The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBER’S COMMENTS

Mrs. Campbell: I wish to rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that in the Hansard of a meeting of the standing administration of justice committee, dated May 18 of this year, on page J-1330-1, the following is reported under comments by me:

“Oh, come on. You come from an area which is not an inner-city area, and it’s interesting that not another Tory Jew is here, but you ought to know, if you don’t know, that Toronto has been disadvantaged over the other areas with this metropolitan school board setup.”

Mr. Speaker, I did not use those words. I have taken the opportunity to listen to the tape with others. The consensus is that it’s clear that what I said was, “Not another Tory but you is here.”

I am deeply offended that this could have appeared. I think I have spent most of my life fighting against that kind of approach to people in this community or any other. I feel very strongly that that has to be corrected, and that through me people who might have been offended by this are owed an apology by me, although I did not use those words.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, in relation to the public opinion polls taken by the government and paid for by taxpayers’ money.

I would like to draw to your attention section 32 of the new rules, specifically subsection (c) which relates to the compendium and consolidation of information. It says: “On the introduction of a government bill, a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the opposition critics. If it is an amending bill, an up-to-date consolidation of the act or acts to be amended shall be delivered to the opposition critics, unless the bill amends an act amended previously in the session.”

My point is that over the years the government has refused to make these public opinion polls public by tabling them in the Legislature. I would suggest that the answer to my repeated requests from the government has been that these polls are used in the formulation of policy and of legislation. I suggest, therefore, that they should be tabled in this Legislature so that all members may have the benefit of this background material, and that section 32 be complied with.

Mr. Speaker: I will take that under advisement.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES PROGRAM

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I rise to correct the record. The Minister of Education has seriously misled the House, not on a matter of opinion but on an important matter of fact.

On June 4 I asked the minister whether the Metropolitan Toronto School Board would receive one red cent more as a result of her May 15 heritage language announcement. I expressed my dissatisfaction with her evasive response, and the matter was debated at the late show on Tuesday, June 5.

The minister, after attacking my statement, stated, according to Instant Hansard: “That funding is coming 100 per cent from the government. There’s no constraint upon the local boards to provide additional funding for the program. The program will be funded at 100 per cent of $21 per instructional hour for all the school boards in the province, whether they have a floor, a ceiling or sidewalls.”

I would like to table a letter, dated May 14 and signed by the minister, to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. Let me quote:

“These changes will not have affected the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Education for 1979 as a result of the floor provision.”

I also have a report dated May 24, 1979 -- and I will table it also -- signed by the controller of finance of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board which states: “Changes in heritage language funding do not, therefore, directly affect the grant and no additional funds will be generated for the school board towards the cost of heritage language programs in 1979.”

I am delighted that the Minister of Education acceded to our demands and increased the funding for heritage languages. However, I am dismayed that she is giving no additional funds to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. Either she does not realize that she is still imposing cutbacks, in which case she is incompetent, or she is refusing to be totally frank and admit that she has seriously misled the House, in which case I firmly believe that the minister should apologize.

My original assertion is correct; the minister is totally wrong. The Metropolitan Toronto School Board will not receive one red cent as a result of the minister’s May 15 heritage language announcement.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I have to report to the member for Oakwood that he is incorrect but, indeed, the Metropolitan Toronto School Board will receive increased funds for the heritage language program this year. It is not based upon a floor or a ceiling; those factors have nothing to do with the funding of the heritage language program.

I apologize to the member that the information which he received from a member of my staff was incorrect. The reason for that is that, unfortunately, the staff member who responded to that question on behalf of the member for Oakwood had not been informed of the total policy change at that time.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is always blaming her staff for her political errors.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I am blaming me.

Mr. Cassidy: We’ve heard that one before.

Mr. Eaton: Make him withdraw his statement about misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LOCAL SERVICES BOARDS

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon I will be tabling a bill to provide for local services boards in unorganized areas.

I am pleased to announce to the members of the House that some of the northerners who have made this bill possible are with us in the Speaker’s gallery. They are:

Madeleine Belisle, president of the Unorganized Communities Association of Northern Ontario West, together with board member Doug May and executive director Kathy Davis, and Richard McGowan, president of UCANO East, together with his executive director, Gerry Violette, and Suzanne Violette.

Each has spent a great deal of time and effort helping us sort out the issues, from the major policy concerns down to the technical details. Each has travelled about the north helping to explain the local services boards concept. On behalf of us all, I would like to thank them personally.

This bill marks an important step for the residents of unorganized communities in northern Ontario. It is also an important initiative for the provincial government. The legislation offers the option of a formal, legal status to communities that are too small or too isolated to become municipalities and, in so doing, opens the door for these communities to enjoy a level of basic services that most of us in the larger centres or in southern Ontario have come to take for granted.

The need for such a vehicle has been recognized for some time. Lacking a local elected voice, an unorganized community can have difficulty establishing and putting forward its service priorities.

Even where a community can settle on its needs and succeed in obtaining a facility -- either on its own or with the help of an outside grant -- the activity often founders later on because residents have no formal way to share the ongoing operating and maintenance costs fairly among themselves.

I wish to emphasize three key features of this bill. First, it addresses just the basic service needs. Residents of the unorganized north have emphasized that their local needs are simple yet fundamental to the security and quality of life: fire protection, water supply, recreation, sewage disposal, street lighting and garbage collection.

[2:15]

Accordingly, this legislation would permit the residents and property owners of a northern community to initiate the creation of a corporate board with powers to provide such services in the community, on its own or by contract, and to recover some of the costs. There would be no regulatory powers such as planning, licensing or policing, nor would there be any responsibilities with respect to social or health services.

A second key aspect: This is permissive legislation; that is, it merely puts a mechanism in place. It will still be up to a community to decide whether opting for a local services board is to its advantage. The emphasis is on strengthening the self-help spirit that already prevails in many communities and on encouraging local initiative.

The third aspect is this is not a proposal for municipal government. A local services board is intended to be a much simpler organizational and funding vehicle. A community that chooses this route will still be “unorganized”.

As I mentioned earlier, we have worked closely with the Unorganized Communities Association of Northern Ontario in designing this legislation. Once agreement was reached on principles, we issued an outline proposal, followed during March and April by a series of more than 30 public meetings in small communities across the north to listen to the views of residents and to develop a closer sense of their needs, preferences and capabilities. Most questions asked related to the procedures for establishing a local services board and the details of the funding and taxation features.

The first step would be for a community to initiate an application by holding a “town hall” meeting. In practice, we expect there will be considerable discussion in a community prior to this meeting, and provincial staff will be available to clarify aspects of the legislation as it relates to the particular community, help with notices, offer advice on the conduct of the organizational meeting and so on.

Once an application has been received, my ministry would undertake to advertise the fact and in other ways seek feedback, in order to be fully satisfied that the decision of the meeting reflected the feeling of the community as a whole.

So far we have developed no hard and fast rules as to which communities will be approved for incorporation as local services boards. The main purpose is to recognize and assist existing communities where possible, rather than to spur the development of new ones. In general, we will be considering such interrelated factors as the size and stability of the community, the strength of community spirit and the servicing needs. Because I am concerned that we should not impair the municipal system in the north, I will be consulting with my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) on local services board applications.

It seems reasonable to delay consideration of any applications from areas where local government arrangements are under active review by the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, and I believe the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will be making a statement on these issues in a few minutes. I will also be consulting with other cabinet colleagues whose jurisdictions may be affected. Altogether though, I would hope a final decision would take no longer than two or three months from the initial town hall meeting until final approval is obtained.

On the matter of funding, again we will have to work out many of the specific details as we deal with individual budgets. In general, capital projects will continue to be financed through existing schemes, including the special assistance programs of the Ministry of Northern Affairs. The fact that communities will have legal status should improve their access to these programs. Under the local services board proposal, the province, through the Ministry of Northern Affairs, will also assist communities with the operating and maintenance expenses of their activities on a $1 to $1 basis.

Mr. Laughren: Scrooge.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: For the present, there will be no upper limit to this assistance for each local services board, but I must emphasize there will be no provincial contribution without a matching local share.

Monies raised in any of three ways will be considered in calculating the matching grant: voluntary fund-raising events, user fees and on the assessment.

Mr. Laughren: What about volunteer labour?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It will be up to the community to decide which of these methods it wishes to use. During the initial period at least, bequests, donated land and volunteer labour or materials will not be eligible for the matching funding.

Mr. Laughren: Shame. Scrooge.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: On the assessment point, I am pleased to say the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) has agreed that the local services board levy can be billed and collected as an add-on to the provincial land tax. This will lift the burden of paper work from the local level, yet still leave the community itself with the annual decision as to what rate, if any, should be applied.

In conclusion, I would stress the flexibility of this draft legislation. A community can choose whether to opt in, which are the specific services it wishes to provide, over what areas, how it will provide them and the method of covering the local share of the costs.

The bill should not be looked on as an overall panacea for all the problems in unorganized communities. It offers a simple mechanism for facilitating self-help efforts and the flow of provincial funds. In some cases, the option will merely assist the community in maintaining its current service levels. In all cases, provincial ministries will continue to have responsibilities with respect to unorganized communities.

Short of going to municipal government, though, this local services boards legislation seems to me to be the best way of giving legal status, a local voice and a financial base to those unorganized communities which wish it in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on the introduction of this legislation permitting the establishment of local services boards in northern Ontario. I believe this initiative by the Ministry of Northern Affairs marks a significant step forward in ensuring that the residents of unorganized communities receive the essential services they desire and require.

Members will recall a similar bill was brought forward in 1974 by the minister then responsible for intergovernmental affairs. The bill was allowed to die on the Order Paper after the electoral and tax collection provisions in it had been criticized for being beyond the needs and capabilities of small communities in the north. The concept behind the legislation presented today is much more in line with the very basic community framework that residents of unorganized communities have told us they are looking for.

As the Minister of Northern Affairs has said, the concept of local services boards is not one that will be universally applied throughout northern Ontario because about 93 per cent of the population in the north is always able to deal with its problems through municipal government. Local services boards are designed specifically for communities which do not have the option of municipal self-government because they are too small to function as a village or a township or because they are too remote to consider merging with a neighbouring municipality.

The government is continuing in its efforts to help strengthen the municipal system in northern Ontario. These efforts include responding to local requests for studies of boundaries and structures. One example was the district of Parry Sound local government study which led to the Parry Sound local government bill which is now before this House. More recently, study reports have been released on the Kenora area, the Blind River area and the area north of Sault Ste. Marie. Final reports for the Geraldton area and for the area from Hearst to Smooth Rock Falls will be ready sometime this month.

As the Minister of Northern Affairs has already noted, it is only reasonable that local services board applications from areas in which the local government arrangements are under study should be deferred until the studies and the follow-up to the studies have been completed. Of course, at this point, the applications will be processed in the normal way and proceed in the normal manner. For example, now that the local government study and follow-up have been completed in Parry Sound, such communities as Port Loring and Restoule may want to give serious consideration to the local services boards alternative.

The government of Ontario is anxious to assist those communities which wish to provide an outlet for their spirit of self-help through local services boards. The Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs will be working very closely with the Ministry of Northern Affairs to assess the implications that applications may have for the municipal system.

For example, it would not seem wise to incorporate a local services board for a community which is essentially fringe growth from a neighbouring established municipality. In such a case the better alternative for all concerned might be to extend the boundaries of the established municipality to take in the unorganized community.

An hon. member: It is impossible.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Where this idea was feasible and was desired locally, it might well be the preferable way of providing improved services to the unorganized community. Our overriding objective, however, will be to keep red tape to a minimum and to work in close harmony with the local people involved so that we can respond with speed and sensitivity to their questions and to their needs.

In conclusion, I think the introduction of this legislation today is an important step forward in the improvement of community life in northern Ontario.

GUELPH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Hon. Mr. Walker: Regarding the Guelph Correctional Centre disturbance of May 7, I would like to report on the investigation and disciplinary action. Following the disturbance at Guelph Correctional Centre, Monday, May 7, an investigation was undertaken by the ministry’s inspections and investigations branch. I indicated at the time that I would share the Endings of this investigation with members of the Legislature.

Early in the afternoon of May 7, inmates of the Guelph Correctional Centre were successful in smuggling a three-quart milk jug of home-brewed wine into unit D3. Apparently this home brew was manufactured from ingredients stolen from the centre’s kitchen, such as apple peelings and potatoes, and the brew was hidden until fermentation had taken place.

An hon. member: Hennessy’s Three-Star.

Hon. Mr. Walker: A number of inmates consumed some of the so-called wine and, subsequently, two inmates were observed by staff to be in an intoxicated condition. They were removed from the unit and placed in segregation. A short time later an additional 12 to 15 inmates were observed by staff in the evening meal lineup to be in varying degrees of intoxication.

We do not tolerate behaviour of this nature. As a result, 74 inmates were placed off privileges and locked in their cells, pending further inquiries into the matter. This represented the entire unit. The reason for this action was explained to the inmates by staff. In effect, this meant that the 74 inmates were locked in their cells after the dinner hour and were not to be permitted to go to the common room to watch TV or to the gymnasium for recreational activities that evening.

A search by staff located the half-filled three-quart jug of home-made brew, which was then confiscated. The disciplinary action by staff in segregating the two inmates and, subsequently, removing evening privileges from the rest of the unit when more inmates were found to be intoxicated was questioned and resented by members of the inmate liaison committee. Several members of the inmate liaison committee informed staff that the institution was uptight as a result of the disciplinary action and they offered to visit various inmate units and explain the reasons for this action.

Mr. Nixon: Not enough orange juice.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Instead, the investigation clearly reveals that members of the inmate committee used this opportunity to create tension and to incite a disturbance. The investigation revealed that some of the areas involved in the disturbance were unaware of the disciplinary action in D3 cell block and that these areas were calm until after they were spoken to by members of the inmate liaison committee.

During the course of the evening, several small fires were started and a number of misconducts were laid against inmates. The full-scale disturbance erupted at approximately 10:30 p.m. and resulted in approximately $37,000 property damage. The figure of $37,000 estimated at the time has now come in slightly lower. During the height of the disturbance and the confusion resulting from the destruction of furniture, plumbing, windows and other items, seven inmates escaped from the centre. Incidentally, six of the seven have since been recaptured.

Mr. Foulds: They found the still.

Hon. Mr. Walker: In summary, the investigation revealed this disturbance resulted from an abuse, by the inmate liaison committee, of the responsibility and trust which they enjoyed at the centre. Clearly, the inmate liaison committee utilized a relatively minor incident to create resentment towards staff in regard to disciplinary action and to advocate retaliation in the form of acts of physical destruction and riotous behaviour.

The irresponsible actions of the inmate liaison committee resulted in the transfer of nine committee members to our maximum security facility, Millbrook Correctional Centre, on the day following the disturbance, and the immediate suspension of all inmate liaison committee activities at Guelph.

It is the view of our staff that a structure for ongoing liaison with inmates is important at Guelph. However, it is clear that a restructuring of the present system is warranted. A study is currently under way to develop a better system whereby inmate representatives can raise matters for discussion with the institution’s staff. In the interim, until this new structure is in place, the suspension of the inmate liaison committee’s activities will continue.

[2:30]

The day after the disturbance, I informed the Legislature that the ministry intended to take firm disciplinary action against inmates who participated in the riotous activity at Guelph. In this regard, the superintendent of the centre was authorized and directed to order the forfeiture of both earned remission and all savings and canteen spending allowances standing to the credit of any inmate who was involved. Inmates were also to clean up and repair the damage which they had caused.

Here are the results:

Disciplinary hearings were held for nearly 200 inmates within a few days. Approximately 60 inmates were found not to have taken part in acts of destruction, although they were present in the areas where damage occurred. No action was taken against these 60, who resumed normal privileges. The remaining 140 inmates were assessed the forfeiture of a total of 4,808 days in earned remission, which equals an additional 13 years in time to be served.

