Journal des débats 1982-juin-03 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege. I hope we can get the Premier (Mr. Davis) to correct the record when he arrives, because I think it is very important.

Speaking on Tuesday of this week, the Premier said, "The Liberal Party of Ontario sits there day after day in the House, obstructs, does not want to pass a budget that will provide incentives to small business, that will provide encouragement to home ownership, that does something in terms of giving a measure of confidence to the investment community." Those are the exact words of the Premier.

I know and you know, and I am sure the Premier knows but was inadvertently misleading the public, that we are not passing the budget now. In fact, we will not vote on the budget until this December.

I would like to offer a bit of an explanation. The comments made by the Premier were made in the city of Hamilton. Perhaps it was just that the Premier had been given advance notice that the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce was about to pass a resolution proposing to sell Suncor and that the mover of that resolution was Maurice Carter, a former Progressive Conservative candidate.

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of privilege. I have to rule that out of order.

TAX ON NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege, if I may. My point of privilege relates to the reply of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) to my question on Tuesday dealing with the removal of the sales tax exemption on meals and taxing all meals at seven per cent. I have a copy of Hansard for June 1 in my hand, and I would like to read what the Treasurer said at page 2205:

"I do not believe that it will cause that loss of jobs. It is an industry I know reasonably well. I do believe the Leader of the Opposition will find that I am quite properly taxing a retail sale like most other retail sales and that it is properly taxable" -- and this is the offending part -- "and is taxed by many provinces in the way we are doing it."

That is factually untrue. There is no other province that is taxing meals in the way we are. Three provinces do not tax meals at all. The remaining provinces all have exemption levels, below which no tax is applied. For the sake of the record, I would like to give the facts.

British Columbia has no tax. Alberta has no tax. Saskatchewan has no tax. Manitoba has a $6 exemption level. New Brunswick has a $2 exemption level. Newfoundland has a $3 exemption level. Nova Scotia has a $4 exemption level. Prince Edward Island has a $2 exemption level. Quebec has a $3.25 exemption level.

I have taken advantage of this opportunity to correct the record and ask the Treasurer to withdraw his remarks and correct the record rather than be accused of inadvertently misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the record will be corrected.

[Later]

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, do you mind if I digress for a minute to the point of privilege? I think the Leader of the Opposition was technically accurate when he read my words back to me. Often, when reading words said orally, one is able to see the context of the sentence. I have them in front of me.

The key words the member stressed were "in the way we are doing it." I have to agree that is inaccurately used there and I accept that as a fair comment. When I said that, it was in regard to taxing meals and the words "in the way we are doing it" are not accurate, because each province has a different tax rate from ours or a different threshold.

USE OF MEMBERS' NAMES IN DEBATES

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of all honourable members a matter that is of some concern to me.

I am sure all members will remember that last session, when I attempted to return to the original parliamentary practice of recognizing the members by name when they rise to speak, a number of members objected to this practice and wished me to return to the former practice, which has grown over the years, of recognizing members by their electoral districts or ministers by their portfolios. In accordance with those expressed wishes, I have followed that practice.

You can imagine my surprise and astonishment, therefore, to find that the members, including those who protested the change that I had attempted, are now in the habit of referring to other members by name during debate, sometimes by even their first names alone or with surnames.

Debate, of course, is the one time when it is completely out of order to refer to other members by name. I would therefore ask the members to be more careful and to adhere to the correct parliamentary rule in debate of referring to other members properly by their electoral districts and ministers by their portfolios or, in either case, even by some such indication as "the honourable member who has just spoken."

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everyone here today has heard of the Ontario travel industry compensation fund. In the past seven years this fund has paid out more than $2.5 million to consumers who had claims arising out of the collapse of travel agencies and companies. This is the kind of industry initiative that deserves the full support and appreciation of the Ontario government and citizens of the province.

I am pleased to announce today that my ministry has been asked to help set up a similar fund to compensate consumers who are caught in the collapse of a car dealership. This afternoon I will be introducing a bill to amend the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act which will set up this fund.

By way of background, the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act was passed in 1965. At that time, a $5,000 bond was posted by each of the car dealerships and this was enough to cover potential consumer claims but, as the industry has rightly pointed out, it is not enough today. Some dealerships are running trust accounts as high as $20,000 and acceptance of $1,000 deposits is commonplace. A $5,000 dealer bond would not go very far if a dealership went under and the trust account was not intact.

As well, the industry has told us that posting bonds has become increasingly expensive and that processing of claims is a time-consuming and cumbersome process for consumers.

2:10 p.m.

After many meetings with the industry it was decided to amend the act to establish a compensation fund. We hope to have it in place by the end of the year. The money will be placed in trust and administered by a board of trustees made up of industry, government and public representatives. Administrative costs will be covered by interest from the fund.

During the meetings it was also decided that consumers should be the only ones to benefit from the fund. Dealers and other financial agencies, as is the case in the travel fund, will not be able to apply for compensation.

In conclusion, I wish to extend special thanks to the Automobile Dealer Associations of Ontario for their time and co-operation. The implementation of this fund is an important step in the process of sharing regulatory responsibility. Working together on a board of trustees will surely enhance understanding between this government and the industry.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX BURDEN

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. The Treasurer no doubt will be aware that at a meeting on May 19 the Association of Municipalities of Ontario put out a press release with respect to the effects of the budget on the municipalities. For his benefit I would like to quote a few sentences from that release:

"The provincial expectation that municipal governments are able to assume these additional costs at a time when municipalities are already experiencing fiscal restraint is unrealistic. The budget in effect offsets the 1982 transfer payments as announced by the Honourable Claude Bennett on January 28, 1982. At the time when the transfer payments were announced, the association stated its concern regarding the inadequacy of the 10.5 per cent increase over the amount budgeted for municipalities in 1981. The impact of the Ontario budget now magnifies many times this inadequacy."

AMO has called on its members to be militant and take their case to the members of the Legislature of all parties. In view of the fact that the Treasurer did not consult with the municipalities before he entered into this major shift of the tax burden, will he send that bill to a committee of this Legislature this summer and allow the committee to bring in outside expert witnesses, such as representatives of the municipalities, to put their case to the government that this tax is unfair and iniquitous at this time?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I was quite aware that every board of education and every municipality in the province would contact members here and complain about any sales tax change or, in fact, any tax change. Last year, I made some changes in the licence plate fees, and I am sure most of us heard from municipalities about that.

In so far as I can tell, this change will affect the gross spending of municipalities by 0.5 per cent. There are many changes in every budget which increase the spending both of governments and of companies. For example, the change in the gasoline tax in any year when it occurs does that. The change in Ontario health insurance plan premiums does that. The change in semi-private rates will affect a company like Blue Cross. The addition of sales tax on labour affects insurance companies.

One of the reasons there is always some reaction to any budgetary tax change is that it affects many people in a way they cannot predict in advance. By comparison with other tax changes, I have to say this is not unusual in its size or impact and I believe it is fairly applied. Some of those tax changes are subject to provincial grants under certain circumstances -- many of them are not, I accept that as a fact. Most of them are not, I am not trying to deny that. I am simply saying to the Leader of the Opposition that it is not an unexpected change. Does he really expect the municipalities of this province to endorse that change? I think not.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer is the one who constantly decries the federal government for lack of consultation before it brings in new changes in fiscal arrangements. He is the one who brought in this budget after the majority of municipal budgets had been set. Now they will have to either cut back on services, go into deficit positions or take a variety of other emergency measures to deal with the provincial budget, which was unfairly imposed after the fact.

There is quite a significant financial impact. I will give the Treasurer some statistics. We are getting many letters daily from municipalities and school boards outlining their difficulties:

Sarnia, $85,000; Chatham, $99,000 for sales taxes plus OHIP; London, $411,000; London Board of Education, $695,000; Sudbury Board of Education, $403,000; Mississauga, $125,000 in sales tax alone; Hamilton Board of Education, $382,623.

Even the tiny community of Beeton wrote to tell me it will incur an extra $30,000 cost on some capital projects it is undertaking for which it was not allowed to plan or budget.

Given that the Treasurer brought in these changes arbitrarily after these plans had been made, with no notice, he has the obligation at least to hear these people out in a public forum this summer. That is a fair and reasonable request. I ask the Treasurer to instruct his party to have an open hearing this summer and listen to these witnesses.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not think I heard a question in that whole statement.

Mr. Speaker: It was a statement.

Hon. F. S. Miller: There is quite a difference between changing the tax rate of taxable commodities or taxable entities and changing revenue-sharing agreements. The federal government changed revenue-sharing agreements. That is the fundamental change, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, given that the Treasurer has some justification for his disapproval of the federal curtailment of revenue sharing, does he not agree that the municipalities have an even stronger case for disaffection and dissatisfaction, in that there was no negotiation or announcement ahead of time and that the Treasurer is effectively taking revenues away from them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think I just answered that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Peterson: Why will the Treasurer not allow a hearing this summer for the affected parties to inform him of the difficulties they are going to experience this year and in the future with respect to his budget? Why will he not allow that public hearing?

Hon. F. S. Miller: There are many ways municipalities advise us of their feelings. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) steadily has meetings with municipalities, and I am sure he will be deluged with letters and demands from them for a review. My colleague the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) will get the same kinds of requests.

We have changed tax bases that affect, in general, the type of commodity tax and the people subject to paying that tax. One of the principles I enunciated in the budget, and one we have been following at the federal and provincial level, is that we should pay each other's taxes.

The Leader of the Opposition tends to forget that the province is paying grants in lieu of taxes to municipalities for properties that in the past often received no payment from the province. That was because we believed we should be doing that. In the future we will continue to review that to see that we pay our fair share of taxes at the municipal level. We believe that is a proper objective. At the same time, they should be paying their fair share of the taxes levied by provinces.

2:20 p.m.

ONTARIO HYDRO SALARIES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Treasurer. I take him back to his budget of a month or so ago. He said in that budget: "I now serve notice to all recipients of provincial funds that they should not count on future funding at or above inflation rates. If we did so, we would doom our economy to continuing high inflation and high unemployment."

Given the government's imposed six per cent wage ceiling, how can the Treasurer justify salary increases for Ontario Hydro employees of 15.1 per cent in 1982 and 12.5 per cent in 1983, a move that has a serious impact on electricity rates, which increased by 9.6 per cent to municipalities this year and are proposed to increase by 13 per cent, above the rate of inflation, next year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, there are two things. The details of the negotiations at Ontario Hydro may best be obtained from the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch). What I did say in my budget speech was that I was not interfering with the people who are members of collective bargaining units. I was setting a six per cent ceiling on people who were not in the bargaining units and were part of the management team of the province.

I was also putting in place a sunshine law requesting emanations of government, those entities that receive most of their money from government, including crown corporations such as Ontario Hydro, in future to publish salaries of people making more than $30,000 a year so that the public would be aware of changes in those salary levels. We believe that will apply to Hydro. We have discussed that with them, and they have accepted that fact. One will be able to tell whether they are passing on increases to executives which exceed the guidelines we are using in the province.

Mr. Peterson: I am quite well aware what the proposal is; it will be dramatically above that. The Treasurer is quite well aware that Ontario is responsible as the guarantor of all Hydro's borrowings. He is aware that Hydro employs some 24,000 people. The proposed increases will be more than 15 per cent and will bring the average salary of someone employed by Hydro to more than $45,000 in 1983. How can the minister selectively bring in restraint in some sectors and not in other sectors when they are all ultimately under his jurisdiction?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Do I read into the Leader of the Opposition's comments an objection to the fact that we are taking some steps to control salaries that are not in bargaining units in the province? Does he not agree that we should have limited them to six per cent? Is he implying that we should have paid them the 12 per cent they deserved? I really have not read into his question what he is saying.

As far as I know, that settlement either was negotiated before my budget came out or was in the final stages. I did not involve myself in the negotiation process, nor did I imply that we would be involved. But surely, whether it is members of the Legislature here or members of the province's senior staff directly within the government, we should set a leadership pattern which we hope will have some effect upon the overall level of negotiated settlements in Ontario, be they in the public or private sectors.

Mr. Peterson: Given that is a noble ambition and there is no disagreement, how can the minister impose that selectively and at the same time go to those people with a 13 per cent increase in Hydro rates? These are all agencies under his jurisdiction, and one of the reasons the Ontario Energy Board was established was the large increase in electricity rates because of the staff's high demands. Surely if he is going to bring in restraints he has to apply them fairly across the board. Or is he just fiddling in a political way?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would like the Leader of the Opposition to compare the salaries of the people in Ontario who work for this government with the salaries in Quebec.

Mr. Kerrio: What does that have to do with it? That's a lot of baloney and you know it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It has a lot to do with it. The honourable member knows it has. The Quebec government's salary levels are far higher than our salary levels.

Mr. Kerrio: That's a ridiculous argument.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The members opposite do not want any comparisons, and yet the very first thing any negotiating team does is make comparisons province to province and level to level. The members opposite know that. Every board of education, every municipality and every province is doing it all the time. The members opposite do it all the time, and they know darned well they do it all the time.

This province has shown leadership. Mr. Parizeau said he wished he had taken the steps Ontario did in 1976 to cut the growth of spending so that he would have had some flexibility. He has to lay off 17,000 people and freeze salaries. We have already done it.

WELFARE PAYMENTS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Treasurer. I wonder whether the Treasurer has had brought to his attention the statement by the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, called A Statement on Provincial Underfunding of Social Assistance Programs, and the Metro social services commissioner's report of May 27 to the community services and housing committee, entitled GWA and the Need for Adequate Allowances.

If he has had those brought to his attention, what comment does he have on the statement by the social planning council that the shortfall in purchasing power for recipients of general welfare assistance ranges from $1,060 for a single person under 65 to $2,457 for a recipient under the guaranteed annual income system for the disabled who has a spouse and no children, and that to restore incomes in 1983 to the 1975 level would require a benefit rate increase of 24 per cent to 37 per cent in October 1982?

Also, does the Treasurer know that the Metro social services commissioner says, "In the case of a four-person GWA family, the allowance will fall to nearly half the poverty-line level in 1982 unless dramatic rate increases occur"?

How does it feel to be the Treasurer who brings in a budget that he says is for winners when he fails to bring in increases for the so-called losers in our society at the same time? This is a budget that tramples on all those people, and places Ontario in seventh place in social assistance rates. Both Alberta and Saskatchewan have rates 50 per cent above those of Ontario.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the report and therefore I will not venture any comment on it. But I will say this: If I do not bring in a budget to encourage winners -- the people who pay taxes -- then I am in no position to help losers.

