, whether the people who will be doing the inspections will be qualified, I have touched on that and assured everybody in the House that these people will be highly qualified and competent.

I hope I have addressed all the concerns expressed. We have unanimous consent on the bill, subject to the amendment, and I thank all the members who participated for their very valuable input.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

SCIENCE NORTH ACT

Consideration of Bill 95, An Act respecting Science North.

Sections 1 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 13:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Ms. Munro moves that section 13 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"13. The board shall appoint one or more auditors licensed under the Public Accountancy Act to audit the accounts and transactions of the centre annually."

Hon. Ms. Munro: I articulated earlier the reasons for introducing such an amendment; they reflected some of the comments of members of the Legislature.

Mr. Grande: We have no problem with this amendment. I thank the minister for having brought it in at this time.

Motion agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 14 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

5 p.m.

AMUSEMENT DEVICES ACT

Consideration of Bill 97, An Act respecting Amusement Devices.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

"3a. Every person who carries on the business of operating amusement devices shall procure and maintain liability insurance in respect of the operation of the business in an amount not less than a prescribed amount."

Mr. Swart: I will not take up the time of the House in dealing with this. I apologize for not having it photocopied. I think the minister knows it was done quickly. I believe that the wording of it is as requested by the legal staff. I will not deal with the issue again. I think there is agreement to it and, therefore, I will let the vote be taken.

Mr. Bernier: As a matter of information, will the amount prescribed in that amendment be prescribed by regulation?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Clause 17(1)(o) will cover that.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: As a point of clarification, with the problems we are facing in the liability insurance sector today, are we creating a problem? As I mentioned earlier, I fully support the safety concept. I am a bit concerned about liability if we are going to have the problem we have in some other sectors. Does the minister have any indication what we are doing about the "prescribed amount" and how will it impact on the industry?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The problem is that any operator really should have insurance. What we are doing is saying that certain rides are less risky than others. It might not be reasonable or applicable to put in a provision that every operator must have X dollars of liability insurance.

We are going to make it by regulation and we will negotiate with the industry to come up with an amount that makes sense from its point of view and from our point of view. That is the main reason we did not include it initially in the act. We acknowledge that we have to have the insurance provision. I have no problem including it in the act as long as we leave the determination of the amount by regulation.

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 4 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 17:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that subsection 17(1) be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

"(o) prescribing for the purpose of section 3a the minimum amount of liability insurance that applies to any class or type of operation."

Mr. Swart: Again, I think it is agreed upon and I do not need to elaborate on it. I covered it, I hope, on second reading of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Kwinter, the committee of the whole House reported two bills with certain amendments.

HEALTH CARE ACCESSIBILITY ACT

Hon. Mr. Elston moved second reading of Bill 94, An Act regulating the Amounts that Persons may charge for rendering Services that are Insured Services under the Health Insurance Act.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I rise today to open the debate on second reading of this bill, a very important one for the people of Ontario.

Last month, on December 19, I introduced in this House legislation to ban the practice of extra billing in Ontario. The new legislation, known by its short name as the Health Care Accessibility Act, provides for a complete ban on extra billing for all insured physician services, all insured dentistry services performed in hospitals and all insured optometry services. Under the proposed legislation, these services are to be provided to all Ontarians at Ontario health insurance plan rates.

When I introduced this bill, I said and I will repeat now that our government's intention is to preserve the principles of universality and accessibility in Ontario health care, two principles upon which our Canadian health care system is founded, but which, in this province, have been allowed to fall into jeopardy.

It is our government's intention to ensure that all patients have access to the physicians of their choice, that they are able to seek necessary health care free from any financial constraints and that, in receiving health care, they do not have to discuss their financial circumstances with an attending physician. In this province, we do not need charity medicine --

Mr. Bernier: The member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) had to leave, she is so disgusted.

Mr. Martel: She left in a snit.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I cannot help but believe that particular physician does not wish to negotiate and talk about the practice of extra billing.

Mr. McClellan: She invented extra billing; she invented opting out.

5:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: In fairness to the member for York Mills, who just vacated the House, I presume she knows a great deal about the issue and is probably going out now to consult her journals on some items she may wish to contribute to this debate at a later time. I am sure she will join in the debate wholeheartedly at a later time. Perhaps in making responses to this legislation, which is designed to protect the people and patients of this province, she may even provide a letter to be read in this House by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), who on past occasions has shown a certain ability to read at length in this House in trying to contribute to debate.

In this province we do not need charity medicine and we do not want a health care system that provides one level of care for the rich and another for the poor. Some advocates of extra billing have claimed that since only five per cent of Ontario health insurance plan claims are extra billed, the issue is not a genuine problem and may therefore be politely overlooked.