Inmates also had confiscated approximately $24,000 from their normal incentive allowance funds to help defray the nearly $37,000 cost of repairs.

Inmates have been required to work to restore the facilities which they damaged. The cost of restoring these areas would have been approximately $90,000 had an outside contractor been required. The estimate of $37,000 is based on having the work done by inmates. The repairs are 85 per cent completed, with only the replacement of flooring material and some plastering and painting to be completed in one unit.

I would like to reiterate my appreciation for the outstanding performance by staff of the Guelph Correctional Centre in bringing this disturbance under control. The fact that a disturbance involving nearly 200 inmates was brought under control in a relatively short period of time, without injury to staff or inmates, and without a physical confrontation, is a tribute to the professionalism of the staff at the centre.

In this connection, members will recall that the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) visited the centre Wednesday, May 9. He subsequently issued a statement that was critical of the fact that staff were temporarily housing inmates in the tunnel areas of the centre’s basement where there were few amenities. He asked the Ombudsman’s office to investigate.

I expressed the view in this House that “the inmates were the authors of their own misfortune. They rendered a number of their living units uninhabitable though a rampage of wilful damage which was not justified, in my view, by the actions taken by staff or by any grievances of a serious or profound nature ...”

I have not changed my mind about the temporary housing of the inmates in the tunnel areas, and there was nothing in the Public Institutions Inspection Panel report or in the Ombudsman’s findings to alter that opinion.

The Public Institutions Inspection Panel, a panel of private citizens, toured the Guelph Correctional Centre, Thursday, May 10, and spoke to inmates in the tunnel areas. The panel commended the performance of staff in handling the disturbance and stated that the tunnel area for temporary accommodation was “acceptable” under the circumstances.

The Ombudsman’s report notes that his investigator, Mr. Doug Naish, talked to inmates in the tunnel area. I would quote:

“During Mr. Naish’s discussions with both groups of inmates in the ‘tunnels’, no complaints were made concerning harassment or physical abuse by staff either during or after the disturbance,” The report stated that it could not describe the decision by authorities to place inmates in the tunnel as unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminating. “Likewise,” the report stated, “having regard to all of the circumstances, including the requirement to maintain security and order and prevent further damage to the institution, the Ombudsman was unable to describe as unreasonable the conditions under which the inmates were held in the ‘tunnels’ during the period May 8, 1979, to May 10, 1979.”

Later today, I will table the report of the inspection panel and the Ombudsman’s report, both of which support the position taken by ministry employees.

MEMBER’S WEDDING

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a statement to make; it is a matter of personal privilege I want to raise. On occasion some of my colleagues on Friday mornings are very heavily involved in public business other than in the Legislature and, while the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) I know will be here tomorrow morning, I did want to express on behalf of all members on this side of the House our sincere best wishes for the event that is to take place on Saturday next.

In that our family, that is, some of my children, have the pleasure of knowing the young lady who is to participate in the ceremony on Saturday, they too would like to express their best wishes. I didn’t suggest to them that they might be wishing to say to her that although we hope she has a great deal of patience, understanding, et cetera, et cetera, however, in the anticipation that perhaps her brief involvement with a family that philosophically showed greater perception and insight than that into which she is marrying, perhaps she may have some influence on the distinguished member for Rainy River. We will live in hope, at least for a short period of time.

Most sincerely, we would like to wish the member for Rainy River a very pleasant day on Saturday and, more importantly, a very happy marriage. I guess it leaves very few bachelors left in this assembly, and I would only look to two or three of my own colleagues and say to them occasionally, “I wish you would follow that example, but only that example.”

Mr. Cassidy: I would just like to add a word or two of congratulation to my longtime friend, Patrick Reid, on this event which is going to take place in his life on Saturday.

I recall meeting Patrick many years ago and asking him, as a bachelor, before I was even in this House, what he did when he met young women here in Toronto and how he avoided putting them off by saying he was a member of the Legislature? He said, “I tell them I work for the government.” Well, obviously, it is an approach which has had a successful outcome.

I can also say I had some advance intimation of this one day last spring when I was out running, something I rarely do, and I run up to Sir Winston Churchill Park and around the tennis courts. There, at 7:30 in the morning, I found Patrick indulging in tennis with his bride-to-be --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Did Hansard get this?

Mr. Cassidy: -- which suggests to me, Mr. Speaker, they have embarked on a fruitful kind of relationship.

Mr. Foulds: I think that requires a point of privilege.

Mr. Cassidy: All I want to say is the family that plays together stays together. We wish them well.

Mr. S. Smith: I will just be very brief. We think of it in caucus as not so much losing a member as gaining yet another opinion.

Mr. Nixon: I hesitate to stop the levity here, but I thought perhaps the young man himself might want to contribute to the discussion.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The last time I spoke I got into trouble.

Mr. S. Smith: It is the next time you speak that you are going to be getting into trouble.

MEMBER’S COMMENT

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I do have a point of order. I noticed you listening with care and attention when my colleague, the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), brought to your attention the error that had appeared in Instant Hansard, and I know we were all very glad to hear the correction and certainly accept it.

I would bring to your attention, however, sir, the erroneous Hansard -- the Instant Hansard, which is not an official document, as you know -- had somehow had extensive circulation and was brought to attention in some embarrassment actually, since the honourable member had no idea such an interpretation would have been placed on her remarks.

I would ask you, sir, to make it clear to all members that Instant Hansard contains errors that are corrected when the reference to the individual members takes place and, in this instance, corrections are made in the House when they come to the attention of the honourable member affected. This is a very serious matter. I can only hope the honourable members or other persons who may have been responsible for the circulation of that Instant Hansard will see the corrected Hansard is sent to the same people.

Mr. Speaker: I had occasion to discuss that problem you so rightly bring to the attention of the House with Peter Brannan, chief of Hansard. Something is being done about it. I agree wholeheartedly it should be quite clear in the minds of all members, or anybody who has occasion to use Instant Hansard, that it is just that. It is the unedited version; it is what either the transcribers think was on the tape or what is dovetailed in by our interjectionists. Until it has the final approval of the editors it doesn’t become the official Hansard.

It may be necessary for me to elaborate a little more fully on it within the next day or two. I think it is a point well taken. I think everybody should be reminded that Instant Hansard is simply that: it is what people thought was intended or heard before the final editing is done. I would just like all people within hearing of my voice to keep that in mind.

GUELPH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Mr. Ziemba: I rise on a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker) has justified the treatment of Guelph prisoners, and dismissed certain charges I made last May 9, by quoting from the Ombudsman’s report. What the Minister of Correctional Services did not do is quote the conclusion of that report. I would like to put that on the record because in fact the conclusion justifies my charges.

The Ombudsman states: “Notwithstanding the aforementioned findings, had the authorities at the Guelph Correctional Centre not indicated that the remainder of the inmates in the tunnelled area would in all likelihood have been released by Friday evening, May 11, 1979, it may well have been that I would have considered making some recommendations to the ministry concerning the amelioration of conditions for inmates who were required to remain in the tunnels for a longer period of time.”

ORAL QUESTIONS

NANTICOKE CONTRACT

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain how it is the Ministry of the Environment has apparently contravened the government’s buy-Canadian policy with a very important pollution control technology contract? In particular I speak of the Nanticoke environmental management program where a bid by Canadian Applied Technology was turned down in favour of a bid by the Radian Corporation of Austin, Texas.

Can the minister explain how it is that such a decision was made, especially when members of the Ministry of the Environment have admitted the Canadian bid had a system which was adequate to do the job, that their bid was apparently the lowest, and their bid obviously had the highest Canadian content? Can he explain the situation and tell us what intervention he may have made with the minister at the time?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I recall the circumstances, I was told the circumstances surrounding that were the subject matter of very lengthy discussions between the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) and the people concerned. It might be more appropriate if the honourable member asked the minister that question; I think he is out of town this week but when he returns. He was front and centre on that and was involved in these lengthy discussions. I think he would be the appropriate minister to ask and would be able to give a more complete explanation than I would.

[2:45]

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: since the executive director of the division I of industry and trade in this minister’s ministry, a Mr. Garland, was present at one of the meetings held with Canadian Applied Technology after the rejection of the bid, and since copies of all the correspondence between the company and the government have been sent to the Minister of Industry and Tourism, why is the minister unable to explain what the situation is, and whether this is a contravention of the policy? Does he not recognize that phases two and three of the same program still have to be bid upon, but that now there will be an enormous advantage to the American company which has garnered phase one? Why does the minister not know about this, and how does he regard the matter?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not say I did not know about it; I indicated that my colleague who was intimately involved in the day-to-day discussions would be a better source of information to discuss some of the reasons the bid was turned down.

I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that while we talk about that Canadian purchasing policy as an important part of the government’s strategy, its implementation ultimately rests with the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson), in most instances, and with the particular minister involved in a particular purchase.

Mr. Laughren: It’s your program.

Mr. S. Smith: Isn’t it one government over there?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Wait a minute. Obviously we get involved in situations particularly in which there is reason for the firm involved to wonder whether it is getting a fair shake, in view of the decision that is made. But I want to repeat to the Leader of the Opposition that, especially in the case of the environment, highly sophisticated and technical machinery is involved. In those instances it would be quite extraordinary for me or my ministry to presume that I or my staff had all the expertise to overrule or second-guess the decisions made by the Ministry of the Environment and its experts with regard to the technological aspect of the equipment in question.

We are present to make sure the policy is addressed, that it is very seriously addressed and that every consideration is made. To the best of our ability we satisfy ourselves that that careful and considered analysis is made.

It is for those reasons that the Leader of the Opposition obviously would be able to get more information from the minister involved with regard to the technical elements of a very sophisticated piece of machinery.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain how Canadian companies in the pollution control field are ever going to get themselves established and replace multinationals in this field operating in Ontario when in this particular case the Canadian company’s bid was rejected, even though its price was lower than that in the bid offered by the American company?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we have a policy which, I might add, is similar to the procurement policy of almost any other government in the free world and which is not simply a straight, no-outside-considerations, lowest bid, or even 10 per cent Canadian preference. Obviously, in certain circumstances there are other considerations that come into play: the quality of the machinery, the ability to service it, the suitability of that particular machine to the project in question and so on.

This is not unusual or unique to this government. As I say, it is literally the policy everywhere in the world where there is a procurement policy. There are certain riders and exceptions which allow some flexibility to make sure one does not buy a machine that does not fit, an inferior machine, a machine that will be difficult to service, et cetera, simply for the sake of sticking to a hard-and-fast rule.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary question: May I first of all remind the minister that officials within the Ministry of the Environment admit that the system offered by the Canadian company was adequate for the job required. Having reminded him of that, may I ask the minister how come he is unable to give a full and complete answer to this House on the very important matter of the failure of his so-called policy in this regard, when his own officials have already had lengthy discussions about this matter? He should be briefed and be prepared to talk to this House about it and not pass the buck to the other ministry involved.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will say to the Leader of the Opposition that, unlike him, I do not pretend to come to this House with a full and complete knowledge, or even a piece of paper explaining every single circumstance in which this government or one of its agencies purchases a piece of machinery. That would be total foolishness.

My responsibility is to be able to report to this House on the policy, the role of my ministry in making sure that policy is enforced, and the role we play.

I have indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that my colleague who was intimately involved in the matter would be pleased to provide that information.

I might also say to the Leader of the Opposition, if he would like detailed information with regard to this government contract or any other government contract, it is quite in order for him to put that question on the Order Paper or call my office the day before he wants to raise it in this House and I would be pleased to get him the information in quite extensive detail with regard to each and every purchase made by this government which appears to the Leader of the Opposition to contravene our Shop Canadian policy. I think that’s a fair and reasonable position.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If the minister has any intention of making reality of the policy of buy-Canadian for pollution control equipment, will he communicate with the Ministry of Natural Resources, which is shortly going to call for tenders on flood prediction and water-level monitoring systems, and tell it not to use the same technical experts who were called in on that Nanticoke contract in order that this small Canadian company can get a fair shake in being considered for that important contract?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can assure the leader of the third party that the Ministry of Natural Resources, and every other ministry of this government, not only is well aware of our Shop Canadian policy --

Mr. Laughren: Except the Ministry of the Environment.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- our procurement policy, which has been in place since 1974, but executes it fairly. When there are any questions involved, my ministry is available and called in to ensure that that is implemented, and that will be the case in the items the member has just referred to.

BLIND PERSONS’ ALLOWANCES

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. First of all, I want to say sincerely that we are happy to see him here and we trust he is well.

May I ask the minister with reference to the situation that pertains for blind persons in Ontario. Can he explain why this government finds it necessary to place a 75 per cent tax on any earnings that these blind persons happen to achieve over and above $60 per month?

Is he not aware of the fact that those who live independently in the community have only $286 a month and work in sheltered workshops frequently, such as the one at the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in my own riding, and that if the government taxes away three quarters of what they earn past $60, they obviously have no incentive to work past that amount and to develop the working skills and put out the production, even though the workshop has a good many orders?

Why would the government tax the blind at such a ridiculously heavy rate and take away their incentive, instead of letting them keep a good portion of that money and then having a sliding scale afterwards, taking away only some of the money until their earnings are indeed quite high? It is quite unfair as the government does it now, and does it intend to change it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Not to make light of the question, I would like first to respond to the preamble of the Leader of the Opposition and to thank him for his expression of concern and all of the honourable members who have expressed concern. It is uplifting after the other event that was mentioned earlier by the Premier and the leaders of the opposition parties.

I must say I felt that I ought to have risen at that time and commented. I wasn’t sure whether I should protest or congratulate the honourable member for Rainy River. I feel today that I know something of what a whooping crane feels like. I feel like the member of a dying breed. However, I also extend the best wishes from the whooping crane society, which is in diminishing numbers here in the Legislature, to the member for Rainy River.

With respect to the question of the Leader of the Opposition, the situation he describes is one that has caused me and my colleagues considerable concern as well. As I am sure he is aware, the same situation applies to persons in receipt of an allowance and family benefits for any type of handicap or to a person who is deemed to be permanently unemployable.

The proposals I made last September to the meeting of the ministers of social services from each of the provinces addressed that question. In fact, every province endorsed the proposals that we then carried forward to the federal-provincial meeting to seek the necessary changes under the Canada Assistance Plan regulations to allow for variations in that tax-back so we would not lose cost-sharing from the federal government by making substantial changes in the rate of tax-back. As I indicated earlier in the House, that proposal was not acceptable to the federal government, as was indicated in communication received in February of this year.

I’m encouraged to read in the newspaper -- although I haven’t had an opportunity yet to meet with the new minister -- that one of the things that has been indicated, according to the press, by the Honourable Heward Grafftey is he wishes early to seek some changes. That, in my interpretation of the news story, would indicate he is willing to address these problems with us. If that is an indication of the willingness of the new government, I know the provinces are willing to support a move to make those changes and to provide for greater incentives and opportunities for security for those persons who are able and willing to move into the work force, either on a part-time or a full-time basis.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, is the minister saying there’s absolutely nothing the province of Ontario can do to increase the incentives for these blind persons to allow them to retain more than $60 a month before taking it away from their pension? Is he saying there’s absolutely nothing that can be done by the province of Ontario without the agreement of other governments? If that is the case, could he possibly explain to us his basis for that particular statement and also comment on the fact that two years ago the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped asked the minister to whom that council reports -- the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) -- to take such action, and they’re still waiting?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, there is very little that one could do without becoming ineligible for cost-sharing from the federal government. As the honourable member knows, for income maintenance programs there is a transfer from the federal government to the provinces equivalent to 50 per cent of the amount of pensions or allowances paid under the income maintenance programs.