Mr. Foulds: In one documented case on the rolls of the Metro social services commissioner, that of a family with two adults and two children aged 12 and 16, after they had paid their rent and bought their food for the month they had $20.38 left to buy all those nonessential items that the Treasurer has started to tax, such as deodorants, soap, shaving cream and school supplies. Is the Treasurer aware that the individuals in that family have exactly 17 cents a day to spend on items other than rent and food, let alone to buy a baseball, a basketball or a baseball glove?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have great confidence in my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) to make recommendations to cabinet. I also have great confidence in our cabinet to treat the people of this province fairly, as they have done for years.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, given situations like that just described -- and I know the Treasurer is very well aware of them, because we all hear about them in our constituencies -- and given the very serious difficulty a lot of people are facing in this province, does he not honestly feel it would have been better to use the Suncor money to help people in need rather than wasting it, and chronically wasting it with the interest running up, on the Suncor purchase? Would that not be a fair and more humane way to spend that money in a time of recession?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend, for whom I have a lot of respect, has espoused the cause of small business in this province, and his party has espoused it. Yet if one analyses my budget, one will see that the area to which we gave the greatest degree of help is small business, to help it recover from this very tough time and to reinvest; and second, that is exactly where we are investing our money --

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: That is not the question. That has nothing to do with it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think it does. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to imply that we did nothing to help, but that is exactly where we put our money. We put our money where our mouth was and helped them. We also helped first-time home owners, who we hope will create jobs. It gets back to creating the wealth that will help us to support the social services our friend talks about.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, is the Treasurer aware of the 40 per cent and more of welfare recipients, according to the Minister of Community and Social Services, who are using private housing? The single employable recipient on general welfare assistance in Toronto will be paying, on average, $308 a month to rent a single-bedroom apartment. He or she has been allocated by the social services committee an allowance of approximately $77.52 as what is needed to feed one person for one month. Therefore, when one finds that person receives only $266 a month from this government, he has a deficit of $119.52 before he goes to buy anything else he may need to operate in our society.

How can the Treasurer say his government has been responsive to this when that is the present situation for people in Toronto?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The honourable member uses the figures. I am not going to challenge them and I am not going to try to give him other sets of figures. I can only say the Ministry of Community and Social Services spends a good deal of time analysing those very needs. Whether he is satisfied with the level of support or not I believe he will find we have treated people in that category fairly.

Mr. Foulds: I wish I had another supplementary question for the Treasurer, because surely he would agree those people are not receiving adequate incomes and his government, under his budget, will not be able to supply them.

ENERGY RATES

Mr. Foulds: I have a new question to the Minister of Energy, if he could take his seat and stop his little tête-à-tête with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope).

Interjection

Mr. Foulds: Does he not like having tête-à-têtes with the Minister of Natural Resources?

Mr. Speaker: Is that the member's question?

Mr. Foulds: Does he blush when he has them? Does he find that -- the Premier is blushing. He probably does not --

Mr. Bradley: He's for freedom of information.

Mr Foulds: Go ahead. Make your maiden speech in the House.

Mr. Martel: What did you feed them today?

Mr. Foulds: To the Minister of Energy: There are two applications for rate increases before the Ontario Energy Board which, if approved, will discriminate against conservation measures and northern Ontario residents. Those applications are the Ontario Hydro application for seasonally adjusted rates and Consumers' Gas application for its flat rate administrative cost during the summer when most people would not be using their gas furnaces.

Can the Minister of Energy tell us, as a matter of government policy, if it will allow these discriminatory steps to be taken against those who conserve and against consumers who live in the north? What steps will his government take to protect the consumer?

Hon. Mr. Welch: As the Minister of Energy has said on a number of occasions with respect to similarly-worded questions, it would be improper for him to comment at this time about two applications that are at present before the Ontario Energy Board.

I assume the honourable member would expect there would be far more integrity to the system to allow the applications to be considered by the board.

Mr. Foulds: How can the minister expect the Ontario Energy Board to make a decision in a vacuum if there is no policy coming from the government? Who speaks for the government on this issue? Is it the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), who has said in the north but not down here in the House that he opposes that discriminatory practice against northern Ontario in Hydro rates? Is it the Minister of Energy or is it the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), who failed to show up when my colleague asked him a question? Who protects the consumer? Where is the government policy? How does the minister expect the OEB to operate in a vacuum?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I know that because the honourable member is the critic of the Ministry of Energy he understands the system and understands the role of the Ontario Energy Board to which applications have to be made. The member will know very well that one of the matters he is talking about itself was the subject of about three years of public hearings before that same board and was incorporated by that board in its report on the whole energy pricing study.

I want to make it quite clear that we have matters before the Ontario Energy Board. We have an opportunity for public review of these matters before the Ontario Energy Board. That is where both of those matters are at the moment. It would be improper to ask me to make any statement that would be deemed as trying to influence the outcome of that hearing process.

Mr. Martel: It would be proper for you to say that there would be no discriminatory --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Well, it's my people.

Mr. Speaker: It is very nice to see the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) back, feeling much better and able to voice his opinions; but please do it at the proper time.

Mr. Martel: I just say, Mr. Speaker, the people I represent get shafted --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Sargent: Let's have some order around here.

Mr. Peterson: He is absolutely right. There is the next Speaker right there.

Would the minister not agree with me that he runs the risk of being seen as Lady Macbeth in this whole matter? He is washing his hands of the responsibility for a philosophy of energy pricing.

Does he believe we can continue just to keep it at arm's length and not to get involved? Should we not rather have a philosophy and a method of energy pricing to discourage consumption, to encourage conservation? That is going to have to come from him.

How can he stand here constantly, day after day in this House, and say it is not his fault, it is the fault of the Ontario Energy Board? Surely he has a responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am being very direct in my answer with respect to a procedure with which I would hope the Leader of the Opposition is familiar. We have a franchise holder in the province, one of the companies, before the energy board, where it should be, making application with respect to its rates.

We also have a procedure, which is set out in the legislation, for the request of Hydro to be referred. I am assuming that the Leader of the Opposition is familiar with all those procedures. That is where those matters are. All I am saying is that at this stage it would be improper to interfere with that system, and will be so until such time as the board has heard that application.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister say it is inappropriate for him to make a statement when the Ontario Energy Board, like the Ontario Municipal Board, will follow and must follow the policy of the government?

Surely there is an obligation on him to state the policy of the government with regard to the conservation of energy. If he will not even make such a statement, will he assure us there is going to be a fair hearing by having a ministry of his government intervene there to represent the consumers?

Finally, will he ask the government to appoint a public advocate so that consumers can be adequately represented at these hearings and not allow a situation similar to that at the last hearing where there were 20 witnesses for Consumers' Gas Co. and not one lawyer or other person there representing the consumers of this province?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as the honour- able member will recall -- I think it was last Friday when we had the exchange -- the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) asked for some clarification with respect to government policy as it related to off-oil, and as it related to conservation and the targets connected therewith. Government policy with respect to these matters is clear and has been enunciated on many occasions. I am only sorry that when the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) called the St. Catharines Standard on Tuesday or Wednesday, and all the radio stations back home, he overlooked --

2:40 p.m.

An hon. member: They called him.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Oh, no, they did not call him. He overlooked that part of government policy, and so no doubt, because of this exchange today, when he rushes to the phone to make sure this has been raised again, he will be fair enough actually to make it clear back home that government policy on those subjects is quite clear and has been well articulated.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: With the permission of the House, I would like to introduce to all honourable members a special group sitting in the Speaker's gallery and in the public gallery on the west side. They are an official delegation from the government of the region of Basilicata in Italy, led by their Premier, the Honourable Carmelo Azzara. I would ask all honourable members to join me in welcoming them.

[Applause]

[Translation from Italian].

Ms. Copps: On behalf of our Liberal Party I would like to welcome to Canada and to our good province of Ontario all the group from Italy. Thank you.

[End of translation].

BALLOON IN LEGISLATURE

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege very important to all members of this House. It is interesting enough that on the sheet that indicates where members are sitting you are in blue. I would like to call to your attention that in this chamber at the present time, if you look upward at the ceiling, you will see that someone has smuggled in a blue balloon. Interestingly enough, it has risen to the ceiling. I will leave it to your discretion to determine how.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure if that is a point of privilege or just an interesting observation, but I had nothing to do with it, I can assure you.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister was quoted in the press yesterday as having stated that proposals from the Canadian Medical Association for rationing of medical services are abhorrent and not necessary in Ontario, where all emergency and urgent cases are treated promptly. We certainly agree on this side of the House that the idea of rationing medical services is indeed abhorrent.

I would like to ask how the minister can say that all urgent cases are treated immediately when we know that in April the waiting time for heart surgery at Toronto Western Hospital was eight to 10 weeks. We know at that same hospital the waiting time for suspected malignant tumours was three weeks. Yesterday I had an opportunity to visit the Huronia Hospital in Midland where patients are waiting an average of three to five days on stretchers in the emergency room before they are admitted. That includes patients who are waiting to be admitted into the intensive care unit. They are being treated on stretchers in hallways and on stretchers in the emergency room.

How can the minister say that adequate medical treatment is being accorded to people who are actually waiting on stretchers in emergency rooms to get into intensive care units?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On any given day in this province we have approximately 85 per cent capacity in our hospitals. That is about what it should be. It is about the proper average, as any established hospital organization or health care delivery service will tell the honourable member. Obviously if we were running at 100 per cent capacity we would have a problem, and if we were running at 60 per cent capacity we would also have a problem. The question is what level prevents the situation of having a chronically filled hospital on one's hands, which would be the case if they were running at about 95 to 100 per cent.

If one looks across the system, our hospitals are generally running at about 85 per cent capacity. The member could ask hospitals across the province to inform her, as they inform us from time to time, when they suddenly have a group of people who need beds and therefore take the capacity count above 100 per cent. There is no question that will happen on occasion.

Conversely one could build a system that would ensure we would never have a situation where some patients are on cots in an emergency ward for a longer period than we would like to have them. But then the system would have been overbuilt to accommodate the three or four or five days per year when a particular hospital may be at more than capacity.

The member cites the Toronto Western Hospital, but let us be realistic about this. We have thousands of acute care beds in this part of the city. Those patients who have decided they want to have the services of a particular physician at the Toronto Western Hospital have obviously, together with their families and physicians, decided they would prefer to wait for surgery at the Toronto Western Hospital. This is their choice rather than going to another equally competent surgeon at another hospital who would very likely have a bed available on that same day.

Those are medical and personal decisions that have to be made. If one is going to run a rationalized health care system throughout the province one has to accept that some people will make that conscious decision to wait for a bed with a particular surgeon and a particular hospital rather than go literally 10 or 15 blocks away and get an equally competent physician, who no doubt would have beds available on the same day in another hospital.

Ms. Copps: I am not sure the minister got the gist of my question. At the Huronia hospital the average waiting period in the emergency room is three to five days. In fact the maximum has been eight days. The chairman of the hospital board waited in what they call "purgatory" for three days after she suffered a car accident. She could not even get a bed in the intensive care unit or in one of the other wards. When the minister talks about occupancy rates, I might point out the occupancy rate in the medical ward at that hospital is 120 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting patiently for the supplementary.

Ms. Copps: That hospital is not an old hospital. It was built in 1975. Why has the minister not approved, even seven years later, the number of beds that were built and are sitting waiting to be occupied? Why have those beds not been approved in full, even though the hospital was opened seven years ago?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Having toured the province, the member knows very well there are certain situations where we do not want to fund the opening of more beds unless there is a proven need. If in a particular area the hospital alleges there is a situation that causes an average delay in the emergency ward of a certain number of days, it does not mean the people responsible for advising the ministry in that area confirm that.

We do have planners in that area who report to us. It is our belief that at the present time the situation the member recites is not an accurate reflection of the general state in that hospital. A snapshot of the situation on any given day there, with respect to the member's allegation that it runs chronically at --

Ms. Copps: It's all year.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: Talk to the administrator once in a while.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With respect, not only has my staff communicated on a regular basis with the administrator but my colleague, the excellent member for that area, has drawn the situation to my attention on several occasions. We have talked about the matter --

Mr. Wrye: Then why have you not done anything about it?

Ms. Copps: We know the Premier (Mr. Davis) has a cottage in the area.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was there to open the hospital. It's a great hospital.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And he will be there to expand the hospital.

I am pleased the member noted, though, that there are not two levels of health care for the province. Who was it? The administrator of the hospital?

Ms. Copps: The chairman of the board.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The chairman of the board. I am pleased to note the chairman of the board did not get preferential treatment in that hospital over any other citizen in that area. That is a good indication that my colleague the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) has all his constituents being treated in a one-tier level of health care delivery, as he would want it.

In all seriousness, the hospital has drawn this situation to our attention, we are concerned about it, and we have recently approved some extra funding for that hospital. My colleague has talked to me at some great length on that matter. We are now reviewing the situation in that entire area.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware, as his predecessor was, that a large part of the log jam in our hospitals is caused by the large number of elderly patients who are occupying after-treatment beds because there are not sufficient extended care, long-term care beds available for them.

Since the minister has received the latest report of the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto which confirms the situation has not improved since its report in October 1980, can he tell us, according to the commitment he made to us a few months ago, when he intends to table his plans for additional long-term beds, extended care beds, nursing home beds and homes for the aged and chronic care hospital beds? Will he table those plans with the House so we can at least have the latest set of promises from this government? Then we can hold it accountable when it breaks those promises, as it has broken all its previous promises to build additional extended care beds.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I know the member wanted to say that, but this government has not broken its promises in terms of extended care beds. I hope literally within the next two weeks to be able to announce several hundred new nursing home beds for this province, with tenders to be let and proposal calls to go out this year. I believe I will be ready to do that within a couple of weeks. I will be informing the members on this side of the House with regard to where those beds will be allocated.

Mr. Haggerty: I hope it is going to be announced.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will announce the ones on that side. The member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) does not have to worry about that. I may even go to his riding; because of the urgency put on the situation in the Niagara area by the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) there will be some beds for the Niagara area in case he is wondering.

Mr. Haggerty: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Health that due to the pressure put on by my colleague the member for Brock (Mr. Welch), 20 beds that have been removed from --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

WILD RICE HARVESTING MORATORIUM

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Perhaps the --

Mr. Kerrio: Dr. Davis, calling Dr. Davis.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I'm here, I'm here.

Mr. Kerrio: Are you opted in or opted out?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I'm opted in; I'll give you psychiatric treatment any time.

