The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TOURIST INFORMATION CENTRES

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the province’s tourist information centres, which have served Ontario well, are we believe an important part of our tourist promotion package. We have been concerned for some time about the effectiveness and attractiveness of some of the older centres and the use of only trailers at one or two key locations.

Mr. Kerrio: Sounds good so far.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Hang on.

Accordingly, I am pleased to announce an exciting new program to develop our travel information centres. We will be building a new tourist information centre in the fine community of Fort Erie to replace the current facilities.

Mr. Nixon: That’s exciting.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) isn’t even here today.

Construction of this $350,000 project is expected to begin this summer. The centre is the first of four projects to be undertaken this year as part of a plan to revitalize our information centres across the province. The other projects to be completed in 1979 include the remodelling of our centre at Barrie on highway 400, and the introduction of a new concept in unmanned centres at West Lorne, near London, and at Odessa, near Kingston on Highway 401.

These unmanned centres will be the first of their type in Ontario and will make information available on a self-service basis 24 hours a day. The sheltered kiosks at West Lorne and Odessa will complement the services provided at our tourist office in Barrie and our new permanent site at Fort Erie. We hope to build self-service centres at all 37 of our locations over the next four years.

During this time we also plan to renovate or replace all of our tourist information centres across the province. There was a fire in our Niagara Falls centre last year, and a trailer was installed to serve tourists in the area until last month when the repairs to the interior of the building were completed. We are in the process of locating a site for a new information centre in the Niagara Falls area.

At this time I’d like to acknowledge the assistance of the Ministry of Government Services in developing our proposal --

Mr. Nixon: And the member for Erie.

Mr. Ruston: And the member for Erie.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and for the cooperative way in which it has worked with the tourism division of our ministry.

I have one further statement.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANT

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I had the pleasure of meeting with the Smiths Falls Economic Development Commission. At that time I announced the cabinet’s decision to provide an Employment Development Fund grant of $450,000 to Dominion Twist Drill Limited, a division of Litton Business and Industrial Systems of Canada.

As a result of this grant, Dominion Twist Drill will today exercise an option to purchase the RCA plant which recently closed its operations in Smiths Falls. The company will invest $8.9 million over the next five years. We anticipate that 150 jobs will be created in the community by the middle of 1981, increasing to 300 jobs by 1984. High-skill jobs will be provided as well as lower-skill jobs with opportunity for advancement.

Dominion Twist Drill will manufacture specialized metal cutting tools for the entire Canadian market. The firm will compete effectively with imported cutting tools, contributing to our self-sufficiency in this area.

I am happy to report to this House the successful completion of these negotiations to attract Dominion Twist Drill to Smiths Falls. For $450,000 we have succeeded in bringing to that community an $8.9-million investment that would not have occurred in Smiths Falls without this special government assistance.

My colleague, the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman), working with Mayor Jack Aboud of Smiths Falls and’ Dominion Twist Drill’s management, headed by Mr. Mel Van Sickle, deserve much credit for bringing this development into existence.

Mr. S. Smith: Litton industries can afford to build without government help.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition had better tell that to the people in Smiths Falls because they don’t believe it and neither does Dominion Twist. He would gamble with Smiths Falls, but this government wouldn’t gamble with Smiths Falls. I’m sure he’ll go to that community in the next election and tell them he wouldn’t have given that grant to Dominion Twist

This project typifies the kind of development we intend to support through the Employment Development Fund. It will provide stable, long-term employment, foster the development of needed job skills in the area, contribute to import replacement and stimulate economic development in a traditionally slower growth region of the province.

Mr. S. Smith: They would have built it anyway.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Employment Development Fund grant to Dominion Twist Drill exemplifies our government’s commitment to ensuring that eastern Ontario as a region maintains and increases its overall industrial strength, especially its strength in high-skill, stable industries.

Mr. O’Neil: Don’t forget us then.

Mr. Hodgson: You don’t want it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I won’t but the member’s leader apparently will forget him.

Interjections.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS CAMPAIGN

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of personal privilege: I was able, with some return compensation, to give to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) a somewhat reddish-coloured flower in support of the campaign for multiple sclerosis. I did obtain another flower on behalf of the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), for which I have not yet been compensated, knowing that he would in turn wish to do this.

I would inform him the minimum is $2 and the maximum is whatever he would like to make it. I want to send this across the House to him, knowing how interested he is in the support of the multiple sclerosis campaign. If he wants to pay the money to me, I will in turn, give it to them; or he can take it out directly himself.

OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY AND TRESPASS REFORMS

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am today tabling the government’s discussion paper on occupiers’ liability and trespass to property. The paper sets out for discussion purposes proposals, including draft legislation, for necessary reform of the law governing an occupier’s liability to those who come on to his land and the law protecting an occupier from trespass to his land. The paper provides detailed examples of the problems that have given rise to these reforms and illustrates how the proposed changes would effect a wide cross-section of interests.

In relation to the liability question, we are proposing that the numerous duties of care that an occupier of land now owes to entrants to his land be replaced by legislation imposing one duty of care on all occupiers. This would sweep away needless legal complexity and remove the public confusion about the care that an occupier must take to protect entrants from injury and himself from liability.

Under our proposals there would be one duty of care on all occupiers: to take such care as in all the circumstances is reasonable to see that persons entering on the premises are reasonably safe while on the premises.

I want to stress that this duty of care would not apply to persons entering for criminal purposes. They would be deemed to have willingly assumed the risk of injury.

As members will recall, the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act of 1974 provides that an occupier of land owes no duty of care to a snowmobiler other than to not create dangers with the deliberate intent of doing harm and to refrain from acting with reckless disregard for the snowmobiler’s presence.

As part of this package of reforms, we are proposing that this act continue in force and apply to all land.

While that legislation deals with a specific recreational activity, the government feels there is a need for protections for occupiers who permit their property to be used for other recreational purposes, such as hiking, cross-country skiing, rock climbing and horseback riding.

The desirable growth of outdoor recreational activities, which the government has encouraged with a variety of initiatives, has had some undesirable side effects. Urban residents have flocked in ever-increasing numbers to the countryside, but farmers and other occupiers of rural and wilderness land have become fearful of being sued for damages by persons who might be injured while engaged in recreational activities on their land.

At present, an occupier owes a greater duty to persons he permits to use his land for recreational activities than he does to trespassers. This penalizes the occupier who is willing to permit recreational activities and discourages this type of benevolence.

For example, hiking trails depend on the use of private land, and trail associations have had difficulty in obtaining the consent of occupiers because the occupiers are afraid of potential liability.

Our proposal in this regard would protect the interests of the agricultural community and promote the availability of land for recreational activities by giving special protection to occupiers of certain designated classes of land, including all rural non- industrial land.

Where entry is prohibited to these lands or where entry for recreational activities is permitted without charge, the liability of the occupier would be limited to dangers created with the deliberate intent of causing harm or to acts done with reckless disregard for the entrant’s presence. The entrant would be deemed to have willingly assumed all other risks.

The land designated for these provisions would be as follows: land used for agricultural purposes, including land under cultivation, orchards, pastures and woodlots; vacant or undeveloped land; forested or wilderness land; golf courses in winter; unused or abandoned railway beds; utility rights of way and corridors, excluding structures on such land; undeveloped road allowances; private roads reasonably marked as such; and marked recreational trails.

This approach would effectively remove the occupier’s risk and thereby encourage private land owners to voluntarily make land available for recreational activities.

The second part of the discussion paper deals with trespassing.

The present Petty Trespass Act is similar to the act passed in 1834 and in the intervening 145 years has been showing its age; and a number of problems have arisen.

First, the wording of the existing offence is unclear and, along with other factors, leads to difficulties in prosecution. Second, the act does not deter trespass on to land under cultivation, even though significant farm losses are caused by trespassers. Third, the act does not ensure the privacy of occupiers of land or permit the control of recreational activities.

To clarify the effect and purpose of the legislation, we are proposing that the existing act be replaced with three specific offences. They would be: (1) without express permission, the proof of which rests upon the accused, entering premises where entry is prohibited; (2) without express permission, the proof of which again rests upon the accused, doing an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited; and (3) refusing to leave premises after being directed to do so.

The existing act prohibits entry on lawns, gardens and enclosed lands and provides that entry can be prohibited from other premises by giving oral or written notice and the posting of signs.

[2:15]

We are proposing reforms to deal with these situations and to enhance the rights of occupiers to privacy.

First, we propose to expand the classes of land on which entry is prohibited without the need for giving notice to include fields under cultivation and orchards. This is needed to protect those in the agricultural business from losses which result from crop destruction and theft from trespassers.

We propose retention of the existing system of giving notice orally, in writing or by the posting of signs where notice is required to inform persons that entry is prohibited, or to specify recreational activities that are permitted.

In addition, we propose creation of a system of coloured markings and a code for interpreting signs to promote the availability of land for recreation but still allow the owner full control over the activities he desires to permit on his land.

Because the posting and maintaining of signs is expensive, a system of coloured markings is proposed. Coloured markings would be placed at the ordinary entry points. Red would mean entry is prohibited. Yellow would mean entry is prohibited except for activities specified by the owner, and it would be the responsibility of the person entering to determine which activities are permitted. These markings could be made with paint or other inexpensive materials and could be placed on existing features of the land, such as trees and fence posts.

Because many signs in use are misunderstood and have no legal effect, we are also proposing the creation of a code for interpreting signs. The code would result in the positive entry system. Under the positive entry concept, which is recommended by the Ontario Trails Council an occupier could place signs indicating the recreational uses permitted. The code would provide that a sign permitting a particular activity would mean that all other activities are prohibited. It would also provide that a sign stating the name of an activity or showing graphic representation of an activity is a proper indication that the activity is permissible.

For example, if an occupier granted permission to use his land for horseback riding but no other activity, a sign “horseback riding” or a graphic illustration of the activity could be posted. All other activities would be prohibited and persons engaged in other activities could be prosecuted.

With respect to trails, such a positive entry concept is practical. Certain activities are incompatible with others and the permitted uses can be signified.

The code for interpreting signs would also result in the negative entry concept. Where there is a desire to open large tracts of land to general recreational use with a few exceptions, it would be less expensive and more convenient to list the prohibited rather than the permitted uses. For example, if a thousand acres are to be open to all uses except fishing, it would be more practical to signify the prohibited use.

To facilitate this negative entry concept, the code would provide that a sign indicating that particular activity prohibited means that all other activities are permitted. The code would also provide that a sign stating the name of an activity or containing a graphic representation of an activity with an oblique line drawn through the name or through the representation would mean that the activity is prohibited.

We are also proposing changes to the method of dealing with violators of the new legislation. The maximum fine for trespassing would be raised from $100 to $1,000.

To make it easier for an occupier to collect compensation for damage caused by a trespasser, the judge who convicts the trespasser would be empowered to make an order for compensation up to $1,000. The occupier would also have the option of a civil action to recover damages.

In addition, we are proposing that to facilitate the prosecution of offenders, the trespasser be required to pay the reasonable costs of the prosecution when a conviction is registered.

These proposals are the result of many months of discussion within government, with members of the Ontario Trails Council and with organizations such as the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. In addition, many individuals, particularly the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) and the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. Johnson) have been of great assistance.

The government’s proposals are designed to strengthen the property rights and privacy of land owners and at the same time to encourage compatible recreational activities without fear of liability.

We are distributing the discussion paper widely to all interested groups and individuals and hope to receive your submissions by June 30. The government will assess them over the summer and I expect to bring forth legislation in the fall.

To adequately serve the needs of Ontario residents, the law must take into account the diversity and complexity of this province. The law must meet the needs of residents of wilderness regions, agricultural communities, areas relying on the tourist industry and urban centres. The proposals made in this discussion are an attempt to meet the needs of all Ontario residents.

GUELPH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, this statement is somewhat inspired by a four-page press release put out by the member for High Park-Swansea which was largely, or in a great many parts, inaccurate.

The Guelph Correctional Centre is calm again today as the mop-up of the damaged area continues to be done by inmates. Nineteen inmates were transferred to Millbrook Correctional Centre yesterday following disciplinary hearings. Investigation and disciplinary hearings continue today to determine which inmates were involved and to award appropriate penalties.

On Tuesday morning, following the disturbance, a total of 103 inmates were taken to tunnel areas in the basement of the centre. They were dressed in shirts, pants, socks and underwear -- all dry clothing -- and were not allowed to retain their boots, because these could be used as weapons.

As a result of investigation and hearings, 52 of the inmates have been removed from the tunnel areas and dispersed to other parts of the institution. Last night some 30 inmates returned to their dormitories, having made the dormitories sufficiently habitable.

The 51 inmates remaining in the tunnel area are divided into two groups, each group located in a different tunnel area. Each of these areas has a toilet and sink, contrary to comments made by the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba).

The member for High Park-Swansea has also made a number of other statements in which it would appear that he has been given incorrect information by the inmates. He implied that the fluorescent lights were broken by fire hoses used by the staff.

I was personally present during the hosing on Tuesday morning which occurred only after the inmates had pried stones and bricks from the wall, broken the lights, broken windows at the end of the tunnel area and started to throw bricks at the staff. I think the action taken by the staff under the circumstances was justified. Fluorescent lights were replaced yesterday and have not been broken again.

It is true that the inmates have received sandwiches since being placed in the tunnel areas. This institution normally provides meals in the dining room and does not have facilities for delivering meals throughout the institution.

The staff are working as hard as they can to complete the disciplinary hearings. A number of inmates not involved in the disturbance will be removed from the institution in order to accommodate the inmates remaining in the tunnel areas. In the meantime, inmates will remain there in the two small groups.

The honourable member has described keeping the inmates in the tunnel area as cruel and unusual punishment. I would suggest to him that the inmates were the authors of their own misfortune. They rendered a number of their living units uninhabitable through a rampage of wilful damage which was not justified, in my view, by any of the actions taken by staff or by any grievances of a serious or profound nature.

I think the taxpayers of this province probably feel that the fact they have to shell out some $37,000 to pay for the damage caused by these inmates is cruel and unusual punishment to their pocketbooks.

GAS AND OIL SUPPLIES

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, recent reports of shortages of motor gasoline in some parts of the United States have resulted in concerns being expressed about similar prospects for Ontario.

Needless to say, the question of whether supplies of motor gasoline and fuel oil are adequate, and whether there is a prospect of shortages and allocations in Ontario, is of utmost importance for us all.

As things stand now, prospects look good for at least most of this year for supplies of both gasoline and home heating oil.

There is a requirement, however, to monitor closely supplies of fuel oil for the coming winter. With reasonable care, though, there should be no need for allocation or rationing. Our domestic production of crude oil is holding up reasonably well and, to the extent that natural gas can be substituted in the fuel market, we are fortunate to be in a strong natural gas supply position. That does not mean, however, that we can afford to be extravagant or wasteful with the supplies we have.

The essential fact is that Canada is a net importer of crude oil. To that extent, all regions are vulnerable. The reality is that there is really no reliable source of crude oil on the international market. And our Atlantic provinces could face shortages if there were serious interruptions in world crude oil movements. That is the reason that for most of the decade of the 1970s the Ontario government has been concerned about energy supply and has vigorously pressed its concerns on a reluctant national government.

Mr. J. Reed: What has it done about conservation?

Hon. Mr. Auld: For Canada, domestic crude oil self-sufficiency is obtainable. Even though crude oil self-sufficiency will take some years to achieve, it is the only logical, reasonable and defensible policy objective for this nation, and it would provide us with relative energy security for some decades beyond what we would otherwise experience.

Mr. S. Smith: Why do you want to eliminate Petrocan, Bill? I don’t understand that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I figured you must he in favour of keeping it.

Mr. Speaker: Why don’t the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition save their energy for a later time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I agree.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I don’t wish to seem to assume a self-righteous posture relative to the United States, but the fact is that country is short of motor gasoline and may be short of other fuels because it simply consumes and imports too much.

It is imperative we realize this fact, because on a per capita basis Canadians consume even more than Americans but to date at least we have relied less on foreign suppliers. It might be useful to remind ourselves that the United States was self-sufficient in oil at one time and indeed was a major exporter. Today it is dependent upon foreign suppliers for nearly 50 per cent of its crude oil requirements. It is now importing crude oil at a rate of close to 10 million barrels a day.

These demands on the world market have moved both world price increases and world oil shortages forward in time. It is perfectly evident that United States consumption cannot continue to expand at historic rates. The oil to satisfy this appetite does not exist. Canada was self-sufficient in crude oil as recently as the early 1970s. We are not any more.