I am advised that at the present time our level of exemptions -- for example, the amount the member has cited for blind persons, and a somewhat higher amount for a single parent up to $120 a month exemption if there is more than a single person in the family -- already exceeds the federal guidelines. We would risk losing cost-sharing if we attempted to move unilaterally. The other alternative would be that we might be able at some point to make that move unilaterally, on the clear understanding it would require 100 per cent funding from the province of Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: It doesn’t require any funding.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It does, because of the fact that by increasing, there would be two or three factors that would have to be taken into consideration. One would be that it would create a broader eligibility for some persons. I have to be careful here so I can explain it clearly.

Ms. Gigantes: You had better be careful.

Hon. Mr. Norton: For example, if $60 at the present time is exempt, and for more than $60 there is a tax-back provision, if there is a fluctuation or a change in that level, obviously it implies greater cost to the province because more persons, or more income, if you wish, become exempt.

Mr. S. Smith: They are not working past $60. They don’t earn any more.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I realize that. The increased cost would have to be borne at the present time 100 per cent by the province.

Mr. S. Smith: There is no cost.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, there is. When one applies that across the whole of the system -- and I think the changes that are desirable ought to be applied to single parents as well as the handicapped -- the costs are very high, if they have to be borne solely by the province with no cost-sharing from the federal government.

[3:00]

Mr. Speaker: Those answers are unusually long but I will allow one more supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The questions are complex.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I understand -- if the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t -- what the minister is saying. But considering this was a matter that was included in the Throne speech, the matter of eliminating the work disincentives, the 75 per cent tax-back rate, and because of the incredible injustice that it inflicts on social assistance recipients, may I ask the minister to arrange a meeting as quickly as possible with Mr. Grafftey and Mr. Crombie to resubmit the proposals, which he was kind enough to share with us last week, and try to get a speedy decision out of his colleagues in Ottawa? If he cannot get a speedy decision out of them, will he proceed on his own initiative, because it is a matter of incredible urgency that this work disincentive be removed from our social assistance programs?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the honourable member that that communication has already gone forward. Secondly, the possibility of a unilateral act by the province is under active consideration. Obviously, because of the financial implications, it is not something with which I can proceed without careful consultation with my colleagues.

Mr. McClellan: I can’t believe that the minister’s colleagues would turn him down.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We spent 19 minutes on the first two questions.

Mr. S. Smith: I realize that, Mr. Speaker, but it was a rather long answer.

May I ask the minister, what do these additional costs involve? Does he not understand that for the vast majority of the blind persons -- at least the 50 or 60 to whom I have spoken already -- they stop work when they get to the $60 limit and do not continue working for 25-cent dollars? What is the enormous amount of money that it is going to cost the province to give these people additional incentives that will let them work and fill the orders which are coming in from various companies to these sheltered workshops?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I realize that it does sound complex, Mr. Speaker, and it is. But not everyone stops working exactly at the point where one makes $60. There are many people besides blind persons to whom this limitation applies, albeit at different levels, whether they are single handicapped persons or married handicapped persons with dependants, for example. The problem arises when those levels are changed. It also creates a broader eligibility in terms of earnings. More persons -- not necessarily in the blind category but in other categories -- may become eligible because of that change and, as a result, we may end up not getting cost-sharing if we proceed unilaterally.

USE OF HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. With respect to the irresponsible use of 2,4-D by the Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education to control dandelions in school yards, will the Premier tell us whether he is aware of the numerous studies by bodies such as the medical association in British Columbia and the American Environmental Protection Agency showing that 2,4-D causes cancer and birth defects?

Could the Premier explain why, even after the board has been clearly violating the spraying guidelines laid down by the Ministry of the Environment, no stop order has been issued and no prosecution has been launched by the government?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Down with the dandelions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, these decisions were quite obviously made by the duly elected local boards -- supported, I am sure, by members opposite its terms of principle.

Mr. McClellan: Local autonomy; that’s the issue here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I was not participating in the discussions where the members opposite were a little critical of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) for, in their view, apparently taking away some local decision-making responsibilities.

Mr. McClellan: Let’s talk about 2,4-D and children. Let’s talk about spraying 2,4-D in schools.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr. McClellan: Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I am directed by the Speaker, not the member, with great respect. I am trying to answer the member’s leader. I did not know the member had such aspirations. I thought his party just went through a leadership convention fairly recently. Is the NDP contemplating a change?

Mr. Makarchuk: Would the Speaker bring the Premier to order?

An hon. member: The Premier’s party needs a new leader.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that I am quite prepared to get the information for him. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott), I think, has discussed this matter although not as it relates to the specific situations. The Minister of the Environment will be here on Monday next. He is busily engaged in one of our western provinces at a conference dealing with environmental issues. But I will be delighted to get this information for the honourable member, perhaps by tomorrow morning, but preferably on Monday.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the Premier has invoked local autonomy and since the Minister of the Environment says it will be a great educational experience for people in the area to work it out, is it the government’s experience that if a school board invokes local autonomy it has the right to violate the Pesticides Act and use a cancer- causing chemical around children in order to control dandelions? If that is not the government’s position, will it issue an order to stop the spraying before this weekend and to keep 2.4-D away from school yards until it can be positively shown that there is no harm to children’s health?

Mr. Bounsall: To every board in the province.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the leader of the New Democratic Party may be making an assumption. I haven’t checked the provisions of the act, but it may just be that they are not in violation of the provisions of the act. That’s just a possibility.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just sit back, relax, be comfortable for a moment or two. I did not suggest that any local school board or municipality had any right to act in violation of any provincial statute -- or federal, for that matter -- nor did I suggest --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Welcome back to the member for Sudbury East. I’m delighted to see him here.

Mr. Martel: It’s great to be back.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How did you get in so quietly?

Mr. Martel: Right through the front door.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I see. I am quite prepared to check this for the member and try to have an answer tomorrow, but it may not be until Monday.

NAMING OF MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: Could I have the attention and the indulgence of the House for a moment?

On May 31 in the afternoon an incident took place in the House where the member for Sudbury East accused another member of telling an untruth. When I asked the honourable member to reconsider his position and when I asked him if he would reconsider withdrawing the remark, he said he would not. Before I had an opportunity to name him, he picked up his files and said, "No I would not care to reconsider because I’m tired of this guy’s lies.”

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Now he’s going to get thrown out.

Mr. Speaker: We are back to where we were, I say to the member for Sudbury East. If he will not withdraw it I have no alternative but to name him at this time.

Mr. Martel: Name me then.

Mr. Speaker: I have no alternative under the circumstances.

Mr. Martel: Nothing has changed, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: In the interests of consistency, I will have to indicate to the honourable member that he does not enjoy the privileges of a member of this House for the balance of this sitting.

Mr. Yakabuski: Can’t he pick dandelions down there?

Mr. Martel: Nothing has changed from last week, and so I will leave again.

Mr. Martel withdrew from the chamber.

USE OF HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES (CONTINUED)

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the Premier not aware that the Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education has been spraying school yards in winds of 25 miles per hour, when the ministry guidelines say clearly one should not spray in winds of more than seven miles per hour? Is the Premier aware the school board has been spraying school yards when children were present, when this is also a clear violation of the government’s guidelines? In view of these facts, why won’t the government act now to stop the spraying until it can establish whether 2,4-D is safe and establish that the guidelines are being observed?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am pleased to sense the leader of the New Democratic Party is now in at least some doubt about his unequivocal statement that 2,4-D wasn’t safe. My information is that the rather categorical statement he made in the initial question is perhaps not substantiated by fact. I said to the honourable member, and I can do no more than this, that I will take a look at the situation. I think it is something the Minister of the Environment should deal I with on Monday, but if I can get some further information for the member for tomorrow morning, I shall endeavour to do so.

I must confess I do not know the exact velocity of the winds that were prevailing at that precise moment when 2,4-D was being used. I bow to the experience and the fact that the member was there himself and had a windometer there and was able to make that calculation. I honestly didn’t know.

Mr. Conway: Allan Lawrence was giving a speech.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: In the Premier’s attempt to arrive at an answer to the question by the leader of the third party, will he also assure the House in that answer that 2,4-D does not have any harmful effects on young children causing a symptom or disease called Reyes syndrome?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite prepared to pass on any information I have or will obtain. I long ago learned not, in any personal way, to give assurances that will relate to medical knowledge, et cetera, I don’t personally possess. I am even reluctant to give opinion on legal matters, having been away from that profession for a number of years, unlike many of your colleagues, Mr. Speaker, although I could be provoked into doing that perhaps more readily than on medical matters.

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, if the minister of industry and foreign ownership would take his seat, I have a question for him.

Not long ago the American magazine Barron’s said the only US business that wouldn’t be cordially welcomed to Canada is Murder Incorporated.

I have a question for the minister arising out of the fact that since January of this year, according to the records we have been able to monitor, 108 of the 117 applications before the Foreign Investment Review Agency for takeovers and the creation of foreign-owned businesses in Ontario have been approved.

Are we to assume Ontario is concurring with 92 per cent of the applications before FIRA that relate to Ontario and, given that record, can the minister explain the difference between the flexible approach to foreign investments which he described in this House just two days ago and the kind of open-door policy which seems to prevail?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would say in response to the representative of the multinational unions that he may conclude a high proportion of the approvals granted by FIRA have some sort of approval in turn from the government of Ontario.

I should remind the member there is and has been for some years something called New Principles of International Business Conduct issued by the federal government in 1975, which set out, I suppose, 14 criteria. I will quote it. It sets out a form of good “principles of a good corporate behaviour which are recommended by the Canadian government.” It goes on to list them.

One would hope FIRA, during that period of time, is reflecting those in its decisions. We make recommendations; obviously our recommendations have a high level of concern for the jobs being created by those firms, which is not to say, I might add, we trade off parts of our industry where we ought not to make that trade-off.

I should take this opportunity to state very firmly to this House that of our recommendations, while about 90 per cent of them are accepted by the federal government, 10 per cent are not. The key importance of that 10 per cent is that they revolve around instances in which we feel we do have strong Canadian industry that can survive, or weak Canadian industry which needs some protection against the type of influence and market control an American company or multinational company might bring in. I want to make it quite clear we are vigilant against the type of behaviour and the types of firms which will adversely affect Canadian industry.

On the other hand, there are a vast majority of FIRA applications which result in undertakings pursuant to our requests from those firms setting up here to begin sourcing in Canada for the first time to buy from all sorts of small and medium-sized Canadian-owned businesses. That is part of the undertaking. If we get those proper undertakings and the code of behaviour which the federal government issued in 1975 is adhered to, then the proper type of FIRA approval results in a substantial strengthening of smaller and medium-sized Canadian firms carrying on business in this country which need access to that new market which may be opening up in this country.

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker: We have spent 32 minutes and we have not finished the fourth question. This seems to happen each time certain cabinet ministers are asked questions. It’s become quite obvious that if we’re going to make maximum use of this one-hour-long question period and give everybody a fair opportunity to participate, I am going to have to prevail upon the ministers to cut down on their answers, If it requires a more detailed response, perhaps they could either table it or do it by way of a ministerial statement.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister explain how these foreign entries into the Ontario market will create so many jobs here in this province, according to what he has just said, when 35 of the firms that have been approved from January to May of this year were firms that are going to import products into Canada and will be in the import business, bringing in products made by people in other parts of the world, while less than that number are companies that will actually be carrying out manufacturing here in this country?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I was asked to explain, so I must do that with your forebearance. I’ll try to be shorter than the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member was making a speech.

An hon. member: If the member gives us a speech, how else do you answer?

Mr. Speaker: What is the difference between a one-minute speech and a six-minute speech?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Five minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Five minutes, yes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In a sentence the member is dead wrong. However, I will take a moment or two to respond. I would like to see the list which the member purports indicates all -- I took it he was indicating all -- of those firms were allowed into this country in that period of time. I suspect the list of 35 he has is just part of the number of firms that were allowed into this country.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s a third of it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s just part of it. There are many other firms that I know were approved by FIRA in that period of time which created other jobs directly in this province.

Second, I think before he talks about 35 firms which are importing, it might be instructive to look at where those firms located. I want to say quite frankly, there is a regional bias in favour of certain parts of this country and certain parts of this province that need jobs. FIRA and this government were a little more lenient in terms of allowing jobs into those communities than we were in other communities. Northern and eastern Ontario, I would think, particularly appreciate that consideration.

Finally, I might add that the mere fact a firm is importing some of its products or all of its products into this country does not automatically mean there isn’t a great deal of work created for other Canadian people. For example, where a product is imported, there is substantial pre-delivery work to be done in many cases -- shipping, packing and distribution. Provided we have undertakings with regard to the sources of those materials and services, then we do have Canadian jobs created.

PECHE ISLAND

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Is the minister aware that Peche Island in the Detroit River at Lake St. Clair presents a rare opportunity for a park in an urban environment, accessible by public transportation and yet not isolated from the city, and that its proximity to population and the island’s great natural characteristics provide a tremendous recreational and educational potential? What plans does the minister have for that island since the government drew up a master plan in 1973?

Mr. Makarchuk: They are going to put an airport on it.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I recall very well a very pleasant visit there with the honourable member several years ago. As he says, it is a great recreational area and a very scenic area and it has great potential.

Mr. Conway: Try to preserve our Essex county Tories.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I’d be pleased to keep the member up to date on what has happened since then.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that natural erosion may completely destroy the island or substantially destroy it unless action is taken fairly shortly?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I’d be pleased to consider that. We will look into it.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: Since this park is in my riding and I’ve written the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) several times about it, I’d like to ask the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development when he is looking at Peche Island to keep in mind that an investment in that island would assist in diversifying the economy of Windsor, which right now is totally based on the auto industry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Thanks to this government, not thanks to you.

Mr. Cooke: To expand the economy in Windsor into tourism would be very important. The government paid half a million dollars for that island, and it’s about time it was developed for the use of the public, not just for those who can afford boats.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I will be pleased also to consider the honourable member’s suggestion.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question of the Premier. I wonder if the Premier would reconsider his position that the Rolphton reactor should start up as soon as the current leak can be plugged if I provide him with Hydro figures showing that the tritium emissions from that reactor, which is only a 20- megawatt reactor, have recently been as high as the total tritium emissions from the four reactors at Pickering which produce 2,400 megawatts of electricity?

Hon. Mr. Davis: My understanding involves two matters: First, there may be some discussion of this next week. Second, I find some difficulty in the concept of a group of people in this Legislature -- and I am not in any way minimizing our collective wisdom or insight into some of these issues -- putting ourselves in the position of making a determination I think is highly technical in nature and requires a great deal of knowledge and understanding and expertise. I confess to the honourable member I don’t pretend to have this, and, with respect, I think that may apply to a number of other members of this House.

When we have, in terms of the law and in practice, a control agency that has the responsibility for the licensing and the safety of these plants, for us to assume that responsibility in their stead, which is really what the member is asking in this question, I think is a very serious matter. I am concerned about safety, I am concerned about what policies develop in terms of the use of nuclear energy, but I think we should be reluctant in this House to put ourselves in the position of acting as a control agency or licensing authority when, with respect, I don’t think we have the expertise or the competence to come to those sorts of judgements. That’s what the Atomic Energy Control Board is for. I would suggest that is the logical and proper position to take.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: I would like to ask the Premier, now that it’s quite clear to everybody in Ontario that Rolphton is the rattletrap of the Ontario Hydro system, if he doesn’t think it would be perfectly reasonable to keep that plant, which runs at an economic loss and is useful only in terms of training Ontario Hydro personnel, closed down until there is a public examination of documents which have not been publicly available before?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think this matter has been discussed here in the House and I gather maybe there will be an occasion to discuss it even further. I don’t pretend to describe Rolphton the way the member for Carleton East describes it. I don’t even think the members opposite who have some points of view -- I am not sure the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) would express that point of view --

Ms. Gigantes: That’s quite relevant. That’s quite relevant.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does the member for Renfrew North believe that Rolphton is the -- how did the member describe Rolphton?

An hon. member: The Yakabuski Tinkertoy.