Mr. Laughren: I am trying, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps the Premier will recall that about four years ago he declared a five-year moratorium on the harvesting of wild rice by non-native people in the area covered by Treaty 3. When he declared that moratorium he stated: "Ontario will extend its efforts to assist Indian licensees to develop appropriate technology and to increase utilization of the available crop with the primary objective of establishing an economic base for the involved Indian communities."

Since that moratorium is scheduled to expire at the end of the current growing season will the Premier make a commitment here and now to extend that moratorium indefinitely?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I believe this matter was raised a week or so ago when we met with a number of chiefs. The prime reason for the meeting was a discussion of their point of view as to how the constitutional change should be taking place, but I think the moratorium was raised by one or two of the chiefs when they were here.

Just a day or so ago I was presented with a rather complete report from the chief in the area. The report, as I recall, is going to the federal government for its reaction. I also think it is going to Treasury Board, at least this is what he told me.

From our standpoint, I informed the chief we would assess this document carefully. Quite obviously it involves the native people, the government of Canada to a certain extent and probably Ontario. As soon as they have some indication from Ottawa as to its reaction to these proposals he will let us know. In the meantime we are assessing it very carefully.

The question of the moratorium is still under consideration here. This new presentation gives some greater depth to some of the proposals that have been discussed. The moment we have some reaction to this or some further word from the chief himself relative to the government of Canada we will be delighted to communicate it to the member.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could persuade the Premier to think seriously about the extension of the moratorium. Wild rice could very well be the economic backbone of many of those native people's communities. The moratorium has not given the native people adequate time to develop an integrated harvesting, processing and marketing program for their wild rice. I would ask the Premier to seriously consider designating wild rice as an exclusively Indian resource so that the Indian people in this province could use that resource to improve social and economic conditions in many of their communities across Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: From the decision made by the government as to the initial moratorium it was quite obvious we were very anxious to see if this could become one of the stabilizing influences of an economic nature for the native people. We are assessing this now.

The honourable member is suggesting that the length of time was not sufficient. I am not debating that. I think this report will give us some insights into that. Certainly we are very anxious to proceed with this in a constructive way that will be of benefit to the native people.

I think it would be a bit premature, until we get some reaction from the government of Canada. The native people wanted this. They are the ones who said to me, I guess it was on Tuesday, that they were anxious to have the decision of the government of Canada.

This is a point of view that related to some of their discussions on the Constitution as well.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, in a discussion I had with the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) the other day on this same theme, the response from him was that the native people should be encouraged to be much more aggressive not only in so far as harvesting is concerned but also in processing and marketing.

Given that the chances of the moratorium not being extended are rather good, that the moratorium will be lifted, can the minister say if the government will give any assistance for the native people to be more able to process and market?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to give a commitment at this moment because we have said to the native people that we are assessing it. Perhaps the honourable member is jumping to conclusions when he suggests the extension of the moratorium is unlikely. I think that was his phrase; "chances are rather good that it would not be extended."

Mr. Van Horne: That is your own opinion.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I never like to differ with the member for London North, but there have been a few issues where his opinion has been different from mine and where my opinion maybe had greater relevance than his. This may turn out to be one of those cases where his opinion may turn out to be wrong. I say that very kindly.

Certainly, the objective, which is contained in the brief presented to us, of the native people getting more involved in the processing and marketing of this product, is obviously an extension of the harvesting. I know the member is a great fan of wild rice. When he sees the success in some other parts of North America in the marketing of this product and its market acceptability, he will realize there is a great opportunity to have wild rice from Ontario used by more consumers, not only here but in other parts. I know whereof I speak, and I am sure the member shares that point of view with me.

MUNICIPAL ELECTION REFERENDUM

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Is the Premier aware that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has written to the clerk-treasurer of Longlac township indicating that, under the Municipal Act, nuclear disarmament is not a valid municipal issue to put before the electorate?

In view of the fact the Premier himself has acknowledged that this issue is nonpartisan, and in recognition of the profound effect that a nuclear disaster would have on all of our children, will the Premier instruct his caucus to support the Nuclear Disarmament Referendum Act, 1982, which I will be introducing in the House this afternoon and a copy of which I have sent to the other two parties in this House? Will his party agree to allow speedy passage of the bill so that each municipal council across the province will have sufficient time in which to consider whether it wishes to include the question on the 1982 ballot?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I know the honourable member himself is a very thoughtful person, and he rarely expects a request from this side of the House that a bill, before its introduction, will receive unanimous support and speedy passage when he has not read the bill. I have never found him doing that; I have never found any members of his caucus doing that.

About 10 seconds ago I was given a copy of the bill that I understand the member proposes to introduce this afternoon. I acknowledge that it is only three sections. It would not take me a great deal of time to assess it, but this is when I saw it, just about 10 or 15 seconds ago.

In answer to the earlier part of the member's question, I am sure he has read the letter sent by the Attorney General. Is that a fair question? I am sure he wants to represent what was in that letter fairly to the members of the House. If he wants to do so he might have the courtesy to read the letter, because perhaps those who hear the letter may get an impression of it that is different from the way he worded his question. He might have the courtesy to do that, or perhaps he might ask the Attorney General what he meant by what was contained in his letter. It may turn out that what he meant was in fact somewhat different from the question the member asked.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General obviously will have an opportunity to explain his interpretation of the letter if he wishes.

I have a supplementary for the Premier on the same matter, which I regard as very important. Does the Premier recall that on May 13, 1982, he said that if the referendum were to take place, "We do have the responsibility of seeing it is done in a way that will not lead to the potential of the invalidation of the election itself"?

Since the cities of Ottawa and Toronto intend to put this question before their constituencies despite any contrary legal advice, and since at least 20 other municipalities have demonstrated a clear desire to include the question on the ballot, how does the Premier intend to live up to his commitment of May 13?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I tried to follow very carefully what the honourable member was reading. I have a suggestion. Just as a matter of courtesy, when he reads a fairly complex question that has been written out, it might be very helpful to all of us if he would just send it in a few minutes before he intends to ask it. It was hardly a spontaneous supplementary and a matter of this kind is of importance to all of us. If he had sent me a copy of it I might have been able to respond with more particulars.

Mr. Bradley: You mean, read it like a ministerial statement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am suggesting a very logical, intelligent way of dealing with some of these matters. I realize that for the member for St. Catharines to think through anything --

Mr. Bradley: I know you have been advised from behind you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I realize that for the honour- able member to think through anything intelligently or logically before he perks up in his seat and says something is asking a great deal.

To go back to the Attorney General's letter: I think he did refer to the validity of a bylaw. I may be totally wrong in this, but I have not seen the letter. As I recall, what I said when it was raised by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) was that my understanding was that it was not a question of whether I agreed with the general thrust of this discussion; I think I expressed the point of view that all members of this House would share this same concern.

I think I said to the member for Scarborough West that I was concerned because the impression I had had was that perhaps it was not legal for the municipalities to do this and that perhaps it would leave open the possibility of invalidating the election itself. That was the point I was expressing.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Premier did indicate he would respond to us about the question of legality and perhaps also about the question of whether or not the bylaws could be brought forward. When will he be giving us that information? When will he clear up the situation for us as to whether or not this could invalidate a municipal election? Will he be willing to take steps to make sure it does not, so these referendums can take place around the province this fall?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was listening but I was also consulting with the Attorney General. I hope the honourable member will understand that.

The Attorney General is the chief law officer and knows far more law than I will ever know.

Mr. Foulds: His record does not show that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What do you mean, "His record does not show that"? Of course he knows more law. Don't you?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Right.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question, please.

Mr. Foulds: That is not high praise.

Mr. Kerrio: How about another opinion?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Premier please address his answer to the member for Scarborough West.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly make my best effort to do so, except that when the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) with his Queen's Counsel interjects, knowing how little law he ever knew, I find it hard not to reply.

Mr. Peterson: I couldn't know less than you, so that qualifies me to be Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If knowledge is any qualification for being Premier, the honourable member will never make it.

I would say to the member for Scarborough West, perhaps by early next week we can have an opinion that the Attorney General would be prepared to share with him.

EXEMPTIONS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Does the Premier recall that some time ago he promised there would be appointed an advisory committee to his office to look into all exemptions to the Environmental Assessment Act? If he recalls that very firm promise, will he tell us why it has not yet been appointed and when it will be?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I usually remember the commitments I make. If the honourable member can refresh my memory, I would be delighted if he would communicate that refreshment to me.

Mr. Laughren: In writing to several interested groups in the province, the Premier assured everyone that there would be an advisory committee appointed to review all exemptions to the Environmental Assessment Act. If the Premier will listen to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) for a moment, he will fill him in. I believe names have already been forwarded from the Minister of the Environment to the Premier in the hope that he would appoint that committee.

Assuming the Premier now knows what he promised, could we have an assurance from him that when that committee is struck, it will be given the authority to review all exemptions to the Environmental Assessment Act, not simply those exemptions that the cabinet decides should be exempted or referred to that committee? Will he assure us that the committee will have the authority to review, in a very public way, all exemptions and not just the ones the cabinet decides it should review?

Hon. Mr. Davis: To be serious for a moment, I am aware of the suggestion that was made. I think it has great validity. I am informed by the Minister of the Environment that the guidelines and structure of this are now being finalized. I expect I will personally be able to see it within the next few days. It may not be this week, but within the next few days.

Mr. Martel: That is like the railroad you were building from Parry Sound to North Bay 10 years ago.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Premier seems to be forgetting some of the commitments he has made in the past and is now relying more heavily on his ministers than he did in the past, would he consider consulting with a gerontologist to make sure everything is all right?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I consult with a number of people. I even listen to advice from across the House. While I really truly do confess to having a more limited memory than the member for London Centre, I do remember those things that are relevant. My ability to remember those relevant things is one reason we are here, he is there, and he is going to stay there until the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps), the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) or whoever else is lurking in the background tries to get him out in 1986.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. According to the information contained in a publication or report known as the Selective Object Code Expenditure Report, which is produced by the financial information and accounting policy branch, Treasury division, Ministry of the Treasury, total advertising, excluding Ontario Hydro and the lotteries, amounted to $40.35 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1981, $23.9 million for 1980 and $17.9 million for 1979.

3:10 p.m.

Since the election is over and the government no longer has to squander millions of dollars on blatantly political advertising and self-congratulations, would the minister give an undertaking to this House that, as Treasurer of this province, he will insist that the advertising budget be cut by two thirds, thus providing some measure of relief for the beleaguered taxpayers of Ontario, whom he has already attacked in his most recent budget?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have run into requests from most honourable members of the opposition for information on various programs, as have all other ministers, I am sure. One of the things we have done well and continue to do well is to keep the people of this province informed about the programs in the province, about their rights and general information that is of use to them. I think that is a fundamental responsibility of government in a democracy.

Mr. Bradley: At a time when the Treasurer is asking so many sectors in this province to restrain themselves, and when he is extending taxes, particularly the sales tax, does he not feel it would be a gesture of goodwill, and a good example to the people, if he were to cut that advertising budget, which I think any objective observer would agree is largely for self-congratulatory messages?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would not do that. We live in a complex society, as I am sure the honourable member realizes from the number of times a week he receives questions at his riding office from people who are trying to sort out what services are available from what level of government. For instance, how many times has a senior citizen come in to inquire about a program?

Dealing with those questions is a major responsibility for everyone in this House. It is essential that we make available to people the basic information they require, and we do that very well.

PETITION

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have the following petition:

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

"We the undersigned beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows: We the undersigned most heartily oppose the recent amendment to the Retail Sales Tax Act."

This petition is signed by me, and by 208 others from the Mini Mart in Roseland and area.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wiseman, first reading of Bill 130, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

Motion agreed to.

REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wiseman, first reading of Bill 131, An Act to amend the Registry Act.

Motion agreed to.

LAND TITLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wiseman, first reading of Bill 132, An Act to amend the Land Titles Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as part of my ministry's ongoing commitment towards facilitating the French-speaking community's conduct of real estate transactions in its own language, I am pleased to introduce for first reading today the Land Titles Amendment Act and the Registry Amendment Act.

These two acts are administered by the property rights division of my ministry and they currently require that all instruments written in any language other than English must be accompanied by an English translation and an affidavit from the translator certifying its accuracy. Today's amendments will provide for registration of some of these instruments in a bilingual form in designated areas of the province.

Initially, this use of French will be limited to transfer and cessation-of-charge instruments in the land titles systems and to deed and discharge-of-mortgage instruments in the registry system. All such instruments will make use of an approved list of French-English terms, but any additions, such as covenants and recitals not using this list of terms, will still have to be written in English or accompanied by a certified translation.

I would point out that these amendments have been introduced after consultation with the French-speaking community, most particularly l'Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario, and its president, Mr. Robert Paris of Ottawa. We would like to thank the association for its support for these changes.

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT REFERENDUM ACT

Mr. Epp moved, seconded by Mr. Cassidy, first reading of Bill 133, An Act to authorize Municipalities to obtain the opinions of Electors with respect to Nuclear Disarmament.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, this bill would authorize municipalities to include a question concerning nuclear disarmament on election ballots. There are a lot of municipalities that would like to put this on their ballots. There are some differences of opinion with respect to the clarity and the legality of putting this on municipal ballots, particularly now that we have the new Constitution for Canada. It is my feeling this bill would help to clarify some of that and, if this House were to adopt this bill, would give the municipalities the clear green light to go ahead and have that referendum during the fall elections in November.

INCO LTD. ACQUISITION ACT

Mr. Martel moved, seconded by Mr. Laughren, first reading of Bill 134, An Act to acquire the assets of Inco Ltd.

Motion agreed to.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, this bill is really being seconded today as well by my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), by all the workers on strike at Inco and even by the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) in one of his previous political charades. And since I have the Premier (Mr. Davis) and his cabinet on my side in the purchase of resources, there should be no problem getting this bill through all three readings in a hurry.

Mr. Speaker: You are supposed to explain the bill.

Mr. Martel: Here are the explanatory notes, Mr. Speaker; the whole shmeer.

The purpose of the bill is to vest the title and control of the assets of Inco Ltd. -- and the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) will note that it is situated in Ontario -- in a crown corporation, the Ontario Nickel Corp., better known as "Pinco." If compensation cannot be agreed upon, provision is made for arbitration.

The objects of the Ontario Nickel Corp. include the task of operating and maintaining the assets of Inco Ltd. so as to provide employment and other economic benefits to Ontario. The headquarters will be located in Sudbury.

NURSING HOME CARE

Mr. McClellan: I have a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, which relates to the commitment that the Minister of Health made in question period on Tuesday, June 1, to report on the matters raised by my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) with respect to the Willson Nursing Home in St. Thomas.