As I implied earlier, we are less dependent in both relative and absolute terms upon the world markets than is the United States, but we are nevertheless extremely vulnerable to interruptions in crude oil supplies from overseas. The response in this country must be a policy of self-sufficiency in crude oil by 1995 at the latest.

Mr. J. Reed: What have you done to help it along?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Canada has the capability of self-sufficiency in crude oil. We have locked-in reserves of conventional crude oil. We have undiscovered and undeveloped conventional crude oil resources. Secondary and tertiary recovery can result in increased oil flows.

Ms. Gigantes: Let the oil companies do their own PR.

Hon. Mr. Auld: There is increasing evidence of frontier resources, and of course we have the incredibly large resources of the oil sands and the heavy oil.

Mr. J. Reed: The most hypocritical statement I have heard this year.

Hon. Mr. Add: The requirement is that we make one united, national commitment to the development of these resources. That must involve consuming areas, producing areas, the energy industry and the government of Canada. We must develop a coherent plan that will result in self-sufficiency in crude at the earliest possible date.

Mr. J. Reed: What has the plan been so far?

Hon. Mr. Auld: We must consider the price of domestically-produced oil if we are to talk of self-sufficiency. I don’t think these are difficult objectives to reconcile. I don’t believe prices should be escalated without consideration of the possible impediment energy costs might place in the path of economic development or the consumer’s interest, but given our supply requirements and the real dangers of shortages, the prices of petroleum must be such as to result in the optimum development of new traditional and non-traditional energy resources.

Mr. J. Reed: It’s taken three years to get that out of you.

Hon. Ms. Auld: The present constraint on production from oil sands derives more from an uncertainty of policy than from the level of price. I would not support a domestic price that was blindly tied to the world price irrespective of what that price might be. Self-sufficiency will result from some combination of national commitment, energy price developing technology, capital investment, transport capability, conservation and the defining of self-sufficiency in crude oil as a national purpose. This commitment is far overdue.

The alternative to self-sufficiency could inevitably be oil shortages, allocations, rationing -- in short the kind of militance embodied in Bill C-42. In the months ahead, it will be one of the purposes of the government of Ontario to increase and intensify the pressure in the direction of domestic self-sufficiency in crude oil and oil products. That’s our only sure defence against gasoline lineups and rationing and critical shortages of home heating oil.

Mr. J. Reed: Wait until Allan Lawrence makes up for 11 years.

Ms. Gigantes: What nonsense.

[2:30]

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. S. Smith: A point of order, if I might: The minister also has an answer on the Rolphton matter, but I take it he doesn’t have copies for myself and for the leader of the New Democratic Party. I would be willing to hear his statement without the copy, and if the leader of the third party is willing to do the same we could hear the minister, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is that agreed?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, last week the Leader of the Opposition addressed a question to the Premier (Mr. Davis) regarding the Rolphton nuclear station concerning the ability of the emergency core cooling system of that particular reactor to handle a loss of coolant accident. There were also a number of other questions relating to Rolphton.

The Premier’s response on that occasion was, as usual, full and complete.

Mr. Foulds: Full of what?

Hon. Mr. Auld: He did suggest, however, that I provide the House today with such supplementary information as might be available.

Mr. Speaker, the ministry has discussed this matter with the president of the federal Atomic Energy Control Board and I have been advised that: One, with respect to the request of the Renfrew County Citizens for Nuclear Responsibility for a public hearing, the AECB has assured them they are taking their request very seriously; two, the AECB has indicated it will provide the Renfrew county group with a complete chronology of actions taken by AECB, Ontario Hydro and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited with respect to the Rolphton plant, along with a statement of the AECB’s views in response to the matters raised. This response from the AECB will, I understand, be available within the next 10 to 12 days.

In addition to providing this response to the Renfrew county group, the AECB will also make the information available to the public at the same time.

As the honourable members know, the AECB is the legally responsible agency in Canada, charged with regulating the safety of nuclear reactors. With this in mind, I believe it is appropriate that the concerns being expressed by the Renfrew county group be assessed by the control board in the context of that agency’s expert knowledge of nuclear safety standards. If the AECB feels the concerns being expressed have any validity, we have been assured it will take the necessary steps to see that any deficiencies are corrected.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before we go to oral questions, I would like to call to the attention of the honourable members of the presence in the Speaker’s gallery of Mr. Michael Egan, an Associate Attorney General of the United States of America, with particular responsibilities for civil litigation and immigration. Would you welcome him, please.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RADIATION FROM X-RAYS

Mr. S. Smith: I hope our guest enjoyed the Attorney General’s (Mr. McMurtry) speech on civil litigation matters.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my first question to the Minister of Health, and it obviously concerns the study by Dr. Kenneth Taylor on X-ray machines and the dose of radiation given to patients as reported in the newspapers today.

Since the responsibility of the ministry would seem to be the inspection of these machines in their setting where they are used and the question of licensing those people using these radiological machines, how is it the minister appears to be surprised by the data which suggests that in fact in some instances a barium series can result in an exposure of three rems and yet in another instance 90 rems, more than the lifetime dose of radiation to which people are supposed to be subjected? How is that an IVP in one instance can be 1.5 rems, and in another instance 40 rems? Why was the minister not aware of these matters as a result of his inspections? Why has he not taken steps to make sure people using these machines are properly licensed in every instance? Why is it that some action was not taken prior to this particular study and these revelations?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to point out we funded that study. That study was prepared under grants from the Ministry of Health.

Coming out of that study is a more detailed project which it has been proposed be done by Drs. Johns and Taylor, which we are also assisting in funding to the extent of $100,000 a year for each of the next three years. As I see it, the effect of that will be, first of all to complete the broader survey of the problems, to identify ways and means of educating the people who are using and ordering the uses of these facilities and taking the fluoroscopic pictures; and out of that, possibly, will come changes in legislation or regulations.

I am concerned with respect to this issue that we not unduly alarm the public. In that regard I want to read into the record a statement that was prepared by Drs. Johns, Taylor and Hobbs. I apologize that it will take a few minutes but I think it is important.

I should say that I had hoped to do it during statements, but I was told that the 30 minute limit under our rules had, in fact, already been filled. That is why I apologize that I have to do it this way. I expect that Mr. Speaker will add the time to the question period.

Mr. Speaker, this statement has been prepared by these three physicians. I think I should read it into the record to put the whole matter into perspective. There are bound to be supplementary questions I will be glad to answer.

“The staff of the radiological research laboratories, University of Toronto, in cooperation with the radiologists and technical staff of 20 hospitals in Ontario, have surveyed the doses to patients from different diagnostic X-ray procedures. A summary of the results is contained in a scientific paper in the March, 1979, edition of the Journal of the Canadian Association of Radiologists.

“This work shows that the dose to a patient from a given procedure may differ from one X-ray room to another; in the extreme case by a factor of 60 and on average by a factor of 10. Furthermore, as much diagnostic information is obtained from the low doses which are given as from the high, indicating that unnecessary radiation is being given to many patients.

“Similar findings have been made by groups in the United States. We are now looking for ways to change the high dose rooms to low dose rooms in hospitals thoughout Ontario. Some of the methods for achieving this dose reduction are outlined in the paper and others are being found.

“One might ask, whose fault is this? The answer is that it is no one individual’s fault but the problem has arisen because more and more powerful and complicated diagnostic equipment is being used by the medical profession to diagnose sick patients.

“Medical personnel are trained in medicine, not to measure and to control the output of these machines. Hospitals in general do not employ people capable of this type of work. We need to develop groups of such people as an in-house facility in modem hospitals. These people could assure quality control which would maintain equipment at or near optimum conditions and thus minimize the dose to patients. Training of such people is one of the main purposes of the radiological research laboratories.

“The dose reduction problem is being tackled by the radiological research laboratories and involves the Ontario Medical Association, radiologists, X-ray technologists, hospital administrators, manufacturers and suppliers of X-ray equipment in a co-operative program which is unique in North America and which covers the whole of the province of Ontario.

“We have obtained support for this program from the Ministry of Health of Ontario at a level of about $100,000 a year for three years, which, added to the support we already have from the University of Toronto and the Physicians’ Services Foundation, about $10,000 each year for the next five years, will enable us to solve this problem.

“The public is interested in the biological risks resulting from this irradiation. The biological risks of X-rays such as production of cancer and damage to foetal tissues are well known. Unfortunately, there is no hard data that can predict exactly the effects of this level of radiation. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that there will ever be such data since it is unethical to carry out experiments to measure the risks to humans from diagnostic radiology.

“Because risks do exist and because the high doses are not necessary for good diagnostic pictures, the OMA, in co-operation with the radiological research laboratories, is initiating a program in Ontario to reduce unnecessary doses. By a simple method these can be reduced by a factor of three and by more sophisticated methods by a factor of 10.

“This will have two main effects. First, it will substantially reduce the risks of diagnostic radiation from their present level without any loss in diagnostic information. Second, the detailed investigations which will be required for each X-ray machine to accomplish this dose reduction and the lower doses themselves, will lead to improved performance and longer life of the equipment, and hence in the long run to lower costs. This imaginative program is unique in the world and should make available to the people of Ontario the best and safest diagnostic X-ray service.

“To quantify the risk of radiation is very difficult. Dr. Rosalind Berthell in Buffalo has found that the incidence of leukemia is 20 per cent higher in groups of patients who have received X-rays compared to those who have not. This kind of figure is an indicator, but it cannot be used as a criterion for Ontario because it depends on the X-ray dose that was used.

“From our preliminary studies, we estimate that in Ontario 20 extra leukemias per year may have resulted from excess doses in radiology. This figure should be judged in terms of the 600 leukemia cases per year in Ontario. This relative risk is surely small compared to that of refusing an X-ray and subsequently dying from an undetected disease.

“However, our dose reduction program could reduce the extra number of leukemia deaths from 20 to two. In spite of the possible risks from radiation, no sensible person should ever refuse an X-ray that is recommended by a doctor as part of the diagnosis of a medical problem. It is tempting to suggest that dose reduction can be achieved by government regulation and inspection. This is far from the truth, since we are dealing with very sophisticated pieces of equipment and many disciplines with different levels of knowledge. The only real solution to the problem is a co-operative one among the various groups mentioned above and the eventual creation of inhouse capabilities in radiation control.”

As I mentioned, the study which has been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition is one which was funded by the Ministry of Health because of a concern about this very aspect of health care. The follow-up work, along with the work of our own staff in the inspection branch, is being funded to a great extent -- approximately 50 per cent -- by the Ministry of Health, involving the people who can best bring about a resolution of the situation, namely the medical profession and the people in the hospitals of Ontario working closely with the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: As that was partially an answer and partially a statement, we will add four minutes to the question period.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Given the fact there are two things the ministry can do to deal with this question, the first being to make sure those who use the equipment are all properly licensed and well aware of these problems; and the second being to make sure that the equipment is regularly inspected to be certain that it is of the best quality and not creating an additional hazard more than is necessary; may I ask the minister why, first of all, he has ignored the pleas of the radiological technologists over the years, including letters written to him last year in August and before then, insisting that all the people using this type of equipment be properly licensed and that proper standards be set for the equipment; secondly what have the ministry inspectors been inspecting, what have they been telling the minister, why don’t they have the very kind of information which Dr. Taylor had to obtain?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, back in August 1977, about 18 or 20 months ago, we sent to radiologists throughout Ontario, and on request to a number of other organizations and groups, a paper for discussion on the question of X-ray facilities. In fact if memory serves me correctly, in November or December of that year, during the consideration by the standing committee on social development of my estimates, I was asked about that paper, I think by the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), who had obviously been approached by a physician or radiologist or someone in the community who was aware we were looking at the question.

In that paper they identified several potential courses of action, one of which involved new legislation for licensing and the question of standards. We had a number of meetings with interested groups representative of radiology and of medicine generally. The concern was expressed that the group that had developed that paper did not include any radiologists, and that the standards that were referred to would perhaps be out of date or unrealistic inasmuch as radiology as a discipline had not been involved in the preparation of the paper.

Accordingly, we asked the medical association to come back with proposals on the matter of standards. I think it has to be recognized that the medical profession as a whole is as much interested, or more so, than anyone else, in ensuring there are appropriate standards.

[2:45]

Concurrent with that, the ministry funded in 1977-78 and 1978-79 the paper that has been released in the March 1979 issue of the Journal of the Canadian Association of Radiologists and has resulted in this proposal which came to us in late 1978. It was approved -- if memory serves me correctly -- about two months ago to have the Ontario Medical Association to go this next step in developing a broader base of knowledge and applying that broader base of knowledge among the people who are working the machines and ordering the tests.

Within the branch, we have as well been working with other groups that are using X-ray facilities with much lower doses, namely, dentistry in particular, where my staff have worked with the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario and with dentists generally to reduce doses being applied in dentists offices.

A great deal of work has gone into this. I think the course we are launched on puts us in the forefront in the world in addressing what is more and more acknowledged widely to be a general problem in the world in the use of diagnostic X-ray technology.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since the radiation received by patients getting these X-rays exceeded the lifetime radiation standard established by the International Commission on Radiological Protection on a number of occasions -- not just once -- and specifically since that international council, which is the authoritative body, says no one in his lifetime should have radiation of more than 50 rems, and yet on a number of occasions here in Toronto -- not in the rest of the province -- patients were receiving as much as 50 rems, 90 rems, 16 rems, 20 rems, 56 rems and 128 rems in the course of having routine X-rays, can the minister explain why he is saying that people should not become unduly alarmed while a three-year program of control is undertaken?

How can the minister say no one should refuse an X-ray when there now is in a single X-ray a very real risk that patients throughout this province could have more radiation than the international experts say they should have in a lifetime?

Surely the government should act now to identify those X-ray machines that are hazardous or are being used hazardously and either take the machines out of operation at once or ensure that the method of operation is changed at once to stop these very dangerous levels of exposure.

Mr. S. Smith: What have the minister’s inspectors been inspecting?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: My inspectors have been inspecting the machines. I want to point out, though, that the inspectors can be in there today, and a problem can develop tomorrow.

Inspection is certainly a big part of a control measure. But in the long run what is going to be most effective is a body of knowledge, properly applied among those who are ordering the diagnostic procedures in the first place and among those who are carrying out the diagnostic procedures.

Inspection is one part of it, but ultimately it is the professional qualifications and the application of those qualifications that are most important.

I have not got that paper in front of me -- perhaps one of my staff who is here will check for me -- but it seems to me the figures quoted in the report were in milliroentgens, not in roentgens. I will check that figure and report back.

The point is -- and I cannot emphasize this enough -- that only through the co-operative efforts of the profession and the hospitals with the ministry can we effectively develop a program that will ensure we address this problem effectively.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, since the royal commission on health made suggestions back in 1964 with respect to training of radiological technologists, and since it would appear that the occupational health branch of the Ministry of Labour has resolved many of its concerns, does the minister recall correspondence in August 1978 from the past president of the Ontario Society of Radiological Technologists which said:

“It has come to our attention that only about 10 per cent of X-ray unit operators within your ministry are registered technologists. The remainder, in the past, have been given on-the-job training practising on civil servants before going out into the field. The radiation hazard to the people of Ontario is the reason for our concern”? Does the minister have any comment on that view?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I can assure the member that I did answer that letter. I recall it vaguely. That service, the chest X-ray inspection service which was, I believe, the subject of the inquiry, was under the direction of an extremely capable physician until his retirement recently and is now under the direction of another extremely capable physician.

I can assure the member that the training was, in fact, carried out in the highest of professional standards to ensure a minimum of risk to the operator as well as to those being exposed. The highest current standards of knowledge have always been applied. Again, it bears repeating that what we’re talking about here is developing a body of knowledge. The Leader of the Opposition said: “Why were you surprised?” I think he was surprised to hear that we, in fact, funded these studies because we want to develop this body of knowledge.

I think it’s fair to point out that a great many in the professions were surprised at the results. Quite a considerable body of knowledge has recently been acquired by a great many people and we will, in the course of action that I’ve outlined, ensure that that is properly applied with the interests of the ultimate safety of our population in mind.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary: I want to send a copy of this article over to the minister from the Journal of the Canadian Association of Radiologists and ask him to look at the table on page two. He will see, by the way, that the credit for the funding of the study is given to Toronto General Hospital Foundation and not the ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the table shows that the measurement of radiation is roentgens or in rems and not in millirems, and in view of the fact that it shows for barium meal, barium enema, intravenous pyelogram and gall bladder investigations --

Mr. Speaker: There still has yet to be an interrogative. “In spite of” or “in view of” is not a question.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that a large number of these investigations showed radiation to the patients which exceeded the five rems per annum standard of Ontario Hydro for exposure of its workers, and in certain cases exceeded the 50 rems per lifetime standard of the International Commission on Radiological Protection? In view of the fact that the ministry would instantly --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Minister of Health have an answer to anything that’s been said up to this point?