Ms. Gigantes: The rattletrap.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The rattletrap, is it, of the Hydro system? That is certainly not the point of view conveyed by the mayor of Deep River and many other constituents of the member for Renfrew North. I know the member for Carleton East has the expertise to make that sort of judgement; I confess I haven’t.

I think the relevant issue here surely is who has the responsibility, in terms of the competence and expertise, for the protection, licensing and control of nuclear plants. That happens to rest with the Atomic Energy Control Board. If they say it is wrong to open, or if they have reservations, heavens above, Ontario Hydro will accept that judgement; they always have. They are the people who have to make these determinations.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Agreeing with the Premier that there is unlikely to be anyone in this House with the technical expertise to grasp a priori all these nuclear energy matters, would the Premier nonetheless not wish to reflect on the question, in the aftermath of Three Mile Island and given the recent suggestions by the Science Council of Canada? Would he not like to reflect on the question of having a regulatory agency that actually has open hearings?

Dues he not recognize that it is not the policy of the Atomic Energy Control Board to hold public hearings of an open nature? Does he not also recognize that the time perhaps has come to have on the regulatory authority some representation from people who are not entirely involved in what you might call the nuclear industry itself? Given that a different kind of more impartial regulatory agency with open hearings does not exist at the moment, does the Premier not recognize some need to bring that about? Dues he not see that perhaps the select committee, for example, is a place where an open hearing can be heard, where not only the technocrats and the experts make decisions for the people, but the people’s representatives at some point have something to say about it, as well?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, trying to abide by your suggestion of a few moments ago that there were really probably three questions included in the one, and I also think, with respect, the Leader of the Opposition has to draw some distinction --

Mr. McClellan: Try answering one of them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I think the concept of establishing “a select committee” to hear members of the public --

Ms. Gigantes: You are going to be sorry when Joe brings in freedom of information.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I get very confused. The member for Carleton East interrupts me. I always get nervous when she interrupts; I become totally inhibited when she interrupts.

Mr. Conway: Just pretend it is Bette in the cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t want to correct the member, but really, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited happens to own that plant at Rolphton and I am sure she is aware of that. It is not owned by Ontario Hydro.

Ms. Gigantes: You are right. Ontario Hydro are the licensees.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought just to add to her storehouse of information that the member would like that piece of relevant knowledge.

Dealing with the issue of a select committee, I have no objection to some mechanism whereby members of the public have an opportunity to express points of view, but I think really the Leader of the Opposition is in some respects contradicting what he said earlier. The concept of having the AECB in some situations -- perhaps not in all -- available for public input, as the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) has suggested as it relates to Rolphton, there would be some merit, and I think he has had some communication, that AECB would be prepared to meet with citizens or have presentations from citizens with respect to this issue.

But, one gets back to the same problem, to the two concepts the Leader of the Opposition suggested. One is AECB, in some situations, having public input; that is one concept. A select committee, again, could listen to people, and perhaps make some overall judgements, but when it comes down to the actual determination as to the licensing or the operational safety of a particular nuclear plant, I really think in our system it is better to have that responsibility resting with an authority and not with a standing or select committee of this House.

As I say, I am as anxious as anyone to see that there be public information and public understanding, but at the same time somebody has to assume the responsibility and I really think a select committee of this Legislature is not that sort of vehicle.

LIQUOR REGULATIONS

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Could the minister advise the House as to what will be the policy for the issuance of permits for the consumption of alcoholic beverages, in view of the various arrangements that are being made by clubs and organizations throughout Ontario fur the celebration of Canada’s birthday?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I also had a private query from the member for Yorkville. I have signed a regulation which will treat July 1 --

Mr. Conway: Yorkville? Yorkdale? Try again.

Mr. Makarchuk: It sounds like a new constituency.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yorkdale? Sorry. Yorkview? Well, Mr. Young, anyway. He has been here a long time.

I have signed a regulation that will treat July 1 which is a Sunday, as an ordinary day for purposes of the Liquor Act, so a special occasion permit will allow the consumption of alcohol from noon to 1 a.m. on July 2, and in terms of licensed premises the special 50-50 food-liquor ratio that is normally applicable on Sundays will not apply.

In order to avoid a supplementary from the member for Brantford, there has already been a regulation signed concerning November 11 of this year, Remembrance Day, so that veterans’ clubs will enjoy the same privilege.

[3:30]

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Mr. Laughren: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: In his response to the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), the Minister of Industry and Tourism stated that there was a strong regional bias in Foreign Investment Review Agency approvals of foreign investment and foreign takeovers. I know the minister would want brought to his attention and to that of the members of the House that we were misled, in that 68 of the 108 approvals were for companies in Metropolitan Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify the record: I did not mislead the House. Of course a lot of applications come into Metropolitan Toronto. The information the member has brought to the attention of the House is not the total picture. What I was saying was that many of the applications in areas that need the employment very bad- 15 would be approved and looked favourably upon by our government, differently from the way we would look on applications in areas which do not need the --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: For example, we look very favourably upon applications in Sudbury, because we want to assist Sudbury in any way we can. The member may think otherwise.

ALCOHOLISM TREATMENT

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. This matter concerns Serenity House of Quinte, which is located in the city of Belleville. As the minister knows, this is a recovery home dedicated to the care, counselling and rehabilitation of persons related to the abuse of alcohol.

In my letters to the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) and the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker), I have expressed that this home may be forced to close if it is not given some type of financial assistance. This will result in some 250 individuals losing the use of facilities, with some of them being forced to return to jails, hospitals and other institutions.

Mr. Speaker: Would the minister agree?

Mr. O’Neil: Can the minister tell me whether he has made a decision to assist them?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the situation with respect to Serenity House, It is my understanding that the Minister of Correctional Services has indicated the possibility of a contractual relationship with respect to part of the operation of Serenity House, which I trust will be of some assistance.

A senior person on my staff has been in communication with the director of Serenity House, I believe, to discuss the possibility of some assistance for the residential component through the hostel program, which would require some involvement by the municipality; through that, we can fund up to 80 per cent of $14.50 a day, which may help with respect to the residential component.

I understand part of the problem they may be facing is that a number of their programs do not fall within any of these categories; so that in so far as we are able to assist them we will be willing to explore those possibilities with them. There may still be parts of their program for which they may have to turn to the community to try to get some ongoing voluntary support.

ACCIDENT BLACKSPOTS

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The minister will no doubt agree that one means by which the death and injury toll on Ontario highways can be reduced is through the redesign of stretches of highway that have been identified by the select committee on highway safety as black spots.

I wonder if the minister can tell the House what percentage of the 270 deaths that occurred on Ontario roads in the first three months of this year happened on those so-called black spots.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I cannot tell the honourable member that right offhand. I shall try to obtain that information for him.

Mr. Philip: Has the minister given any thought to establishing a program to inform drivers of the locations of these black spots?

Can the minister inform the House whether he or his cabinet colleagues have compared the benefits of an enhanced black-spot improvement program with the new highway law-enforcement program announced by the

Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), which his office informs us will cost in the vicinity of $3.5 million?

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, I will have to relook at the select committee’s definition of a black spot and give consideration to the honourable member’s suggestion.

GM SETTLEMENTS

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I would like to question the minister about the problem of the Chevrolet engines in Oldsmobile cars. In view of the fact two other provinces have settled with the owners on the basis of $200 compensation plus extended warranties, is the ministry and is the minister prepared to recommend this type of settlement? What will be happening to the consumers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Drea: In conjunction with the Attorney General of this province (Mr. McMurtry), who must be consulted before such an arrangement could be consummated, we are not going to file the mandatory consents General Motors wants.

The history of this particular problem, Mr. Speaker, you will recall, was that people in good faith bought Buicks -- the Century, the Regal or the Skylark models -- with LM1 or LG3 engines; the Delta 88 model with an LM1 or an L65 engine, or a Pontiac Ventura or Ventura SJ equipped with an LG3 engine. They thought they were buying either a Buick, an Oldsmobile or a Pontiac engine. They weren’t. General Motors deceived them. It stuck a Chevrolet engine in there.

General Motors now wants to make things good. They’re not just offering $200. It also includes a 36-month special mechanical performance certificate and reimbursement for some actual expenses. However, in return for that, General Motors wants the Attorney General of this province to sign a modified release form. The Attorney General of this province, and up until a few days ago the Attorneys General of the other nine provinces, refused to do this, because it would be giving General Motors a special consideration not available to anybody else.

For reasons best known to themselves, three provinces -- Quebec, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island -- signed that form. In any negotiations this ministry has had with General Motors, we have consulted with the Attorney General of this province and we have been advised he will not sign that release form for General Motors, so General Motors, before it gets settled in the province of Ontario, is going to have to come up with something better. After all, it deceived the public.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Minister, that’s all very well, but in the meantime people in three other provinces have received a settlement and people in Ontario have not. Can you indicate to this House when the people of Ontario can expect to get some settlement and some resolution of this matter?

Hon. Mr. Drea: As the Minister of Consumer Relations in this province, I am not going to sell the consumer down the river for the sake of expediency. The matter will be settled, it will be settled very equitably. General Motors, notwithstanding its worldwide reputation or its immensity, is not going to dictate to the province of Ontario how it is going to settle up with people it deliberately deceived.

Mr. Breithaupt: Can the minister tell us approximately how many of these particular vehicles are in this circumstance of the wrong engine?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I can’t. I can get that information for the honourable member. The reason I indulged the members’ generosity to read the engine numbers is we have a feeling a number of people have not yet submitted claims because they are still not aware of the fact they were peddled a Chevrolet engine when they bought an Oldsmobile or a Buick.

Mr. Swart: Are we to assume from what the minister said that he is going to insist that in fact they replace the motors with the type of motors that were supposed to be in the car the first time?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not putting terms and conditions on this. General Motors has made an offer to the people for whom we have been negotiating. We -- and I emphasize we, because the Attorney General is involved -- do not feel it is an offer we will endorse by the Attorney General’s signing that release form. What General Motors does to persuade the Attorney General of this province to give me consent I know not, but it is going to have to sweeten the offer.

Mr. Makarchuk: They’ll make you an offer you can’t refuse.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it won’t be an offer I can’t refuse. I will just draw one more point to the attention of the honourable members. None of the negotiations that my ministry and the Attorney General are carrying on affect the right of the owners of these cars to take direct action in court, if they so choose.

GAS AND OIL SUPPLIES

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Premier. The Premier is aware of the grave situation in the United States with regard to their energy crisis -- gasoline and diesel oil shortage -- and rising energy costs, particularly heating oil, and the phasing out of United States energy control, known as decontrol. Is he aware of the following statement by the president of Texaco Canada Incorporated to the shareholders?

“Canada presently has about 400,000 barrels a day spare refining capacity, most of which is located in the Atlantic provinces and in Ontario. It is hoped that the Canadian. and United States governments will make every effort to remove the current obstacles to increased exports of refined products to the United States. There are advantages to be gained on both sides” I suppose that comment means they want to capitalize on the energy shortages in the United States. Can the Premier indicate to this legislative body what steps his government is prepared to initiate to guarantee sufficient supply of petroleum fuels and home-heating oil for residents of Ontario? Also, what steps is the government initiating to ensure that pricing guidelines are maintained by a government agency in the interest of Ontario consumers?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very short question from the honourable member. It might be more helpful if he were to put it on the Order Paper, so I would have an opportunity to, firstly, digest the observations by the head of Texaco and, secondly, to see how his question relates to the observations of that particular individual.

The policy of this government is consistent and well known. Our policy has been to endeavour to --

Mr. Conway: Sell Petrocan?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, Sean. You be careful. I’ll remind you of your policy -- world price yesterday, higher prices for the consumers of gasoline and heating oil. The Liberal Party policy is tremendous.

Mr. Conway: I will take bets you will sell it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wasn’t going to become provocative this afternoon.

Mr. S. Smith: You’re sensitive about PetroCanada.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not sensitive about anything, other than those responsibilities I have as Premier.

Mr. S. Smith: Would you sell it or keep it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m just delighted that others have other responsibilities, and I don’t have to resolve those issues.

An hon. member: How about changing the embassy around?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker, in the answer to my question. I think the answer basically -- and this is subject to a careful assessment of the question -- I think the answer to the latter part of the question probably would be “yes,” if I recalled every part of it. I think probably yes.

If the member wants to put it on the Order Paper so I can get that more definitively, I will be delighted to endeavour to do so.

Mr. Haggerty: It’s in Hansard now.

REPORTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Lawlor from the select committee on the Ombudsman presented the committee’s sixth report and moved its adoption.

Mr. Lawlor: Perhaps before moving the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker, I may be permitted to say a few words about this committee and in particular about the report now before us. Copies are being distributed to the members’ boxes at the post office and copies have been delivered to the press gallery.

The central point is outlined in an obituary column at the beginning of the report. It was done deliberately in black, and it reads as follows: “The purpose of this ‘special report’ is to focus the Legislature’s attention solely on outstanding matters wherein recommendations of either or both of the Ombudsman and this committee have been ignored or refused.

“It is the committee’s intention that its recommendations in this report will be individually debated and voted upon by the Legislature. Only when that has been done, will the Ombudsman’s function have been completed. Only when that has been done, will this committee’s order of reference have been fulfilled.”

[3:45]

On motion by Mr. Lawlor the debate was adjourned.

GUELPH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Hon. Mr. Walker tabled the reports of the Public Institutions Inspection Panel and the Ombudsman on the Guelph Correctional Centre disturbance of May 7, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the following substitutions be made: on the social development committee, Mr. Turner for Mr. Rowe; on the general government committee, Mr. Rowe for Mr. Turner.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that notwithstanding any standing order of the House, the standing resources development committee may meet tonight and the House may meet to consider legislation in the resources policy field.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LOCAL SERVICES BOARDS ACT

Hon. Mr. Bernier moved first reading of Bill 122, An Act to provide for the Establishment of Local Services Boards.

Motion agreed to.

DURHAM MUNICIPAL HYDROELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

Hon. Mr. Brunelle, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Auld, moved first reading of Bill 123, An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Durham.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, this bill dissolves the 12 existing commissions in the region of Durham and establishes new hydroelectric commissions for the municipalities of Ajax, Brock, Newcastle, Pickering, Scugog, Uxbridge and Whitby and a public utilities commission for the city of Oshawa.

This bill is also based on the principles of the Hogg committee and is similar to the previous restructuring legislation.

All customers in Ajax, Oshawa and Whitby will be supplied with power by the new commission no later than January 1, 1980. As in previous restructuring bills, there is a provision for earlier implementation as a result of agreement between a new commission and Ontario Hydro.

The new commissions in Brock, Scugog, Uxbridge and Newcastle will supply power to their present municipal hydro customers. Existing customers of Ontario Hydro in Brock, Newcastle, Scugog and Uxbridge will continue to be supplied with power by Ontario Hydro until the council of the area municipality, with the consent of Ontario Hydro, directs the new commission to supply power in all areas of the municipality. In the interim, the councils are required to review the distribution and supply of power at least once every three years.

For the new Pickering Hydro-Electric Commission, the date for the commencement of the distribution and supply of power and for other related matters will be six months after the commencement date for the other new commissions, and the term of the first commissioners of the Pickering Hydro-Electric Commission will extend to November 30, 1982. This additional six-month period is to ensure that the utility will have sufficient time to establish its new operation.

The control and management of the bus transportation system of the city of Oshawa is transferred to the commission established by the bill for the city of Oshawa.

The basic principles of this bill, which are consistent with previous restructuring legislation, have been reviewed by the Ontario Municipal Electrical Association, the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee.

This bill was thoroughly reviewed by members of the correlation team and other local authorities in the Durham region. Discussions have also been held with members representing ridings in that region. On behalf of the government, I wish to express my appreciation to the correlation team for its work.

MONTCREST SCHOOL ACT

Mrs. Scrivener moved first reading of Bill Pr14, An Act to revive the January School as Montcrest School.

Motion agreed to.