I raise it because I understand that since Tuesday the management has retaliated against the employees by withholding their paycheques because of the fact that the matter was raised here in the Legislature, and I hope the minister is able to make either a statement to the House or some kind of report indicating what action he intends to take to protect the employees.

Mr. Speaker: That is a point of order rather than a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am in your hands in this matter. I do have a response, as I had promised the member for Windsor-Riverside the other day, but in view of his absence today, I thought I would wait until tomorrow morning. If it is the desire of the member for Bellwoods, and with the concurrence of the Speaker, I will give that response right now.

Mr. Speaker: I think it may be more appropriate to deal with it tomorrow.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Grossman, first reading of Bill 135, An Act to amend the Unified Family Court Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this amendment to the Unified Family Court Act, which has the effect of continuing the unified family court project for an indefinite period.

Our experience with the unified family court project in Hamilton over the past five years has been extremely positive. We have been very pleased with reports we have received from the public, and the bar in Hamilton has indicated almost without exception that the court provides an invaluable service to the community in the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth.

The court can deal with all the disputes that divide a family at one place and time, and it does so both humanely and expeditiously. The judges and conciliators on the staff of the court regularly report to community agencies in an effort to deal with the nonlegal aspects of a family problem and to help the family members through extremely difficult times.

The result is that we are moving, by the introduction of this bill, to make the unified family court a permanent fixture in Hamilton-Wentworth. We are also taking this opportunity to make a few housekeeping amendments to the statute. The Unified Family Court Act contains a self-repeal provision as of July 1. We will be asking the House to approve this legislation before that date.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 93, 106, 129, 149, 154, 165 through 169, 170 and 181 and interim answers to questions 148, 152, 153, 155 through 159, 162, 163, 164, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 and 182 standing on the Notice Paper [see Hansard for Friday, June 4].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

VDT OPERATORS' SAFETY ACT

Mr. R. F. Johnston moved second reading of Bill 18, An Act for the Protection of Video Display Terminal Operators.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the honourable member he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation. You may reserve any portion of that time for your windup.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve about four minutes, if I might, because it is a very comprehensive bill, which I think will probably raise a number of questions from members around the House.

It is a pleasure for me to introduce second reading of this bill today. It is the only bill of its kind that has been debated in Canada, so we are making some kind of history today. The member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn), like myself, has presented a bill for consideration. Mine happened to come up before his on the Order Paper, but we both expressed interest in this. Interestingly enough, there has been discussion of this in Maine and in Illinois in the past, and just recently there have been hearings in Massachusetts under the House committee on commerce and labour. But this whole discussion is really in its early days. We are receiving calls for copies of this bill from as far away as Vancouver and California. Lately, I have even had a request from Europe to see what we are doing.

The reason is there is a great need for legislation of this kind in the province and, in fact, around the world. What we are dealing with here is one of the issues that strikes at the question of the office of the future and the kind of shape it will take, as technological change has a huge impact especially on the service sector of our society and our economy.

When I introduced this bill last November, our estimation was that there were approximately 250,000 video display terminals in operation around the country. The estimate now is that there must be well over 350,000, and as many as 800,000 operators are working on these machines around the country. The producers of these machines claim they will be increasing their supply of video display terminals in the marketplace by 35 per cent each year for the next three to four years. So there is going to be an incredible flood of these machines, of various standards and quality, around the nation.

We need legislation for a number of reasons. First, we do not know the extent of the problems this kind of technology can cause, in health and safety terms, to workers. We know some specific things about eyestrain, stress and back ailments, but there are a number of unanswered concerns that are bothering a lot of us, especially a lot of the workers in the field: the effect of the machines on things like cataracts and eye disease in general; glaucoma; the effects of long-term use of these machines, which have really only been used a great deal in the last four to five years, in terms of eye deterioration.

Then there is the horrendous fear out there now concerning the clusters of miscarriages and failed pregnancies, the lack of knowledge as to whether the machines have an effect on these, and the whole concern about the effects of low-level radiation, especially the combination of radiation which the VDT machines emit, even if only in small quantities.

3:30 p.m.

The people who operate these machines are mostly women and mostly unorganized. They work with a wide variety of equipment for which basically there are no standards in this country. We presumed when we brought in health and safety legislation in this province that the office was a safe place, that there was no real need for discussion of the office in our debate of Bill 70 in 1978.

I think we have been shown to be wrong. The fact is that the toners used in duplicating equipment have materials in them which cause problems and perhaps are carcinogenic. But we cannot get a breakdown of the constituent parts of toners, because office workers have no rights. Even the whiteout material, which is so helpful to the secretarial staff, turned out to have carcinogenic contents and its formula had to be changed.

Just because one does not expect a rock to fall on one's head, as might happen in a mine, there is no reason to believe the office is necessarily a safe place to be.

This is a pretty comprehensive bill, and I expect members to have difficulty with portions of it. I am totally open to amendment to specific portions of it, because this is the first real attempt to try to put this kind of situation in legislation. But there are some principles we discussed in the second reading of the bill which I think it is vital for the House to consider.

People who are working on these machines should not be guinea pigs. They should not be left without protection until we know the total effect of these machines on the people who are using them. In the past we have seen what it was like to presume that lead had no impact on people, and that asbestos had no impact on people, and then to find out, 15 to 20 years later, that they were the cause of cancer in those people.

We have found just recently, in the case of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., that there are not adequate safeguards against the low levels of radiation that most of the experts had presumed to be safe, and that people who have been working at Chalk River for years at levels which were supposedly safe have contracted cancer which is considered to be compensable.

We cannot continue to place working people in the position of being at risk until we find out, too long afterwards, that they are in danger.

The second principle of this bill is that there is available today the technology, as well as the administrative capacity, to protect people in the work place. I tried to lay out my bill as comprehensively as possible to include the various administrative measures for protecting individuals.

The third prime principle of this bill is that those who are office workers have a right to a say what equipment should be used and to know how technological change is going to affect them. They have as much right to protect themselves and to provide themselves with a safe work environment as does anybody in the industrial sector.

I hope those principles are accepted by all. If they are, then because of the lack of knowledge in a lot of the areas of this bill, I am perfectly willing to discuss and negotiate how we implement them. I would love to have this bill go out to committee so that we could invite experts to discuss this whole notion. As my bill is not much different from the one the member for Lakeshore has produced, I would hope he would feel the same way.

One of the sections of the bill deals with standards, a major one being that there should be no sale or lease of new machines that have any radiation other than visible light. There should be pretesting of all machines, and verification of that pretesting should be available to any purchaser. This is technically feasible right now.

It is interesting that any shielding of VDTs that is being done at the moment is almost all in the military field. Both in Canada and the United States there are companies that are providing totally shielded machines to the military. The reason has nothing to do with the occupational health and safety of the operators; it has been found that the low-frequency radiation in those machines is disrupting communications. Because it is disrupting communications in other electronic equipment, full shielding is needed.

Companies such as AES Data Ltd. and Wang are providing this kind of equipment to the military right now. If it can be made available to the military for those purposes, it should be made available to office workers for their protection and occupational health and safety concerns.

It is interesting to note that the Federal Communications Commission in the United States has just set out guidelines requesting shielding for video display terminals and other equipment because of the effect on police communications in several parts of the United States, so an initiative is being taken right now, and the technology is there.

Our bill does not anticipate that every machine out there at the moment needs to be fixed immediately. We do put in a grace period of one year. We also suggest that shielding can be made possible for existing machines in a partial way for about $25 and in a complete way for between $200 and $400 a machine.

The principle that needs to be stressed is, "If you can protect it, why not protect it?" just to make sure there is no radiation from those machines which might have an effect in the long run on many people in this nation, especially women and perhaps unborn children.

The other factor in this area is that there is a huge turnover of these machines now. With the new technology coming on stream, a lot of the machines currently there will be replaced in the next year or so, or at least that is the suggestion by the industry.

Another principle in terms of standards is that there should be an inspection of machines on a six-month basis. Primarily this has to do with the visual strain, because the tubes seem to deteriorate in about that length of time. Any kind of adjustment of the machine in terms of brightness does not aid the sight of the individual working at that machine. Unless the tubes are replaced, there can be no assistance to those people.

There is a whole range of things concerning adjustability of machines. What is happening at the moment is that they are putting machines on to existing furniture, which is totally inappropriate. That is one of the things that is causing both the eyestrain and the back problems that workers are starting to complain about as the machines are more widely used.

There are standards in here about the flicker rate. I do not want to bore members about the details of those, but it is very important that these standards be met, again for reasons of eyesight deterioration. Then there is the whole question of office lighting and the importance of having good distinction in terms of lighting and, as much as possible, having indirect lighting. Those are some of the standards.

Two important elements of this bill revolve around rest periods for workers and pregnancy exemption for workers on these machines. In terms of rest periods, there is no problem for a journalist, for instance, who is on and off the machine during the day. He may be on the phone, etc. The problem is for someone who is in front of a machine, 18 inches away, for periods of seven, eight, 10 or 12 hours a day, which is happening a great deal.

A case I personally know of is that of a woman who works an average of eight hours a day in front of a machine, with the only break being for lunch. When she leaves work now, most nights she finds it takes her 20 minutes to learn how to focus past about four to five feet in front of her. She stopped driving home from work as a result of that, because she had difficulty seeing traffic signs and that kind of thing. The problem goes away after 20 minutes or half an hour, but it is severe.

We do not know the long-term dangers involved in this at the moment, but we know the immediate impact on eyesight. There are studies in Europe and the United States that all confirm this. I therefore put into this bill the suggestion that there should be a 15-minute break for each hour worked and that nobody should work for more than four hours in a 24-hour period.

The member for Lakeshore offered another approach to it. He suggested a 15-minute break for every two hours worked and no more than two hours' continuous work on a machine. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in the United States differentiates between people working within high and low visual demands, as it calls them. There are some changes in that area. The Swedish National Board of Health and Safety puts out guidelines for the whole nation, with a four-hour maximum and two consecutive hours as the maximum before one must have a one-hour break.

3:40 p.m.

We in the New Democratic caucus have negotiated a collective agreement with our staff, saying the limit must not exceed four hours total and after 50 minutes there must be a break. We have been able to administer that. I know one of the complaints that may be raised by businesses is how do they, in a small group, organize it in such a way that they can actually have people working for only four hours in a 24-hour day? We found it to be totally possible with only two or three people trained to use those machines in our unit. I think in most offices around the country it would be possible.

Again, I would be open to an amendment on that. The principle that is important is that the break be held. One must have a break to protect the individuals involved.

The question of relief for pregnancy is addressed in the bill. If the worker finds out that she is pregnant, she should have the right to withdraw her services from working on those machines and move to another position with no loss of pay.

The reason for this is a great concern about the clusters of pregnancies that have gone awry and have not come to full term. We know of the most recent case in the office of the Ministry of the Attorney General. There are many other clusters to which I can allude.

We do not know whether the VDTs affect this, but interestingly enough we have a total double standard about it. In the legislative library, the Speaker has decided that the women who are pregnant need not work on the library machines but can go to other work, yet the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) will not make that a condition for people in other places in the civil service.

The New Democratic Party caucus does have that as part of its collective agreement. I have a case here, which I will not go into, of a worker in the industrial sector, an office worker with 13 years' experience, who was hassled a great deal because she was afraid to work on a terminal after she found she was pregnant. After a great deal of battling, she won her case; but it is not something that is accepted in general.

We do not know the effects of radiation, we do not know the synergistic effects, and so we have the anomaly of workers in various parts of the province wearing lead aprons at these machines -- lead aprons which will not protect them from a number of the radiation effects.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to concede at the moment that I would like my time now rather than breaking my train of thought; so I will take my 20 minutes.

The Deputy Speaker: Fine. Thank you.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I must say the importance of that section is vital to all of us. None of us feels it is worth while taking the risk of having pregnant women working on these machines and then finding out later that we may be causing birth defects and other difficulties. The right to withdraw one's services and still receive remuneration must be accepted, even if George Jonas in Toronto Life, that neo-Libertarian, will not allow himself to understand this is a principle that should be accepted by society.

We also deal with the need to have eye examinations on a regular basis. This was also in the bill introduced by the member for Lakeshore. The wording in my bill speaks only of ophthalmological testing that must be picked up at the employer's expense. I did not mean to leave out testing by optometrists. I think they would have the same kind of capacity to find the kinds of problems we are worried about, and wording changes could be made there easily in terms of having vision testing on a regular basis, paid for by the employer.

Corrective lenses and glasses for workers must be an accepted expense by an employer when they are found to be necessary if somebody's eyesight has been affected by his or her work. There must be no personnel screening of individuals because defects of vision are found. What I am talking about here is the notion that a person can have an eye test and in the course of that eye test he would find out that there is a tendency towards glaucoma in the family, and that would be used against the individual who wanted to work on a machine.

All the optometrists and ophthalmologists I have spoken to have said that there are corrective lenses available that would enable almost every individual who might have some kind of sight defect to work safely at a machine and that it must not be used as an excuse to stop somebody from going back to work with corrective glasses.

The other principle I talked about was the power of the workers themselves. Workers in our offices around the province must have the right to have health and safety committees with the same powers as other workers under occupational health and safety legislation. They must have the right to know. They should have this kind of legislation and those regulations posted so they will know what to expect when they are working on machines. They must have the right to withdraw their services, and the burden of proof must be on the employer and not on the employee when there is a concern about a particular machine.

Unless we have that kind of power for the working people in offices and the power to have some say about the acquisition of equipment, then these workers will not have the same kind of rights as others in our society and will be second-class citizens. I think that must be unacceptable to us.

While all this is going on, the other principle that is in this bill is that studies must be undertaken. There is a total lack of epidemiological studies and of studies on the effects of a range of radiation. These machines emit almost every kind of radiation, except atomic radiation, that one can imagine. We do not know the impact of having all those kinds of radiation coming out of one of these machines.

Tomorrow, for the first time in Canada, there will be an international forum on the effects of low-level electromagnetic radiation by video display terminals. It is a beginning, but much more must be done on this.

The government, through this legislation, would have the power to enact that kind of study. Instead, what we have is a task force set up under the Ministry of Labour which is talking about the health effects of VDTs. The majority of the experts on that panel do not believe right now that low-level radiation has any effect on individuals. They are already biased against that, even though there have been no studies in North America to show this one way or the other.