Mr. Cassidy: Why won’t the ministry act t& stop these machines when it would close down a power plant that was irradiating the workers to this extent?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Give them more X-rays, that’s what you people say.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think this issue is important enough that I’m not going to try to play the technical expert. I know that in all of these things there are certain levels of background radiation which are considered to be acceptable. I know that certain procedures or certain diagnostic needs require higher levels of radiation and, therefore, what I will do is take the member’s question as notice and when I’m in the House again on Monday I will answer it then, when I get some technical advice on it. I think this is the important point, I am not going to try to play the technical expert; neither, may I suggest, should any of us.

To go back to the point the member raised earlier, my concern is that people not be unduly alarmed if a physician says, “You need an X-ray for that procedure in order that I can determine what is wrong with you.” The risk of people dying unnecessarily from the lack of having had an X-ray --

Ms. Gigantes: Necessary death is all right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- is many times greater than what they have indicated in this statement I read today may be a problem.

Mr. Swart: You’re copping out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister had covered that ground previously. A new question, the Leader of the Opposition.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to address my second question to the Minister of Energy regarding the Rolphton matter. I thank him for making his statement earlier.

Surely the minister recognizes the time has come for the public to be better informed about these matters and for decisions to be made by bodies that are not all committed to the nuclear industry; therefore, I ask him this: Since the Rolphton plant is at the moment coincidentally shut down, would this not be a good time for the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs and nuclear safety to examine the concerns of citizens in Renfrew county and hear evidence on the matter pertaining to the Rolphton station so the station may be either reopened or modified in the appropriate manner as the facts might indicate? The whole situation could be made public in the select committee with all the documents brought forward and put there?

I say that especially --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. S. Smith: -- in view of the fact --

Mr. Speaker: The question was asked.

Mr. S. Smith: -- that all this was published a year ago and no action has been taken.

Hon. Mr. Add: Mr. Speaker, as part of an answer to another question from the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) I have the facts about Rolphton, which I might just give the honourable member at the moment.

That plant, which is a 20-megawatt nuclear demonstration plant, has been on a planned outage since March 26 of this year. The principal work which is being done during this outage is the inspection and overhaul of the turbine generator, inspection and repair of the main boiler, in-service gauging of selected reactor pressure tubes and the annual safety system testing. The unit is expected to be returned to service on May 31, 1979.

As I said in my statement, the Atomic Energy Control Board, which has no connection with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, is the safety regulating arm of the government of Canada and is responsible for nuclear safety in all the provinces. It seems to me their judgement is what we should be accepting. I understand the Rolphton station is licensed for full power and has been since a number of modifications were made -- I don’t have the dates with me but in recent years.

I may say I have heard nothing from anybody in the Deep River area about any particular concern. In fact I believe there is a message from the mayor indicating he is not aware of any concern in the community.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, does the minister not recognize the citizens who have brought this matter to our attention have pointed out the modifications and corrections which were supposed to have been made at the plant, according to them essentially seem not to have been made and the reason the plant is operating at full power is because it would be useless to derate it, since even that would not affect the defect that occurs in the emergency core cooling system?

Under these circumstances and given the desire, an appropriate desire, of people to have these things dealt with publicly, does the minister not feel, since Ontario Hydro is operating the plant and is being accused of being in violation of its licensing requirements, that the select committee is the proper place to have all the documentation looked at right now while the plant is not being operated because of the turbine overhaul? Does he not feel this is the appropriate place to have a hearing of this kind and if need be reassure the people of the area?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I repeat, the Atomic Energy Control Board is the controlling agency; it has the technical expertise. With the greatest respect to the chairman and members of the select committee --

Mr. Mancini: You’re just repeating that you’re not going to do anything.

Mr. J. Reed: You’re telling us once more that you’re not prepared to do it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- I don’t believe there is the body of expertise on the staff of the select committee that there certainly is with the Atomic Energy Control Board.

[3:00]

Mr. Mancini: What’s wrong with reassuring the people? It would seem to me that the proper procedure is, if there is concern -- not necessarily from people in the area, but people from any place -- the Atomic Energy Control Board, which must have been satisfied that whatever changes were necessary had been made before a licence was continued, would be the agency to approach. As I say, the board has indicated it is looking at this very seriously and it may well be it is planning to have a public hearing or some other kind of open review to clarify any misunderstandings that may have occurred.

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to ask the minister, considering the fact the health and safety of Ontario citizens may be at stake in this question and certainly is the issue raised in the application before the AECB, and considering the fact it has not been established that the AECB, in fact, is allowing the operation of this reactor within the terms of the licence -- and that is again what the application is about -- doesn’t he consider it would be wise for his government to take the stand, at this point, that Ontario Hydro should not operate that plant until these matters are cleared up?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I repeat that the control board is the licensing agency. It has people on site at the larger plants.

Ms. Gigantes: That’s good enough for you?

Hon. Mr. Auld: When any changes are made the licence is, in effect, suspended until the control board is satisfied that the new equipment or the modifications are acceptable; then the plant is permitted to start again at whatever rating from one to 100 per cent the board feels is adequate. As the honourable member I am sure is aware, the board is very careful about those things. For example when Bruce started up it was permitted 50 per cent, then about 65 and, finally, 88 per cent for power.

The board is constantly monitoring and will only licence when it is satisfied that all the safety and other standards are met.

RADIATION FROM X-RAYS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question to the Minister of Health arising out of the radiation hazards to patients receiving X-rays in Ontario.

Knowing the outcry across the province a couple of weeks ago when nuclear plant workers in the Bruce were exposed to just over five rems of exposure, and knowing the concern among the public that far greater levels of radiation exposure are occurring routinely through X-ray examinations in our hospitals in this province, what steps is the government prepared to take now to identify the machines, the hospitals and the operators that are carrying out X-rays giving levels of radiation that exceed safe limits by enormous degrees?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think the use of the word “routinely” is an unfair interpretation of the report which the member has before him. It really is the kind of statement by a member of the opposition which unnecessarily and irresponsibly alarms and can potentially mislead the public.

Mr. Cassidy: I am alarmed.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You are so much to be alarmed about at times -- you are.

The fact is, that is an improper use or description. What I described to the member is a course of action which will ensure that we can, in fact, get at this problem. The member makes it sound as though some people purposely set out to overexpose people. That’s the way it comes across.

I would like to point out, and I think this bears some reflection, that every medical procedure carries some risk. We are launched on, and have been launched on, a course of action to minimise to the lowest possible level the risk associated with diagnostic radiology.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Is the government prepared to act now and inform physicians of the risks entailed in having their patients X-rayed by specific machines, so that before sending their patients to be X-rayed on those machines the physicians can know whether the risk of having the X-ray exceeds the information which they will get diagnostically from that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The success or failure of a diagnostic radiology program in a specific room or in the whole of the province ultimately depends upon the application of up-to-date knowledge by the people operating that machine.

Ms. Gigantes: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am answering the question.

Ms. Gigantes: You’re not.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Listen to the answer. People over there think they can play games like this all the time. We’re dealing with a very serious matter which is not the kind of thing that is going to be solved overnight. The member makes the suggestion about a problem machine. Our inspections do pick up problems and correct problems. The fact of the matter is, as I said earlier, another problem can occur the day after an inspection. Ultimately, the success or failure of the entire program, as in anything to do with medicine, depends upon the application of the most current possible knowledge in that area. This has gone a long way to improving on that body of knowledge. The course of action on which we have been launched with the co-operation of the medical profession and the hospitals will ensure that our ultimate goal will be achieved.

Mr. Conway: My supplementary deals with the ministry’s inspections. Is it true that in the recent past a substantial portion of the inspection service unit formerly with the Ministry of Health was transferred to the Ministry of Labour? If so, can the minister indicate why and, generally speaking, what is its professional status? What kind of expertise does the ministry have in its unit in particular reference to the chief of the Ministry of Health’s present inspection service?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: When the Ministry of Labour was given the responsibility for the inspection of the operators, I’m not sure what the numbers were. I’ll get the member the numbers that were involved in the service establishment. I can tell him that Mr. Ritchie is the head of our unit. I don’t have his curriculum vitae in front of me, but he has been the director in the last two years. Since the Ministry of Labour took over the question of operator safety, that branch has been able to devote exclusive attention to the question of patient safety. In the last 18 months when all of this activity has gone on, we have funded the research launched under this particular course of action.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter and I wonder if I could ask for a final supplementary at this time?

Mr. Speaker: No. We started the question period at 2:34 p.m. and we’ve added another four minutes to it. We still haven’t got to the leader’s final question yet. We’ve actually spent about 20 minutes on this question. I agree that it’s very important, but we can’t monopolize the entire time of one question period for that alone. There are other issues in the province that other members are entitled to raise. I must hear your second question now.

CO-PAYMENT FEES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question for the Minister of Health. Can the Minister of Health explain why the government has now gone back on the commitments that it gave in March not to allow co-insurance and has just approved a rate schedule for Blue Cross to offer private insured coverage of the $9.80 a day user fee for chronic care in hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Co-payment in the nursing homes has always been co-insurable. Inasmuch as it is the same co-payment, it’s co-insurable. Without going into all the legalistic background, it’s because of the structure of the Health Insurance Act and the difference between insured and non-insured benefits. It has always been the case.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister explain why be is using one breach in the present structure of the law in order to justify a further one and how this equates with his promise back in March that there would not be co-insurance? Does this mean the minister agrees with the president of the OMA, who has recently been saying the answer to the problem of underfunding the health-care system in the province is to allow private money into the system? Is that what he is trying to say?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: From the beginning, insured services have not been co-insurable and non-insured have been. That’s why the people have always been able to get coverage for drug plans and for various other things, including extended health care, which has included nursing-home co-payments and now includes chronic care.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain why it is that he is prepared to block co-insurance with respect to opting-out fees by doctors when patients in most parts of the province can still, it is hoped, have a choice of getting Ontario Health Insurance Plan coverage, but when patients are being required to pay this $9.80 fee he turns around and says he is not going to block co-insurance in that particular area? Why is he allowing the principle of universal medicare coverage to be undermined?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the latter is sheer fabrication, and I have already answered the former.

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO CORRIDOR

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Is it true that the Bradley-Georgetown hydro corridor and possibly other corridors in the province are being built for the export of electric power and not for domestic consumption at all?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the honourable member’s concern with respect to the Bradley-Georgetown corridor. I had a very pleasant meeting with some of his constituents -- some of them were not his constituents -- with respect to that particular part of the corridor that is an integral part of the major transmission facility.

I think it is fair to state that transmission lines are not being built for the purpose of export.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary: If that is correct, then why has the government authorized the construction of this particular line, and possibly others, in areas that are not serving the most urgent domestic need?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is a lot of history to this, which I know the honourable member has researched with great care. He has a particular point of view, and I understand that. I am sympathetic to the concerns of the people who are affected by this corridor; I happen to know two or three of them -- perhaps for a longer period of time than the honourable member has -- and one or two of them formed part of that delegation. But, as I attempted to explain to them, this is a part of the transmission system required by Ontario Hydro, the planning for this had gone on for a number of years and this matter has been debated for a number of years. It has been the subject of extensive litigation and the subject of a hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board.

As I explained to the people who were there, the government in its wisdom maintained the judgement of the Ontario Municipal Board. There was nothing presented to us that would justify an alteration of the board’s decision. Those who were in to see me would argue that not all of it was determined at the OMB. But the decision was made by the OMB and we could find no justification for its alteration.

I have to say to the honourable member that we have gone through this. I tried to explain to his colleague. They were seeking another inquiry. They committed themselves to saying, “If the inquiry says this is the location, we will accept that location.” I understand that. But I pointed out to them that part of this Nanticoke to Pickering transmission line was determined partially as a result of Mr. Solandt’s inquiry some years ago, an inquiry which, incidentally, I initiated. I realize the honourable member is not talking about that; he is talking about the Bradley to Georgetown corridor, which forms part of the transmission facility coming out of Bruce, and the need by Ontario Hydro for this corridor. I mean, it is built to one end and it goes from the other end. There is, in the interim -- this gap.

Mr. J. Reed: It doesn’t serve the most urgent domestic need.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We can debate for hours the degree of urgency, but the honourable member and, I think, even the delegation recognized -- they can argue it is not necessary for a year or two years, but I don’t know; Ontario Hydro says it is needed now -- the point is that it is going to be built.

I am sympathetic but I know that if the line is moved from point A to point B, the fact remains there are going to be some people affected as far as their property is concerned.

I am sympathetic to this, but I cannot alter it in any way. If we could find an economic way of transmitting power underground, that would be great. But the honourable member, who is an expert in all of these fields, knows that underground transmission over long distances simply is not technically feasible; so, unfortunately, property owners are going to be affected, and this is true in that particular alignment.

[3:15]

Ms. Gigantes: Would the Premier undertake to provide us with an estimate, as far as he can make it out from Hydro sources, of what proportion of that line will be used domestically and what proportion will be used for export?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that is really beyond my competence, although I don’t like to acknowledge that there are many things beyond that competence --

Mr. Roy: But you have visitors in the public gallery and you have to be modest.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I try to be modest; it becomes me. You should try it on occasion. Let’s be frank with one another: modesty is not your greatest quality.

Mr. Speaker: I am more interested in your being concise than modest.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are interested in my being concise, Mr. Speaker? It is not easy to be concise.

The member has asked me whether I can get Ontario Hydro to give an accurate guestimate, that is really what she is asking for, an accurate guestimate as to how much of the power that might be going from Bradley to Georgetown might be for export as opposed to domestic use. I would have to say to the honourable member that guestimates, to be accurate, would depend I guess on Hydro’s further guestimate as to the extent of the export of power at any particular time. I think it would depend on whether that export was on the basis of interruptible or non-interruptible. It would also depend, with my limited knowledge of the system, on exactly at what point of export it may be. If they were to guess that there might be an export into Michigan --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am trying to help the members as much as I can. If they were to guess that there was to be an export into Michigan, chances are it wouldn’t involve that line at all; it would go across at Port Huron if that is where that export is. If it were to go through to Niagara Mohawk, then the export would be going through some other transmission facility.

Mr. Speaker: Given the Premier’s modesty, maybe he could take the balance of the question as notice.

FOODLAND ONTARIO PROGRAM

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Would the minister tell the House what steps he has taken to prevent the misuse of the Foodland Ontario logo since I brought cases of its misuse, both in newspaper advertising and on shelf displays, to his attention last year? Specifically, could he explain why United States carrots, and it has been verified they are United States carrots, are now being packaged by Hardee Farms International of Bradford in bags displaying the Foodlands Ontario logo?

May I inform the minister that I purchased two of these bags, one at Dominion Stores on Ontario Street in St. Catharines and one on Wellesley Street in St. James Town here in Toronto, and I will send one of them over to him now.

Interjections.

Mr. Swart: And may I inform him that the latter was displayed in the Dominion Store at St. James Town, along with other United States carrots, beneath a counter sign saying,

“Canada No. 1 Grade Carrots, Ontario-grown,” but that there wasn’t an Ontario carrot there? Would he explain that?

Interjections.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the honourable member for the carrots. I know my wife will put them to good use. But I don’t know why he says these are US carrots. Does he know whether or not they are US carrots?

Mr. Swart: Yes.

Hon. W. Newman: How does the member know that?

Mr. Swart: I checked with Hardee.

Hon. W. Newman: You know, Mr. Speaker, it is like everything else. We get a good thing going here in this province, we have a good program in the Foodland Ontario program --

Mr. MacDonald: Answer the question.

Hon. W. Newman: Just be quiet.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon. W. Newman: I shall be glad to investigate the member’s question and I will be glad to investigate the contents in this bag and get back to him on it.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the honourable minister is looking into the question, would he look very closely at that bag I have sent him and note the Food- land Ontario logo is not a sticker, and’ that it is imprinted on the bag? Would he turn to the other side and read the print, “Produce of USA,” and would he note that also is imprinted and not a sticker? Therefore, this is not the mistake of a clerk --

Mr. Warner: It is fraud!

Mr. Swart: -- this is deliberate.

Mr. Pope: And the minister did it all by himself.

Mr. Speaker: Order! Are you asking the minister to look at the label?