TOWN OF AURORA ACT

Mr. G. Taylor, on behalf of Mr. Hodgson, moved first reading of Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the town of Aurora.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Mr. Nixon, on behalf of Mr. Roy, moved first reading of Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

TRUSTEES OF WINDSOR GROVE CEMETERY ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved first reading of Bill Pr16, An Act respecting the Trustees of the Windsor Grove Cemetery.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Isaacs moved first reading of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Isaacs: The purpose of this bill is to require that any vacancies arising on a municipal council in the first 11 months of the term of that council shall he filled by a vote of the electors. In a case where a vacancy occurs with fewer than 13, but more than eight months of the term remaining, council may choose to hold a by-election or may make an appointment. With fewer than eight months remaining, the bill continues the present requirements that the vacancy may only be filled by appointment.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: I wish to table the answers to questions 181, 193, 196, 198, 199 and 202 standing on the Notice Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Pursuant to standing order 13, I wish to indicate to the House the business for the remainder of this week and next week.

This afternoon we take into consideration the ballot items standing in the names of the members for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) and Carleton (Mr. Handleman). This evening we have Bill 17 in committee; Bill 46, second reading and committee as required; Bill 93 in committee; then Bills 80, 81 and 82, second reading and committee as required.

On Friday morning the House will sit in committee of supply to continue the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

On Monday, June 11, the House is in committee of supply to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

On Tuesday afternoon, June 12, until 6 p.m. we will take into consideration, as time allows, Bill 52, second reading and committee as required; Bill 8, in committee; Bill 89, second reading; and Bills 90, 99, and 89 in committee. In the evening, we will turn to Bill 93 in committee, if it is not finished this evening. Then second reading, and committee as required, on the following bills: 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, and 113.

On Wednesday, June 13, the resources development, general government and justice committees may meet in the morning.

On Thursday, June 14, in the afternoon, we have the ballot items standing in the names of the members for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) and Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor).

On Thursday evening, June 14, we resume the adjourned debate on the motion for the adoption of the interim report of the select committee on Hydro affairs, dated May 24, 1979.

On Friday morning, June 15 -- and I would draw members’ attention to this because it is a bit of a change in our routine -- we will do legislation. We will take into consideration, as time permits, Bills 100, 101, 103, 114, 104, 116, and 117.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Lupusella moved second reading of Bill 98, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Mr. Lupusella: I would like to thank the House for the opportunity to rise in debate on my bill today. It is an important bill because it gives me the opportunity to present views about those working places in the province affected by electronic surveillance. In my opinion it is time this government moved, through legislation, to keep electronic surveillance under control instead of having electronic surveillance controlling the work place.

The bill is a very simple one but it is extremely important because it deals with a basic human right, the right to work in dignity. Freedom from constant electronic surveillance in the work place is essential if we are going to maintain the right of privacy, the right to work in dignity and the furtherance of progressive labour-management relations. That is what this bill is all about.

The purpose of this bill can be stated quite simply by referring to section 1(15)(a) which says: “No employer shall install or operate an electronic surveillance device or system in the place of employment to record or monitor the work and the other activities of its employees unless the installation and the operation of such device or system is reasonably necessary, the proof of which lies upon the employer, for the protection of the health and the safety of the employees.”

[4:00]

As we are all aware, Mr. Speaker, the stimulus to this bill obviously arises out of the situation at the Puretex Knitting Company Limited, a situation which first came to the attention of this Legislature in the fall of 1976. It was only last week that the successful resolution of the problem at Puretex was achieved after a struggle by the workers and their union which lasted more than two years, two and a half years. This bill, Mr. Speaker, if adopted, will ensure that never again in Ontario will workers or theft unions be faced with the same indignities and intrusions which confronted the workers of Puretex.

It might be useful for members to hear some of the comments of the arbitrator in the Puretex case. Mr. S. R. Ellis has concluded that: “The full-time use of closed-circuit television systems for constant observation of the work performance and the conduct of employees in an industrial setting would be widely regarded, I believe, as seriously offensive in human terms. I’m certainly of that view.

He goes on to say: “It is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which consideration of efficiency would justify such an affront to human dignity. Any use of cameras that observe employees at work is intrinsically seriously objectionable in human terms. The use of the cameras in the production areas of the plant cannot be justified.”

This comment, Mr. Speaker, paralleled that of an arbitrator in a US case in 1965, Mr. H. T. Bellamy, who concluded that: “The device ... is not only personally repugnant to the employees but it has such an inhibiting effect as to prevent the employees from performing theft work with confidence and ease. Every employee has occasion to pause in the course of his work to take a breather, to scratch his head, to yawn or otherwise be himself without affecting his work, An employee, with reason, would hesitate at all times to so behave if his every action is being recorded en TV.” He goes on by stating:

“To have the workers constantly televised is to me reminiscent of the era depicted by Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times and it constitutes in my mind an affront to the dignity of a man.”

The Sunday Star of November 19, 1978: in commenting upon this case, the editors point out the distinction between the work place and the prison should be preserved.

There may be those who argue employers should have the right to use electronic surveillance to enable them to be more productive and efficient. First, it is obvious the largest and the most efficient enterprises do not use such devices but, more importantly, we must recognize the principle that society can and must place limits on the authority of employers to pursue theft activities. Indeed, the Legislature has done it many times.

We don’t allow employers to pay below the minimum wage in order to be more efficient and profitable. We do not allow employers to set working hours arbitrarily in the name of efficiency. We do not allow employers to practice discrimination in order to be more efficient. In a similar manner, we cannot allow employers the right to subject theft employees to the indignity and intrusion of electronic surveillance.

It may be useful to review some of the history of this issue. It was on November 10, 1976, that I first bought this matter to the attention of the government and, in particular, the Minister of Labour. At that time I stated:

“My particular concern is that the use of television monitors, if it won’t be prevented by your ministry, might be expanded in all industries, and they are going to keep under control all the workers in any factory ... I am not sure when this particular issue is going to be dealt with by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, but I strongly recommend that this kind of action be prevented and we stop the expansion of these closed-circuit television monitors, because there is no need for this. We are going to affect psychologically those workers who are employed in any sector of the industry in our province, and I don’t think it is going to be worthwhile to have such a system to control what the workers are doing.”

The Minister of Labour at that time replied:

“I was very much distressed by the Orwellian overtones of this kind of behaviour. It’s tantamount, I think, to directing immigrants and workers in this province to live in a specific place, as well as to be supervised by closed-circuit television or anything of that sort. It really is rather frightening.

“If that union is going to make application to the human rights commission, you can be sure that it will he dealt with expeditiously.”

That is what the then Minister of Labour stated on November 10, 1976, after I raised this particular issue during the estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

As we all know, the matter was not dealt with expeditiously; in fact, it was resolved in quite another forum. Despite the previous minister’s concern and the concern expressed by the present minister about oppressive electronic surveillance, there has not been any initiative by this government to deal with the pernicious violation of human privacy and dignity. In the absence of any such initiative, the need for this bill is quite obvious.

I am sure that the principle of this bill will have the support of the Liberal Party and its leader, who had introduced a similar bill and made the following comments in the House on December 7, 1978:

“Will [the minister] come forward with a simple amendment making it illegal to have that type of surveillance or, at the very least, demanding that a permit be obtained proving that it is needed for security, safety or something of that kind and get rid of this oppressive productivity surveillance? Why doesn’t he come forward and move an amendment? He will know he has the support of both the other parties.”

Again, the leader of the official opposition party stated in committee on November 29, 1978:

“There is simply too much dehumanization in modem industry, by the very nature of modern industry, to introduce this kind of dehumanization of the work place. Taking advantage of these immigrant women who are desperate for work -- who are paid so little anyhow -- and treating them with such indignity, simply has to stop.

“I don’t pretend that I am somehow or other a white knight rushing in on the issue. I know darned well that this has been a real thorn in the side of the New Democrats who have raised it time and again. I have made my views on this known on occasion. But both opposition parties want to halt this.”

That is what the leader of the Liberal Party stated on November 29, 1978.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think there is no doubt that the employer takes away the worker’s human dignity by using electronic surveillance. It is clear that such practices have been used just to increase production in the work place. I believe, and my party believes, that the employer uses electronic surveillance as a psychological tool, making the worker believe he is always being watched in order to increase production. Therefore, in my opinion, electronic surveillance has no place in a free society such as ours. It is a fundamental civil liberty that no worker should feel he is spied upon by electronic surveillance.

Finally, electronic surveillance is at the beginning of its era; we need legislation now, before the situation deteriorates to the point where we cannot control it in the work place any more. By enacting legislation now, the employers of this province are going to have practical, factual, clear guidelines of what they must do in relation to this particular issue of electronic surveillance in the work place.

In my opinion, if the government is not receptive to this particular issue at this point in time, it will be too late; the electronic device era will have expanded and I am sure it will lead us, in the province of Ontario, to a police state in the work place and nothing else. In view of the indisputable principles involved, I am hoping all members of the House will support my private member’s bill for the sake of human dignity and civil rights.

As I stated in my press release of May 18, 1979: “If the bill passes, working people will have won a significant victory. They will be free to work without electronic scrutiny. They will be treated like mature human beings with dignity, and not as slothful criminals to be controlled by any possible means. Surely in 1979, Mr. Speaker, in Ontario, this is a basic right which can be supported by all members of the Legislature.”

With such spirit lighting my private member’s bill, I am urging the government and the official opposition party to pass this legislation now, before the problem becomes uncontrollable in the province of Ontario, in order that we indicate clear legislation to employers at a time when electronic surveillance in the province of Ontario is, as far as I am concerned, not widely used.

[4:15]

Again -- and I want to emphasize this -- as I stated in the course of my presentation -- electronic surveillance is at the initial stage of its use and this government must feel a responsibility to deal with the problem now before it is too late.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable member has two and a half minutes remaining. I gather he wishes to reserve it.

We generally rotate and I am looking to the government benches for a speaker. We generally go clockwise.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As Minister of Labour and as the minister intimately involved in bearing some responsibility for industrial relations, human rights issues and the quality of working life, it is really only quite natural. I have an intense interest in the matter the member has raised. In his remarks, he was commenting on the interest that the Minister of Labour should have in these matters and I hope he will agree the legislation this ministry has introduced during the past eight to nine months has indeed shown that commitment to matters relating to the work place and to workers in the work place.

I commend the member for bringing this particular issue before the House at this time. It is rather timely, as a matter of fact, since the arbitrator’s award in this issue came out just last week.

I recall the debates and the discussions that we held last December, both in committee and in the House, with regard to that Puretex case, and I am sure the member for Dovercourt recalls that all members shared a great degree of interest -- more than interest -- in the plight of the people involved in the plant at Puretex. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the parties in that dispute were able to reach a collective agreement which eliminated the particular camera which faced the women’s washroom. The matters relating to other cameras were to be dealt with by an arbitrator, and that has now been done.

The recent decision of S. R. Ellis that the member has referred to ordered the removal of those cameras directed at the production areas of the company, but did approve the continued use of those cameras near the loading dock, the storage area and the parking lot.

I have no personal knowledge at the moment as to the current status of the decision in terms of whether or not there is agreement as to its implementation, and for that reason -- I am sure the member will understand -- I don’t wish to comment further on that decision. However, the manner in which the issues were finally addressed by all parties, and the arbitrator’s very careful definition of acceptable and unacceptable cameras, do serve to illustrate the complexity of the electronic surveillance issue in its broader context.

In my view it is clear that electronic surveillance in the work place can’t be considered in isolation. There are other kinds of surveillance, both in and out of the work setting, and together they raise the whole issue of the individual’s right to privacy within our society in general and not just in the work place.

I think it’s worth remembering that there are great varieties of supervision. There is the kind we face daily here for an hour to an hour and a half. There is the kind that citizens face on occasion with the police. There is the kind that students face with teachers. There is the kind that husbands face with wives, and vice versa. Often in those situations privacy and the right to privacy is a very contentious issue.

Technology has produced an essential qualitative change in the nature of supervision, it is now possible to replace the human observer with an electronic unit and -- I agree with the member -- the potential for both overt and covert observation in many circumstances increases enormously.

However, we’re speaking today particularly about surveillance in the work place and, as with most issues which have industrial relations implications, surveillance, whether traditional or electronic, depends for its acceptability on the delicate balance of employees’ rights against employers’ rights. On the one hand there is what I view to be -- and what the member clearly views to be -- the right to privacy and the right to dignity in all aspects of life. On the other hand there are certain rights an employer has, such as, for example, the right to have his business secure from theft.

It’s well documented that some establishments encounter increasing and continuing problems with theft. The member will recall the Ellis decision. Ellis referred situations where, in the face of excessive theft, surveillance might be warranted.

One survey of selected Ontario industries suggested one firm in seven experienced serious problems with internal theft and sabotage. From their point of view they might legitimately require a number of forms of surveillance from time to time to try and deter theft.

In some cases, employees themselves are concerned about theft -- for instance in the locker rooms, where their own personal property is involved. This is a further complicating factor with the bill the member has introduced; it doesn’t allow for that particular kind of surveillance. There is also the matter of inadvertent surveillance of the work place -- for example in a bank, where scanners aimed solely at security also inadvertently scan the work place and the workers there.

These interests must be considered in relation to the values basic to our society, which hold that the individual enjoys freedom, the right to privacy, and human dignity in other aspects of his life.

As an enthusiastic proponent of the concept of a quality working life, I am disturbed by actions which imply that citizens in their employment relations deserve less respect than they do in other aspects of their life.

Obviously, the balance is difficult to achieve and the member knows that. And it may change from time to time, depending on the extent to which the rights of another are endangered.

The bill introduced by the member for Dovercourt fails to recognize either the complexity of the issue or the legislative imperatives which must be met. If, as a result of further deliberation, it is determined that legislation is required, a careful assessment will have to be made as to whether the Employment Standards Act is the proper route to go.

I don’t say this critically, but let’s not forget, Mr. Speaker, that under the Employment Standards Act an officer has the right to order the payment of wages, and under a prosecution there’s a power to order a fine. But there is no power to correct a wrong. There is no power, for example, to issue a cease and desist order. Surely that’s the very core of the issue that should be dealt with.

I submit to the member that the act he has selected for his amendment is really not the appropriate channel. There are, however, other legislative alternatives which I’m prepared to consider.

As I mentioned in this House on May 18, I have asked my ministry’s research branch to undertake a study of the implications of electronic surveillance, examining its workplace application in the broader context of privacy I mentioned earlier.

I’ve also asked them to review relevant legislation in other jurisdictions and to consider the options open to us. I’m pleased to tell the member, in the House, that I have now received the first draft of that discussion paper and within the next two or three weeks I hope the final paper will be issued for discussion by all interested parties.

But let me put it in perspective. I agree with the member and with members of this House that pervasive and unrestricted electronic surveillance of the work place is oppressive and undesirable, unless there are specific reasons for it. And that’s the complexity of the matter which I think the member’s bill has failed to deal with.

I welcome the discussion my ministry’s paper will receive and when I have had the benefit of the discussion of that paper, I will make a decision as to the appropriate route to take.

I’m not able to support the legislation that’s being proposed today, but I commend the member for having the principle discussed.

Mr. Van Horne: I am again amazed, as I frequently am in this House, to hear the government defend its position of non-support in the private members’ hour. I guess when I finish here as a member, I’ll go back to school and try to learn a little bit more about what private members’ hour is all about.

In private members’ hour the Liberal Party generally votes according to the conscience of its members. Very seldom do we attempt to block anything, and I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that in this instance, in speaking to this bill, I personally am pleased to support it. I am also pleased to indicate that when our caucus reviewed the business of this week practically all, if not all members, determined they too would be pleased to support Bill 98, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Going back to my comments directed to the Minister of Labour, the member for York East, I have read Hansard from the committee debate last fall. I have read in Hansard the questions asked in the House by our leader and by members of the New Democratic Party and, in looking at the answers given by the minister, I find time and again an indication that he is concerned; that his ministry is concerned; that his staff is looking into it; that something will be done.