I will respond to this fond belief by noting that 10 counties in this province account for more than 90 per cent of all physician extra billing charges. The fact is that if one is resident in Metropolitan Toronto or in York, Halton, Peel, Peterborough, Simcoe, Wellington, Waterloo, Middlesex or Ottawa-Carleton counties, one may well have difficulty finding a physician in a particular specialty who does not extra bill. It is this clustering phenomenon, as it has been called, that constitutes the problem that our proposed legislation addresses.

It is my personal belief that because physician health care services are both essential and necessary to personal health and wellbeing, we have a responsibility to see that those services are accessible to everyone. In Canada we have chosen to guarantee that accessibility through a publicly funded, publicly administered health care system. I also believe that, in the best traditions of their profession, physicians have a moral responsibility to support this national decision and to work co-operatively so that the system functions effectively and maximum health care benefits are realized.

The recent action taken by some physicians in the Timmins area to opt out of OHIP and to bill their patients directly is not a contravention of our proposed legislation. The spirit in which the action was taken, however, may be open to question. My primary concern is that health care for the people of Timmins not be adversely affected, and I am monitoring the situation closely to see whether any deterioration in services is occurring or is likely to occur.

I can understand that the same professional opportunities will be taken by those physicians as have been taken in the past. I know that honourable member will probably be willing to advise me accordingly at any moment when he sees that patient care is in jeopardy so that the necessary action can be taken. I am sure he will co-operate with me to help monitor that situation.

I do not expect that physicians in this province will oppose the proposed legislation by taking actions that will deliberately affect the quality of patient care in a negative way. I believe the vast majority of doctors recognize their important health care responsibility and are ready to maintain that professional commitment.

I would point out that in preparing the extra billing legislation I asked the Ontario Medical Association to present its views and opinions to me. The OMA refused to enter into discussions. It was because of this refusal that a series of public information forums was then held throughout the province.

I can tell members at this point that my public deliberations on putting together this legislation were not limited to only those forums. I had a number of meetings with very interested groups, including, for instance, a physician who serves my riding, Dr. Couchie, who made some recommendations. He tried to indicate his clear concern with the practice of extra billing. He was an extra billing physician, and I make no apologies for the fact that I met him and talked to him about the options available and about some of the suggestions that were made available to us.

Dr. Couchie is but one example, and he was written up in an Ontario medical newspaper. I make no apologies for having spoken with him and with other physicians who hold similar views. I have spoken with physicians who held the opposing view; namely, that extra billing should be banned.

I have cast around the province for all kinds of input on this legislation and, as you see, Mr. Speaker, our work has culminated in the presentation for first reading and now second reading of Bill 94.

The meetings were organized to give people an opportunity to find out the facts about extra billing -- these were the forums that were organized in nine centres across the province -- and to provide an opportunity for public interest groups and concerned citizens to express their opinions about it. We heard from a variety of people, from local physicians' associations, nurses, hospitals, senior citizens' groups, health care organizations and private citizens. The intention to ban extra billing had the solid support of the great majority of the participants.

My invitation for discussion and negotiation about this legislation still stands. I have pointed out on many occasions that when the bill is examined by a committee of this Legislature, I expect health care consumer and provider groups, as well as public interest associations and concerned citizens, to bring their responses so that we can frame legislation to meet this province's health care needs.

Let me make it clear again that it is the intention this bill will go to a committee of the Legislature. We must underline that, bearing in mind that sometimes it takes repetition, in fact several times, so that people understand. This will go to committee to be discussed by people who are interested in helping us frame the legislation in the best interests of Ontario.

Regarding the issue of physician compensation and the mechanism for providing it, my invitation to the Ontario Medical Association also stands. I am ready to discuss and negotiate the matter fairly and equitably. I therefore expect that when the bill is before the committee, the OMA will accept this invitation for the benefit of the profession and the people of the province.

It is time to get on with the important discussion on the principle of Bill 94 on second reading in the House. I look forward to the presentations of the members on the opposite side.

Mr. Pope: Now, where was I in December?

Mr. McClellan: That was on a different bill.

Mr. Pope: Was that a different one? I miss the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan). Perhaps he will be here in the evening session.

Mr. Martel: Who? Grossman?

Mr. Pope: The member for Brampton who had so much to say last time and kept the discussion going for so long.

I am glad the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) indicated that I was wont to discuss things for an extended period of time. I spoke on one occasion on the pharmacy bills for a period of two and a half hours to put the concerns of some of the professionals, the pharmacists, on that legislation. I was going to have put on the record the concerns of some of the consumer interests as well.