Mr. Swart: Would he look at the label? Would the minister also think it is a pure coincidence this false promotion of United States products appears at a time when the Women Against Soaring Prices are boycotting all imported produce that could be produced domestically?

Mr. Warner: Try protecting the farmers.

Mr. Swart: Would he not think this is misleading advertising and that his ministry should lay charges against Hardee Farms and Dominion stores so as to protect our farmers and our consumers?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if there is a misuse of the Foodland Ontario symbol, we will take the appropriate action.

Mr. MacDonald: What is the appropriate action? Slap him on the wrist?

OTTAWA RIVER JURISDICTION

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier: In view of the fact that periodically and recently we have had severe flooding on the Ottawa River all the way from Mattawa through Deep River, Pembroke, Westmeath township, Buckham Bay, Constance Bay, Britannia and Cumberland, does he not feel part of the problem might be eliminated if there were a better handle on who had jurisdiction over the waters of the Ottawa?

Presently Hydro-Quebec, Ontario Hydro, the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company all have a jurisdiction of one sort or another over these waters. Does he not feel the ill-fated and horrendous piece of legislation passed on February 19, 1943, by the short-term Conant government, called the Ottawa River Water Powers Act is the source of most of the problems we have now with the Ottawa in the way of flooding?

Mr. Speaker: A question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is no question whatsoever that the few significant problems remaining in this province had their authorship and foundation in the administrations of Mr. Conant and Mr. Hepburn many years ago, but we are still working at them and I am sure we can solve them.

Mr. Yakabuski: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the Premier not feel that perhaps it is time to have that horrendous piece of legislation reviewed and perhaps the terms and the regulations pertaining to same renegotiated with the province of Quebec?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot guarantee successful negotiations with the province of Quebec on some issues, but I certainly agree with the honourable member that we should take a look at these matters to see if we can find a solution. I do thank the honourable member for his question and his constant interest in his constituency, which includes of course, the total county of Renfrew.

COMMISSION PAYMENTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board. I wonder if he is concerned, or is even aware, that some comments have been expressed by the provincial auditor for the past two years in a row with reference to the bills of two different royal commissions? This was in connection with bills in amounts larger than $1,000 for private sector legal counsel which were paid without the signed authorization of the Attorney General. This is clearly against the guidelines established by Management Board.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is yes, I am concerned. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) will be making a statement tomorrow.

Mr. Mancini: A supplementary question: If the Attorney General does not recommend these bills be taxed by the Law Society of Upper Canada, will the Chairman of Management Board do so?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I will take that under consideration.

DISASTER RELIEF ASSISTANCE

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Have the minister and his cabinet colleagues had a chance to review the applications for assistance for flood victims from communities such as Searchmont, Goulais River and Iron Bridge and the report of his officials that visited the area last week? If so, has the cabinet made a decision on what assistance might be made available to those communities?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, cabinet reviewed the reports of the flooding in those communities -- I believe the ones mentioned by my friend. Yesterday they declared them a disaster area. A release was issued today on this matter. These communities are being handled in the same manner as the Field situation.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Am I to understand from the minister’s response they are being handled in the same way as Field? That is, it would be a four-to-one matching grant? If that is the case, is that also being considered for other communities such as Onaping Falls and Walden?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is right. It is on the basis of $4 for every $1 raised locally. The areas of Onaping and the town of Walden, I believe, were also declared disaster areas yesterday and are included. The head of our subsidies branch is in that area, or will be either today or tomorrow, and he is going to ascertain whether it wouldn’t be more beneficial to have one fund for northeastern Ontario, rather than separate funds for each community. Then everything could be handled with one administration. They are looking into such an arrangement.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Can the minister indicate what is the status of the Renfrew county snow damage with respect to the disaster relief fund, since he has indicated cabinet has recently reviewed applications made under that fund?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Renfrew situation is this: Renfrew was declared a disaster area last January under the terms of the fund on a dollar-for-dollar arrangement. It is now up to the Renfrew area to establish their fund and it will be matched by the disaster relief fund.

EASTERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. In view of the fact an eastern Ontario development agreement has not been signed to date with the federal government, could the minister please give some indication to the members whether or not an agreement might be reached before the federal election on May 22?

Mr. Lawlor: Did you rehearse this, Norm?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I wish I could give that kind of assurance. We seem to be making progress on one agreement only of the three being discussed, and that is the pulp and paper agreement. The other two agreements have been stopped because the federal government is not negotiating with us.

Mr. Bradley: Oh, they’re a bad bunch.

Mr. Roy: You won’t have any problems with Joe.

[3:30]

Mr. Sterling: In view of that fact, will there be any announcement by the provincial government as to how farmers will treat drains that are under way in terms of drainage reports and that kind of activity that is now going on?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think the details of that would best be given by the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We were trying to determine whether or not some of the projects that were under way would be financed. I understand some will, but there’s still some doubt about where the cutoff date is. Therefore, there’s some question about those where engineering works are currently under way being financed.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has brief answers to questions previously asked.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Hon Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, last week the member for Carleton East asked a question of the Premier regarding the NDP reactor -- excuse me, the NPD reactor --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- I wish we had a little more time -- about “new information that had been leaked to the Ottawa Citizen from staff at the site.” An article in the Ottawa Citizen on May 8 referred to two documents about equipment and equipment work procedures associated with non-nuclear equipment at NPD.

One document referred to a pumphouse gasoline tank, which has now been relocated to reduce the already small risk of equipment fire damage; whereas the second document referred to a caution given to employees working near steam pipes in the condenser room. There is no public safety concern associated with either of these events.

Ms. Gigantes: You mean you’re not concerned.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The honourable member also asked about contingency plans. Contingency plans which include arrangements with offsite authorities have been in place for NPD since 1962. Currently, these contingency plans and the contingency plans for other nuclear generating stations in Ontario are being reviewed with the Ministry of Labour to incorporate lessons learned from the Three Mile Island incident.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Would the minister very briefly indicate what time frame he imagines for the contingency review he spoke of with respect to negotiations with the Ministry of Labour? Could he elaborate whether or not there is any time frame for review and new regulations, if such are deemed to be necessary?

Hon. Mr. Auld: That question should go to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of their daily plans.

REED PAPER COMPANY

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to table to a question from the Leader of the Opposition last week about allowable cuts at the Reed paper company.

Mr. S. Smith: We’d almost given up on you.

FLOOD DAMAGE

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have the answer to a question asked last week by the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway). He asked: “Could the Premier at this time explain how it is that along the Ottawa River in the area of Westmeath, south of Pembroke, through to and including the town of Mattawa, we are continuing to experience high water conditions?” He related this to Hydro’s operation of the dam.

Mr. Nixon: The Premier answered that too. He said: “There’s too much water.”

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I’m informed that the operation of the dam by Hydro during this particular critical situation was and is being co-ordinated through daily conference calls between the concerned agencies of Ontario Hydro, the federal Department of Public Works, Hydro-Quebec, the Ministry of Natural Resources of Ontario and the Department of Natural Resources of Quebec.

Regarding the low levels at the Ontario Hydro dam at Rolphton, the practice is to lower the level of the reservoir prior to spring runoff every year, and hold it at a low level until river flows subside. This is done in order to minimize the risk of flooding at the town of Mattawa.

If the forebay level was raised, as suggested, water levels in the town of Mattawa would also increase. The forebay is kept low until it is felt it is safe to raise it again without flooding Mattawa. The maximum practicable use has been made of storage in Lake Timiskaming and reservoirs further upstream to minimize the flooding. These lakes are now almost full.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have one other answer to a question raised by the honourable member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt). A couple of weeks ago he asked: “After 41 years, why is there not a master plan for the Ipperwash Provincial Park to guide its development and operations, and why was exemption MNR 8 issued under exemption orders under the Environmental Assessment Act?” He also had a supplementary.

A plan for Ipperwash Provincial Park was prepared about 1970, and that was prior to the time of having a master plan for each provincial park. An interim-management plan was prepared and approved in February 1977 and in this plan the need for relocation of the park entrance road was identified, as well as the importance of protecting the wet meadow. I am advised by my staff that this project is exempt from environmental assessment by virtue of the Minister of the Environment’s order No. 8 under the Environmental Assessment Act.

The formal master plan has not yet been completed, primarily because the priority has been given to natural environment parks rather than recreation parks.

Ipperwash is 109 acres, but it accommodates several thousand people on busy days. As a result there were very compelling reasons to upgrade the park’s entrance -- reasons of safety as well as handling the heavy traffic. In siting the entrance road, it was recognized that an alignment to tie in with the park control facilities and avoid using the beach, or crossing in front of the concession complex but lining up properly with an existing bridge crossing, while avoiding the three wet meadows which are in the area, would not be easy. Nevertheless, it would have to be accomplished.

The value of the wet meadow was certainly recognized when a number of meetings were held by the staff to see how it could be least affected. The road is not located in a wet meadow but runs along the side of a sand dune adjacent to the wet meadows --

Mr. Martel: That’s a statement.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- and several feet of the lower part of the dune containing juniper and red pine lie between the edge of the road and the meadow proper.

Mr. Bradley: Andy, there won’t be any time left for your resolution.

Hon. Mr. Auld: In connection with his supplementary question that it had ruined the unique meadow which contains rare plants otherwise unknown in Ontario and now considered to be endangered species, I am informed that there is some difference of opinion, even among experts, as to the identification of a wet meadow. Some define it as a single area while others feel it is made up of several more specific sites. We use the latter interpretation.

Mr. Bradley: You wouldn’t do that to Darcy.

Mr. Peterson: Here is the exciting part.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Here we are. In the final analysis, we acknowledge that according to some observers, one stand of blue-hearts may have been affected. The habitat, however, has not been destroyed and other stands of this flower have been identified in the vicinity. I was looking at them last Friday morning.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Aren’t you glad you asked, Murray?

Hon. Mr. Auld: In fact, the meadow, as a plant habitat, has not been ruined. The blue-heart is protected in two fenced nature zones in Pinery Park, which is about 10 miles away. It’s also found in other locations outside the nature zones in Pinery Park and it seems to be growing well.

Finally, the blue-heart is not at present in regulations under the Endangered Species Act. It has widespread occurrence south of the Great Lakes and up to the road at Pinery park.

Mr. Speaker: There is no way the member will have a supplementary to that.

When the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources is talking about endangered species, I wish he would have some regard for the effect he’s having on other species.

GUELPH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Mr. Ziemba: A point of personal privilege: The Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker) has accused me of sending out incorrect information regarding the condition of the Guelph Reformatory tunnel. Would the minister permit the press and media to inspect it, and would he join me in a personal inspection of this tunnel in order that the public may be informed of the truth?

Mr. Speaker: There was no point of privilege there that I could recognize.

Mr. Foulds: Let the record show the minister chose to ignore that.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously the minister doesn’t choose to respond.

ANSWER TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 164, 165, 167 and 168 standing on the Notice Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would also like to use this opportunity, pursuant to standing order 13, to indicate to the House the business schedule for the remainder of this week and next week.

This afternoon we will take into consideration ballot items 11 and 12. Tonight we will resume consideration of government legislation, starting with second reading of Bill 48, and then do second readings and committee work as required with respect to that bill, plus Bills 50, 51 and 49, and, if time permits, we will take into consideration Bill 17.

Tomorrow we will have the budget debate.

On Monday, May 14, the House will be in committee of supply to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

On Tuesday afternoon, we will do second reading of Bill 24, second reading and committee stage of Bill 17 and committee consideration of Bill 29. We will carry on with that until six o’clock. If there is time before six -- and certainly at eight -- we will do the following legislation: Any bills standing in the Treasurer’s name not completed this evening; second reading and committee work for Bills 31, 32 and 33; then, as time permits, Bills 71, 22, 34, 72 and 73, second reading and committee stage.

On Wednesday, May 16, the resources development, general government and justice committees may meet in the morning.

On Thursday, May 17, in the afternoon we will do ballot items 13 and 14 and on Thursday evening any legislation not completed on Tuesday, May 15.

On Friday, May 18, committee of supply will continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

MEMBERSHIP OF POLICE COMMISSIONS

Mr. Watson moved resolution 13:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should no longer be under an obligation to appoint a judge of a county or district court as one of the members of a police commission and that the government should consider introducing the necessary legislative amendments to accomplish this purpose.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes and may reserve any portion of that for a final response, if he so wishes.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve any time I may have left over. I would like to thank the House for the opportunity to introduce ballot item 11. This is my first private member’s resolution. It deals with a matter which has come to the attention of my riding and of the riding of the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan). There are police commissions in the city of Chatham and the town of Wallaceburg, and the same county court judge has been asked to sit on police commissions in Tilbury and Dresden.

Since I started to discuss this matter, I have found out that it’s being discussed in many forums throughout the province. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to present it in this forum this afternoon so that members on all sides of the House can express their thoughts on this matter

The role of the county court judge in Ontario, and indeed in Canada, is often an extremely busy one. Many of the functions the judges perform go unnoticed by the public and many people are unaware of the degree to which the county and district judges are involved in administrative or non- adjudicative duties.

[3:45]

The Ontario Law Reform Commission in its 1973 report on the administration of Ontario courts divided these administrative duties into four broad categories: ceremonial, investigative, ministerial and operational.

Ceremonial functions include the performance of marriages, granting of citizenship certificates, visiting schools and acting as a public official where some person of prestige is required.

Investigative duties are of course conferred by municipalities under the Municipal Act and from time to time when committees or commissions of inquiry are established.

Judges assume the ministerial role when they exercise their powers of appointment. Bailiffs and insurance appraisers are a couple of examples of such appointments.

Finally, the operational duties are performed under such acts as the Notaries Act or the Justices of the Peace Act where either the justices of the peace or the notaries public must be examined before assuming these offices.

It is interesting that the law reform commission was unable to classify under its scheme the function which the county court judges perform as members of boards of police commissions, although it did make specific recommendations concerning this matter.

Briefly, it is section 8 of the Police Act which requires that one of the members of every board of police commissioners be a judge of any county or district court designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The various municipalities or regions are responsible for paying the nonjudicial commissioners for the duties they perform as members of these boards. Hiring, maintenance, the disciplinary powers regarding police forces, are things these boards deal with. They also have powers to pass bylaws dealing with, as the law reform commission states, a wide range of matters having little to do with the policing itself. The Municipal Act, for example, allows police commissioners to pass bylaws which regulate licensed cartage businesses, taxi companies, magazine stores, newspaper stands, second-hand shops, restaurants, auctioneers, salesmen and many others.

I myself am not so concerned as to whether or not these particular functions necessitate the presence of a county court judge on boards of police commissioners. What does concern me is whether the scheduling and operation of county courts can be efficient when some judges are obviously going to be tied down with administrative responsibilities of no small significance.

The extrajudicial duties of the newly appointed Kent county judge are quite extensive. As I pointed out earlier, he is a commissioner on four of the separate police boards within Kent county. It is not merely the administrative burden that concerns me. Our own judge in Kent will have difficulty in sitting on local commissions merely as a result of the steadily increasing court trials that he is faced’ with.

The McRuer Royal Commission of Inquiry into Civil Rights, in discussing the appointment of judges to police commissions, made the point that chief judges are put in difficult positions when making arrangements for the dispatch of court business when some judges engage in extrajudicial activities which remove their ability to assist during periods of court congestion or overload.

What the McRuer commission did state, and what I see as being of some importance, is that it is not always the least busy judges in a county who are appointed to police commission boards. Often it is the reverse. In my particular case there is not even the luxury of choosing the county court judge to perform the extrajudicial duties, because there is only one. Under the present legislation it is not even permissible for either one of the two provincial court judges to assume a place on any of the four police boards.

It is for these reasons that I feel there is a need to remove the requirement of the county court judge appointments. This does not mean that the province could not encourage these judges to serve on boards. I think we are all aware of the important contribution that can be made to the present police system administration by experienced, impartial and independent judges sitting on a commission or commissions.

In this respect, I suppose I am simply resurrecting a proposal contained in Bill 113, introduced by the former Solicitor General back in 1977. That bill would have made a judge’s inclusion on commission as a commission member, optional. Where it is deemed by members of the judicial system inappropriate to make an appointment, the Lieutenant Governor in Council could appoint a local citizen.

I suppose when I first set about to introduce this resolution, I did so somewhat innocently. Frankly, I was I concerned with the one issue only -- that of alleviating the abnormal and inconsistent burdens experienced by some of the county court judges and specifically the one in Kent, and consequently, by the courts themselves. It was only after delving into the matter that I became aware of the other philosophical issues that surround the composition of police boards.