It is vital that we get at this issue now. The expansion in the numbers of women and men working on these machines around the province will be enormous over the next year or two. This legislation, with whatever appropriate amendments would come out of discussion here and in committee, is the kind of thing we need to protect those workers now and to make sure they are able to work with a feeling of security as offices change over the next number of years.

I ask all members to please join me in supporting the principle of this bill and to help me and my colleagues work on developing this legislation to protect workers in Ontario.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, the various issues surrounding the subject of video display terminals are likely to be with us for a good many years. Concern about the use of VDTs has risen dramatically in the past few years; unfortunately, much of this concern has been fuelled by various fearmongers acting in their own self-interest. The actions of these people have made it difficult for other concerned individuals to be heard.

My own bill to safeguard terminal operators addresses what I feel are the major problem areas with VDTs and is in no way as heavy-handed as the bill we are discussing today.

I do want to compliment the member for Scarborough West for his interest in VDTs. VDTs are a topic of current public concern, and rightly so. Certainly, some of the provisions of this bill are so unacceptable from a scientific viewpoint that a number of people who examined this bill found it quite difficult to take it seriously. I will go into some detail shortly. However, it is a bill that is before us and it must be defeated if we are to remain a serious deliberative body in the eyes of the Canadian and international scientific communities.

Because I am not a technical or scientific expert in the field of VDTs, I attempted to read as much on the subject as I could and to contact a number of knowledgeable people on certain specific matters. What I have read and heard confirms that the VDT debate centres on a few key areas, as the member for Scarborough West is aware.

When dealing with the issue of occupational health and VDTs, two separate areas of concern stand out. The first, which is the favourite topic of the hysteric fringe, is radiation. The second, which I am convinced is actually of greatest significance, is the area of ergonomics and office environment.

With regard to radiation, the distortions and scare tactics that the public and workers have been subjected to have reached almost frightening levels. Booklets and manuals which claim to describe and clarify the way in which VDTs work actually misinform the reader and usually present one-sided and seriously unbalanced viewpoints. In one breath, they say VDTs will be the asbestos hazard of the 21st century, while in the next breath all they can say is that the effects of exposure to radiation from VDTs, if any, are unknown because the levels are so low.

Even after admitting the existence of very low radiation, these people say the real danger might be the synergistic effect; that is, the combined effect of all these minute levels of radiation. Unfortunately for the proponents of this theory, no bit of evidence exists to give even the slightest indication that there is any type of synergistic effect of radiation from VDTs. If one cannot measure it, one certainly cannot legislate it.

3:50 p.m.

I mentioned earlier that I was not any sort of scientific or technical expert on VDTs. Neither is the member for Scarborough West. I have had to rely mainly on material that is easily read and understood, just as my colleague opposite has. I believe both of us -- my colleague the member for Scarborough West can correct me if I am wrong -- read a publication prepared by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. The information in it has been presented in a very readable manner, and the writer and editor of this piece should be congratulated for their work.

It was only after I showed this publication to a number of specialists in radiation biology that I was told part 1 of the publication, dealing with radiation, contained misquoted or highly selective evidence, if it can be called that, intended to present only one side of the argument. One comment I received in a letter a few months ago said this part of the report was "an excellent example of how to blend sufficient scientific fact with anecdotal evidence and unsubstantiated evidence in order to produce a propaganda document credible to the naive reader."

It would seem the more sensationalist articles proved to be more attractive in the preparation of the booklet than did the drier and obviously more boring scientific evidence. It is really a pity that scientists are not yet considered trendy. If they were, more people might be willing to look at their work.

Returning to the OPSEU report, it did state:

"In the absence of firm epidemiological evidence linking radiation from VDTs to health problems, we cannot make conclusive statements about a radiation standard. However, neither is there a scientific basis nor a medically reasonable rationale upon which to base a claim that VDTs are safe."

But radiation has been studied and a medically reasonable rationale does exist to show that there are no radiation hazards from VDTs. Radiation exists naturally, we are all exposed to it at all times, and safety standards for radiation exposure do exist. Field surveys of VDTs can be made with reasonable accuracy, the only problem being that field survey equipment is susceptible to emissions of radiation from outside its range of calibration, which may lead someone to the conclusion that a given form of radiation is being emitted when it is not.

When a series of tests was carried out under laboratory conditions and compared to field surveys, the more sensitive laboratory tests showed readings well below those carried out by the less sophisticated field survey equipment. A great many tests of this kind have led to the conclusion, in regard to VDTs, that radiation is a nonissue.

Writing in the Canadian Medical Association Journal of September 4, 1981, Dr. Ernest Létourneau, the director of the radiation protection bureau of the health protection branch, Department of National Health and Welfare, reported the results of 10 years of testing under his Radiation Emitting Devices Act. His conclusions support those made around the world that VDT X-ray emission is effectively zero as VDTs emit less than 1,000th of the natural background radiation to which everyone is exposed.

The same is true for microwave radiation. The measured level of ultraviolet radiation is reported to be 1,000 times lower than that permitted in continuous occupational exposure or, for that matter, than that found outdoors. Infrared radiation and airborne ultrasound emissions also have been shown to be low, according to Dr. Létourneau.

Finally, electromagnetic radiation below 10 megahertz has also been shown to be low. It should be pointed out that this electromagnetic radiation is the same as that emitted by a large number of household devices.

Most special-interest groups probably will not be satisfied with the standards calling for anything other than zero radiation. The member for Scarborough West seems to echo these calls in the section of his bill which states, "The terminal shall not emit radiation other than visible light." Perhaps my colleague opposite never took physics in high school and does not realize that the moment the VDT is turned on the current will create an electromagnetic field and that the operation of the machine will create heat, which is also a form of radiation.

The point concerning radiation, for anyone who is at all serious about the subject, is not what is emitted but how much. All available evidence points to the fact that emissions now are nowhere near the maximum safety levels and that there is no evidence to indicate these safety standards must be changed. Keeping this in mind, we can say that VDTs can and do emit a range of radiation; however, the same is true for digital calculators, photocopiers, automobile ignitions and anything else that uses electrical and electronic circuits.

Finally, to wrap up my remarks on the radiation aspect, I would like to cover the effects of VDT and static fields, which my colleague opposite includes in his definition of radiation. Static fields do not radiate energy but, because attempts have been made to link static fields around VDTs to skin rashes, he would like to see this legislation enacted to do away with such fields. However, to do so he will also have to enact legislation to do away with virtually all synthetic clothing, synthetic carpets and dehumidifiers, all of which contribute to static buildup on the tube faces, cabinets, keyboards and desks of VDTs.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, VDT ergonomics is probably the more important issue and one which my own bill has been formulated to cover. Physical and visual problems are the major problem areas we must examine, as well as some psychosocial ones that are being identified. The introduction of VDTs into the work place can result in a number of significant changes to workers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The honourable member has used his time. Thank you.

Mr. Cassidy: Not well, but he has used it.

[Laughter]

The Acting Speaker: There will be no response from the gallery.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I want to join this debate and say that I have listened with interest to the first two speeches, by the member for Scarborough West and my friend the member for Lakeshore. The member for Lakeshore has also introduced a bill, which I see in glancing through it is nowhere near as comprehensive as that proposed by the member for Scarborough West. I must admit that, having had a look at the bill and having noted the obvious interest of my friend the member for Lakeshore, I find it very disappointing that he has made the remarks he has today.

I have problems with some individual aspects of this bill, which I have discussed with the member for Scarborough West, and I will enunciate them as I go on. It seems to me, since we are debating second reading, or approval in principle, that we should be speaking to the principle of whether we are going to begin to offer some protection to the growing number of operators of VDTs.

After glancing through this bill, which as I said is very comprehensive, I am persuaded that there are enough good principles here that I for one, if given the chance by this government, shall vote in favour of the bill, and I urge as many of my colleagues as possible to do so.

As I mentioned at the outset, the bill is very comprehensive and thorough. But what persuades me that we need to move in this area is the number of people involved. As the member for Scarborough West pointed out, we now have some 750,000 people involved across the country, and that number increases by the hundreds every day. It is an area that has literally exploded upon us in the past half dozen years or so, and the explosion, by any account one reads, will continue through the rest of the decade and probably through the rest of the century.

4 p.m.

The area I have very little problem with, and I think the honourable member has done good work, is section 4 of the bill. I know my friend the member for Lakeshore spent all his time worrying about a detailed scientific explanation of the radiation levels. I am not an expert in the field and I really have not done a lot of work on it, but I am not persuaded yet that the long-term effects of radiation are proven.

I think my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) is going to have a few words in rebuttal today. I am also not persuaded that hey have not been proven, and when I look back to what we now know about asbestos, I find it rather ironic that my friend from Lakeshore would say the radiation from VDTs is a late 20th-century scare tactic. To compare it with asbestos, I am sure we have heard all of these calm, cool, rational comments that there would be no problem with asbestos -- calm, cool, rational comments which in the cold light of the experience of 20 and 25 years were proven to be absolutely wrong.

I think that even if the radiation problem is not there, there are very many other important aspects to the problem. I appreciate that my friend from Scarborough West has addressed them. There need to be many detailed standards of operation for the safe operation of video display terminals. Just about every report I have read, and I have read a goodly number in the last few days, has spoken of it. We are facing problems already, but some years down the road we are certainly going to face an explosion of back problems, of eye problems, of neck problems and all of these things. We must attack the individual standards now in order to avoid these problems. I note that the bill makes mention of most of the important areas.

Each of the aspects of the machine must be individually adjustable -- the terminal itself, the copy holder, the chair, and the proper lighting, that very important aspect which is so misunderstood now. There must be proper lighting within the room, the vast majority of it, if possible, being indirect. These are matters which must be dealt with now and I think it is very important that we look at these problems and establish standards right at the outset. From all I have read, I think it is very clear already that we know what needs to be done.

We know that we need good posture. We need a back rest to support the lower back. We need a chair height, as is pointed out in this one report, that is conducive to the horizontal placement of thighs to allow feet to be flat on the floor. We need a desk and keyboard height to allow the horizontal forearm-hand positioning, and the presence of a document holder placed at a similar angle and distance as the VDT to avoid excessive bending and twisting of head, neck and eye adjustments.

We know we need all of those things now. If we do not address them now we are going to address them in an important monetary way some years down the road. In fact, we are going to address them through a lot of discomfort for workers and that is probably the most important aspect.

I want to talk about section 6 of the bill and my friend from Scarborough West alluded to this. Let me first deal with subsection 6(1) of the bill and that is the 15-minute rest period for each hour.

I am not yet persuaded that in a truly comprehensive bill we should have simplified this one area. I would read from the June 1981, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health research report, Potential Health Hazards of Video Display Terminals, which says:

"Based on our concerns about potential chronic effects on the visual system, we recommend the following work rest breaks for VDT operators:

(1) A 15-minute work rest break should be taken after two hours of continuous VDT work for operators under moderate visual demand and/or moderate work load. (2) A 15-minute work rest break should be taken after one hour of continuous VDT work for operators under high visual demands, high workload, and/or those engaged in repetitive work tasks."

By and large that follows the proposals of a number of other groups, specifically the labour research bulletin put out by the Ministry of Labour in British Columbia. It suggests 15 minutes for every two hours for those working under moderate visual demands, 10 minutes after every hour for operators working under high visual demands. That is an area I would want to amend and would wish to discuss with my colleague for Scarborough West if this bill were to go to committee.

There are two other aspects I should express my support for. First, these must be scheduled breaks. We cannot have breaks that fit the work demand. It is good for the employer that we do so, as well as for the worker, if the employer is interested in it, because otherwise we are going to have a very low level of quality activity after a certain period of time. It is very important that workers have a regular rest for their eyes. Second, it is important that this rest period be taken away from, not at, the work place. This is very important in terms of reducing stress, which is showing up as a very serious problem for VDT operators.

Finally, I suggest another area of concern in that the member spoke about a maximum of four hours in every 24. I have some very real problems with that part of section 6. My friend the member for Scarborough West commented on what was intended in subsection 10(5). I am not yet persuaded that has been addressed fully.

However, I will vote in support of the bill.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have some prepared notes which I propose to throw away at this time, simply based on listening to the member for Lakeshore. Having been in this Legislature for a long time and having been involved in the fight with respect to the workers in Sudbury, some 100 of whom died of cancer in the sintering plant, and never having had the help of people on the government side, I really worry about the nonsense being talked about a crazy scientific study that must prove this is the case. Why do we not err on the side of health and safety for the workers just once in our bloody lives?

I made several trips in and out of Elliot Lake and the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) never raised his voice in this Legislature once. We finally prevailed upon this government to introduce a study called the Ham commission on working conditions in mines. We had workers dying all over the place. We never erred on the side of safety and health for the workers; we always erred on the side of scientific studies.

We just recently approved two cases of cancer at Chalk River because of gamma-ray exposure. The workers in Elliot Lake actually sat on the bloody stuff and still do to this day. The Ministry of Labour and the Workmen's Compensation Board will not accept that these men have any exposure at all to gamma rays. None.

There are scores of workers who either have cancer or have died from cancer working in the mills in Elliot Lake, and we are going to prove it. We are going to have another study and we are going to look at it, and more workers can die -- but there are two sample cases where it was all under control at Chalk River. Those fellows in Elliot Lake, who work in the mills, many of whom are dead, are not considered to have suffered any exposure because it was only gamma rays, and our act in Ontario and the Workmen's Compensation Board only cover exposure to radon daughters underground, which cause lung cancer. Well, it is too bad about the rest, is it not?

4:10 p.m.

So I get a little sick and tired when somebody in this Legislature tells me we have to have more scientific studies. That might be the case but in the meantime we should err on the side of the workers and be much more cautious, and this government has failed to do so. It has now listed two items for regulation, lead and mercury, and it should be ashamed of itself.

The acceptable levels of lead adopted by Ontario are three times those adopted in the United States. We are moving workers back into the work place at a level in the blood that is higher than that at which the United States is trying to take them out of the work place, 0.4, I guess, and we are sending them into work at 0.5 and up and leaving in work place until 0.7. When you reach 0.7, I guess, they will take you out; at 0.5 they will send you back in. The American government is moving to take workers out at 0.4, and we are sending them back in at that level.

I worry constantly when I hear this claptrap. Sure, we do not know, and I would ask the honourable member to support us on the history of what has gone on in this province by our failure to know. I say to him, do not force the workers to be guinea pigs; move in to protect them now.

I have heard it all: lead, gamma, sintering plant -- you name it. Even the premise on which we use Bill 70, which would tie in with my friend's bill, of course, is that in Bill 70 the onus is on the employer. In this case, I guess, it came from the Attorney General's department, and they did not show any more concern than Denison. Denison had to repaint the mill. Cakes of uranium are yellow and do members know what colour Denison painted the walls? Yellow.