That speech of two and a half hours in length seems to have mesmerized the minister with respect to debating legislation in this Legislature. I remind him there are some members of his party in the House today, and some members of the third party, who have spoken for seven, eight and nine hours on legislation in the recent past.

Mr. McClellan: Thirteen hours.

Mr. Pope: Was 13 the record? There is nothing unusual about a discussion that takes two and a half hours. I know my friend the parliamentary assistant agrees with that.

The minister made the point in his opening remarks that he had to repeat that there were going to be committee hearings in case there was any misunderstanding. He knows full well about the discussions that took place with respect to Bills 54 and 55 and our attempt to get wide-open, unlimited committee hearings. It was not until we continued to talk in this House that he was prepared to allow democracy to prevail and allow the professionals of this province to have their say in committee with respect to Bills 54 and 55.

5:20 p.m.

His apologists were on his side all the way and are still on his side. I would like to talk to the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) for a while about that other world he is wont to refer to, the world of the patients who see one of the best health care systems in North America and who are concerned that services continue to be operated by caring professionals who want to be involved in the system.

I am talking about the real world of doctors who see patients in their offices and in hospitals every day. I am talking about the real world of pharmacists who operate their pharmacies and deal with senior citizens every day. That is the real world that the member and his colleagues in the Liberal Party seem to forget about in their mad rush towards an ideology with respect to health care in this province.

Mr. McClellan: The Tories were not in any rush. They did nothing in the last five years.

Mr. Pope: We built up one of the best health care systems in North America, my friend. It is the envy of every other jurisdiction in North America.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member would address the chair on Bill 94, please.

Mr. Pope: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry.

Even his colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) will tell the member that the people of this province believe we have one of the best health care systems. They are immensely satisfied. They do want to see some improvements and we are going to talk about them, but they recognize this as one of the best health care systems in North America. They do not want the likes of the member tinkering with a very good health care system that is providing service to the people of this province.

They do not want this negotiated through the Globe and Mail every week. They want the health care system to work because they recognize it is a good system. They want everyone to work at improving it but they feel it is one of the best health care systems in North America and they are all proud of it.

We all have an obligation to recognize that fact and to try to work together in a co-operative way with the professionals, with the private sector; working together, not shutting them off from negotiations because they do not adopt the member's preconceived notions of the conclusions he wants. They want an open-door policy where the professionals, the patients, the people of this province all have a right to have their say and to talk to the Minister of Health.

We talked about Bills 54 and 55, of which the member is so proud. The truth came out in this Legislature and in the committee meetings of this Legislature, in which the member was not involved so he does not know what was going on, which is nothing new for him. We talked about this consultation process with respect to Bills 54 and 55. The ultimate conclusion we came to was that there had been no negotiations. There had only been discussions through press conferences and press releases and only one meeting with the pharmacists on the day the bill was being introduced.

When all is said and done, when we cut through the rhetoric of the Minister of Health, that is the reality of the negotiations that went on with respect to the pharmacists and the Ontario College of Pharmacists in this province. When one cuts through all the nice rhetoric this minister is wont to throw in, that is what we get.

We have a similar situation with respect to discussion on this bill. We heard all sorts of nice rhetoric in the estimates on the morning of Wednesday, November 27, from the Minister of Health. He talked about the fact that he had tried to have discussions with the Ontario Medical Association and with different health professionals throughout this province on this legislation.

That is what he said on the morning of Wednesday, November 27. If the date is wrong, I apologize. I will find it right here. I do not want to be incorrect. Yes, it was on the morning of November 27, 1985, in the estimates of the Ministry of Health that the minister talked about his relationship with the OMA.

I do not want to quote extensively from this document because I heard the ruling with respect to Bills 54 and 55, but I think it is important at least to refer to it. I have only the Instant Hansard. I do not know the citation for the official Hansard, but it is on pages 21 , 22 and 23 of the Instant Hansard.

This minister indicated that on numerous occasions there had been some talk about extra billing but no negotiations. He said that publicly and privately the OMA was saying it would not talk about it from the standpoint of negotiating an end to extra billing because it did not want to negotiate an elimination of that right.

We have had only one meeting with the Ontario Medical Association, just to calm the concerns of the third party which is wont to attribute all sorts of special interest to everybody in this House. That meeting in December was to get its point of view. What it says is not quite on all fours.

The discussion that members of our caucus had with the Ontario Medical Association told us a slightly different story from what we heard on the morning of November 27 in the estimates of the Ministry of Health. The Ontario Medical Association says it met with both the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Minister of Health. It says that at these meetings it emphasized the need for restructuring of the health care system in the province, taking into consideration future increases and demand on resources in the context of a nonexpanding resource base.