My concerns deal with the routines governing the court judges themselves. However, it seems that municipal authorities are more concerned with such things as police accountability and the budgetary relationships between the commissions and municipal councils. Other groups are more concerned with the possible conflicts of interest evolving from the dual adjudicative and administrative roles of the county judges. Both these groups argue that rather than becoming optional, the appointments of judges to police boards should be restricted entirely.

The McRuer commission report pointed out that in certain instances such as when a judge is presiding over a contest between a citizen and a municipal police officer, it may appear to interfere with the element of impartiality or independence. The report states it’s unfair to expect a judge in one capacity to tell the police what to do, while in another decide where the police policies have been acted upon fairly.

Personally Mr. Speaker, I’m really not in a position to argue these points, however, I do know that the Solicitor General has stressed that a judge’s role in court and his role as an administrator of police are separate and distinct except for the obvious fact he has a direct responsibility for the administration of justice in both roles.

It has been suggested that judges could easily avoid these specific instances where the public might see a possible conflict of interest simply by declining to sit on such cases. I would hazard a guess, that by and large, judges, with their superior knowledge of law, their impartiality and their independence, are less likely to become involved in interest conflicts than almost anyone else. I believe the public perceives this and consequently I can see no reason for restricting the appointment of judges to commissions. Rather, as I have stated, these appointments should become optional.

Although many municipalities recently have issued reports recommending that local councils be given control, or more control, over the formation of police policy, the Robarts commission report on Metropolitan Toronto is most reflective generally of municipal concerns. This report questions the organizational separation of police and other local service agencies when they seem to have such a close functional relationship. The report also states provincial legislation dictates the creation of a separate board of commissioners of police, with a majority of its members provincially appointed, because there is an appeal to the provincial body if the municipal council objects to the police budget. Because provincial regulations in this field are so extensive, the police function might well be thought to be more closely allied with the province than with the municipality.

In any event, it is certainly true that decisions regarding policing are taken quite separately from the rest of the local decision-making process. The commission, in short, felt policing was properly as well as literally a local responsibility and different organizational arrangements were required. The then Solicitor General, in his reply to the commission report of 1977, stated as follows: “Organizational separation exists for a very good reason. Local boards of commissioners of police and the Ontario Police Commission have a special role which arises out of our system for the administration of justice. This system is prevalent in democracies and law enforcement is of course an integral part of it.

“The police are part of a system which involves the prohibition of certain forms of conduct by the state, followed by the imposition of punishment in the case of transgression. It is imperative that justice be fairly, evenly and impartially dispensed and the present organizational structure is designed to ensure this end.

“The board of commissioners of police is designed to shield the police from direct political control and permit them necessary independence in enforcing the law. This independence would be lessened if the police were directly controlled by elected officials.”

It was also stated that although the police function was more properly allied with the province as opposed to municipalities, there is justification for this. Under the law, a police officer is an agent of the crown. He or she is therefore a holder of a public office exercising original authority.

‘In my view, therefore, it would be quite proper for the province to make two appointments to police boards where an acting court judge was not a commission member. Furthermore, if the assumption that an Ontario police commission will always uphold local police commission budget appeals were removed, and if municipalities were to establish more effective systems of budgetary review, I believe municipalities could have a great deal of input into the police service policy without sacrificing the optional inclusion of judges to police boards.

It is my hope that this resolution will receive the support of the House. I would hope, too, the Solicitor General is, as he appears to be, receptive to removing this difficult requirement in the Police Act and that he will soon introduce the appropriate legislation for consideration of all members.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent has reserved six minutes. The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Blundy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to rise and support the resolution that has been placed before the House today by the member for Chatham-Kent.

I am supporting it because of its wording. The resolution is that the province be no longer under the obligation to appoint a judge of a county or district court. This would seek to remove that obligation. There is still the element of discussion and debate and so forth that can be exercised by the government in the matter. I submit there are some places and some times where it would be worthwhile to have a judge on the police commission, but it is not always so.

As the previous speaker has pointed out, the judge in the ordinary court in the province is an extremely busy man. We have seen the increase in court cases that require his attention, as well as the other statutory duties of a county court judge.

I speak with a little experience in this matter, after having served on a board of police commissioners for eight years. Four years of that time I served with two judges on the commission and the last four years I served with one judge and one civilian.

[4:00]

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of difference in judging. I am not detracting from the judges as a whole, but as with all humans, there are some judges who are particularly interested in certain aspects of municipal life; there are some who are totally devoted to their judiciary duties and do not display those same interests. Therefore, I believe the municipality and the province can better be served by not requiring that the county court judge be on every police commission.

Another point I would like to make is that the board of police commissioners in today’s business has chiefly an administrative role and a very important one. When we look at the budgets for policing our municipalities today compared to the budgets of 10 years ago, we see differences of hundreds of thousands of dollars; it is now very big business. I am making reference not only to the moneys required for the operation of a competent municipal police force, but also to various administrative problems, much of which can be handled by the chief of police, but much of which has to be referred to the commission by the chief -- the promotion of an officer from one rank to another; the continuation of the probationary system for the probationary constable. If the police force is to be well run, well managed and capable of serving the municipalities, the police commission must look at all of these things, in addition to having a good deal of input into the budget of the police commission.

In some respects I prefer that a judge sit on a police commission -- in my past experience, it has proven to be a valuable thing. But as I have said before, this is not always the case. As a matter of fact, more often it is not the case. If the local hoard of police commissioners require legal opinions or legal advice in any of the operations of the police commission and/or the police department, they know to whom they can go to get that type of advice and assistance.

The municipalities, which are being burdened more and more with the provision of police services today, ought to have the right to have other than a judge on the police commission. They need a civilian from the community who is able to reflect the views of his fellow taxpayers and the opinions that have been expressed by the ordinary people in the community. They can be well expressed by a representative other than a judge in the community.

The mayor or the head of the municipality is there, so he can report back to the council and report from the council to the police commission on matters that are important to the taxpayers of the city. Over and above that, getting away from the financial aspects, in which of course the mayor is going to take a great leadership and play a great part, I believe that the views of the community as to the type of police force and the type of policing in the community can very well be given by and interpreted by a civilian representative to the police commission.

As I have said before, from my experience on the police commission I believe I can speak with some degree of understanding of the resolution before us today. I just want to say again that I am not opposed to a judge, but I do not believe it should be mandatory that a judge be on the police commission. Let us involve other very intelligent and capable people in our communities, through co-operation with the province of Ontario and the local government, in the running of the police department and the setting of police commission policies in our municipalities.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of the resolution standing in the name of the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) which would remove the obligation from the government of Ontario to appoint a judge to the board of police commissioners. To my mind, this is one small step in the right direction. If I had been writing the resolution, I would have gone even further than this and put the responsibility for the board of police commissioners where I think it properly belongs, that is, within elected local councils which, by and large, are responsible for the funding of police forces across the province.

From many years of experience on the city council in the city of Sudbury, both as an alderman and as a controller, I was always frustrated by the lack of control I had over the expenditures and the activities of the police department. Despite the fact that the budget as formulated by the board of police commissioners did come for approval to the board of control, there was still no way we, as a board of control, could change the estimates or the spending of the board of police commissioners. It was just a mandatory rubber-stamping of what it thought was in the best interests of the municipality.

I think that elected members of city and municipal councils are the best representatives in any community to determine what level of policing they desire. Different people from different strata in our society have different values. To that degree, one might get a police force which is too lax with enforcement or one might get a police force which is too strict. Some place between those two extremes, a balance has to be arrived at. I can think of no one better qualified and more in touch with his community than an elected councillor.

I would suggest that the board of police commissioners might be abolished in favour of a committee of council, including the mayor and some two or three senior aldermen. I am not fussy about how many it is, probably three or four aldermen plus the mayor should be responsible for the administration of the police forces, because these are the people who have to go out and pick up the money. The board of control or the finance committee of the council has to tax the citizens in order to run the service, and I think the people who have the obligation of picking up the taxes from the people should also have the obligation and the control over the spending of taxes.

This evasion of responsibility by elected officials is growing too rapidly. Even at this level, the amount of dollars which is spent by boards and commissions beyond the control of the elected people is unacceptable to me. This is one way that we could get a handle on the spending of public moneys.

Just to give the House one small experience I had as a member of the board of control of the city of Sudbury some years back, when we had the chief of police in with his budget for the year showing his projected expenditures. We were going through it as a board of control, looking at all of the different costs, and in the budget was an item for four extra police cruisers. I think at the time we had 16, and the chief and the board of police commissioners had come to the conclusion that we should have 20 cruisers. So there was an extra expenditure there of probably $25,000 or $30,000. I was questioning the necessity of beefing up our cruiser fleet.

In my mind the level of police service in Sudbury at the time was adequate and I saw no need for tighter police control in the community. It was a peaceful community and everything was going well. I questioned the chief as to the desirability of four more cruisers. After about half an hour of his evading my questions and going around in circles, he said, “Mr. Germa, I may as well tell you that those cruisers have already been on the street for four months.” That is the kind of thing that goes on in the board of police commissioners.

At that point I said, “What the hell are we doing looking at your budget if you have already blown the money anyway? You have already got the cruisers and here you are coming to the board of control for approval by rubber stamp.” We had no control whatsoever at that time.

It was at that moment that I came to the conclusion that as an elected councillor I wanted to have control over the expenditures of board of police commissioners. As I said, this is one small step in the right direction, but I do look forward to the day when the local council will have control over the administration and the spending of our police department.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of this resolution. Being in favour of that resolution, I would like to offer some comment in relation to it. First of all, I think it is important when we look at the present status of a judge on a police commission that we recognize the important contribution these men and women have made to commissions in the past.

I think the present commissions, which consist of the mayor or head of council, together with a judge and one citizen appointed by the province, have achieved a proper balance within the commission. I think there is a danger, if we followed the suggestion of the member for Sudbury, that the commission could become a committee of the council. Although police forces are providing a municipal service, and I agree with the member in terms of the financial control of those services, I think there is a significant danger of improper political interference with police forces. In the past the various commissions, as they have been set up, have worked pretty well as they have gone in the past.

[4:15]

The member for Chatham-Kent mentioned in his remarks that there is a significant problem in some areas, such as Chatham-Kent, where there is basically one county court judge and he is tied up with other judicial duties. In those cases there should be the option whereby the province can appoint another citizen to the commission to take over that particular function.

It might be interesting to go back in history some time. Originally, a board of commissioners was first appointed prior to Confederation. In the early days, a police magistrate was a member. In the year after Confederation, in 1868, a county court judge was appointed at that time. So for some 110 or 111 years we have had the county court judge as a member of the police commission.

The members of the municipal police force are governed and directed by the police board. This body is designed to ensure that the police are independent of direct political control of the municipality. The autonomy of the police boards, in my view, is essential to the proper administration of justice. This independence would be lessened if the police officials were either directly controlled by the municipally elected officials or were, in fact, municipally elected officials.

The dangers are obvious where the membership of the board is beholden and indebted to its supporters. Two competing interests must be balanced, namely, the need to have the police fully accountable to the elected representatives -- as the member for Sudbury has pointed out -- and, at the same time, to have them independent so they are able to enforce the law without favour or improper political interference. The presence of the judicial member is therefore a highly significant factor, and has been in the past, in maintaining this proper balance.

The board of commissioners of police has traditionally acted as a buffer between the politician and the police officer. In other words, the board concept is designed to ensure that the police are independent of direct political control. I mention this because it has been argued that policing is a municipal service just like any other.

I submit, however, that police boards and the Ontario Police Commission have a special role which arises directly out of our system of the administration of justice. Justice must be fairly, evenly and impartially dispensed. The present organizational structure is designed to ensure this end.

In short, the police board shields the police from direct political control and permits them the necessary independence to enforce the law.

There is truth in the contention that the police function is more closely allied in some ways with the municipal government than with the provincial government. But under the law a police officer is not an employee or servant of the municipality. The police officer is an agent of the crown as well, the holder of a public office who exercises an original authority. This distinction is basic to our constitution and our system of the administration of justice.

I wish also to point out that experience has shown that police boards are keenly responsive to local needs and desires. The mandatory membership of the mayor on a police board certainly assists in ensuring that this responsiveness will continue. The main point of my comments today, however, is to stress the necessity of separating politics from the administration of justice and the enforcement of law. Society clearly benefits from this separation and the county court judge can and does play a significant role in this process.

I indicated at the start that I am for the resolution, but I wanted also to recognize the significant contribution a judge does make. We would encourage the continuance of the judge’s role in boards of police commissions. But we recognize the practical problem as outlined by the member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the resolution although I must say I disagree with almost everything the member for Carleton-Grenville has just said. In my opinion, it is not only that we should not be under any obligation to appoint judges to police commissions, but that judges should not he appointed to police commissions.

As has been alluded to, section 8 of the act is the section which sets up this pattern which has been traditional throughout the province. Within the region of Waterloo, we have a five-member commission consisting of a provincial judge, two other appointees of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and two members of the regional council.

In the recent report issued by Mr. William Palmer as commissioner for a review of Waterloo region -- the report was issued in March 1979 -- he refers to suggestions as to his conclusions which would make the responsibility for police forces entirely a function, as a committee, of the regional council. In his opinion, the board of police commissioners for the region of Waterloo would be disbanded.

But he suggests one other item that, I think, should be referred to. That is the comment on page 158 of his report in which he says: “As an aside at this point, we fail to see the necessity for members of the judiciary to be involved in police governance. Such a requirement would seem an unnecessary use of their scarce time and an imposition upon the beleaguered gentlemen of the bench. As the hoary dictum would have it, moreover, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.’

“For this reason we have some reservations that a member of the judiciary may have an unwitting conflict of interest if required to supervise the police as well as to perform his foremost responsibility, which is to adjudicate the charges which those same police lay before him. This point of view was expressed by the McRuer Royal Commission on Civil Rights in Ontario, the Ontario Law Reform Commission and by three separate minority reports submitted to the Task Force on Policing in Ontario.”

I think that summarizes exactly the position which is, I believe, a sound one -- that judges no longer have a place on police commissions. The comments that have been made by Mr. Palmer might suggest we do not have a police commission within the region of Waterloo. Whether that’s acceptable or not to the parties involved, only time will tell.

There’s another way of doing it: it could be ruled that at least a majority of the members of that commission be members of the regional council. One could also, perhaps, have some volunteer or additional members added to a committee of council -- the matter could be dealt with in a variety of ways. But, in any event, the position of a judge on the continuing police governance body is something which I think is well out of date.

The member for Carleton-Grenville suggests that political influence might be brought to bear in this matter. Let me give you one more quote, Mr. Speaker. As you know, the British police forces are responsible to municipal councils through statutory advisory committees. But there is one quotation I would bring to the attention of the member for Carleton-Grenville. It’s on page 156: “The arguments for keeping politics out of police are largely fraudulent. No matter how the system is structured, the police governing body must ultimately be responsible to the public. That is accountability and that is politics.”

Mr. Ruston: You’ll have capital punishment.

Mr. Breithaupt: “The present system where the provincial government elected to a party system appoints the majority of police commissioners is every bit as political and more potentially dangerous than a situation in which a government composed of 24 separately elected individuals with at least three different political stripes and seven different factions, appoints the police governing body.”

That deals, at least to my satisfaction, with the matter of politics and the police force. Clearly, the governing of the police forces within this province is entirely different from the American situation of strong mayors, police commissioners and a great variety of other attributes. I have cited the British experience, and I would hope that concise comment from Mr. Palmer would be satisfactory.

In any event, former Chief Justice Gale, now retired, has suggested that, without question, judges be removed from police commissions.

Mr. Foulds: It’s hardly a revolution.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Attorney General, unfortunately, has not agreed. At least in the quotation I saw in the public press, the Attorney General said that he intended to remove the requirement in the Police Act that every police commission include a judge among its members, but that he would continue to make such appointments of judges in the future from time to time.

As a result, we may well find that the motion brought before the House today will be passed. It will not be blocked in the usual fashion by government members. The end result is that possibly we will have legislation brought in by the Attorney General which would at least remove this function of it being obligatory.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, at that point not only will I speak in favour of it being removed as obligatory; I will speak in favour of it being removed altogether.

Mr. Wildman: I wish to indicate that I rise in support of the resolution, for largely the same reasons the member for Kitchener just outlined.

It seems to me that the arguments raised by the member for Carleton-Grenville were somewhat off base when he talked about political interference. It seems to me that when we have a police commission, as we do, say, in Sault Ste. Marie, where we have three members, one of whom is a district judge, one is a provincial appointee and the other is the mayor, we already have two political appointees in the majority anyway.