An hon. member: Coincidence.

Mr. Martel: Just coincidence -- so it would not show up. The Attorney General's staff did not respond any more quickly, and that is what is wrong with the whole of Bill 70: The internal responsibility system is a pile of nonsense. He moved into a bill of this nature because the employers in this province did not give a damn about how the employees were affected.

Just look at Wilco, Mr. Speaker. With the lead regulations that came in last August, in December of this year 19 workers are hospitalized with lead poisoning, less than four months after the regulations came in. What does the Ministry of Labour do? Virtually nothing. They all sit back and say, "But the internal responsibility system is going to work." That is like asking Evel Knievel to park your car. Bill 70 was introduced in the first place because the employers did not show any concern. The unfortunate part is that the Ministry of Labour does not take the problem much more to heart. I could spend all afternoon documenting case after case.

So the internal responsibility system does not work. We have to give control to the workers, in my opinion, because the ministry is not enforcing the act and the internal responsibility system, which is left to the employers, is not working. They have all the power and all the knowledge, and that is the key: knowledge. The workers do not have knowledge of the chemical content of the substances they are exposed to, and they cannot get it.

Tomorrow morning I will raise a question in this Legislature -- I would have done it this afternoon -- about a study that the Ministry of Labour has and will not give to the union involved. It has said no categorically. It involves not this ministry but the hospitals. The Ministry of Labour says, "No, we will not give the documentation we have to the Canadian Union of Public Employees so they can tell their workers whether they are in danger."

The knowledge rests with the employer who can hire staff. If he has a union he can hire a little bit. But for those who are not protected by a union -- and two thirds of the workers in this province are not -- they are out of luck. There is no way anybody is going to protect those workers, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) knows it. He knows full well when it comes time for someone to complain. Where there is no union they do it in writing or by telephone directly to the minister because they are afraid of being fired. Bill 70 does not protect them. He knows it and I know it.

My friend says we need a few more scientific studies. What we need is some laws in this province that are going to protect the workers against toxic substances or anything that might jeopardize their health. I believe Weiler in his last report said that in the next couple of years there will be more people sick from industrial disease than accidents -- and the costs will be greater.

We cannot have that to worry about. We have to put laws in place that will err for the first time on the side of the workers. We each only have one life to live and I do not want to sacrifice mine for the almighty dollar -- I really do not. I do not know where they think the world is going, but I do not think workers should sacrifice for one job.

I was told I was irresponsible when I said in committee all new products should be pre-market tested -- I was told it would slow down the economy slightly. But in the final analysis each of us only has one life and I am not prepared to give mine so some joker can make a lot of money -- nor should anyone else. We should err on the side of health and safety; that is where we do it. If it costs a few bucks, so what; make a few more the following year. But we cannot bring anybody back to life.

I ask my friend, when he comes to vote in a little while, to think very seriously of voting in support. He should not worry that there might be something a little wrong in this bill that my friend has introduced. What we are all here for is to ensure that those in the work place work in safety and without jeopardy. I ask members over there to support that bill.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate as well. I would like to make some comments upon the bill that is before us which does purport to enhance the safety and wellbeing of certain Ontario workers, as has been identified by the member for Scarborough West and also the member for Sudbury East.

However, I believe we must examine critically any proposed legislation to determine first of all the need for such a bill. Is there, for example, a deficiency in the present legislation as my friend the member for Sudbury East has argued?

In the case of Bill 18, we look to the Occupational Health and Safety Act which, as members are aware, provides the legislative basis for protecting the health and safety of workers in Ontario.

The member for Sudbury East can complain about that and can suggest that it does not go far enough and he can talk as he has about how much better conditions are in the United States. But I would like to suggest to him --

Mr. Martel: Don't put words in my mouth.

Mr. Brandt: I did not interrupt him when he was speaking; I listened with great interest. But he suggested the standards were much better in the United States and he knows as well as I that the policing of environmental standards in the United States leaves a great deal to be desired. It is not nearly as competent and as efficient as what we have right here in Ontario.

4:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Did you expect him to admit that?

Mr. Brandt: I know he is not going to admit that but it should be on the record and it should be mentioned.

Let me remind the honourable members that this statute contains progressive provisions which assist all parties in the work place to gain access to the information and to participate in the identification and control of hazards. As an example, it allows a worker to refuse to work under unsafe conditions.

Mr. Martel: They fire them.

Mr. Brandt: He says they would be fired. I would remind members that the act specifically limits reprisals by employers against workers who may refuse to work. He knows that.

Mr. Martel: How many are being protected when they refuse?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: There is a procedure by which aggrieved workers may seek redress for threats or disciplinary action by an employer. The act also provides for broad powers to develop regulations to control specific hazards. In short, we already have a statute which provides many of the rights being proposed in Bill 18. The very existence of this act demonstrates the government's concern that there be no threat to the health and safety of workers because of any working conditions.

With respect to visual display terminals, the Ministry of Labour is, and has been, monitoring them on a continuing basis to make absolutely certain that they pose no hazard. In addition, as the honourable member is aware, a task force on VDTs was established at the request of the Ministry of Labour by the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety. The council is a joint labour-management body. I am confident --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is about to be protested by labour.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: At the moment they are involved, as the honourable member well knows, and I am confident that its examination of potential hazards posed by VDTs will be rigorous and unbiased. This is contrary to some of the comments that have been made from across the floor.

The task force includes, among others, scientists, physicians and a number of other experts, all of whom can bring their particular expertise to bear upon the various aspects of alleged VDT hazards. My colleague the Minister of Labour is awaiting the results of their report. I know he and his staff will review it and its recommendations objectively. I know, as well, that he will not hesitate to take appropriate action, including legislative or regulatory change if there is clear, factual evidence of the need.

There are scientists within the Ministry of Labour who are acknowledged experts with respect to the questions that have been raised about emissions of various kinds and about working conditions as well.

Ministry staff have tested literally hundreds of VDT units, including about 350 at the Toronto Star and 25 at the Toronto city hall. They have not to this point found one single unit with radiation emissions in excess of present guidelines. In most cases, emissions, as assessed by sensitive measuring equipment, have been below the limits of detection. The ministry's conclusion, in view of this, is that no radiation hazard exists. This position is exactly the same as that of both the Canadian and the US federal health departments.

It should be recognized that the ministry's radiation protection staff makes measurements of radio frequencies, microwaves, low frequencies, static and sometimes ultraviolet emissions as well as X-rays. The accumulated data from all the tests carried out have consistently indicated that emissions of all kinds are indeed negligible.

I understand that in the ministry's field studies --

Mr. McClellan: They used to say that about asbestos.

Mr. Brandt: The honourable member can drag asbestos out and make a parallel between one and the other but I would suggest to him that every scientific study that has been done to this point certainly does not support or prove his case.

The ministry's field studies that have been carried out to this point have been done with machines that are extremely capable of a high level of performance, as good as any we have been able to find anywhere in Canada or the United States. The machines have been tested under various types of conditions as well, at a variety of times throughout the working day -- turned on, turned off, in isolation or in clusters, with the screens loaded --

Mr. Cassidy: Have you tried working at one?

Mr. Brandt: No, have you?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Mr. Brandt: That is interesting. For how long? You seem to be in reasonably good health. I would suggest --

Mr. Cassidy: You feel very bad after six hours, let me tell you.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Sarnia has the floor.

Mr. Brandt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The members opposite are being provocative and I was responding.

The Acting Speaker: I suggest you carry on with your presentation.

Mr. Brandt: In short, units of a wide variety of makes, models, ages and modes of application have been tested in a wide variety of configurations and the measurements have uniformly shown emission levels to be of no significance as a possible health hazard. I might add that the Ministry of Labour's monitoring equipment is acknowledged as being state of the art. If the honourable member knows of better equipment, please advise us.

The ministry makes its information and expertise widely available. Staff have consulted with health and safety committees, safety associations, unions, employers, workers and the general public to provide guidance with respect to the expressed concerns of each of those groups. I believe the ministry has demonstrated a responsible, credible, scientific response to questions that have been raised and its findings have been made freely available.

Today we are debating legislation which appears to ignore current government initiatives. Frankly I worry about the effect of raising, unnecessarily, the level of public concern about VDTs, perhaps to the point where the level of concern itself may cause health problems. Changes such as those proposed in Bill 18 should be considered only if there is clear evidence that they are really needed.

The Acting Speaker: One minute.

Mr. Brandt: In the light of current experience of the Ministry of Labour and given the existing provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and regulations, and unless the report of the advisory council task force indicates otherwise, I must conclude that special statutory control measures with respect to the use of VDTs are not necessary at this time. I am confident that the workers of this province who operate VDTs are well protected by the broad provisions of our present legislation. Therefore I would urge members not to support Bill 18.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I gathered that.

Mr. Brandt: Did you gather that during the course of my discussion?

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, with the kind of rationale just exhibited by the member for Sarnia I can understand why the minister of noninformation, the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Sterling), is having such difficulty getting his nonlegislation through not only his cabinet but through his caucus. To suggest that giving information to the people of this province may be injurious to their health indeed stretches my imagination and the imagination of all honourable members of this House beyond all possible bounds.

The honourable member has also stated in this House that there is no scientific information which lends any credibility to some of the problems pointed out by the member for Scarborough West. I suppose the member has not taken a look at the material provided through the research facilities of the legislative library -- 87-106 is the catalogue number, if he is interested -- which gives us some of the findings that were published over a year ago by the US National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety. There they state specifically, clearly and categorically that the major finding of the investigation is:

"Working with VDTs is associated with high levels of job stress and certain types of health complaints in a selective manner. Clerical VDT operators showed much higher levels of visual, muscular, skeletal and emotional health complaints as well as higher job stress levels." A column follows the portion I have quoted, indicating the level of problems related to skin rashes, etc., etc. I would point out to the member that 91 per cent of those clerical workers who were working on a regular basis with the VDT operations suffered from eyestrain.

I have only one objection to the bill. Since the proponent of the bill is in the House now I must point out that from the point of view of nonsexist legislation, the employer should not necessarily always be a "he" and the operator always be a "she." Although it is quite evident that in 1982 most people who would be positively affected by this VDT legislation are women, we are hoping that if we can get into some positive, nontraditional job opportunities in this province in 1986, this may not be the case.

4:30 p.m.

When this esteemed legislation is passed we would like to make sure it remains in law and in force until 1990 and beyond, and that "him/her" should be both employer and operator of the terminal.

I am happy to see the number of women in the gallery today. I would like to point out for the information of those members who do not in their wisdom feel they should support this legislation that they must consider the number of people working out in the field with this type of equipment who are facing health hazards on an almost daily basis.

The members can turn to an article which appeared in the March 11 issue of the Toronto Star which states: "Thousands of Canadians operate video display terminals every day. Although doubts have been raised about dangers from prolonged use, scientists maintain they are perfectly safe." They said the same thing about DDT and the pill.

Most of the members have been aware of cases which have been raised recently, including the more famous federal case in which an abnormally and significantly high number of miscarriages were suffered by a number of employees working in a federal office where they were working predominantly with VDTs. I would ask the gentlemen of the House to put themselves in the position of these women. If we had a number of men in this country who were facing possible sterilization as the result of video display terminals, I would suggest that the members of this House might be a little quicker to act on a situation such as this.

Mr. Brandt: The present legislation does the same thing and you know it.

Ms. Copps: Unfortunately, it is not only as it is, it is as it is seen to be. The member himself stood in this House and said there was absolutely no danger and absolutely no problem. It is for that reason he will not go the extra step to protect those in this province, predominantly women, who are working with VDTs.

Mr. Brandt: Talk about being sexist.

Ms. Copps: I am not being sexist. I say to the member for Sarnia, I am suggesting that most of the people who are faced with this problem are women in their child-bearing years. In fact, if, as the member has stated, there is no problem, then there should be no problem introducing this legislation. It merely states that there must be no significant levels of radiation beyond the radiation that would come out of the light from the terminal.

Obviously, this legislation lays out clearly the limits which must be regarded in the use of a VDT in any office or company. If there is no problem and if VDTs are not a health hazard, why are the members on the government side afraid to embrace this private member's legislation? It is private member's legislation which is a recognition of the spirit of a problem that has afflicted many women in their child-bearing years across this province.

I believe the problem is going to show up in greater proportions in the years to come. Government members who have not endorsed this legislation are merely turning their backs to it. I would ask them to throw aside all political ramifications. Let us suppose they had a daughter or son who was going to work in an area where there was a VDT.

There is a situation where an employee of the Ministry of Education is forced to go to arbitration because her doctor told her she should not be working before a VDT during pregnancy. The arbitrator ruled in her favour. She is an employee of the Ministry of Education of this province, presumably an enlightened ministry, which is concerned about the effects of VDTs, particularly upon pregnant women. Why should she have to go to arbitration?

What happens to the hundreds of thousands of people across this province who do not have collective bargaining, who do not have the right to arbitration and who, in many cases, are not aware they could exert political pressure so they would not have to work before VDTs?

There is no doubt in my mind that the spirit of this legislation should be embraced by every member, including those who may have relatives working in front of VDTs. Even journalists, for heaven's sake! Anybody in the journalistic field these days is usually working before a video display terminal.

In future years, when we take over the government after the next election, some members may have to go on to other callings. Bearing that in mind, some members may have to go on to greater occupations, like Stephen Lewis and our esteemed former member for --

Mr. McClellan: Stuart Smith.

Ms. Copps: No, Stuart has not gone into the journalism field yet. Come on, who is the doctor on CITY-TV? Morton Shulman.

All the members at some point in the future may be sent out to pasture with CITY-TV or into the journalistic field and themselves have to work before VDTs. I ask them to think of themselves, to think of the impact this may have on their own health and the health of their sons and daughters in the future.

We all know that private members' bills do not always become law. We know the government is looking at this question, and we commend it for recognizing there is a problem. If members on the government side embrace the spirit of this legislation, I believe they will be showing the people of this province, particularly the women who predominantly work at the moment on VDTs -- although we hope this will change with the introduction of more nontraditional jobs -- that they are indeed fighting for their rights and their health in Ontario.

I hate to agree with my friend the member for Sudbury East, but I think he said it best when he said that one has to consider each individual person's health. The health of the people in this province is certainly more significant than any kind of one-upmanship to determine whether the Minister of Labour will bring in the first legislation or the member for Scarborough West.