It also discussed how the financially disadvantaged might be protected within the health care system. I use that reference about its concern for protecting the financially disadvantaged in the existing health care system. That is a subject it raised with the Minister of Health and the Premier in its meetings with them.

I put that in the context of the statement of the minister when he moved second reading of this bill. He said he did not want to see a two-tier health care system in this province, one for the financially disadvantaged and another for the so-called rich, as if that goal is somehow different from the goals that all of us in this House share; as if that was somehow different from the concerns of caring professionals who are practising medicine in this province; as if somehow he alone had that concern and he alone had the answer to resolve that concern and that the professionals had no role to play in that resolution.

It is the same attitude towards the pharmacists. Somehow they have no role to play in the resolving of the issue of drug costs in this province. Somehow they should be kept out of it. It is his right, as the Minister of Health, to dictate the settlements and he will let them know, when he introduces the legislation, exactly what they are going to be.

I reiterate, we have one of the best health care systems in North America. It is the envy of many other jurisdictions. It was built carefully over decades of co-operation, listening and protracted negotiation, with mutual respect for its participants and the professionalism of those people, and with emphasis on the quality of care their professionalism dictates be provided to the people of this province. That is the kind of understanding, commitment, tolerance and development that we have seen in the health care system of this province.

Mr. McClellan: Why did we have a strike with Larry as Minister of Health?

Mr. Pope: It was always done through negotiation. Yes, there were differences and disputes.

Mr. McClellan: There was a doctors' strike.

Mr. Pope: It was resolved. There were discussions with the OMA. This minister has yet to engage in those discussions. It is his precondition that his solutions will be dictated and that is the end of it. That is not how we handled it. That is not how one builds one of the best health care systems in North America. We still have to rely upon caring professionals in this province.

Mr. McClellan: Ask the doctors what they think.

Mr. Pope: I know the ideology of the member for Bellwoods is complete state control, but we still have a system in this province that requires caring professionals, individuals with a commitment to quality of care. That, also, has to be put into the mix. That is something the members of the third party will never understand, honour or commit themselves to even though they told the pharmacists privately they acknowledged that caring professionals have a role. They did not say that in the debate of Bills 54 and 55. They put it in a letter to the pharmacists but they did not put it on the record here.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: The member did not listen. He was not here.

Interjection.

Mr. Pope: The member is wrong. Right country, wrong place.

Where was I? I was talking about the fundamental importance to the quality of the health care system in this province, not only with respect to the involvement of the Ontario health insurance plan system and the Ontario drug benefit plan, but also with respect to the role of individual professionals who understand their professional obligations.

In the context of those professional obligations and the context of caring, of a deep, personal concern for their patients, they want to make sure they get a high quality of care at a cost they can afford. In that context, let us work with those caring professionals and their associations, and let us resolve the issues of accessibility and universality that concern all of us.

The minister should not anoint himself as the only spokesman with the only answer. Look to the other groups in society. Go out to that other world the member for Bellwoods talks about from time to time, where patients are concerned about their relationship with their doctors and druggists and want to continue that ongoing personal relationship in the context of caring professionalism, something the member for Bellwoods may not understand. However, I know the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward), does. It is in that context we have to address the issue of this bill.

There is some concern. In discussing its meetings with the Minister of Health and the Premier, the Ontario Medical Association indicated that in the course of the meetings with the government, in discussions on extra billing discussions which, on November 27, the Minister of Health told us did not take place -- there was no mention, it was not even put on the table, of any negotiation of fee increases across the board or of certain specialty services that have led to the accessibility and universality concerns shared by all members of this Legislature.

Of course, this minister does not believe the Ontario Medical Association's concerns about the interchangeability of drugs and its potential impact on the health of the people of this province, so why would he believe the association's representatives when they say that in the context of the discussion of extra billing, there should be some discussion of fees? Of course, that never came through on November 27 in the estimates of the Ministry of Health. The meeting could have been held after that. I am not aware of the time of it, but I do not think it was.

There was no mention that fees would be increased as a means of compensating the doctors.

Mr. Shymko: Where is the minister?

Mr. Pope: No, it is okay.

Mr. Breaugh: Speaking of state control, the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) is here.

Mr. Andrewes: Now, now.

Mr. Pope: The Ontario Medical Association was invited to enter into the process of dealing with the extra billing issue. Its people were invited to make comment in those meetings -- the ones we were not told about on November 27 -- but only if they accepted its abolition as a foregone conclusion. If they did not accept that, there was to be no negotiation, no discussion.

Though the minister told us on November 27 that it was the OMA that was setting arbitrary conditions on the discussions and therefore there were no negotiations, the Ontario Medical Association tells a very different story. It says the Minister of Health and the Premier set the preconditions for negotiations such that they could not take place. Maybe the Minister of Health would clarify that later in the evening. I see the parliamentary assistant is writing notes on this and will be bringing it to his attention.