Mr. Germa: Three.

Mr. Wildman: Yes. For that matter, a judge, even though he doesn’t take part in the political process, is a political appointee.

Mr. Sterling: Not necessarily.

Mr. Wildman: Not necessarily, that’s true, but usually, shall we say?

Mr. Foulds: The member for Ottawa East is hoping for one of those appointments.

Mr. Wildman: At any rate, I’m not concerned about that in relation to the judge particularly. What I am saying is that in a three-man commission there already is a majority representing political bodies. I argue that by putting one person, a minority, on the commission he is somehow going to limit the influence of the two political appointees, if they happen to agree with one another, is not --

Mr. Roy: Is Berger a political appointment?

Mr. Wildman: Of course he is. They wanted to get him out of the political process.

Mr. Roy: He’d be glad to hear that.

Mr. Wildman: He was so effective in the political arena they wanted to limit him and put him somewhere ehe, and then he proved even more effective as a judge when they appointed him to that commission. He conducted a commission that really blew holes in the whole Liberal policy for northern Canada.

I want to talk a little bit about the Sault Ste. Marie commission, which the Acting Speaker has some knowledge about. As I said, we have a three-member commission there, one of whom is a judge, another a provincial representative, and the mayor.

There has been some considerable controversy in the city about whether or not the commission is carrying out its functions effectively. The fact that we do not have the kind of representation which is subject to continual accountability to the political arena may be one of the reasons that commission is not as effective as it might be.

[4:30]

I wonder if the member who introduced the resolution might indicate to us why he chose to do it via the resolution route rather than presenting a private member’s bill, which would amend the legislation. It seems to me that is a far more effective way. We have a private member’s hour. It isn’t a great deal of work. The legislative counsel can assist the member in presenting legislation. I am just surprised he hasn’t gone the route of trying to amend the legislation, especially when he considers the fact eminent purists have agreed with his position.

Since I don’t agree with the member’s argument about political influence, I want to emphasize the reason I am in favour of the resolution is I am opposed to provincial judges serving on boards of police commissions per se. I would like to have it, as the member for Kitchener indicated, obligatory for them not to serve. In other words, I don’t want to see judges on them. There is just too much risk in their situation for a possible interpretation of conflict of interest in cases where there may be difficulties in administering justice, or where there are difficulties in a situation where a police officer or a group of policemen may indeed find themselves at some point facing a judge, if that judge is also a member of the police commission.

Mr. Roy: Name one police force that agrees with you.

Mr. Wildman: I am not sure what the member means by the police force, but as a matter of fact I have had some discussions with the members of the Sault Ste. Marie Police Association and I will indicate they agree with me.

Mr. Roy: Is that a police force or a police association?

Mr. Wildman: Police association. I also know the Acting Speaker, in his role as Solicitor General, has had some discussion with that police association in the past in regard to the provincial appointee. There are some major problems which I won’t go into here because it is not central to this debate, but there are some major problems in the administration and operation of the Sault Ste. Marie police commission.

I don’t think having a district judge on that commission is really changing that any or assisting it. For one thing, the bench is so busy trying to keep up with the number of cases they have that in many cases the judge may find himself not having enough time to be involved actively in the deliberations of the commission. This leaves it, in a situation where you have three appointees, largely to the provincial appointee, because the mayor himself is awfully busy as well. I would prefer to see the situation changed so we could perhaps have more people who could more actively and permanently work on commission work instead of having one who is so busy on the bench he doesn’t have time to be involved, and the only municipal appointee being the mayor.

I support the resolution. I regret the fact it isn’t here as an amendment to the legislation we could support to give some direction to the cabinet. I would really emphasize that I don’t want to see judges on the commission and I would like to see greater opportunity for local input into how police affairs should continue.

Mr. Rotenberg: I rise, of course, to support the motion of my colleague from Chatham-Kent. I support it in the way it is written because whereas I agree with the position that it should not be mandatory to have judges on police commissions, I also feel judges are people and a judge should not be excluded from a police commission.

In some areas, there is value for a judge to be on the commission. In some areas, as was pointed out, there are problems with getting a judge to act. In those cases, it is not proper for a judge’s inclusion to be mandatory. There are some areas where a judge may have time, where a judge is best qualified and a judge can and should sit on a police commission. To exclude him simply because he is a judge I think is just as bad as to make it mandatory that a judge serve on the commission.

I am not sure if it was the last time this matter was debated in the House, hut it was debated in this House in 1962. At that time oddly enough, the government of the day -- which was the same party as the government of this day, and will be for many years to come -- had introduced a bill to remove the judge from police commissions. At that time the two opposition parties opposed the removal of a judge from police commissions. I’m pleased to see that the present members of the opposition, most of them different members have changed their minds.

It would be interesting to quote from some of the opposition members who spoke on this in 1962. First of all it was pointed out at that time that the police bodies, the various chiefs of police and police associations, wished to keep a judge on the police commissions. The then member for Beaches-Woodbine, Mr. Ken Bryden, said: “I feel very concerned that the associations representing law enforcement officers in the province should feel so alarmed and uncertain with regard to the legislation before us. It would appear, from the representations made to this bill, to have quite an undesirable effect in undermining morale upon the law officers of the province.” That was the NDP, which then supported keeping a judge.

The predecessor in my riding who sat opposite, Mr. Vern Singer --

Mr. Mancini: He’s not here to defend himself.

Mr. Warner: This is private members’ hour, remember.

Mr. Rotenberg: -- indicated he was quoting from a policeman who said, “Under the present system, who could be more qualified to sit on these boards than a judge? He is a federal appointee, appointed for life, well versed in law and appreciates the duty of a police officer. We feel that it gives the municipalities assurance of a better type of efficiency in their police than if they were served by less qualified board members elected every year with, frequently, an axe to grind.” Mr. Singer said, “In a very few words, the police chief, a very reasonable gentleman, expressed his opinion.”

The predecessor of the member for Sudbury, Mr. Elmer Sopha, who was of a different party, said, “It is essential and fundamental that a judicial person sit upon these commissions. Perhaps the main reason, if one could select one reason out of many, that a judge should sit upon these commissions is that they are a quasi-judicial body. They have to decide questions of discipline and conduct and other matters in the police force.”

Mr. Roy: Why don’t you quote Wishart? He said the same thing.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, that was back in those days, and 1 agree only in part with what was said, because as I say, I don’t think it is necessary for a judge to sit on a police commission.

But police commissions do from time to time sit as discipline bodies. Police commissions do, from time to time: sit as arbitrators in police matters, in matters of discipline, in matters of arbitration and so on. It is not a necessity but certainly an advantage to have a person on that commission who has judicial training and judicial experience, who can bring an impartial point of view to it. Because, in the police commission discipline matters, it is almost a trial. I don’t preclude other people, but if you get a committee of council sitting as a police commission, there is a tendency for such a committee of council to deal with discipline matters in a different way from those who have judicial training. I say there is a tendency. It may happen; it may not.

I was interested in the remarks of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) who seems to want the police commission to be a committee of council. I was interested also in the comments of the member for Kitchener, quoting the recent study on the Kitchener-Waterloo region, and who seemed to be agreeing with the commissioner. I hope when the government brings in a bill, the member for Kitchener will agree with everything the commissioner says on that report, but that is another matter.

Mr. Roy: Don’t you worry he’ll take a responsible approach.

Mr. Rotenberg: I should hope so. A committee of council is qualified to do many things but I don’t think it is qualified to sit in judgement on police discipline matters. This should be done by some other body. I’d also point out to the member for Sudbury that while he is technically correct, really a municipal council cannot set the budget of a police commission. Maybe when he was on council in Sudbury he did things differently than when I was on a municipal council.

In practice, municipal councils do review police budgets and do change police budgets. Technically, according to the Police Act, if the municipal council refuses to pass the police budget, then it is appealed to the Ontario Police Commission so that someone else sits as arbitrator between the local police commission and the municipal council. In practice, however, because of that, municipal councillors do have quite a bit of control over the budget of the police commission and municipal councillors should exercise that control.

In my opinion, speaking to the point of the member for Sudbury, I feel that the municipal councils’ control over the general police policy through the budgets which should be exercised is a sufficient control of the political arm of that police commission. The day to day operation, particularly the discipline problems and the problems of crime fighting, should not be done by municipal councils.

Can one imagine the type of things that a police commission has to do when it sits to set policy on how to fight crime or organized crime, if there is such a thing, or whatever? That would be done by a committee of council sitting in open session because committees of council, as we know, are always going to sit in open session. There is pressure to do so. How can a committee of council, acting as a police commission, sit in open session and deal with those police matters?

I would really have to disagree with the member for Sudbury that a police commission should be a committee of council. But that is not really what is before us today. What is before us today is the resolution from my colleague from Chatham-Kent that it shall no longer be mandatory for a judge to sit on a police commission.

It seems there is unanimous opinion in this House for at least that. I think if we pass this resolution, hopefully unanimously, that will be an indication to the government, the cabinet members, and the Solicitor General that this is the feeling of the House and, hopefully evolving from that will be legislation that will take away the mandatory provision for a judge to be on a police commission. When that legislation comes forward, which I hope it does, I hope also that the legislation will not preclude a judge from being on the police commission for the reasons I have indicated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Actually there is no time left from what was reserved unless the member for Chatham-Kent doesn’t want his full time.

Mr. Watson: How much time have I got?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: You have about four minutes.

Mr. Roy: Give us a couple of minutes here. Give some of your time to someone who knows what he is talking about.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for York Centre for two minutes.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, there are quite a few things I would like to say about this. I am in support of the resolution as far as it goes. However, I would like to say that this resolution has already been embodied in legislation introduced in this House by the member for Humber (Mr. MacBeth) when he was the Solicitor General in Bill 113, in November 1977.

That legislation conforms not only to what is proposed here in this resolution, but it also protects the discretion of appointing a judge, if the circumstances warrant it. Unlike my colleague from Kitchener, I must say I am a person who does support the position of a judge on a commission. The reason I do is that the police commission itself does fulfil a very important function. It acts as a quasi-judicial body. It has the power to conduct hearings under the Police Act which affect the freedom and the livelihood of individuals appearing before it, namely, police officers.

It administers the Police Act, which is a statute of the province of Ontario. It seems to me that for this function and this reason only we should protect the position on the police commission that would and could be filled by a judge for the reasons set out by several members who have already spoken, namely, impartiality, expertise and legal and judicial training.

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

Mr. Stong: That is very important when we are considering this bill. I support the resolution but I wouldn’t like to see it closed up any tighter than it already is.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the people who have spoken on this, especially the people who have had personal experience on police commissions and have a more intimate knowledge of them than I have. I would like to add something to the argument we have got into, which really is not part of the resolution. One of the reasons I didn’t include it was that I realized there was a difference of opinion as to whether or not they should be removed.

I can sympathize with some of the arguments in large centres where people say they don’t want the judge on the commission, but I think that in small communities with a three-man police commission, a five-man council and 2,000 people, it’s pretty hard there to make it impartial or not to allow small “p” politics to creep into it.

In my particular riding in Chatham-Kent and that of the member for Kent-Elgin, we have a particular situation. I did bring this resolution to the attention of this House to try to speed up the introduction of this legislation, because we in essence have four police commissions which are operating as two-man commissions at the present time. We think it is the busyness of the present judge we have; he is new and he has been appointed to four, but he has not been acting. Essentially, we have two-man police commissions, and we would like to correct that situation.

[4:45]

I do appreciate the support, and I do hope that the Solicitor General will be receptive to removing this requirement from the Police Act.

PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr Gaunt moved second reading of Bill 67, An Act to amend the Public Health Act.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to discuss this bill today, because it is very topical. Much of the question period today was taken up with matters having to do with radiation, and this matter has to do with a type of radiation. It is topical also from the standpoint that, in the United States, Congressman Weiss introduced a bill in January to do the same thing as is being advocated in my bill; so it is a matter of some discussion in the United States as well, and that bill has gone to committee, as I understand it.

I want to deal with a number of items. First of all, I want to describe the ionization smoke detectors, the nature of the product contained in them, americium 241, and why regulations requiring controlled disposal are inadequate. My colleague from Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) will deal with the risks and the benefits, but I want to end up by telling the House why I propose this particular measure under the Public Health Act.

By its very nature this is going to be rather technical; for that I apologize, but it is a technical subject.

There are two types of smoke detectors commonly used in the home, ionization detectors and photo-electric detectors. The ionization device, which comprises between 85 and 90 per cent of the market, uses a radioactive source, most commonly a substance called americium 241, to transform the air inside it into a conductor of electric current.

A number of highly respected scientists and radiologists have pointed out that americium 241, a waste product from the nuclear cycle, is potentially a major hazard to public health and to the environment. Americium 241 is a transplutonic element; that is, its atomic number is greater than that of plutonium. It is 53 times more radioactive by weight than plutonium 239 and has a half-life of 458 years. This means that it will retain its potentially lethal properties for thousands of years.

According to Dr. Edward A. Martell, an environmental radiochemist with the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, there are thousands of lethal doses in one microcurie of americium 241.

Americium 241 is formed from plutonium and, like other plutonium isotopes, it emits alpha particles with strong energies. Alpha radiations have higher linear transfers than beta or gamma radiation; that is, they transfer greater energy in a shorter distance.

It is true that alpha radiation has a weaker penetrating power than gamma radiation (medical and dental X-rays) and beta radiation (colour television sets and luminous-dial wrist watches); however, when taken into the body, although fewer cells are reached by an alpha particle, all of its energy strikes those few cells, increasing the likelihood of cell mutation or cell death. Thus, americium 241 is potentially an extremely hazardous substance and highly likely to cause cancer once it gets into the body.

Like plutonium 239, the target organs for internal exposure of americium 241 are the lungs, liver, bones and gastrointestinal tract. Infants and young children are especially susceptible, as in their case americium is more readily absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and more deposited in the liver of the newborn.

The greatest danger of an americium release from the detectors does not occur from normal use but if the devices are improperly disposed of. Once in the environment, americium poses a greater risk to health and safety than plutonium 239. Dr. Karl Morgan, for many years the director of the health physics division at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and now with the school of nuclear energy at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and who has been long recognized as a leading expert in the field of health physics, explained why in an article published in the Congressional Record, February 1, 1978:

“The risks are identical for plutonium 239 and americium 241 ... and once in the environment, americium is more of a risk than plutonium, because it is more readily taken up by animals and plants.”

Americium, which is soluble, accumulates in the biosphere (in soil and water), from which it enters the human food chain in drinking water, plant foods, fish and animals. Once ingested into the human organism, it moves readily from the gastrointestinal tract into the bloodstream, where it remains to cause cancer of the liver and the bone. Dr. Dean Abrahamson, physician, physicist and professor at the school of public affairs, University of Minnesota, has stated: “There is no question about the toxicity of americium, especially if it gets into the food chain.”

Where do the dangers lie? Under normal operating conditions, ionization smoke detectors do not represent an immediate threat to consumers and the general public. In fact, it has been shown that one could get more radioactivity from a colour television set. However, there are some concerns about the protection of workers engaged in the manufacture of ionization smoke detectors and the manufacture of radioactive sources used in them. Those concerns have been expressed in terms that the workers are not adequately protected. The average amount of americium 241 contained in an ionization smoke detector has been estimated at anywhere between one microcurie to five microcuries, while ionization devices in the work place are reported to contain up to 15 microcuries.

The main problem with ionization detectors is not, therefore, in the actual use of the devices but with respect to their disposal. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, an international organization, warned in a report that one possible route is direct contact with the radioactive material in the device, while another possible route is the transfer of radioactivity to ground water and subsequently to drinking water. The committee report was of the opinion that the doses to the public from this latter method of disposal would be insignificant.

These assumptions have been seriously criticized by a number of experts. First of all. the long half-life of americium 241 means it is by no means safe to assume that labelling on these devices will remain intact for the duration of its radioactive life. Second, health physicist Dr. Morgan has stated that “since americium will certainly seep into the soil and water ... the only question is where and how much. Even though the risk may be small -- and I am not saying it is -- when you have millions of these smoke detectors, and you multiply a ‘small risk’ by a large number, the risk can be much larger.” Dr. Donald Geesaman, a noted biophysicist, claims it is insidious to manufacture and distribute radioactive smoke detectors and concurs that “it’s inevitable that some of this americium will enter the human food chain.”