In keeping with the concern the members have expressed as a result of the realities of March 19, 1981, and in keeping with the concern they must have for the people who have to work on VDTs, I ask them to embrace the spirit of this legislation and to endorse the private member's bill proposed by the member for Scarborough West.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments I have, I would certainly like to support this bill, because it fills a great vacuum in legislation in this province. There is no general requirement for pregnancy transfers in the case of people working with VDTs. There are no compulsory eye tests. There is no particular standard set on VDTs, or only general radiation standards which do not apply. There is a vacuum in legislation.

All we got from the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) when it was pointed out that 52 per cent of the pregnancies in one of his offices in the old courthouse had resulted in miscarriages was sarcasm to the effect that the New Democratic Party seemed to have a monopoly on concern in this area. It is time he showed some concern.

We need the kinds of things that are in this bill and we need much more research. Until we get the proof of whether the hazards are as great as they appear to be from some of the reports, we should play it safe. We should make sure people are not subjected to the hazards to an alarming degree, that there are rest periods and that all the provisions in this bill apply. I urge the honourable members to support this pioneering legislation.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder if you would clarify for us why the Speaker ruled that the women in the library who work on the VDTs need not work on them if they were pregnant. Would you have any idea why that was decided?

The Acting Speaker: That is out of order. We are in private members' hour and ready for the next order.

4:40 p.m.

DAY CARE AT QUEEN'S PARK

Mr. Shymko moved, seconded by Ms. Fish, resolution 24:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet, in collaboration with the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Government Services, should set an example to the private sector by immediately examining the feasibility of establishing appropriate self-financing facilities for day care in the work place or other desired day care arrangements for the Ontario government's parent employees in the Queen's Park complex; that the day care facilities and services' feasibility study should be conducted in consultation with concerned parent employees, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the women's bureau of the Ministry of Labour; and that, in the opinion of this House, any recommendation from these ministries should be received and acted on by this House within one year following the adoption of this resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to point out to the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) that his motion was seconded by the member for St. George (Ms. Fish). She is not here, so I would suggest that the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) second the motion.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: While the honourable member is trying to figure out how to get a seconder for his resolution can the Speaker advise us who is filming the proceedings this afternoon?

The Deputy Speaker: I would love to advise you, but I cannot personally. We will try to find out.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order: It is not the usual practice, to my recollection, to televise these debates. I am not sure whose camera that is, but I am informed, perhaps incorrectly, that the camera operator may not be a member of the press gallery. I think it is incumbent on you to find out immediately what the situation is.

I gather that the honourable member wants his words of wisdom to be taped; I cannot think of anybody else who would want to watch it. In any case, I will continue talking while you are trying to arrive at a decision.

The Deputy Speaker: As fate would have so quickly, it is my understanding that the director of the office of administration, Mr. Fleming, who is in charge of such things, has given approval for filming. Apparently, under the facilities available to all honourable members through the government members' service bureau, this is available for members if they so wish.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Further to the point, Mr. Speaker: When we brought television into the House it was by an all-party agreement, and was under the aegis of the Speaker, who would decide as to how the cameras, the lights and so on were to be placed. To my recollection this has not happened before under these circumstances.

With respect, it is not up to Mr. Fleming, who believes he really runs not only this House but probably the province of Ontario and other jurisdictions; it is up to the Speaker to give or withhold permission on these sorts of matters. I suggest to you in the strongest terms that it is a breach of the understanding we have had in regard to the filming of private members' speeches, and it should not be allowed at this time.

Mr. McClellan: Further to the same point of order --

The Deputy Speaker: May I make a comment? Then I am still willing --

Mr. McClellan: I wish to speak to the point of order before you --

The Deputy Speaker: I am going to listen to all members, that was all. I am willing to listen to all members further to the problem we are having.

My immediate response is that I am very sympathetic to previous agreements among all parties with regard to the filming of private members, and I realize that this is the first time. I am extremely concerned about it, of course. We will bring it to the attention of the Speaker.

On the other hand, I can think of occasions when members of the press gallery have been allowed to be at various locations in these chambers taking pictures at all times of the day. In my legal jurisdiction one could extend the taking of pictures to those taken on a more rapid basis, as in filming; hence, he is merely taking a whole bunch of fast pictures.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: To the government House leader, I wonder if we might have members go in rotation, because I think this is an important issue. I will recognize the member for Bellwoods, and then I would be willing to hear the House leader.

Mr. McClellan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must insist in the strongest and most unequivocal terms that the lights be turned off and that this filming be terminated. By tradition, the arrangements in this Legislature are very clear; it is a complete abrogation of those arrangements that one member, a member of the government, would have the benefit of a television camera and lighting facilities that are positioned only to benefit him and in a way that they cannot carry the rest of the debate. This is not a TV studio for the public relations purposes of individual members.

It is intolerable that the situation be allowed to continue. If the television coverage of this assembly has deteriorated to this point, perhaps it is time the entire arrangement should be taken under review and the same kind of control procedures brought in as exist in the Parliament of Canada, under the sole jurisdiction of the Speaker. This is a travesty that may please the grinning member for High Park-Swansea, who can use it for his own convenience on cable TV, but others are speaking in this debate and if the member wishes to have a debate recorded, he can have the entire debate recorded.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Before the member for Bellwoods has a stroke, I am not speaking for or against the taking of pictures, I am merely suggesting that a review of the minutes of the Board of Internal Economy might reveal to him that this is quite in order.

The Deputy Speaker: Could you expand on that for me? Is it in order? Have the other House leaders, the member for Sudbury East and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), indicated that?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I believe there was a minute -- I cannot recall it but I will certainly have it looked into -- which allowed for photography from the gallery. I suspect Mr. Fleming is probably acting under the jurisdiction of the Speaker.

Ms. Copps: The Speaker did not even know about it.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The Deputy Speaker does not know about it but I am not sure the Speaker does not know about it. That is what I am asking. I would like information.

Ms. Copps: If the Speaker is going to allow this filming to continue under this particular circumstance, then I can only anticipate that every speech made by every member over the next four years will be allowed to be recorded. That has been a subject of much debate in this House. To date, the government has not been willing to go ahead and film debates on an overall legislative basis.

I cannot understand how, in his wisdom, the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, who is in control of this chamber, would allow an individual member to have his speech taped while the rest of us cannot participate in the debate in an equal fashion. That is certainly presenting a very distorted, one-sided view of the debate to the public. Anybody with any kind of journalistic background would realize that to get the message out to the public, one has to hear all sides, not simply have a camera focused on one member.

If the Speaker allows this to continue, I have to say that we in the Liberal Party could not stand for it and could not agree to participate in that kind of debate.

Mr. Ruston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: There was a similar occurrence with regard to the recent budget. We were advised in our caucus that a TV crew was going to set up one camera only. We promptly sent a note to Mr. Fleming, who saw to it that there were two cameras. If there are going to be two cameras, fine; otherwise, we should adjourn the House until the matter has been settled.

Mr. Ruston moved the adjournment of the House.

5:07 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: We are dealing with Mr. Ruston's motion that the House adjourn.

All those in favour will please rise.

All those opposed will please rise.

The nays are 75. Apparently there are several members who have chosen not to vote. Everybody must vote in the chamber.

I will ask those who have not voted, who may be in favour, to rise.

All those opposed, who have not voted, will please rise.

Ayes 2; nays 75.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Speaker: The problem before the House is one of a camera in the gallery. The lights, as has been pointed out to me, are still turned on. I would ask the camera crew in the gallery to please remove its equipment and the Sergeant at Arms to turn out the television lights.

Mr. Shymko has moved ballot item 15 standing in his name. I point out to the honourable member that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation, and he may reserve any portion of that time for his windup.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I would like two minutes for concluding remarks.

I am very pleased to be able to present this resolution to the honourable members for debate today. Day care has been a priority of this government for a very long time, and I think the time has come for the government of Ontario, as an employer, and I stress "as an employer," to set a progressive example for the private sector and to consider setting up work-place day care facilities at Queen's Park.

I believe that day care is an important social responsibility -- perhaps the importance has been demonstrated by the attention this issue has received today -- and that work-place day care gives the employer the opportunity to provide employees with an essential service. I emphasize "essential" because there are more than 750,000 children under the age of six in this country who have working mothers. Many statistics could be quoted in this debate to stress the importance of day care.

Honourable members here today may recall that I have regarded day care as a top-priority issue since the voters of High Park-Swansea elected me as their representative. When I addressed this House in May 1981, I expressed my commitment to day care and the way I thought this issue should be addressed.

I should like to take a few seconds to remind some of the more forgetful members of the views I expressed a year ago, when I said: "The focus on day care should be shifted away from a social service perspective and into a labour perspective. There is absolutely no reason why labour unions could not work with management in establishing day care facilities in the work place."

We have countless examples of how this works in Japan, West Germany, Sweden and in this province as well. The proposal I am making today is consistent with these views. My commitment to encouraging private sector participation in the day care area continues. I believe we can provide impetus or, more precisely, an example to the private sector. I believe, therefore, that the Ontario government should consider offering its employees at Queen's Park a day care facility.

I want to make it clear that this is not a step towards establishing universal day care. That may be the case 20, 30 or 50 years from now, but I firmly believe that we cannot afford the social and economic costs of such a policy today. What I advocate is stimulating a diversified self-financing network of facilities in which the responsibility for day care is not a public burden but a responsibility shared by all sectors of our society.

Members will recall that, a few months ago, an organization that is well known to the members, the Ontario Coalition for Better Day Care, specifically supported this concept when it said, "In a responsive child care system there should be flexibility to allow working parents to select the type and location of child care that meets the needs of both parents and child." I am talking about that selection process, that flexibility and provision for options.

The coalition, in another of its resolutions, said, "Unions and management should take initiatives to create work-related child care programs where feasible." This, I remind members, comes from an organization that essentially supports universal day care.

I foresee setting up a facility where Queen's Park employees can obtain quality day care close to their work place at a reasonable cost; where government, as an employer, initiates an important partnership with employees by providing essential facilities that can be used by staff. It is perhaps a fortunate circumstance that in today's Globe and Mail there is the following reference to this topic:

"The Speaker of the Ontario Legislature, John Turner" -- yourself, Mr. Speaker -- "has been asked by Metro council's community services committee to follow the example of city hall and set up a work-place day care centre for employees in the provincial Parliament buildings ..."

Believe me, I had nothing to do with that announcement in the Globe and Mail. However, it is obvious that many members opposite share my view that this issue is an important one.

5:20 p.m.

I believe that work-place day care would be of great benefit to civil servants with families. I also firmly believe its benefits would extend beyond the users who would have direct involvement with the centre. I see it as an acting model -- as I pointed out earlier, an example for the private sector. Other employers will then have a chance to see how day care in the work place operates. Companies and organizations can then adapt our example, our model, to meet their own needs.

There are those who still believe the family unit is the only option that families have today for the care of their children. I think most of us here today realize that the traditional view of a family unit, that of one parent working and the mother providing traditional family home care services to children, is no longer viable. Society has changed drastically. Statistics demonstrate today that more and more women are participating in the work force.

We had a bill before us earlier today which constantly made reference to the needs of women in the work place and some of the concerns they share. I would like to talk about that changing society and the demographic change in the labour force.

The number of Ontario women working outside the home has increased dramatically in the past two decades. In Ontario last year, almost 72 per cent of women aged 20 to 44 years of age were active in the labour force. At one time, women in the child-bearing age group were associated with a temporary or sometimes permanent retirement from the work force, but in the past 20 years we have seen a dramatic reversal of this pattern.

About 80 per cent of all children born in North America today are born to women between the ages of 20 and 34. In the past 15 years alone, the participation in the work force of women in this age group has increased by 65 per cent.

Statistics show a sharp increase in the number of married women working. In 1951, only 15 per cent of married women in Ontario worked outside the home. Today, 60 per cent of working women in Ontario are married. It is imperative that members realize we can no longer assume a woman will work only until she marries or has her first child. Last year, 663,000 women working in Ontario had a child under 16. It has also been demonstrated that more women are returning to work sooner after the birth of a child.

A significant number of the households we are referring to are those in which both parents are working. To survive in today's economic circumstances both parents have to work. In 1980, in 30 per cent of Canadian families both parents held full-time jobs and in 41 per cent of Canadian families one spouse worked full-time and one part-time.

We must also note that there is another change in society, a sociological change effected by a lot of circumstances and social forces at work. I refer to the number of one-parent families in Ontario, which is increasing dramatically.

Between 1951 and 1976 the number of single parents in Ontario almost doubled, accounting for well in excess of 200,000 Ontario families. Projections indicate that the number of single- parent families in Canada will increase by 84 per cent by the next century. That is another sociological change we must take into consideration when we talk about day care facilities.

It is a fact that the majority of one-parent families in Ontario are headed by women. Statistics show it. Just to take a look at the 1976 data, they demonstrate that well over half of this group actively participates in the labour force on a full-time basis.

While we see more women shouldering both family and career responsibilities, it is anticipated that the number of male-headed, single-parent families is also on the increase. It is estimated that the number of single-parent families with a man at the head will increase nationally to account for 180,000 families, or 1.6 per cent of Canadian households, by the year 2000.

There is little doubt that the participation rate of women in the work force will continue to grow.

With the growing numbers of one-parent families and two-parent families where both spouses work, we can no longer regard day care as a woman's responsibility or a woman's issue. Day care is a responsibility that is shouldered by working parents of both sexes. As spouses become full partners in the work place as well as at home, we must shift our attitudes away from traditional home care models and heed the changing needs of Ontario families.

There are those who still believe that this is not a traditional way to bring up one's children and that the primary responsibility for day care rests with parents. I am not questioning that in any way; there is no doubt that mothers cannot be replaced by strangers. However, if they are to fulfil their responsibilities at home as well as at work and in their professions, and carry on productive and meaningful lives, parents need a little help. That is all we are talking about: helping those who try to help themselves but, under existing economic circumstances, have serious difficulties.

Whatever opposition critics may say, I am proud to state that this government already provides one of the most progressive and well-developed day care systems in North America. This government provides Ontario families with vital assistance in the important task of child training.

I will not mention the government's achievements and the need for progressive additional assistance except to say that the commitment of this government to ensuring that the people of Ontario have access to high-quality day care services is reflected in the growth of day nursing expenditures.

As chairman of the standing committee on social development, which is examining the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, I have noted that this year the Ministry of Community and Social Services has allocated $75 million to sponsor diversified day care services and initiatives. This represents a significant increase over last year's allocation of $11 million and certainly is a far cry from the $3-million expenditure ceiling of 11 years ago.