The Ontario Medical Association says further, because it refused to accept the banning of extra billing, it was not invited to participate in the drafting of legislation to be tabled on December 19. In other words, it was told, "Accept the foregone conclusion or no negotiation, no participation." I venture to say the same attitude dictated the events of November 7 with respect to the Ontario Pharmacists' Association and the Ontario College of Pharmacists. I just say with respect that is not how one builds one of the best health care systems in North America. One gets them into the room, understands their points of view, even if one disagrees, and tries to get them to negotiate as many other issues as possible.

We heard from the minister today that he is not engaged in any negotiations, even at this date, with respect to the fee schedule for this year; that he is not engaged in any negotiations to date with respect to some of the OHIP fee items that have led to the problems of accessibility with respect to certain specialities in certain parts of the province. He is not going to involve himself in that; he is going to dictate his solution with respect to his perception of the problem.

There is a general section in the bill, section 3, that says the minister will try to arrive at some mechanism. It does not lay out the mechanism; there is no guarantee of a mechanism for the doctors of this province, who happen to be fairly important carriers of the health care system in this province. There is no mechanism at all to give them some input into the fee discussions. The matter has not been resolved; it has been legislated, but on a doctor-by-doctor basis it has not been resolved.

What we need is a resolution of the universality and accessibility issues. That has to be our goal; and we do it through negotiations, the same way we created one of the best health care systems in North America.

The minister says the actions of the Timminss doctors will be monitored. First of all, he does not indicate how on earth he could ever monitor their activities. If they are not opted in, how is he going to monitor the patient-doctor relationship? Is he going to have ministry employees in every doctor's office in Timmins? Is that going to spread throughout the province? How is he going to monitor the relationship?

Mr. Shymko: Send the New Democratic Party, probably.

Mr. Breaugh: The member for High Park-Swansea would be good at that. State control, fascism; give him a little rubber stamp.

Mr. Pope: Are we talking about the rubber bacon that the member for Oshawa eats every second week or so down at the hotel in Toronto when he is setting the agenda?

Mr. Breaugh: No, we are not.

Mr. Pope: I see.

Mr. Stevenson: He will send out the four Liberals who happen to be in the House right now listening to this important debate to monitor the situation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order.

Mr. Pope: Here we have the front page of the Globe and Mail, Mr. Speaker. I will not quote from it, because I know you are concerned about that practice. Timmins made the front page of the Globe and Mail yesterday for the first time in living memory. They also charge more to buy the Globe and Mail in Timmins than they do in Toronto, but they always support equality of service across the province.

Mr. Breaugh: Certainly. Why should that surprise the member?

Mr. Pope: Tell me about it.

On Monday, January 13, 1986, Timmins made the front page of the Globe and Mail: "Doctors in Timmins to Opt Out of OHIP." There was a statement by Dr. Gordon Hall, president of the Porcupine District Medical Society. They voted "to opt out of the Ontario health insurance plan to protest against proposed provincial legislation that would ban extra billing by doctors."

We are talking about doctors who do not extra bill, not one of them. Stuart Smith came to Timmins in 1981 and said extra billing was a problem in Timmins, to the general mirth and delight of all the medical community there who knew that not one of them extra billed. They are all opted in.

Mr. Breaugh: Not one of the patients from Timmins ever comes to a Toronto hospital.

Mr. Pope: Oh, is that right? Tell me about it.

Mr. McClellan: That member should tell us about it.

Mr. Pope: I thought those fellows knew everything about the health care system. They are dictating what the government is going to do.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Thanks. We take credit for --

Mr. Pope: I know that party does. I have seen their mail.

Mr. Breaugh: The member reads our mail too?

Mr. Pope: Yes. Every day.

Christie McLaren writes this article --

Interjections.

Mr. Andrewes: He is on that party's list.

Mr. Pope: Freedom of information. Did the members not know about that? They are in favour of that too.

Mr. Philip: We saw their freedom of information.

Mr. Pope: Yes? That is good.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Pope: Talking about fascism reminds me of a discussion we had about the role of professionals. I noticed there was a columnist for the Globe and Mail who took great delight in stating the government of this province is tweaking the noses of the pharmacists, is tweaking the noses of the doctors, is tweaking the noses of the lawyers, is tweaking the noses of the judges.

There is great delight in an attack on the professions as was stated, not by me but in the column.

I remind the people that the professionals in the health care system are the primary deliverers of quality professional care. Tweaking their noses may satisfy the predispositions, ideological or otherwise, of one or of two of the parties in this House, but what does it do to improve the quality of health care in this province? One needs the co-operation of the caring professionals. One has to work with them. That is the whole point.