In aquatic ecosystems, both plants and animals pass large amounts of water through their systems, filtering out and retaining nutrients and, as it turns out, radioactive contaminants. Even small amounts of plutonium in water end up in significant concentration in fish and other forms of water life. This has serious implications in the disposal of americium which, once in the environment, is more of a risk than plutonium.

The OECD committee’s recommendations on the use and disposal of ionization detectors stipulate that activity per detector should not exceed one microcurie per detector and shall not exceed five microcuries. Thus, the household ionization smoke detectors that are in excess of one microcurie -- and there are a number of models available in retail stores in this province of up to five microcuries -- are in excess of the preferred limit. Furthermore, in arriving at its a recommendation that ionization detectors not exceeding five microcuries need not be subject to the condition that their recovery and disposal are controlled, the committee used several assumptions in its assessment which may not be applicable to circumstances in parts of this province.

In its calculations the committee assumed that the average activity in a single-station ionization detector unit is only one micro-curie.

Second, the committee assumed for the purposes of its calculations that at present only one home in 20 is equipped with smoke detectors and that by the year 2000 one home in 10 will be fitted with an ionization detector. As I will show later, this could greatly underestimate the situation in this province.

Third, it is assumed that the average life of a single-station ionization detector is five years. However, of 15 ionization detectors tested for the October 1978 issue of Canadian Consumer magazine, nine had warranties for only one year. In addition to this, Honeywell’s market manager has predicted that in a year or so the market will enter into a retrofit condition, where consumers will start buying new units instead of going to the expense of replacing batteries. Since the smoke detector market has flourished in the past two years, it is likely that the figure of five years is too long for the average life of an ionization device.

The same assumptions were used by the committee to arrive at its conclusion that the release of radioactivity to air during incineration of waste is insufficient to warrant controlled disposal of ionization detectors containing more than five microcuries of radioactive material.

I had a letter from a concerned resident of Thamesford, who attended a meeting at the Arva fire hall on March 20, 1979, and asked about the disposal of these units when they become inoperable. He was told, in front of the entire gathering of approximately 200 people, to just dig a hole two feet deep and bury it. In my view, that is not good enough.

Last fall, the Atomic Energy Control Board relaxed its rules on residential ionization smoke detectors and now allows the home-use devices to be thrown in the garbage. Yet, unfortunately, it is not sufficient simply to require the reinstatement of the regulations stipulating controlled disposal, since there is no way of ensuring that the consumer will comply with the instructions on the label. Previously, the AECB regulations stipulated that the labels read something like this: “2.5 microcuries americium 241. Disposal by return to supplier or as directed by Atomic Energy Control Board, Ottawa.”

Consumers who do actually take the trouble to contact the AECB to dispose of the devices in accordance with its directions would be instructed to dispose of them via Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at Chalk River. The point here is that it is a very complicated procedure, and there are nine chances out of 10 that consumers simply will not do it.

Simply putting a label on something that says it is radioactive does not give the consumer all the information he needs to make a decision as to whether or not to buy an alternative model without a radioactive substance

Dr. R. H. Neill of the Bureau of Radiological Health, US Food and Drug Administration, makes the point that, unlike hospitals, laboratories and industrial facilities, the consumer area must, in general, be termed an uncontrollable environment. Many people may not even bother to read the label or, if they do, they will forget the instructions.

Another factor that must be taken into account is ascertaining the adequacy of labels recommending controlled disposal in terms of the numbers. In 1971, estimated sales for Canada of residential smoke detectors were 300,000. In 1978, this rose to 1.2 million, and estimated sales in 1979 are well over two million. Two independent sources which manufacture smoke detectors have indicated that Ontario holds a 40 per cent share of the market. One of these sources has said the Ontario share might even be as high as 50 per cent.

This gives us a grand total of 1.4 million smoke detectors sold in Ontario for the three-year period ending December 1979. The ionization model captured at least 85 per cent of the residential smoke detector market, giving us a figure of 1.19 million units for the province.

[5:00]

One manufacturer has estimated that 22 per cent of the dwellings in Canada possess smoke detectors. Ontario holds about 40 per cent of the market; by this estimate, at least one in five dwellings has a smoke detector, which indicates that the figures used by the OECD committee for the purposes of assessing waste disposal implications, that is one in every 20 homes at present and one home in 10 by the year 2000, are far too conservative for Ontario.

Other factors account for a huge volume of sales in Ontario. Market growth can be attributed to encouragement from insurance companies to policy holders to buy residential smoke detectors in the form of premium reductions, rebates and so on and, of course, the government legislation making smoke detectors mandatory is another factor here.

There is no question that the government should be commended for taking steps toward the fullest protection of human lives from fire. However, in view of the fact that an excellent alternative to the ionization device exists, the photo-electric device which contains no radioactive substance at all, government legislation with respect to smoke detector units should require that the photoelectric model be installed.

All right, why have I introduced this legislation via the Public Health Act? I’ve introduced legislation prohibiting the sale and distribution of ionization smoke detectors through an amendment to the Public Health Act. I favour the ban on sale and distribution because even if manufacturers and distributors of these devices were required to stick labels on them directing controlled disposal, there is no guarantee the user would see the label, read the label, remember the label or comply with the instructions on the label.

Under the Public Health Act, the Ministry of Health has the express duty to maintain certain standards of health in the community and is given very broad powers to do so. Since the presence of carcinogenic substance in the environment in the form of the radioactive isotope americium 241, which has a dangerous potential to leach into soil and water systems and work its way up through the human food chain, obviously constitutes a threat to human and public health in the community, the proposed amendment is well within the scope of the act.

Under section 4(d) and (g), the ministry has a duty to determine whether the condition of any public or private place, or the method of manufacture or business, or the disposal of sewage, trade or other waste is a nuisance or injurious to health, and if so, may order whatever changes are necessary to remove the nuisance or hazard.

As a matter of fact, the Minister of Health is specifically authorized at present to make regulations to control all uses or sources of ionizing radiation under section 642. So far, two regulations have been made; one dealing with public health labs, some of which work with radioactive materials such as X-ray equipment and so on, and having to do with microwave ovens. Therefore, there have been ample precedents to legislation of this kind.

Since no action has been taken by the ministry to legislate with respect to ionization smoke detectors which, in my view, constitute a problem injurious to health and since the ministry clearly has a duty imposed upon it to maintain certain standards of health in the community, my amendment in the form of a new section 98(a) will ensure that the sale of ionization smoke detectors is prohibited, thus removing a source of significant danger to human health.

I come back to the argument with which I originally started. The argument is, why run the risk to the environment and human health by using ionization smoke detectors when a safe, equally effective alternative is already on the market. I urge that all members support this particular bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member had one minute remaining. Does he wish to reserve that?

Mr. Gaunt: Yes, I would like to, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I’d like to congratulate the member for Huron-Bruce on introducing Bill 67, which will prohibit the sale of ionization-type smoke detectors. It is a legislative initiative that is both good and necessary, and I intend to support it.

In the past two years, several members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party have raised this issue with the government and the government’s response has been either vague or rather simplistic. I hope we hear something further in the way of a response today, if not total agreement with the bill as proposed.

I can recall on May 1, 1978, asking the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations the following question in the House: “In view of the fact that there is now a significant body of evidence indicating that the ionization type of smoke detectors constitute a risk to the health and safety of individuals who come into contact with them, and in view of the fact that the photo-electric type of smoke detector does not constitute such a hazard and thereby provides an acceptable alternative, will the minister consider amending the provisions of the Ontario Building Code so as to not permit the use of the ionization type of smoke detector in Ontario buildings?”

At that time, the minister responded that he would look into it and I can only suppose that his successor is still looking into it. That is one of the reasons why this legislative initiative has been made necessary.

I can recall members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party questioning the Solicitor General about this as it related to the fire code. The response of the Solicitor General’s staff during estimates was that the radioactive hazard was negligible. It’s kind to characterize that sort of ostrich-like approach as simplistic.

Members of the Legislature will be quite interested to know that in fact the government has made its answer well known. When one calls the Ministry of Government Services and talks to anybody in the property management branch of that ministry, they will inform you that 99.9 per cent of the government buildings in the province use ionization-type smoke detectors. The government position is fairly clear and on the record.

This issue raised by the member for Huron-Bruce has become even more crucial now that a number of jurisdictions have moved to make the use of smoke detectors mandatory.

The ionization type of smoke detector, as explained by the member for Huron-Bruce, is unlike the photo-electric detector because it is a device based on at least two different radioactive elements: not only americium 241 but also radium 220. As he said, americium 241 is indeed an alpha-emitting radioactive isotope. Members should be aware that it is very similar to plutonium in its toxicity as a cancer-causing element at extremely low levels of exposure. You don’t need to be exposed to very much of it to experience serious harm, Mr. Speaker.

With one exception, I don’t intend to deal with the safety of the detector in the home because that will no doubt draw from apologists the argument of comparison of radioactive levels to wrist-watch dials and other such things.

The one exception deals with the cleaning of the ionization type of smoke detector. Recommended regular cleaning involves removal of the cover of the detector and either a light dusting or a vacuuming. If the shield foil is at all misaligned, chips of americium can come onto the cleaner’s hands, exposing them to a very serious hazard.

There are three other hazards I would like to make sure are on the record and clearly understood.

First of all, I am terribly concerned about the danger to workers who are making this product in the plants. The exposure to americium in the plant is totally unnecessary, and I find it objectionable.

Secondly, I’m concerned about the risk to the health and safety of firefighters who are summoned to buildings that store or manufacture these detectors because there exists in those buildings a very high concentration of these radioactive materials. The firefighters could be in a position where they are called in, for example, to a department store and are not really aware of the degree of concentration and, therefore, can be exposed unnecessarily.

It is interesting to note that a leading manufacturer of the ionization-type detector in the United States submitted data to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when they were studying the matter which estimated that a fireman fighting blazes in a warehouse containing only 1,000 completed units, a total of approximately 3,000 microcuries of americium, could receive a substantial dose, a 50-year internal dose of 37 rem. This estimate was based on the assumption that there is only 0.31 per cent leakage from the americium-containing foils. That indeed shows the scope and nature of the hazard posed to firefighters.

Thirdly, I share the concern of the member for Huron-Bruce over disposal. Now that the Atomic Energy Control Board is no longer insisting that radioactive detectors be returned to the manufacturer or to the board for disposal, we will indeed end up with all kinds of these detectors in our landifill sites. As has been pointed out, this element has a half-life of 458 years. It is terribly clear that this is not the kind of thing the government should allow to be tossed away in our local garbage dumps.

The ionization type of smoke detector is not a no-risk item. The debate centres only on the degree of hazard involved. Any degree of risk from a radioactive smoke detector is totally unnecessary because there are available on the market today at comparable prices safe and clean smoke detectors which are equally efficient. Indeed, the photo-electric type of smoke detector is more effective in the case of a smouldering smoke fire, the kind of fire that accounts for something like 75 per cent of home fires in North America.

I think the current policy of the government is nothing short of foolhardy. There has to be a change in policy. The question put before us by the member for Huron-Bruce is clear. Should we allow the sale of a radioactive device which presents a real hazard when there is an acceptable alternative? The answer is clear. The answer is no, and therefore I would recommend to members of this assembly that we support the member for Huron-Bruce and vote in favour of his bill.

Mr. J. Johnson: In rising this afternoon to debate this bill, I would like to say this is in no way an insignificant matter. The whole issue of nuclear radioactivity is one which I feel is vitally important today as our society becomes more and more dependent on nuclear power.

Because it is an issue about which little is known by the average citizen, it is important also that our concerns are heard publicly. I sincerely commend the member for Huron-Bruce for his concern forthel overall health and safety of our population arid also for presenting us with this opportunity today to air some of our views. The honourable member introducing this bill has quite honestly and sincerely outlined some of his fears arising from the various warnings issued by public interest groups who feel that we must reduce the number of cancer-causing agencies in our environment. This is a principle about which few would argue and, as I have said, it is a most commendable one.

We are all interested in public safety and avoidance of human tragedy, but in this instance I really feel we must deal with both sides of the coin. The honourable member’s bill, if passed, might in the long run alleviate some amount of human suffering, but it might also in some cases jeopardize the lives of human beings. I think it is important to examine all the facts pretty carefully before we come to any conclusions.

There are two kinds of smoke detectors, as has already been mentioned. The photo-electric cell detector measures light which is visible in the detector only when smoke is illuminated. Despite the advance in technology and increased sensitivity of photo-electric models to fires generating little smoke, the ionization detector remains much more sensitive to invisible smoke particles resulting from open, blazing fires.

[5:15]

Consumers Union has done considerable testing in this regard and I might just quote one section from Consumer Reports of January 1977, “Are Smoke Detectors Hazardous?” It states: “The ionization detectors, as a class, responded quickly -- within about two minutes -- to flaring fires that produce little or no visible smoke. In contrast, the photo-electric detectors generally ignored the smokeless blazes for as long as we allowed the test to run -- about 10 minutes. In a blazing fire a matter of minutes or even seconds can spell the difference between entrapment and escape.”

It has been stated accurately that most deaths caused by residential fires are the result of smouldering blazes detected most easily by photo-electric models. However, the second largest number of deaths related to fires are those caused by open flames. These fires clearly, according to Consumers Report of January 1977, are detected much earlier by ionization detectors.

In fact, the US Consumers Union does recommend installing both models. They report a further advantage to the use of ionization detectors; most models don’t rely on a household electrical supply which can be interrupted during fires. If it can be proved that ionization detectors save lives and the radiation danger is minimal, not just to residents but also to firemen, then plainly, we are discussing a cost-benefit situation.

Unfortunately, both safety and radiation are difficult to prove. It seems the benefits can be proven, whereas the possibilities of dangers are in fact, still open to question. Figures are not readily available, but approximately 55 to 60 per cent of all lives lost in fires are through residential fires. Most of these occur at night. Last year there were 7,487 fires in Ontario single family residences and the lives of 265 of our citizens were lost.

It is a safe assumption to say a significant number of situations have arisen in the past and will arise in the future in which a matter of seconds could mean the difference between life or suffocation. An ionization detector can provide earlier warnings and therefore permit faster escape from open blazes. Certainly the Consumers Union feels that conclusive evidence exists to prove the benefits of these devices over photo-electric detectors.

I’d like to take a few minutes just to mention for the benefit of the members some information I have on smoke detectors. Based on conversations with Harold Yoneyama, director of technical standards division, Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and with Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, the following facts were confirmed.

I don’t suppose there’s much use in mentioning this because the members are not interested anyway.

Mr. Wildman: No, no, I will listen, Jack, I’m interested.

Mr. J. Johnson: Their statements are very similar to what the former mentioned. Radiation outside the unit is said to be less than that of a luminous wrist watch or a colour television set. It’s an argument and each side is telling a story. It’s a question of who we are to believe.

The Ontario Building Code requires all new houses to have one or more smoke detectors of either the ionization or photo-electric type, and approvals are based on tests from ULC. The Atomic Energy Control Board used to require that all ionization smoke detectors be returned to the supplier for disposal, but as of about six months ago they decided the radiation was so minimal the detectors could be disposed of in normal garbage. That’s from the Atomic Energy Control Board and I thought they were a responsible body.

Ms. Gigantes: The people who brought you Port Hope.

Mr. J. Johnson: If they are not, maybe we are all in deep trouble. While it would be difficult to produce evidence of health damage because of radiation from an ionization detector, it can be proved easily that lives are lost in house fires where there are no smoke detectors. This is the single most significant concern I have with this bill. I say to the member for Huron-Bruce that reluctantly, I cannot support this bill prohibiting the sale of this type of smoke detector because in my opinion, the greater danger is that much of the public will perceive smoke detectors of all types to be dangerous to their health and as a result may not install any fire detectors --

Mr. M. N. Davison: What about the factory workers who make them and who are exposed?

Mr. J. Johnson: -- in their homes. I am sure all members would agree that this indeed would be a tragedy and would without question --

Mr. Kerrio: You are setting up a smoke screen.

Mr. J. Johnson: -- lead to the possible loss of many lives. In fact, Mr. Speaker, that very concern is described in detail in Consumer Reports, January 1977.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I once again commend my colleague from Huron-Bruce for his good intentions, but respectfully request that this bill be delayed until a new or better smoke detector is available.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Are you going to block it?

Mr. B. Newman: I rise to support the legislation introduced by my colleague, the member for Huron-Bruce. You will find, Mr. Speaker, that he always introduces good common-sense legislation that should be accepted by government simply because he introduces it. In deciding whether or not to permit the sale of consumer products containing radioactive materials, the decision must be based on a complex balance between the risk and the benefits involved. At least one can deal with large facilities such as power plants, where one can impose very stringent requirements to contain any radioactivity produced and theoretically, releases can be cut to extremely low values, which is itself an arguable point.