Mr. Lupusella: Three years have elapsed.

Mr. Van Horne: In spite of these assurances of some kind of action and concern, we have really heard nothing until this private member’s bill which is being discussed today. That’s not to suggest that something hasn’t been done, because the minister has just said something is coming to us. We will be able to look at a paper. It’s high time that we looked at a paper. It’s high time something was done.

It’s rather strange that the government reacts to this and lets us know that something is coming to us on the very day the bill is discussed. It’s rather strange, too, that it would seem an arbitrator’s decision has precipitated some kind of action from the government.

The government knew the problem was there. They professed to have some kind of concern for the dignity of the worker in the work place. But in my view they have shown darned little evidence of being anything more than verbally responsive until the heat was put on, by us, by the NDP or by some incident -- again, we have to look at the Puretex situation which, when bared and brought to the public scene, really does reflect the inhuman conditions under which some people in this province of ours are expected to work.

The minister made reference to a delicate balance between employees’ rights and employers’ rights. I don’t find anything in this bill which would detract from the rights of an employer, and certainly at second reading level and in private member’s hour we should be concerned with the principle. If we as members can’t agree on the principle here, the principle of some kind of dignity, some kind of right for an employee, I would submit to you we’re falling far short of the mark of what is expected of us as members of this Legislature.

I am pleased to support this bill. The leader of our party presented a similar bill as was mentioned by the member for Dovercourt. I believe it was in December 1978. He presented it for this whole purpose of having it brought to the fore in principle; for the purpose of having the public become more aware; for the purpose of some discussion before it came to the floor of this chamber. I think it’s fair to say, too, that the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) has, on more than one occasion, brought similar concerns to the House. This matter has been before us many, many times and it’s time it was resolved.

We all know that second reading of a bill such as this does not necessarily mean it’s going to be carved in stone. We know that. I have to ask, why is it then that an issue such as this has to be blocked, as apparently it will be through the determination of the government that wants to do things only its own way? I am not convinced that anything is going to be done, even with the paper coming to us. But maybe with the paper and with support for this bill, something will be done.

Thank you very much; I enjoy supporting this.

[4:30]

Mr. McClellan: I don’t see the Minister of Labour in the House.

Mr. Lupusella: He has left.

Mr. McClellan: I suppose he considers it appropriate on an issue like this, to come in here and tell us he opposes the bill. I assume the implication is that he and the trained seals over there intend to block the bill -- and then walk out without listening to the debate or the argument. He comes in here with his mind made up, gives us his veto and then he disappears.

I thought that might bring the Minister of Labour back. Why doesn’t the minister come and take his seat and listen to the debate? Why doesn’t he come and take his seat and listen to the debate on an issue like this, an issue which is a scandal in this community? It is a scandal in this community.

Mr. Lupusella: He should be ashamed of himself.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I gave it the attention it deserved.

Mr. McClellan: I had the opportunity to go out to the picket line during the strike. It was one of the coldest picket lines I have ever been on; I think it was the coldest picket line I was ever on. I was taken by the picket captain and the striking women to the front of the Puretex building and we peeked through the window into the president’s office. We looked into the president’s office and there was his desk. Right in front of his desk was a bank of nine television monitors, so this person could sit there in his proprietorial splendour and monitor, supervise and spy on his employees during the whole of his working day.

I don’t know what kind of jollies he got out of that, but I will tell the minister what the community got out of that -- a kind of outrage I can’t recall on any other issue for a long time, perhaps not since the early attempts to reform the Workmen’s Compensation Board in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I don’t think there has been an issue so offensive to people in the New Canadian community in this city. I say that with as much urgency as I can convey.

It is not a complex issue. It is not a great, complex issue. It is a question of fundamental moral principles, of fundamental moral values, in the words of the arbitrator. The use of cameras to observe employees at work is intrinsically seriously objectionable in human terms. It is an affront to human dignity. It is. It is not complex, it is not a question of competing --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Who said it was?

Mr. McClellan: It is not complex. The minister said it was so complex this legislation failed to address the total complexity of the issue. That is a lot of rot.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I said there was a lot more to it than the issue raised.

Mr. McClellan: That is the kind of moral myopia that has allowed this issue to fester for almost three years. It was brought to the Ontario Human Rights Commission in November 1976 and it was brought to the attention of this Legislature the same month by my colleague from Dovercourt. It was prominently featured in the media in this community.

What did we get? What have we got now? Nothing. Not a damned thing. Not a damned thing from this government. All we have is the suggestion of the chairman of the human rights commission, Dr. Crittenden.

It is my feeling right now that when the union negotiates its contract it should negotiate that electronic surveillance be excluded. Leave it up to the worker to try to get these degrading devices out of the work place. Leave it up to the workers and their unions. See if they can do it.

The human rights commission showed what it would do over the course of two and a half years -- absolutely nothing. I don’t understand it. I am genuinely baffled. I asked myself what use is a human rights commission if it is so blind to such a fundamental human rights issue as the right to privacy, as the right to dignity in the work place and as the right to protection against electronic snooping that it is incapable of recommending even a hoard of inquiry to the Minister of Labour. They tried twice to grapple with this complex issue, this great conflicting set of moral principles. Rot.

Mr. Lupusella: Phoney excuse.

Mr. McClellan: They suffer from a moral myopia, which is as much a concern in the Ontario Human Rights Commission as the issue itself, if they can’t see such a blatant misuse of power of one person against another, of Mr. Satok against his workers. And so it went on, as I have said, for two and a half years.

We brought it up last fall in the estimates of the Ministry of Labour. The minister said he had the evidence of the human rights commission before him and he would have to decide whether or not he would order a board of inquiry, but he didn’t. He hasn’t brought in his legislation. He is promising to study the issue because it is so complex. He has to consider the rights of the employer.

I say to the minister the rights of any employer do not extend to the use of electronic surveillance devices, except for the purposes set out in this bill, that is to protect health and safety. Let’s remind ourselves that we’re talking about immigrant women who are being victimized by this kind of degradation.

It’s difficult for me to deal with this. I don’t understand how the minister can be -- and I say this to him as a friend -- so complacent on this issue. He won’t like those words and he won’t like this speech, but he is acting in a way which gives communities great offence.

This is a very clear moral issue. It is an issue of such fundamental human importance and significance that I say to him he has no right to block this bill. We have given the government time to bring in its own legislation. We have given them two and a half years to act and they have not acted yet.

The arbitrator tells us there are other plants in this province using electronic surveillance devices. He makes reference to another textile mill. Guess who works in textile mills?

The minister has done nothing and he has threatened to veto this bill. I plead with the minister not to. Let this bill come to a vote

Let this bill go out to committee. Let this Legislature look at it and look at all of the issues. Let people from the communities who are so offended by electronic surveillance among the New Canadian work force come forward and give us their views.

What is the minister afraid of? There’s nothing to fear in the democratic process, nothing to fear at all. The only thing we have to fear is those who would bury their heads in the sand and fail to deal with serious problems and stall as the previous Minister of Labour stalled for two years -- and stall, if I may say so, to my friend the Minister of Labour, as he is stalling with his survey and his promise of a future look. Here is the look --

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

Mr. McClellan: -- and I urge him to let us pass this bill and deal with it.

Mr. Sterling: I realize how important this issue is to many of the people who are working in manufacturing plants and various other places. I don’t think anyone in this Legislature would dispute the fact we should not only maintain but we should improve the quality of work life wherever we can. I would also like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that I don’t think anyone can dispute, in the short period of time the present Minister of Labour has occupied that post, he has been anything but sensitive to this kind of issue. His determination in bringing Bill 70 before this Legislature was not without trouble. I think he’s indicated in his opening remarks that he has tried to address this issue to date, but there are certain problems he has outlined in his remarks and which I, also, see with this piece of legislation.

Take for instance, a small manufacturer who has an electronic surveillance camera on his loading door. Is that permitted under this piece of legislation? I think in the Puretex decision, it was indicated the employees were not so much concerned with the warehouse and storage areas as they were with the production areas.

I think the member for Dovercourt, who brought forward this piece of legislation, pointed out there doesn’t seem to be widespread use of these electronic devices at this time.

Mr. Lupusella: That’s why we have to act now. It’s as simple as that.

Mr. Sterling: If that is the case, then surely we have time to look at the report which the Minister of Labour is to bring forward. Surely we have time to look at the complex situations that can arise as a result of this fairly simple statement within Bill 98.

I don’t think anyone disputes the fact that the dignity of the worker must be maintained as a priority. I don’t have any qualms about supporting that on a higher plane in terms of the property aspect which the employer has to maintain, but we have to face some problems.

What happens if theft is occurring and it is of substantial proportions? What does one do in those circumstances, especially when it happens in a smaller type of business? How can the employer adequately supervise in some circumstances large warehouses where he has no alternative than to go to some more modern way of protecting the property? Otherwise, he is in continuing problems with maintaining that business.

Mr. Lupusella: They have to demonstrate why they are using electronic surveillance. The bill is giving them such an option.

[4:45]

Mr. Sterling: The problem, as I see it and as I think the minister was frying to outline, is not a black-and-white issue, as perhaps the member for Bellwoods sees it. Nothing is black and white in business either. This must be looked at in terms of maintaining employment for these workers in the best possible circumstances. I don’t mind placing the priority of the dignity of the worker in the highest plane and then taking these other things in a minority situation and trying to apply them to the situation.

Mr. Grande: That’s what we’re saying.

Mr. McClellan: Let’s sit down and work out a bill, then.

Mr. Sterling: Let’s sit down and work out a bill. I think that is exactly what the Minister of Labour wants to do.

Mr. Grande: The minister said in two years from now.

Mr. Sterling: It seems I cannot support this piece of legislation in its present status. It is frying to treat a subject which is far too complex, in terms of the variables that are involved, in a very simple way.

There are many other examples that can he brought forward. What do we do in terms of prisons? What do we do in terms of --

Mr. McClellan: We’re not talking about prisons.

Mr. Sterling: It is a work place for someone. What does one do about the guards who are being electronically surveyed?

Mr. McClellan: That’s a question of health and safety; it’s a question of safety in prisons.

Mr. Sterling: What does one do about shoplifting in a retail store, where they have electronic surveillance? What do we do with all these matters? That is what I would like answered.

Mr. Handleman: You don’t start with a flawed bill and make a good one out of it. You start with a good bill and make it better.

Mr. McClellan: No, send it to committee and we will do that.

Mr. Sterling: For these reasons, I cannot support this bill.

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this private member’s bill introduced by the member for Dovercourt. The members in our party and our leader have also shown considerable concern about the setup of these cameras, and the matter has been raised on several occasions by our leader in questions to the Minister of Labour.

It is also my feeling and I would say that of the majority of our members that the setting up of these cameras take away from the rights of the employees of this factory. If they were installed in other factories or other work places they would do the same thing. I think back to when I was an employer of a number of employees. I think it is much better to build up a relationship of trust with those people who are working for you or with you, to establish standards and to set patterns within a work place, rather than to have cameras that would seem to spy on those working for you.

We have heard the minister’s comments that he proposes to bring in further information on this. But I think I feel the same way as members in our party and the members in the NDP -- that it is a bit of a farce, when we have the private members’ hour where we can introduce bills, and then these bills are voted down and not allowed to go to committee for discussion.

It is my feeling that if a lot of these private members’ bills were allowed to go to committee stage we would have input from all three parties. If the minister feels the present bill is not suitable, in the committee stage suggestions and alterations could be made to the bill. I think we could come up with a bill whereby we could stop things such as this going on, yet provide protection not only for the employees but also for the employer in the circumstances.

So I for one, as a private member, will support this bill. It is my hope the minister and members of the Conservative Party will also reconsider their stand and let this bill go forward to committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Oakwood for up to three minutes.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Dovercourt for having brought a bill into this Legislature that is so fundamental to the working conditions of workers, so fundamental to the whole basis of the democracy in which we live, that I haven’t seen any bill like it come before this Legislature in the last three years I have been here. This bill is of such a magnitude.

The member for Dovercourt has been interested in this since 1976. The Minister of Labour, as he quoted before, was interested in this since 1976.

Mr. Lupusella: The former Minister of Labour.

Mr. Grande: The former Minister of Labour talked about this in 1976. I think the member for Dovercourt quoted the minister as saying this signals an Orwellian state. I wish the present minister would listen for a second.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Oh, come on.

Mr. Grande: I do have three minutes and I would like to take advantage of the minister’s ability to listen, if he can.

If a Minister of Labour in 1976 considered that television surveillance was bringing about the beginning of the Orwellian state, what kept the Minister of Labour in 1976 from beginning the report, starting the fact-finding process in which this minister got involved in November 1978? If the minister does indeed have this report, why didn’t he table it today, so we would have facts and information upon which to debate this bill.

Mr. McClellan: I asked the minister to do that a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Lupusella: Why didn’t he do it?

Mr. Grande: Why is he keeping that report within his ministry? Why didn’t he produce it prior to today so we would have the information and could find out about the complexity of the issue about which the minister speaks? This issue is very simple; it is not complex.

My colleagues from both sides of the House and the member for Carleton-Grenville on the government side of the House, said this bill talks about human dignity, about the work place, about very fundamental values. The government cannot take two or three or four years to make a decision about such fundamental values in our society. Would they be taking two or three years if it referred to the right to freedom of speech or the right to go to church and worship?

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

Mr. Grande: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope the minister will reconsider and let this bill go to committee. It is very important that it do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Dovercourt for two and a half minutes.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speed up the conclusion of my remarks by conveying my appreciation to the Liberal Party, which came out in support of this bill. I am in some ways very upset about the attitude of the Minister of Labour, representing the government. The content of his speech showed he is rejecting this bill, even in principle.

The minister has been talking about the complexity of the bill and the problems that will arise as ramifications of my private member’s bill. I think it is fair to state that the Minister of Labour doesn’t believe in the principle of the bill, per Se; rather he is concerned about the complexity or ramifications of the bill itself. The attitude of the Minister of Labour is a slap on the faces of working people of this province and he must realize that. It is time his government and he, as the Minister of Labour, realize their duty to effect legislation to solve certain problems in the work place. Particular reference was made to Puretex. Let me say that the Minister of Labour is accepting or buying the thoughts which have been said for years and years by the owner of Puretex that he has been robbed and that the use of cameras or monitors has been based only to support the thesis that he has been robbed. The arbitrator, through the Minister of Labour, on his investigation came to the conclusion that such a proposal or such a point hasn’t been demonstrated. For three years, the former Minister of Labour and the present one have been playing with human lives in the work place.

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

Mr. Lupusella: If I can conclude, it is time to represent the workers of this province. If the minister and his colleagues block this bill, I hope the voters will remember that at the next provincial election.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That concludes the allotted time for ballot item 19.

PATIENTS’ BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr. Handleman moved resolution 19:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should consider the introduction of legislation requiring each governing body of a health discipline to which the Health Disciplines Act, 1974, applies and the Ontario Hospital Association to develop and adopt a patients’ bill of rights codifying the rights of every patient who receives services from a practitioner of that health discipline or from a hospital that is a member of the association.

Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity finally to present a private member’s ballot item. I am one of those people who is unlucky in lotteries. In the first lottery I participated in, my name was drawn at the very end and I had to pass by my opportunity earlier in this session because of circumstances beyond my control.

I would like to explain at the outset that in putting forward this resolution I imply no criticism of those in the health disciplines or in the Ontario Hospital Association. I happen to have been unfortunate enough to have been more of a recipient of the services of this system during the last five years than in all of my previous years and I have come to appreciate the excellent standard of service which we in Ontario are able to call upon when they are needed.

On the other hand, I believe there is no time in one’s life when one is more insecure than during the period when these services are required. While I have faith and trust in the competence of those who are rendering the service -- and my purpose in putting the resolution reflects that -- the patient in his or her insecurity might possibly he reassured by knowing that there exists a code outlining what he or she is entitled to during that period of helplessness.