We now have doctors who never extra billed in their lives opting out in protest against this legislation and the way in which the Minister of Health has carried on discussions with the doctors of this province. The Ontario Medical Association and the pharmacists feel the same way about it.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: They will not discuss it.

Mr. Pope: They will not discuss it? I put the Ontario Medical Association's point of view on the record. The member will not believe the OMA because that would not jibe with his predisposition. However, the OMA put on the record its attempts to discuss this matter with the government and the fact that those attempts failed. I know the member does not want to admit that.

We have all these doctors opting out of the Ontario health insurance plan in my community, and this minister says he is going to monitor it. We all know that is a bunch of hooey. He is not going to be able to monitor doctor-patient relationships. He has no guarantee about the quality of doctor-patient care in Timmins.

He says sarcastically, "Of course, the local member will keep me apprised of the concerns he may have." I talked to the Minister of Health about the situation in Timmins. He should save his sarcasm for talking about the reality of the relationship and the concerns of members about health care throughout the province, and should never mind the song and dance he is so wont to give us in committee and in the Legislature.

What is the response of the Premier to this decision to opt out of OHIP? According to the Toronto Sun this morning on page 16 --

Mr. Wildman: Do they sell the Sun in Timmins?

Mr. Pope: We get the Sun a day late and there is a surcharge on it, but they are in favour of equal cost right across the province.

Mr. McClellan: They support the Conservatives.

Mr. Pope: No, they do not. They support some of the Conservatives. I will not quote from this article at length.

Mr. Pollock: Go ahead.

Mr. Pope: Should I? It is only four paragraphs: The headline says, "Premier Unmoved by Docs' Protest." So much for the concern about the quality of health care in Timmins with the doctors opting out.

One of these doctors ran against me as a Liberal candidate in 1981. Another was his campaign manager. A third was his fund-raiser. We are not talking about a group of individuals who are dedicated and committed to my party or to me. They are not. As the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) could tell the members -- he has been there -- they are not committed to my party or to me as the local member.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: In that respect, we give them credit.

Mr. Pope: In that respect, he agrees with them. This is not a partisan issue involving Progressive Conservatives. We are talking about a group of caring individuals who have a closer relationship to this government than to me.

Mr. Ward: They want to interact directly with their patients.

Mr. Pope: They want to interact directly with their patients, and they would love to interact directly with the Liberal Minister of Health, who was so friendly to them when he went up with the task force that presented On the Critical List: The Report of the Liberal Committee on Health Care in Ontario, but who now is nowhere to be seen when an issue such as this is confronting the doctors of that community.

That may be a great chuckle for the members of the Liberal Party, but they should explain to the doctors in Timmins who are their party supporters in the riding of Cochrane South why they ran to them in 1982 and 1983 to get their comments and ideas, which they have used in political speeches for the past three years, yet now they will not give them the time of day or talk to them when it comes to the matter of this legislation and their role in providing health care in the province. They should explain that to them. They should explain why the Premier says he is unmoved.

I want to quote further: "Premier David Peterson says he's `not concerned at all' by the decision of Timmins area doctors to opt out of OHIP." I hope when the doctors of Timmins are meeting with the Premier tonight, as I understand they are -- whether he will talk to them is another matter.

Mr. Ward: Protesting.

Mr. Pope: No, they are protesting because he will not meet with them. People have to pay $100 a person to talk to him tonight. That is the price to pay in Timmins tonight to talk to the Premier. That is why the doctors, the right-to-life people and the pharmacists are going to be protesting outside the Senator hotel.

The members of this government will not talk to the same people they were so happy to talk to three years ago. They have their own agenda set by a deal. No one else has any role to play in it; not the caring professionals, not us, no one else. They are going to do what they please the way they want to do it.

Mr. Shymko: Liberal democracy.

Mr. Pope: That is Liberal democracy. The Premier is not at all concerned in spite of the comments of the Minister of Health today that he was going to monitor the situation and if there were any problems he would bring them to his attention and resolve them. How he is going to do that he will not say, but he should tell us why he is so concerned when the Premier is not concerned about those professionals in the city of Timmins or about the role they play in delivering health care to my community and to the riding of Cochrane South.

I am sure the members of the third party join me in expressing some concern and some support for the doctors of Timmins who took the action of opting out of OHIP in protest against this legislation.

I am sure the members of the third party support the Porcupine medical association. Certainly Orval Turcotte, a national representative of the Canadian Union of Public Employees in Timmins, does. He says: "I do not see anything wrong with it. I support the doctors." I am sure the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) knows him well. I presume he is on all fours with Orval. He understands the reason for the doctors' action and he supports it. He understands this government does not have a working relationship with the medical community of this province and he is anxious that it be re-established and supports those goals.