But this isn’t the case with all consumer products. By the nature of their use, these products are dispersed and are beyond control. Even though the individual exposures may be very low, very large numbers of people may be affected and retrieval of the material in the event that unforeseen consequences develop cannot be assured.

In particular, research and review are needed on such questions as what is the benefit of the use of radioactive materials? Is it a unique benefit? Are there other ways of achieving the same goals that do not involve radioactivity? What differences in effectiveness are there? In this connection, I would like to stress that in the case of residential smoke detectors, a non-radioactive alternative to the ionization type is available. The photo-electric smoke detector is just as effective as the ionization type in the home and the work place according to tests performed at the National Bureau of Standards in the United States. An article by Ralph Nader in the Ladies Home Journal of February 1978 -- and these articles are more up to date than previous articles mentioned by my colleague who spoke just prior to my comments -- states that a study done by Underwriters Laboratories and the Illinois Institute of Technology shows no apparent difference in lifesaving potential between ionization and photo-electric detectors. The October 1976 Consumer Reports states that no clear answer can be given to the question of whether photo-electric or ionization devices represent a better bet for safety in the home. They say that statistically, smoky fires cause the greatest number of deaths and photo-electric models react to smouldering fire faster than ionization models, although ionization models react faster to open flame fires. The Canadian Consumer of October 1978 had this to say: “Some fires are slow-burning, smoky affairs, which contain large particles. Others are quick-burning and flaming with small particles. The slow-burning fire is the most insidious. Bear in mind the oxygen depletion and the possible inhalation of noxious gases increases directly with the length of smoke buildup. When faced with the smouldering fire, the photo-electric devices were by far the best performers. The poorest performer among the photo-electrics was still more sensitive than any ionization device. The ionization devices eventually responded to the smouldering fire, but as a group they were less sensitive to smoke buildup than the photo-electrics.”

Although it is acknowledged that the photo-electric type responds more quickly in cases of smouldering fires in a mattress or a chair, for example, where smoke particles are large, while the ionization device responds faster to clean flames and smaller particles, as would be generated by a wastebasket fire, according to US fire research engineer Richard Bright: “In general, the smoke from the typical dwelling fire will be composed of a wide range of particle sizes, so given the present state of knowledge either detector will suffice.”

Defenders of radioactive detectors must be asked why take any risk when other types of detectors, devoid of inherently dangerous elements, can function equally well and save lives? There is absolutely no justification for sanctioning the widespread use of any devices containing dangerous carcinogenic material when it can be avoided. If there is not a decided advantage in using a product with radioactive material in it, as opposed to a similar product that will do the same job, it should not be authorized. This would go a long way towards doing away with any unnecessary radiation.

A large number of firms manufacture both types of devices in Canada, those using americium as well as radium-226. An article appearing in the Montreal Gazette on January 26, 1979 quotes the president of a Canadian company stating that: “We will anticipate the market will be close to $2 million in 1979 and we will capture half of that market.”

That was a manufacturer of an ionization device, a device we strongly oppose while we have a photo-electric device that will accomplish exactly the thing we are looking for.

While at present photo-electric devices are marginally more expensive than ionization models, their costs are relatively insignificant in light of the purpose they fulfil. There is no reason to expect the market to shrink just because the ionization device is prohibited. Government legislation, incentives from fire insurance companies, promotion and education programs of fire departments, will continue to ensure consumer demand for smoke detectors, so that manufacturers now making the ionization device could easily switch over to producing the photo-electric model.

On a more general level, we should not forget that radiation protection standards in use throughout the world closely follow the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. These protection standards are not intended to represent safe levels, rather they are intended to be levels where the associated risk is acceptably low. It is important to note that the history of these standards is that as new biological evidence has accumulated the standard has been made more restrictive. During the past few decades, we have found that radiation risks are far greater than we anticipated them to be some years go. The risk of malignancy is now estimated to be 10 times what we thought it was a few years ago.

Dr. Karl Morgan has said: “There is a question about the genetic risk, whether it is greater or less, and we know almost nothing about the long-range genetic risks to man. Some years ago we had the impression that as long as one did not exceed a certain dose one was safe. I am convinced that is not a tenable hypothesis.”

[5:30]

Dr. Arthur Templin, a staff scientist at the National Resources Defence Council in Washington, states in a paper he prepared in August, 1977 on biological effects of radiation: “Both experimental data and theoretical considerations indicate that any amount of radiation, no matter how small, must be considered as harmful to man.”

For low doses of environmental radioactivity this means that any radiation exposure, no matter how small, carries with it some risk of cancer induction. Acceptability of the small doses likely to be received into the environment from the future production of consumer products containing radioactive substances with long half-lives and no controls over disposal should only be judged after the various risk options open to society have been compared. Extensive further investigation must be undertaken to determine the effects of ionization radiation on the environment. In particular, the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies such as the National Research Council and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation have called for the improvement and strengthening of programs and ecological studies to answer vital questions about the release of radioactivity to the environment, especially on how these materials move through the environment, where they are concentrated in natural systems, what their effect is on the environment itself, how long it might take for them to move through these systems to a position of contact with man, and how all this information can be used as an early warning system to prevent potential problems from developing.

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

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have one more paragraph but I will accept your ruling.

Ms. Gigantes: I am pleased to rise and join my colleagues in support of Bill 67, a bill which I support enthusiastically. The need for this kind of bill has never been more obvious than it is today, as the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) mentioned earlier, because we have begun to accumulate a knowledge of how we are receiving exposure to radioactivity and how each part of the radioactivity we receive in our bodies adds to the other parts and accumulates as a potential danger to the body.

It also accumulates as a potential danger to the human species. As the member for Bruce-Huron pointed out, in addition to the exposure for individuals who either work or live near radioactive ionizing-type detectors, there is the problem of what will happen when disposal occurs for various reasons. There is a threat to the environment and long-range danger to the food cycle that we cannot ignore in terms of public health protection.

It seems to me we have not had an adequate understanding of the philosophy on which we should be operating in terms of public health protection in the use of agents and devices such as the ionizing detector. It has been the habit of this government and the federal government, indeed of governments around the world, to wait until a danger is established, to wait until there is a body count, to wait until there is damage, to wait until there is physical destruction before banning certain agents, certain drugs, certain pieces of equipment. We have seen a tragic history of human agony built up in cases such as thalidomide, a drug developed specifically for use by pregnant women, a drug which was not tested on pregnant animals. We know what human tragedy was created.

We hear now of asbestos in hair dryers. Is there any more direct a way of promoting the inhalation of asbestos than to put asbestos liners in hair dryers? We have had it proved to us by Ralph Nader that some cars, which have been designed and marketed in the hundreds of thousands in North America, are unsafe at any speed to the consumers who bought them.

We know from evidence that has been released today that the level and power of diagnostic X-rays in this province are far higher than any reasonable exposure for patients. We know from practices in Vietnam, from sad experience in the United States that the use of 2,4,5-T causes miscarriages. We know that Vapona strips which are used to catch flies, for heaven’s sake, are dangerous to human health. And we know that government after government has been reluctant to ban the use of these agents, has been reluctant to set up standards to ensure consumer protection.

The philosophy has been unless we have a body count, unless we know that it is dangerous, then there won’t be a ban, there won’t be a proscription on sales. That’s the wrong philosophy. Instead, as soon as a question of public health is involved, we should be moving to a philosophy which says, if this agent, this piece of equipment may be suspect in terms of public health, then we must call for a moratorium on its use until the safety is established. The onus must be the other way around. It should not be incumbent on citizens’ groups, on underfunded bodies of concerned citizens to establish that a public health danger exists.

As soon as there is a question about public health, then there must be a response from government that calls for a moratorium; no use of this agent, no use of this equipment until safety is established.

Mr. Speaker, on this piece of equipment more than all others there is no excuse for inaction by government. As my honourable colleagues the members for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) and Huron-Bruce have pointed out, there is an alternative in terms of fire protection for home and for work. There is no excuse for using ionizing radiation when we can accomplish a very satisfactory substitute through photo-electric detection.

A bylaw has been passed in the township in which I live which requires all residences to have fire detectors installed. As you have heard from previous speakers, most of those detectors will probably be of the ionizing radiation type. I don’t know if you have ever installed a smoke detector, Mr. Speaker, but most of them are attached to the ceiling. If you have an eight-foot ceiling and you happen to be a five-foot-four-inch person, then you have to get up on a chair to try to attach one of these devices to a ceiling. The chances that you are going to perforate the foil which is supposed to shield the radioactive contents of that detector are very great As my honourable colleagues from the Liberal Party have pointed out, replacing the battery or even cleaning the battery constitutes a hazard; and these dangers will become more prevalent as the age of the smoke detector increases.

Taking everything into consideration I can see no reason why this bill should not be supported, and every reason why it should. I hope that most members will join me in giving support to it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I rise to comment on this particular bill because of my personal interest in fire protection and smoke detectors in northern Ontario and because of the large area I personally represent and the very vast area for which my own ministry has responsibility.

Before I get into my comments, I want to compliment the member for Huron-Bruce for bringing this forward. He’s recognized in this House for his common sense and for his concern for his fellow men. We’ve always recognized him for those fine qualities. I compliment him on bringing this forward as it does give us a chance to debate the various issues. I hope that when this debate is over we will not have raised the fears of the public, particularly those who have purchased smoke detectors and are using them for the protection of their families right across this province.

Mr. Warner: He has done such a good job. Tell us about the guillotine now.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: My colleague, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. Johnson), has very ably laid out a number of arguments which I wholeheartedly support. I want to tell the members of the House that when the Ministry of Northern Affairs was established one of the first priorities we identified was the lack of a formal firefighting protection system in northern Ontario. In many small, isolated, remote communities of northern Ontario, there is no formal structure and there is no fire protection of any sort.

With the assistance and the co-operation of the Unorganized Communities Association of Northern Ontario, East and West, headed by very able people and very capable people, including Kathy Davis from Hurkett and Gerald Violette from Gogama, who also identified this particular problem very quickly, we looked around.

They spent a lot of time and a lot of effort going through and meeting with various organizations and doing research with regard to smoke detectors. They assured themselves, after a tremendous amount of research, that the ionized smoke detector was the one they should be promoting in northern Ontario.

I live in a small, unorganized community in northern Ontario and I have two smoke detectors in my home. When I purchased them four or five years ago they were $49 each. They had just been put on the market. I felt very strongly about it and purchased two and installed them myself.

I say to the member for Ottawa-Carleton (Ms. Gigantes) that there was no difficulty in installing them and there was no danger in puncturing the foil around them. They are relatively simple to install and maintain. The battery does burn out periodically, but there is an identifying noise that lets one know when this happens. They’re very easy to maintain. I can assure members that when I go to bed at night I feel very comforted that I have that type of protection. Those of us who live in frame houses in northern Ontario, who don’t have fire protection, have to rely on these types of things.

It’s the old battle. When I first saw the bill, I had to say to myself it’s the old deal of the photo-electric people fighting the ionization group. It’s the same battle we have heard over the past several years.

The death rate, as I pointed out a few moments ago, is of concern to me and my ministry. The death rate due to fires is about five times higher in northern Ontario than it is in other parts of the province. This is why we moved so quickly and so decisively to assist the residents in unorganized areas to purchase smoke detectors. We went so far as to subsidize the purchase of those detectors.

I was surprised that the northern members didn’t get involved in this debate. I am sure there are northern members on the other side of the House who have ionized smoke detectors in their homes, as I do.

Mr. Wildman: Why are you looking at me like that?

Mr. Bradley: My detector says you are going to block this bill.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think you are right.

Mr. Warner: That’s what I thought. It’s the old guillotine, and you are the dull edge of it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I know that you are very familiar, Mr. Speaker, with the Northern Affairs smoke detector subsidy programs. To date we have assisted UCANO East and West in selling about 4,900 smoke detectors throughout the entire northern part of this province. We conducted a very large promotional campaign for two full years, both on radio and on television, bringing this new program to the people of northern Ontario.

The success stories are there, Mr. Speaker, as you well know. You will recall the tragic deaths in your riding, in Hurkett, a few years ago, when we lost six or seven children.

[5:45]

Mr. Speaker: Eight.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Eight children were lost in a fire in which the coroner clearly spelled out that had there been a smoke detector in that home those eight children would be alive today.

On December 18, again in your riding, in the Geraldton Times-Star there was the paragraph: “The Matthews family escaped their burning home into a winter’s night, thanks to the shrilling of their newly-installed smoke detector.” Apparently they had purchased and installed the detector only the day before. The editor went on to say: “Had it not been for the smoke sensor, who knows what would have happened to that family?”

These are the things we’re reading about regularly throughout the north. We’re getting complainants from those people who have installed them. There is the comfort of knowing they have at least that kind of protection. This has been followed by a very ambitious program to provide those unorganized communities with other types of firefighting equipment, such as portable pumps and fire trucks, on which I will not dwell at this time.

The Underwriters’ Laboratory of Canada is a recognized testing laboratory which reports to the fire safety council made up of representatives of the fire safety community from across Canada. ULC tests products and also carries out a product followup. This recognized testing laboratory, along with the Canadian Standards Association which develops specifications, accept smoke detectors which use either the ionization principle or the photo-electric principle. ULC has accepted both types of detectors as safe and reliable.

It is also the opinion of the radiation protection services of the Ministry of Labour, and the consumer protection branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations that the levels of radiation emitted from ionization smoke detectors are quite low and are not considered dangerous to public health. As the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel pointed out, there is more radiation, apparently, from a colour television set than from the ionized smoke detector. Further, Ontario building code accepts both ionization and photo-electric smoke detectors in its requirements for all new buildings.

Mr. Speaker: The member has about 30 seconds.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The fire marshal’s office, which works very closely with my ministry and the Unorganized Communities Association of Northern Ontario, also supports the installation of ionized smoke detectors in the homes throughout this province.

So with that type of research, with that strength, with that type of support right across northern Ontario, regretfully -- and again I want to compliment the member for his concern -- I have to tell him I cannot accept the bill as it is presented today.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members who have taken part in the debate; the members for Hamilton Centre (Mr. M. N. Davison), Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, Carleton East, Kenora and Windsor-Walkerville, who have expressed support and/or kind comments.

The member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel indicated that by banning this type of smoke detector we might be saving some lives down the road a few years, but at the same time we might be jeopardizing other lives because the photo-electric type is not as effective in terms of alerting people to clean burning and hot, instant fires. This is quite correct, but I would simply say to him that the photo-electric type undoubtedly could be improved. I think there is no halt to the research and development that can be done with respect to the photo-electric type, and I’m sure it could be improved to the stage when it had a smoke and a heat detector all in one package.

I’m not arguing against smoke detectors, I encourage their use. I’m just saying that I want a safe, effective device rather than one which has a risk attached to its manufacture, use, and most important disposal. There has been some concern that the public might get the impression all smoke detectors are bad. I hope that isn’t the case. I encourage their use. I would simply say that if that is a fear on the part of the government, the province can simply require the installation of safe smoke detectors in the homes across this province. That would overcome the problem.

I hope the government doesn’t block the bill.

Mr. Nixon: It wouldn’t dare.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

MEMBERSHIP OF POLICE COMMISSIONS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Watson has moved resolution 13.

Resolution concurred in.

PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Mr. Gaunt’s motion for second reading of Bill 67, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Blundy; Bradley; Breithaupt; Conway; Cooke; Cunningham; Davidson, M.; Davison, M. N.; Edighoffer; Gaunt; Germa; Gigantes; Hall.

Isaacs; Kerrio; Laughren; Lawlor; Lupusella; Makarchuk; Mancini; Martel; McClellan; McGuigan; Miller, G. I.; Newman, B.; Nixon.

Peterson; Reed, J.; Riddell; Roy; Ruston; Samis; Van Horne; Warner; Wildman; Worton; Young.

Nays

Ashe; Belanger; Bernier; Birch; Brunelle; Cureatz; Drea; Eaton; Elgie; Hennessy; Hodgson; Johnson, J.; Kennedy; Kerr.

Lane; Leluk; MacBeth; Maeck; McCague; McNeil; Miller, F. S.; Newman, W.; Norton; Parrott; Pope; Ramsay; Rotenberg.

Rowe; Scrivener; Smith, G. E.; Snow; Stephenson; Sterling; Taylor, G.; Timbrell; Turner; Villeneuve; Watson; Welch; Williams; Wiseman.

Ayes 37; nays 41.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.