We have come a long way in this province, in this country and in this continent in that direction since the following rules for patients of the Cornwall, Ontario, General Hospital were issued in 1897. I would just like to quote from the rule: “Patients must be quiet and exemplary in their behaviour and conform strictly to the rules and regulations of the hospital and carry out all orders and prescriptions of the various officers of the establishment.” There could hardly be anything more authoritarian than that.

Hospitals on this continent and others in the health-care delivery system have worked hard to develop better communications with those who are entrusted to or who place themselves in their care. The Ontario Hospital Association, for example, on December 13, 1978, issued a set of guidelines to the chief executive officers of all member institutions in this province. The guidelines were designed to assist those officers in dealing with the expectations and responsibilities of individuals in their particular care.

If I might, I would like to read from the Ontario Hospital Association’s philosophy of patient care which it has issued for the guidance of its members. I am not going to read every provision in it because many of the hospitals have taken and modified them to their own use.

[5:00]

The patient is entitled to expect skilled, qualified, and experienced professional and non-professional staff. He can expect that the hospital will maintain the facilities necessary for staff to carry out their tasks; that it will maintain and upgrade the knowledge and skills of the staff. It goes on in that vein. It’s drawn from the American Hospital Association’s bill of rights, which was passed by the delegates to a convention in 1973. That’s perhaps the most widely followed of all of the codes, and it reflects the importance of consent, particularly, and acknowledges the primacy of patients’ rights.

In Canada that bill had wide support. The 1973 Pickering report, which many members of this Legislature are aware of, favoured the development of a patients’ care bill of rights. In 1974, I’m very proud to say that the first hospital to adopt it, the Royal Ottawa Hospital -- a 235-bed institution -- adopted the American Hospital Association bill, with very slight modifications.

One of the particular items in the Ontario Hospital Association code deals with the matter of hospital medical records. One would normally think that medical records which are intimately involved in the well-being of the patient would be made freely available to him. The fact is that the Public Hospitals Act and its regulations prevent that from happening. In fact, there are many good reasons for that kind of restriction.

It’s overly simplistic to say that the patient is entitled to know everything the hospital has on record concerning him. On the surface it appears to be fine. However, what we have to have, what is absolutely necessary, is a clearcut definition of what the patients’ rights are with regard to the availability of hospital records. Certainly, we can’t expect the patient to receive a short, fast medical course so he can understand fully all the technical data which is on file concerning him. But my own feeling is that he has a right to expect a code defining the standard of care, and if necessary, what he not only can expect, but demand.

In conducting the research for this resolution I have been pleased to note the extent to which the systems in Ontario and the professions have gone towards meeting that The problem is that it’s sporadic; it’s spotty; it’s not uniform. The patient has a right to expect, in this very important field, some uniformity.

It’s also a fact that the rights which have been codified to date on a voluntary basis are purely voluntary. They’re privileges rather than rights. The Ontario Patients’ Rights Association, headquartered in Toronto, has published a patients’ rights manual. Having read it, I’m concerned about the adversary tone it adopts in dealing with what it calls patients’ complaints. I understand that patients do have complaints. On the other hand, I don’t think that’s the primary reason for having a patients’ bill of rights. It is to expand on the knowledge of the patient concerning his rights, and if necessary he should be able to demand them. That’s the reason I have put the resolution in the way it is. Rather than a code of rights being imposed on institutions and those in the health-care system, the system should be required to develop a uniform code which the patient can then use in demanding or expecting his rights.

That, then, becomes a process of self-regulation. I suppose this is where some of us depart on the question of principle. I would prefer to give self-regulation a full chance to work successfully before saying, “it hasn’t worked. Now we, the government, are going to make it perfect.” I have yet to see a government program which has reached the stage of perfection, and it’s too much to expect that sell-regulation will reach that state on its own, but it should be given an opportunity to work on its own. Therefore, I have put the resolution in the form of requesting the government to consider legislation to require the publication of these codes. I assume in any such legislation there would be a timetable, a deadline by which it must be met.

If I had had an opportunity to redraft the resolution, I would have included a very important group of institutions which are not now in -- that is, nursing homes. I regret their exclusion. The resolution was drafted hurriedly in order to meet a deadline before we had expected to do that.

The resolution calls upon the government to consider the introduction of legislation which would require health disciplines, all of those in the Health Disciplines Act and those who would seek to be included in the Health Disciplines Act, not only those who are at present in it but those who would come within it. It would seem to me if any such legislation was introduced and approved by the members of this Legislature, the act itself contains the remedies which would enable a patient to obtain redress in the event of a violation of his rights as codified. Violations would constitute misconduct under the Health Disciplines Act, and there are certainly remedies in that act for enforcement. There are also tribunals set up at the present time to deal with them.

The member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) mentioned he would have to go to school to see what the private members’ hour is about. In my view, private members should be proposing action the government can take and then let us criticize that action when it has been taken. This is exactly what my resolution does. If the government comes in with this kind of bill, and I hope it will, then we can sit and modify it, if necessary in committee, and improve upon it. I would rather the government took that initiative, having had it brought to its attention during the private members’ hour.

I don’t want to require the government to intervene in a dispute between a patient and an institution, or a member of the health disciplines. I have had some experience in the interventionist approach and the interventionist society which appears to be gaining some strength. I am one who resists it and hopes to continue to resist it, which again explains why my resolution would allow the professions and the institutions to draft their own code.

I look forward to the comments of my colleagues in the Legislature. I hope this resolution will receive their support, but if it doesn’t I don’t think I will be as exercised as some members who feel everything they put forward should receive harmonious consent. I hope it does, but if it doesn’t it won’t hurt my feelings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member has used up half his time. Does he wish to reserve the other half, which is 10 minutes?

Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I may want to comment on the comments that are made but I don’t think I will need all of that time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: How many minutes would you like to reserve?

Mr. Handleman: Five minutes.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I rise happily to support not only the resolution of the member for Carleton, which is rather interesting, but indeed the member himself, who from time to time provides me with the basis for other agreement. We like to have the Renfrew-Carleton axis at work as often as possible.

I suspect that somewhere in the precincts we have Mrs. Anne Coy. I think she indeed may be in the special gallery this afternoon.

I wanted to draw attention to her work, and that of her particular association which has been very much recommended to me. She has led a movement in this direction of highlighting the need for patients’ rights in a way I think is proper. Anne and I have not always agreed. In fact, at a forum not very long ago at the St. Lawrence Centre we differed rather sharply on the full import of patients’ rights as she sees them and as I see them, but I think her work in this connection is a credit to her association and to her own civic mindedness. I’m sure all members would join with me in that connection.

As far as the resolution itself is concerned, I must tell the member for Carleton he has given us something so innocuous as to be absolutely supportable without contention, it seems to me. I await my colleague from Oshawa to jump to his feet and join with me in making this a unanimous support. I sincerely hope he will.

Mr. Breaugh: You’re pushing me offside, Sean. Be careful.

Mr. Conway: Indeed, it was the member for Oshawa’s comments this morning that really provided the basis for my little remarks this afternoon. I awakened, as I’m sure all of the members did, to CBC Metro Morning to hear the illustrious member for Oshawa talking about the old-boy network and the work of our social development committee as it endeavoured to look at some of these questions to which this resolution directs our attention. I suspect the member for Oshawa’s comment about the old-boy network is the very thing that leads me to support the intent of the member for Carleton’s suggested consideration for the codification of certain agreed-to patients’ rights.

I think there is at the root of the whole question of patients’ rights a growing and fundamental question about the right of the citizen, in this case the patient, to know certain things in a democratic society. Notwithstanding the fact the new federal Prime Minister and his administration will open the doors to freedom of information in such a way as to make Vatican II look like a very secondary effort, I think we in this jurisdiction should be undertaking initiatives such as the honourable member’s resolution dictates, rightly or wrongly, and in most cases I believe it is rightly.

A growing number of patients, and therefore citizens, feel they are not being treated responsibly or fairly by their health-care professionals. Indeed it is my own feeling that our professional elites, our professional societies in the health-care field -- and I suppose most notably the medical community -- have failed to keep pace with a growing desire for consumerism, if I might use the word generally speaking in this connection. There are too many doctors and other health-care professionals -- I dare say lawyers as well -- who just feel it is their professional prerogative to dictate to the consumer, the patient or whatever, what that person believes is right, without any opportunity for participation by the patient or the consumer.

With our present levels of sophistication and education I believe those kinds of attitudes in the professional community are clearly intolerable. I know the honourable member for York West would indicate that is not something to be found in the pharmacists’ community, but certainly in terms of most health-care professionals the public perception is one of an old-boy network, a closed-shop sense, which in large measure could be redressed, I believe, by proceeding with the consideration that the honourable member’s resolution calls for.

More than anything else, it must be done to restore public confidence in the professional community. I have had the opportunity as a politician, to say nothing of the opportunity as a health critic, to have witnessed certain discussions and dialogue in this connection. Really and truly it is amazing that in the late 1970s people in the health-care industry should be of such a mind, and perhaps it is not directly related, that we still have situations where by and large hospital meetings are closed to the public in many cases. We have that kind of ethic permeating the whole area that is for many of us a most central social-policy field. In many cases, to serve their own professional self-interest, it would serve the medical community and others very well to have the honourable member’s resolution proceeded with.

The presumption that is often acted upon that I, as a consumer or as a patient, cannot understand what the honourable member for York West is likely to tell me in a pharmaceutical sense, is a presumption I am not always, if ever, prepared to live with. It almost reminds me of certain people in the engineering community who would have us believe that in the areas of nuclear energy Joe Q. Public shouldn’t be told because Joe Q. Public couldn’t be expected to understand.

Certainly in terms of patients’ rights there has to be a clear understanding that the average consumer or the average patient is clearly able to understand information imparted to him or her by the professional or allied health-care worker. I believe the rights must exist in law if they are to mean anything, because if they are not in law, they are, it seems to me, essentially unenforceable. The old Tory conservative social ethic that noblesse oblige will obtain and that I, the professional, will determine what I will tell you and what you can understand is clearly not relative in the liberal democracy of the late 1970s.

[5:15]

Mr. Breaugh: What kind of a democracy?

Mr. Handleman: Small “l”.

Mr. Breaugh: There are no longer any Liberals left.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We won’t argue about that. There is no philosophy.

Mr. Conway: The member for Ottawa West would be counselled to be careful when talking about liberalism, because not so long ago he trod ever so perilously close to the line of invitation. I would not wish to remind him of his past sins of commission and omission in that connection.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I saw the light.

Mr. Bolan: The lights went out on him when he was appointed Minister of Energy.

Mr. Conway: Finally, it has to be said that, once codified, these patients’ rights have to he understood in the context of a good working relationship between the patient and the professional -- a working relationship that gets away from the historic paternalism that has in many cases unfairly and unhappily shut the door to the freedom of information which in our view should obtain, on the one hand, and a relationship which, on the other band, respects the professional’s ability to make certain judgements that are important for that person to make in the connection of the particular patient’s operation or whatever.

I don’t in any way minimize the difficulties in certain of those areas. The question of consent and the question of how far the rights should carry forward are ones about which I have a considerable degree of personal concern. I have a feeling, that the member for Carleton would probably share, that there would be a grey area there that would remain unsolved and unresolved for some time.

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

Mr. Conway: Finally, I want to say, in supporting the honourable member’s resolution, that it is surely, if lately, one small step in the right direction.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. Johnson: This will be negative.

Mr. Breaugh: It can be if you so desire. I rise to support the resolution. I don’t want to surprise anybody or cause heart failure across the way. If that happens, it might be considered of benefit in some quarters. I think this is a supportable resolution. It’s insipid enough that almost anybody could support it. It missed out on the apple-pie part, but I’m sure somewhere there will be something added to this end which will include motherhood and apple pie.

Mr. Conway: And almost anybody has.

Mr. Breaugh: It is oddly enough clearly indicative of what is wrong with this government. When the member turns to look at something like patients’ rights and puts forward a resolution in this House purporting to ensure that there are such things as patients’ rights -- and I would contend that there aren’t any just now -- he sends the bill to everybody except patients. He asks views from the medical profession itself, the various subsidiaries in the Health Disciplines Act and the Ontario Hospital Association. The only people he forgot to ask were patients.

That strikes me precisely as what’s wrong with this government in a number of areas. When we talk about a health-care system in Ontario, this government consults with those who dispense the service, it consults with those who administer the service, but it never wants to talk to anybody who uses the service or, a little more importantly, pays for the service. I think that’s a fundamental flaw in this government.

I support the concept of a patients’ bill of rights. It was introduced in this House, I believe, first and foremost by the member for Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta). He has done that on a number of occasions.

Mr. Conway: He was a great Health critic. Bring him back.

Mr. Breaugh: I believe the last occasion was when he put forward a private member’s bill in 1977. I want to point out to the members of this House that on the day when that principle was debated in this House the members on the government side rose to block the vote. That’s how much they cared about patients’ rights on that day. They rose to block the vote. They weren’t prepared to let it proceed for further debate. Although some of them were generally supportive in discussing the principle of the bill, they were afraid to let that private member’s bill proceed.

Today we have a resolution from a government member, a private member to be sure, which suddenly pays recognition to it. I think that is due in no small measure to the fact that more and more people in our society are becoming aware that patients don’t have rights.

We now see newspaper columnists documenting individual cases of patients who were not treated properly. We see weekend magazine sections in the newspapers doing full-length articles on that same topic.

As I read through the Hansards in preparing for my comments today, I saw that almost everyone who spoke on previous occasions, in committee or in the debate on the private members’ bill by the member for Parkdale, offered individual cases documenting that clearly there are instances we all know about and we now all agree were infringements on patients’ rights.

So the level of awareness is getting up there a little bit. I am not so sure it has sunk in very far on the government side of this House but at least they recognize it now. There are organizations -- the Ontario Patients’ Rights Association has already been mentioned -- that are very active in discussing the issue and pointing out on a case-by-case basis there’s a need to change things.

The problem I have with the resolution is that it’s a bill of rights that won’t exist. I am not saying that anyone in the medical profession or anyone in the Ontario Hospital Association is not a good and caring person, or that they wouldn’t have a proper perspective on this. But I am saying they could do that very nicely had that private member’s bill gone through a committee for hearings. They would have had ample opportunity to provide their input to the bill. What’s more important, other people would have as well -- other organizations who were interested, other individuals who might have some pertinent information that members should hear would be there. What’s more important, at the end of that gathering of a consensus and gathering of information, this Legislature would be expected to face up to its responsibilities.

I heard earlier this afternoon the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations take on General Motors over deceiving people. There might be those in here who expect always a corporation to act in the best interests of the public. I am one who doesn’t expect that, nor do I expect any other special-interest group, no matter who they might be, always to consider the world at large as opposed to their individual membership. I think I am realistic enough to understand that doesn’t happen.

Whether we might agree or disagree on whether the medical association in Ontario, or all the branches of that, are good human beings -- I think by and large they are -- this is not to say we should send off a bill of rights for patients -- or a code of practice or whatever you want to call it -- to them to decide what should be done or to the hospital association. More and more as I see this government’s restraint program at work on people who provide medical care in the province or who administer the hospitals in Ontario, I think they are going to have less and less time to consider things like the rights of the patient.

I don’t think it’s getting much prominence in their considerations these days. As I see that financial squeeze get more and more vicious on hospitals and people who provide medical care, I think they are going to have less and less time to think about the rights of the patient.

Some people could be silly and say I am expecting a patient to be able to provide a professional opinion. This is not so at all. I, for one, am prepared to listen to the other side. I am prepared to listen to the compromises that might have to be made. But I am not prepared to yield on the point that people who pay for the health-care system have a right to know what goes on in it. I don’t recognize that they do now, that they even have access to information. I am prepared to recognize that there’s a need for confidentiality of medical records but surely nut from the patient himself or herself. Surely that human being has a right to know what happens with him. I am not suggesting for a minute that doctors and hospitals can give very nifty two-sentence explanations about very complicated medical procedures. But I am saying they surely ought to be skilled enough to provide the patient with a clear understanding of what’s happening to him.