Mr. Wildman: Where are all the doctors?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Yes, where are they?

Mr. Pope: Do the members want them here?

Mr. Breaugh: Yes.

Mr. Pope: Go and call them.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We have been writing letters.

Mr. Pope: I know the member has been writing letters. He has been writing to the pharmacists too.

This has provoked a response. The member for Windsor-Riverside indicated there are no doctors in the gallery tonight, but there is at least one I know of.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I did not say not one.

Mr. Pope: There is a doctor here today, but --

Mr. Wildman: Is there a doctor in the House?

Mr. Pope: Yes, there is.

Mr. Ward: Somebody is sick.

Mr. Pope: I will have lots of time to recover on my feet.

This has caused some concern and consternation. I know the parliamentary assistant has been receiving mail from people from across the province, not only doctors. As he did with the other bills, he has been reviewing the situation with the minister and making himself aware of the concerns of the people across the province. I think he is aware of the letter writing that has gone on to the Premier's office and to the Minister of Health's office.

There is one letter that I think is very important. My friend the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) brought this letter to my attention. The doctor felt he had to write to the member for Durham-York to put forward his point of view. In that letter to my colleague, which I am going to read, he enclosed a letter he has sent to all his patients:

"Dear Ross:

"Please find enclosed a letter which I am handing out to all of my patients over the next few months while the proposed legislation is being debated at Queen's Park. As you may or may not know, I have served as a consultant at the Uxbridge Cottage Hospital since 1968 and billed the OMA tariff on occasion, particularly for large surgical procedures when I have to make special trips back to the Uxbridge hospital to care for these patients post-operatively. It simply would not be feasible to operate on them up there and conduct proper post-operative care at the present OHIP tariff.

5:50 p.m.

"You might be interested to know that if the proposed legislation is passed in its current form, I will certainly be resigning my post as consultant obstetrician at the Uxbridge Cottage Hospital, and unless they can find a suitable replacement, that will in effect close down the obstetrical department for anything but the most straightforward routine deliveries.

"This will in effect mean that any complicated obstetrical case will have to be transferred by ambulance either to Toronto or Oshawa. In other words, the legislation, rather than making free medical care equally accessible to all, will in effect do just the opposite for certain members of the Uxbridge community."

That is similar to the situation in other parts of the province. It is the case in my own community with respect to specialists.

I put on the record in estimates -- I know the parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of Health, the member for Wentworth North was there and will recall this in great detail -- the concerns of Dr. Frank Covington. He was a staff psychiatrist in Timmins -- the only one engaged in a public practice north of North Bay -- who felt, in terms of his relationship with the Ministry of Health and his view of where the health care system was going in this province, it would be wise to seek employment elsewhere. He now has gone to the United States, leaving our community with no psychiatrist in public practice north of North Bay.

Mr. Ward: Where is Dr. Covington from?

Mr. Pope: He is from the United States. Guess who got him up here and guess who sent him packing?

Mr. Ward: We did not.

Mr. Pope: The government certainly did. Do not give me that nonsense.

The Acting Speaker: This is not question period.

Mr. Ward: It has nothing to do with accessibility.

Mr. Pope: It certainly does have to do with accessibility as well as universality. As usual, I hope the parliamentary assistant will go back and review the facts surrounding Dr. Frank Covington and not the explanation we got in estimates. He should get the real explanation as to why Dr. Covington, the only public practice psychiatrist north of North Bay, left that community, this province and this country.

Mr. Ward: How many are there in Timmins now?

Mr. Pope: How many has the government gotten since then? Vague promises of five; that is what it put on the record. Where are they now?

Mr. Ward: They are in Timmins.

Mr. Pope: Are they? Give me another one. That is exactly the same line as the Minister of Health saying the Ontario Medical Association refused to negotiate.

Mr. Ward: The member had better go back and talk to St. Mary's.

Mr. Pope: My friend should not worry. I talk to St. Mary's more than he does.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Stevenson: Wait until the women of Uxbridge hear of his ideas of equal access.

Mr. Pope: The member thinks it is funny. He is laughing. He thinks it is funny that women in Uxbridge are being denied access to medical care. He thinks it is a big joke.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Please stick to the debate. Forget about the interjectors; address your remarks to me.

Mr. Pope: Talk to him. He is the one who thinks he knows everything about Timmins.

Mr. Ward: The member is just not in touch.

Mr. Pope: If my friend thinks that, he should come up to Cochrane South next time; we will see who is in touch and who is not. Come up any day. That may be just the challenge I need.

Mr. McClellan: He probably will be there for the by-election.