Somebody will probably suggest that you can’t do that to somebody who is unconscious. But surely you can do that to a conscious relative who is standing by, and surely you can explain to people what you are doing to them, without question. Whether they fully understand all the medical jargon used, or the significance of the long-term effects of X-ray, are questions I am prepared to deal with quite separately. What I am prepared to say, and stand by pretty firmly, is the simple notion that there ought to be an obligation on the doctor, nurse nr whoever the medical practitioner is, to explain what they are going to do before they do it.

I don’t think that is too much to ask. Clearly, there is a legal right on the part of patients to understand the process, to know what has happened and in almost every case, to know what is written down about them in a medical file.

In this same Legislature, we saw the ridiculous situation barely two years ago, of a group of people who weren’t even prepared to let those things be discussed by the members. These same people now are supporting putting forward a resolution which in some sense is supposed to rectify that situation. I contend that it won’t accomplish that goal at all. If there is value in supporting this resolution, it is simply to accept a very small crumb and hopelessly to allow some mechanism which will continue the discussion about patients’ rights. I do not see this resolution as accomplishing much more than that.

It has given us an opportunity this afternoon to discuss it again. I am not terribly convinced we really needed another opportunity to discuss the matter of patients’ rights in such general terms. I think we are long overdue for something far more specific than that. I am not happy that the resolution doesn’t call for some legal protection for patients, and if you read the resolution carefully it works its way around that rather nicely. That may or may not be a good thing to do.

The point that I think is pertinent is that the resolution is supportable. Surely this House, at least in this kind of very general terms, ought to be able to express a patient’s basic human right. Because you are sick, you don’t lose all the human rights you supposedly have in a free society; the right to know, the right to have access to your medical records, the right to understand clearly what a medical practitioner is proposing to do to your body and the ramifications of that, as much as you can. Surely we ought to be prepared to do that.

My sadness comes from the fact that this resolution will not do much more than that. There will be no obligation for the Ontario Hospital Association or those people covered under the Health Disciplines Act to carry forward any of these things, because once again the government is expecting somebody else to do what it ought to do. I support the resolution in extremely general terms and I feel saddened that this is the best the government can do after looking at that private member’s bill for two years.

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate and to speak in support of the resolution proposed by my friend and colleague for Carleton.

I believe the question of patients’ rights is a very important one. When people enter hospital today, too often they are not aware of the privileges they already have and enjoy. Although I agree with the principle of the resolution, I do have some reservations about the resolution as it now stands.

My concern is whether it is really necessary to codify into legislation, rights that to a large extent already exist. I have looked at a manual prepared by the Ontario Patients’ Rights Association which lists the fundamental privileges patients currently enjoy. Patients do have the legal right to medical care in an emergency. They have the legal right to control their own bodies; that is, the right to accept or refuse medical advice or treatment.

For example, if a patient wishes to leave a hospital at any time he can do so. Mind you, he may be asked to sign a document releasing that hospital from liability. A patient may refuse any treatment or procedure. However, if this refusal is against his physician’s advice, he may be assumed to have little confidence in his ability and may be asked to seek the services of another physician.

[5:30]

I could go on. There are many other rights, such as the right of voluntary informed consent. An operation or a medical procedure may not be performed on a patient without his or her consent, except in an emergency. This has been alluded to by several speakers this afternoon. In order for consent to be valid, there are some three conditions that must be fulfilled: consent must be given in a free and voluntary manner; the patient must understand the general nature of the treatment, and the consent given is specific to a particular operation or medical procedure.

Patients also enjoy the fundamental right to confidentiality. Medical information is considered to be property of the patient and the attending physician has a duty of secrecy. The patient also has the right to determine whether or not he or she wishes to be used for research or teaching purposes. In experimental treatments, physicians must give the patient a reasonable explanation of the probable effect of treatment and unusual risks before he or she makes a decision.

As you no doubt can see, Mr. Speaker, patients do currently have and enjoy certain basic privileges. I believe the question that really should be asked is: Are they aware of the privileges they do have? A major problem, as I see it, is there seems generally to be a lack of knowledge of existing patient privileges today. Communication between hospital staff and patients is very important.

An example of communication between the hospital and its patients is the explanation of privileges outlined by the Royal Ottawa Hospital.

Mr. McClellan: I thought we were talking about rights, not privileges.

Mr. Leluk: Rights then.

The Royal Ottawa Hospital has stated that as part of the policy of that hospital it wishes to express its concern for the individual rights of its patients and furnish to the patient who may be uninformed of his or her rights a summary of those rights that hospitals for many years have recognized as belonging to the patient. The preamble of the information supplied to the patient goes on to state the outline, although not intended to be a legal summary, assures patients their privileges as outlined by the hospital represent the policy of that hospital and will be respected.

Another of my concerns is simply what might happen if each of the five health disciplines and the Ontario Hospital Association were to develop and adopt their own code of patients’ rights. We could end up with six different and perhaps unique sets of patients’ rights. Inasmuch as each of the health disciplines offers different treatments, and the health workers such as the chiropractors, physiologists and physiotherapists provide services which are quite different, hopefully the quality of these services will not differ.

The question then becomes: Will there be any inconsistency then, between these various bills of rights? Without the benefit of a central, co-ordinated effort to arrive at a uniform code, taking into consideration services rendered by each discipline, it is possible to foresee that certain complaints will arise out of confusion on the part of patients expecting one thing and perhaps not having those expectations met.

Another question that needs to be asked is:

How far do we go in the area of regulating and legislating in the health field? If we adopt all of these codes of patients’ rights, will we then 10 years from now claim there is too much government interference? We may not, but it is a possibility.

I believe improvement of the relationship between patients and health workers must be actively pursued. A mechanism must be developed whereby communication between health workers and patients can be improved upon, hopefully within the existing framework. From the information I have received, it appears that one of the major considerations must be to educate the public with regard to their privileges as patients.

Mr. McClellan: Rights.

Mr. Leluk: I would hope more hospitals in this province would pursue a method similar to that of the Royal Ottawa Hospital of informing patients of their rights.

Again I do have some hesitation about legislating existing privileges. I am not too sure whether patients will be better off than they are now.

Mr. McClellan: Is this a bill of privileges? There is a difference.

Mr. Leluk: What I really mean is rights, if that makes the member across the way feel any better.

Mr. McClellan: You should be consistent.

Mr. Leluk: Right; as you are, constantly -- inconsistent.

Mr. Handleman: Consistently inconsistent.

Mr. Leluk: That’s right. My colleague says “consistently inconsistent.”

Perhaps, as I said earlier, a program of communication and education for the people of this province informing them of the rights they already enjoy might serve the same purpose as legislating these rights.

In closing, I wish to commend my friend and colleague from Carleton for putting forth this resolution. I believe that it is an important issue and one that bears the consideration and support of this House.

Mr. B. Newman: I rise to support the resolution of the member for Carleton and commend him for introducing it, the more so because he happens to be a government member. As a government member, I would think he would have the ears of his own colleagues and, as a result, we could at least get a little quicker action than we would get were it one of the opposition members who introduced or talked on the motion.

Mr. McClellan: You are always interested in window dressing.

Mr. B. Newman: It may be window dressing, but sometimes dressing a window is the right thing to do and maybe this is in that same area. I know we are talking about a motherhood issue when we talk about the resolution, but what is wrong with motherhood? There’s nothing wrong with that. If it takes motherhood to have action on the part of the government, so be it.

I simply regret that we are talking solely about the Health Disciplines Act. There are other areas in which the patients’ or the individuals’ bill of rights should also be implemented.

I look back and see what has happened in the state of Michigan. For years there has been a clamour for a patients’ bill of rights in relation to nursing homes. In all of the years it finally took, this year, 1979, a nursing home bill of rights actually came into effect.

There was likewise in the state of Michigan this same type of discussion. Everyone said there should be a bill of rights but no one seemed to take the initiative to have a bill of rights established. For example, that bill of rights for nursing homes is designed to ensure that elderly persons get proper care and that has taken effect only within the last two months. The bill was approved by the Legislature one year ago, but there is a certain stipulation in their legislation that it automatically comes into effect within a given period of time after it has received approval of the two Houses.

Their legislation tightens state regulations to avoid fraud. Notice there’s a different aspect; it’s not the health aspect this time, there are other aspects to a patients’ bill of rights -- kickbacks, misleading advertising. The top legislative goal of senior citizens’ groups during that particular session when the bill of rights was eventually implemented spelled out the rights of about 45,000 elderly patients in 450 nursing homes. It attempts to curb abuse and neglect and makes violators liable for a fine of $10,000 and a jail term of up to one year. So the honourable members can see the concern that they had in the state of Michigan and I would assume that that same type of concern would be prevalent in the province of Ontario.

That law has come into effect now. Nursing home patients under this new law may refuse unwanted treatment and have the right to reasonable privacy and to receive and send uncensored mail. One can see the extent to which that state looked into a bill of rights by going actually beyond the health aspect of the individual. Yet the ability or the opportunity to have mail not censored, I would think, would have some therapeutic value as far as the patient would he concerned.

We have a smokers’ bill of rights now. Why shouldn’t we have a patients’ bill of rights? It wouldn’t matter to me if we had a patients’ bill of rights for nursing homes, for lodging homes and for rest homes because conditions may vary. There are certain general rules that we would require for each of those institutions, but we could have an individual bill of rights for each, if necessary.

It is more important now due to the fact that a lot of individuals have been released from psychiatric hospitals or hospitals in which mentally retarded were originally placed and sent back into the community. When they get back into the community, they may be taken advantage of by operators of homes that may not be in the best physical shape and which may not have trained staff to accommodate these poor unfortunates who are sent back into the community. As a result, they may be housed in any number in a given room, depending on the size of the room. That individual has no choice as to where he is going to go.

In some instances, there is a body in the community that will attempt to direct the individual to a given lodging home, rest home and/or nursing home. Generally, it is a lodging home or a rest home. There seems to be no uniformity at all. For example, I read an article that refers to rest homes. Whether this is true or not, I can’t actually say.

On December 4, 1978, an article appeared in the Windsor paper concerning the request by the United Way Social Planning Council for a bill of rights to protect rest-home patients from being exploited by homeowners. The article commented that there are no government inspectors and no standards that rest homes must follow. Surely we shouldn’t be taking the unfortunate and putting them in a situation like that, where there are no standards for them. The higher the standard, generally the higher and the better the health care.

People placed in homes for the aged are even locked in at times as the staff may have difficulty controlling them. Because of this, I think there is the need for some type of codifying so that when a person is placed in the institutions or in the nursing home or in the rest home either he, if he is capable of understanding, or his friends and/or relatives may know exactly what rights that individual does have.

[5:45]

There is the problem of confidentiality, but I think the patient should have the right to view his records. I happen to have worked on a problem for a constituent in which one relative of the family was placed in a government facility. The family insists that that patient’s records have some inaccuracies. The decision as to whether that person should be transferred from one institution to another, they claim, is based on inaccuracies, yet they, the family, don’t have the opportunity to view the records to see if there are the inaccuracies and correct them. As a result, that patient could be transferred to a different institution, an institution in which recovery would be much greater, much better, and the individual possibly could be released back into society.

I heartily support the resolution by the member for Carleton. I hope any other speaker who comments on it does so also.

I hope the government does not just sit on this but actually implements it by introducing some other legislation of its own so that a standard bill of rights for all types of patients in government institutions will be a fact of life.

Mr. McClellan: The previous speaker issued a challenge to us, I suppose, when he said, “Who in this House is opposed to motherhood?” I didn’t hear anybody take him on on that. But I’ll say clearly and unequivocally that I too support motherhood and I intend to vote for the resolution.

Mr. Handleman: I was just starting to wonder, that’s all.

Mr. Breaugh: We can think of a case where motherhood produced a poor result.

Mr. Conway: I hear the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) made off with the whooping crane resolution.

Mr. McClellan: The resolution is vague in the extreme and I was concerned when I heard the member for York West talking about privileges and rights without making any distinction or differentiation. He doesn’t seem to understand they are two separate things. A right is something that belongs to the individual and a privilege is something that’s bestowed by somebody in a relationship of authority over that individual. I wish members on the government side someday could come to an understanding of the difference between rights and privileges. They clearly don’t have any understanding today, in this area or other areas.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think we have a clearer understanding of the distinction.

Mr. McClellan: I think, perhaps, the author of the resolution does understand he’s talking about rights.

Mr. Conway: Reuben used to understand that before he pulled out.

Mr. McClellan: It’s easy to write a resolution asking the government to implement rights but it’s much more difficult to define.

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

Mr. McClellan: I simply want to say I hope the government will do just that.

Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I could have listened to the member for Bellwoods support motherhood for the rest of the evening but I think we all want to go home.

I was very pleased to hear the member for Renfrew North mention Mrs. Coy because the germ of the idea for this resolution, notwithstanding some of the comments opposite did not arise out of the member for Parkdale’s previous private bill.

Mr. Conway: I bet it didn’t come from the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) either.

Mr. Handleman: It came as the result of a television program I appeared on with Mrs. Coy and the former Ombudsman. It was in a previous incarnation, when we were talking about various rights in the field of consumerism.

I also wanted to set to rest some of the concerns expressed by members opposite about the very bad approach to this problem by members of the professions.

Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable members keep their private conversations down? Your colleague has the floor.

Mr. Handleman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The actual resolution came directly as the result of a doctor in my riding calling me to say that it was long overdue. I agreed with him; I agree with him entirely.

I would like to make it clear that simply because a resolution comes from a member on this side of the House it does not necessarily mean it’s government policy. I know there has been this great tendency, particularly in the benches opposite me now, to introduce party legislation under the guise of private member’s bills. This is not government legislation.

Mr. McClellan: That’s not legislation at all.

Mr. Handleman: This is a private member’s resolution. I hope the government will adopt it. I sincerely expect they will, having read the comments in Hansard of all the members. That is the purpose of the private members’ hour. It’s to draw to the attention of the government deficiencies in legislation so that the government can correct them. This is not an alternative government; it was never designed to be that.

I certainly hope the Minister of Health and his colleagues in government will read Hansard and decide what to do with this resolution after considering the points of view which have been expressed. I am appreciative of the unanimous consent which is apparently going to be given to it. I also understand some of the reservations. I have some myself.

I have looked at some of the rights granted, for example, by the Royal Ottawa Hospital which I mentioned as being a great hospital. One of the rights granted to patients in the Royal Ottawa is to refuse consent for anyone to be present who is not directly involved in the care of the patient.

The Royal Ottawa happens to be a teaching hospital. This could create great problems for the students if the patients decided to exercise that right, obviously. That is why I feel these rights have to be carefully defined, supported by legislation, and I think my resolution comes down the middle between those who would have the government do everything and those who would have the government do nothing.

That is the road I would like to follow in this period, similar to the 1970s liberalism my friend from Renfrew North talked about. I remind him that is a small “l” because there aren’t any large-L Liberal governments anywhere, but we support the concept of liberalism in that sense.

I hope the government will pay heed to this resolution which appears to be on its way to earning unanimous support.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member have anything to say in one minute?

Mr. Conway: Let’s hear from the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson).

Mr. McClellan: I think it is unfortunate that the member --

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has already spoken.

Ms. Gigantes: But only for a minute and a half, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Conway: I want to hear from the Minister of Education, the last of the great democrats.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 98:

Baetz, Birch, Cureatz, Drea, Elgie, Gregory, Handleman, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson J., Lane, Leluk, Maeck, McCaffrey, McCague, McNeil, Norton, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Rowe, Scrivener, Stephenson, Sterling, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wiseman--27.

PATIENTS’ BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Handleman has moved resolution 19.

Resolution concurred in.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.