Mr. Pope: Nobody is running there. What is the member talking about?

Mr. McClellan: When is that?

Mr. Pope: The member knows my problem with dates.

Dr. Dale, a specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology in West Hill, Ontario, sent a letter to all his patients; and that is going to go on across this province.

I know the government is not concerned about this, but I happen to think it should be. It should be concerned about the fears of patients across the province that their quality health care system is going to be threatened by the chaos and confrontation this government is bent on introducing.

The government should be concerned about the fears of the people across this province. It does not matter whether they come from West Hill, Uxbridge or the riding of the parliamentary assistant, the government should be concerned about it.

The member for Wentworth North should not be laughing about the concerns of the women of Uxbridge and their quality

Mr. Ward: I was not laughing about that.

Mr. Pope: Yes, he was. It was a great laugh over there. We happen to think it is a very serious issue when a professional who has provided quality care not only in his own community but also in other communities across this province sends a letter like this to his patients: "Murphy once said, `Your rights, your liberties and even your life are in danger as long as the Legislature is in session.'"

Mr. Dean: Who said that?

Mr. Pope: I did not used to agree with him, but I am starting to.

"In the weeks and months to come, you and I may be facing some tough times together. Please forgive me if I do not have my usual smile and sense of humour. I am an opted-out physician and the government tells me that 70 per cent of you are against me. If so, how come I am so busy?

"Let me explain why I am so angry."

Mr. Wildman: There is a logical fallacy in that statement.

Mr. Pope: I know, but the member's logic, in comparison with that of this caring specialist who has done so much for Uxbridge and West Hill, is much superior. I know, because he is a member of the New Democratic Party, he has superior intellect, but this is a doctor who is very concerned. The member's friends in the Liberal Party agree with him, because the two parties are running the province now.

Mr. McClellan: Somebody has to provide the intellect for them.

Mr. Pope: That is not what he says over breakfast, so he should not give me this nonsense. He does not say that over breakfast. They have never told him that over breakfast either.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Philip: The member is just angry because he does not have anybody intelligent to sit beside.

Mr. Pope: I certainly would not find somebody over at the end of that row.

"Let me explain why I am so angry. Historically, the professions were three: medicine, law and the priesthood. They looked after one's health, one's fortune and one's soul.

"In each case, they dealt with a fearfully consequential set of affairs. One's health is continually threatened by unknown dangers. One's affairs are at the mercy of the law, which seems infinitely mysterious." I know the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) will agree with that. "The fate of one's soul has been the source of endless anxiety. The three great historic professions attended to the central problems of the human animal. They have been called the three independent professions because they were free from control by any other part of society.

"In government's endless struggle to make everyone equal, to bring everyone down to one common level, there have been numerous attempts by politicians to slur the medical profession for their own political purposes. Does anyone in government know what it takes to perform a brain operation or a heart operation? Do they know the kind of skill it demands and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That is what should never be placed at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me is their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that get them elected. I cannot let them control my work, force my will, violate my conscience or stifle my mind.

"The proposed legislation put forward by your Minister of Health, Mr. Elston, penalizes any doctor who bills above the OHIP tariff. A fine of $10,000 or confiscation of a similar amount of property is proposed if a doctor is caught billing above the tariff. Mr. Elston has also publicly encouraged you, my patients, to turn in any doctor who bills above the OHIP tariff. Those of you who are my age cannot recall such punitive legislation against any law-abiding group of citizens since the days of Nazi Germany.

"More important, how may the proposed legislation affect you, the obstetrical patient? If the legislation passes, we obstetricians will likely choose to work in large groups, removing much of the personalized care you now receive. Conversely, many obstetricians may choose to act as consultants, coming into the picture only when problems arise. Current professional courtesies, such as free telephone advice, the filling out of unemployment insurance papers, long-distance telephone calls, etc., will all have to go by the board.

"I hope you will understand and bear with me in the coming difficult times ahead. If by chance you agree with my concerns, please let your provincial member of parliament or the Premier of Ontario know your feelings."

It is signed by William N. Dale.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

January 14, 1986

ORAL QUESTIONS

INSURANCE RATES

PENSION FUNDS

DRUG SUBSTITUTES

SPRAY PROGRAM

EXTRA BILLING

MINE SITE

HEALTH APPOINTMENTS

SPRAY PROGRAM

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SPRAY PROGRAM

SALE OF PLANTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES REPORTING ACT

DISABLED PERSONS EMPLOYMENT ACT

PETITION

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SCIENCE NORTH ACT

AMUSEMENT DEVICES ACT

SCIENCE NORTH ACT

AMUSEMENT DEVICES ACT

HEALTH CARE ACCESSIBILITY ACT