The government of Ontario has also taken an active interest in finding suitable day care to meet the individual needs of its own employees. It is not much, and there may be some criticism, but in 1976 a day care counsellor was hired to provide information, advice, service and counselling to provincial employees throughout Ontario. Our counsellor liaises with the Ministry of Community and Social Services and municipal day care counsellors in Ontario and maintains an up-to-date register of available space. It was a first step in an important service and one that has been very beneficial to the employees of the Ontario government.

We are providing leadership in the day care field. However, I believe sincerely that we can do more. I hope this belief is shared by all the members of this House.

The crisis facing the day care industry today is the lack of available spaces. A recent survey conducted by the Bureau of Municipal Research indicated that the length of the waiting lists for day care in Toronto amounted to 23.5 per cent of existing day care spaces in the entire city. So there is need for additional day care spaces, and it is a need that will not abate.

I believe this need will be best met by promoting work-place day care as a further option because of its flexibility and by encouraging active private sector participation. I believe the government can play an important stimulative role by adopting this resolution and supporting the concept of work-place day care.

From the viewpoint of the employer as well as of the employee, work-place day care makes good sense. That is my opinion, and I hope it is shared by the majority of members of this Legislature. It puts the onus on the parties that have a common obligation to come together, and it encourages a partnership -- I stress the word "partnership" -- of action that benefits all concerned.

The parent-employee gets the benefit of stable quality day care at a reasonable cost close to the work site. The location becomes an advantage as it fosters a closeness between parent and child. It gives them the opportunity to visit one another during the lunch breaks and while travelling to and from work. As I am sure members can appreciate, the time we spend with our family is very precious.

The decrease in separation between work and home life fosters the relationship between parent and child. Work-place day care promotes that relationship as it reduces the tendency to belittle the significance of child care as work for adults.

The Deputy Speaker: Two minutes.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, are you telling me I have only two minutes?

5:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: Plus the three minutes.

Mr. Shymko: I would like to point out that work-place day care would enable the private sector to demonstrate its leadership and make an important contribution to Ontario families. All it takes is a little planning, a little organization and a little initiative.

I believe it is the responsibility of employers to assist in the general welfare of those they employ, and we have seen examples of the greater social responsibility that employers are taking on today. Even union leaders are realizing it. Today more labour agreements, for example, are dealing with working conditions as well as wages and benefits.

I believe day care services are an important part of working conditions. In my opinion, assurances of a stable day care facility would contribute to the quality of working life in Ontario. The kinds of arrangements that can be worked out to provide these important services and promote a healthy working environment are various. We know that work plus day care is an adaptable idea, and one of its most attractive assets is the adaptability that we see in a lot of interesting and excellent models.

Today industry is facing tough economic times. It may not be feasible for many companies to give the pay raises this year that employees have come to expect. Management must therefore look to other benefits that it can give its employees.

The Deputy Speaker: Time.

Mr. Shymko: I believe that work-place day care can and should be one of the benefits management should consider providing.

The Deputy Speaker: Three minutes are reserved.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate concerning a day care facility at Queen's Park.

I do not feel the member for High Park-Swansea has come up with a very original resolution. He is surely aware of and has probably been reading my press releases over the last six months in order to come up with this idea. It has been said in Liberal circles that he has the originality of a photocopying machine. The government members know this is not an issue they have stood for very strongly in the past.

Mr. Gordon: There is nothing original in this life anyway. You know that.

Mr. Boudria: I think I hit a tender nerve, Mr. Speaker.

We of course are in favour of having a day care facility at Queen's Park. After all, we are the ones who have been talking about it for the last six months. But there is just one point that puzzles me somewhat, and that is the issue of self-financing. I had hoped the honourable member would elaborate on exactly what that means -- that is, whether he wanted to evaluate the square footage of the facility or something like that. I certainly hope that is not what he means. I think a more appropriate wording would have been that the service be provided at reasonable cost rather than the expression that is used there. Nevertheless it does not change the general principle of having a day care facility at Queen's Park, and we are for that.

I just want to refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker, and I know you will want me to do this. The throne speech talks about the government's commitment to day care. His Honour the Lieutenant Governor read this to us on March 9. I quote: "This commitment will be maintained, recognizing that the government must work in partnership with others such as parents, municipalities and the private sector." This means the government in the throne speech advocated more work-place day care.

With this in mind I issued a press release not long afterwards -- I believe it was on March 12 -- requesting the participation of all those who work for the government and asking them if they thought we should have a day care centre at Queen's Park. I have a little letter here that I wrote to people in a very nonpartisan way, and I will read it. It is a copy of a release which I believe will be self-explanatory:

"I am writing to all affirmative action program managers requesting their co-operation in making the employees within their jurisdiction aware of the attempt to establish day care requirements within government departments and agencies. For further information please contact me."

I included a little application form that said, "Yes, I am interested in day care at Queen's Park" and asked for the number of children. There was no other information on that.

Regarding the reply from that, I could illustrate what kind of hypocrisy we are witnessing here today. I sent that communiqué and form to all departments. Most departments wrote back telling me they could not participate in my questionnaire. I will read one example, signed by John D. Hilton, Deputy Solicitor General. He writes:

"Dear Mr. Boudria: Your letter of March 29 to Miss Vicky Pullam, this ministry's affirmative action program manager, has been referred to me for a reply."

Of course, the affirmative action program director could not reply to this herself. It is such a hot issue, she had to get permission from the Deputy Solicitor General. I read on:

"I am not in a position to direct that your communiqué be circulated to staff of the ministry unless we receive authorization through the Civil Service Commission."

Can the honourable members imagine that? The deputy minister could not make the decision whether my questionnaire should be sent to the women working for that department. That is the kind of commitment the government has towards day care at Queen's Park or any other place for that matter. They should be ashamed of themselves.

There are three or four other letters all saying the same thing. Let me put the icing on the cake. I am sure this is what the members want. On April 29, almost six weeks ago, I wrote a letter to the Premier (Mr. Davis). Before I read it, I would like members to remember that despite the government's reluctance and in many cases an outright refusal to allow its employees to participate, I received some 75 replies from employees.

In order to get those replies, I had to send a researcher into the offices around Queen's Park to put the notices up on the bulletin boards without the approval of the heads of departments of the government. Notwithstanding their reluctance, I received 75 positive replies. That will illustrate there is a need for such a facility.

I wrote a letter to the Premier on April 29 and this is what I said:

"Dear Mr. Premier: As a result of the statement in the throne speech that the government of Ontario has demonstrated a major commitment to meeting the need for day care services, on March 10, 1982, I issued a press release which incorporated a questionnaire on day care needs for employees at Queen's Park."

I go on to describe the number of responses I had and the fact there are precedents for this. There is a Riverdale Hospital day care centre and Hester How Day Care Centre at city hall. I will just read the last paragraph:

"If your government is truly prepared to make a major commitment to meeting the need for day care services, when will you take the necessary initiative to establish a day care centre at Queen's Park? Your early comments on this important question will be greatly appreciated."

It is now June 3 and the Premier has not even cared to reply to my letter as of this date. Mr. Speaker, I will let you be the judge. Is this government committed to providing day care facilities to employees of this Legislature and other departments at Queen's Park, or to anyone for that matter? By not replying to my letter as of two o'clock this afternoon, the Premier has clearly demonstrated to all of us that this government's commitment to day care is nil.

Mr. Wrye: Nonexistent.

Mr. Boudria: Just nonexistent.

I would like to reflect on some sections of the speech made by the member for High Park- Swansea. In one part of his speech he congratulated the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) for providing all kinds of funds towards day care. I believe the amount he quoted was $75 million and he said this was just fantastic.

Later in his speech, he said the shortage of day care space is a crisis. How can we have enough day care and simultaneously have a crisis? Either the government has a commitment or it does not. One does not provide enough money and have a lack of facilities as well. How can they rationalize all those things happening at once?

5:40 p.m.

I hope the member is sincere in moving this resolution because his government is not. It has clearly demonstrated to this Legislature and to the people of Ontario that it does not care whether the proper facilities are installed here at Queen's Park. It is important. The members may think it is only symbolic that this facility be established here, but if established it will serve as a model for industry throughout all of Ontario to start up similar facilities.

In concluding, I would like to disagree with one of the statements of the member for High Park-Swansea. He said day care was not a social responsibility; it was a labour responsibility, or something to that effect. I fundamentally disagree with him. Day care is a social responsibility here in Ontario and everywhere else. It is up to us as a society to ensure those facilities are established to provide for our children and to give the opportunity to the parents of those children -- in most cases mothers and in many cases single mothers -- to be able to participate fully in the work place in Ontario.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I would have been really pleased to stand here and say I was supporting a resolution that would provide a day care centre at the Queen's Park complex. It is really a tragedy that is not what is in front of us.

What is in front of us is a resolution to set up a feasibility study. In 1982 this government is so thick it still thinks there is a need for a feasibility study for day care for its own employees. That is preposterous. This issue has attracted some publicity in the press.

Mr. Gordon: That is the NDP approach -- planning.

Mr. McClellan: I can tell the honourable member about planning. Here is an article entitled "Queen's Park Women Still Seek Day Care," by Kathleen Rex:

"Queen's Park employees who have been trying to get a day care centre started for their children are holding an open meeting next week to put their message across to the public and they hope to their bosses.

"The meeting will take place in the Nipigon room of the Macdonald Block and has been planned by the Queen's Park day care committee, a group of young mothers most of whose children have grown beyond the need for day care in the long-drawn-out hassle to get action.

"An estimated 350 women in the civil service need day care facilities. Although the government is trying hard to ignore our demands, the need for day care at Queen's Park is still urgent,' the committee said."

Would the member for High Park-Swansea not agree that is a good story? The date of that story is November 21, 1974.

This issue has been raised literally hundreds of times by opposition members. I think it was initiated by my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) when he was our Community and Social Services critic in 1971.

The member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch), the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, responding to questions in the Legislature a month after I was first elected in 1975, was boasting proudly about the work of the Queen's Park day care committee in response to questions from Mr. Lewis and the member for Sudbury East. She acknowledged they had done a feasibility study. Can the members believe it? They discovered it would cost $5,000 per child to set up a day care centre here at Queen's Park.

With this kind of incompetence on the part of the provincial secretary and the ministry, it is no wonder there is no day care facility here at Queen's Park. Local-initiatives-program projects were able to set up excellent day care facilities all across the city in the early 1970s without spending $5,000 per child on capital projects. This government designed a feasibility study so preposterous it killed the project.

Strangely enough, I was also looking at the estimates debates for 1972 when I was researching this resolution. I discovered in response to a question by my colleague the member for Sudbury East that in 1972 there were a total of 36,000 licensed day care spaces in Ontario, of which only 10,000 were subsidized. Last week in committee we were told that, as of June 1982, there were 64,000 licensed spaces in Ontario and 22,000 subsidized spaces -- a glorious, grand increase of 10,000 subsidized spaces over 10 years. This government's day care policies are preposterous.

In order to get a subsidy for day care, as everybody knows, one has to fill out form 7, and still submit oneself to the most degrading, demeaning and humiliating means test in use in the province. If I am not mistaken, in many communities one has to go down to the welfare office and line up as though one is a welfare recipient. One has to go through that degrading process in order to get a subsidy.

Finally, there is the question of who will pay. This resolution calls for self-financing day care. In Metro, the per diem cost is $22. That works out to $110 a week, $440 a month, $5,280 a year per child. That is what self-financing means. That is what the member for High Park-Swansea is talking about -- making parents pay $5,280 a year per child. What if they have two children? Are they supposed to pay $10,000? In Ottawa the figure is $7,200 a year per child. Is one supposed to pay $14,000 a year if one has two children? The member can keep self- financing day care; we support publicly funded, publicly supported day care for everybody who needs it in our society.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the support of the member for Prescott- Russell and certainly to have the support of the member for Bellwoods. I would like to point out to the member for Bellwoods that the resolution he quoted from 1974 was from the member for Sudbury East. The difference between that and the present resolution is that now the resolution is coming from a member on this side of the House.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: What has just emanated from the honourable member's mouth, that I moved a resolution, is nonsense and he should withdraw it. Don't be such a dummy.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Shymko: I think I made my point. The idea of providing work-place day care is not new and the member knows it. The member for Bellwoods made reference to a report that was made to Management Board in 1975. I agree the recommendation was not acted on specifically. It is being acted on now, as presented by this resolution.

I understand a facility has been approved in Orillia. The government is sponsoring a pilot project on the grounds of the Huronia Regional Centre for the Mentally Retarded, as the member knows very well. He should be aware of this pilot project. It will be opened some time this summer or early this fall. I believe if we develop the concept of work-place day care here at Queen's Park, we will be providing an important example, as I pointed out, and a stimulus which, unfortunately, a certain party does not understand and will not understand.

I believe if the House acts on this resolution we will not only be measuring and meeting an immediate need but working towards a viable long-term solution to a problem that indirectly affects all of us, including the honourable members. If one is a working parent, I do not know whether some of the members work or not, but at least if they have children, they will appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude.

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

Mr. Shymko: I hope I have members' support.

5:56 p.m.

VDT OPERATORS' SAFETY ACT

The House divided on Mr. R. F. Johnston's motion for second reading of Bill 18, VDT Operators' Safety Act, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Boudria, Bradley, Breithaupt, Bryden, Charlton, Conway, Copps, Eakins, Elston, Foulds, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie;

Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Philip, Reid, T. P., Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Spensieri, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Barlow, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Eaton, Elgie, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman;

Harris, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay;

Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Ayes 35; nays 52.

Interruption

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would just remind the visitors in the galleries that no participation in any demonstration is allowed. If it persists I will have to clear the gallery. Thank you.

6:02 p.m.

DAY CARE AT QUEEN'S PARK

The House divided on Mr. Shymko's motion of resolution 24, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Elgie, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Henderson, Hennessy, Kells, Kerr, Lane, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McMurtry, Mitchell, Norton, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Shymko, Stevenson, K. R., Treleaven, Walker, Watson, Wiseman.

Nays

Andrewes, Boudria, Bradley, Breithaupt, Bryden, Charlton, Conway, Copps, Eakins, Elston, Foulds, Grande, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Jones, Kennedy, Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McNeil, Miller, G. I.;

Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Piché, Reid, T. P., Riddell, Runciman, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Sheppard, Snow, Spensieri, Swart, Sweeney, Taylor, G. W., Van Horne, Villeneuve, Williams, Wrye.

Ayes 33; nays 50.

6:10 p.m.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, before we recess for dinner I would like to indicate the business of the House for tonight, Friday and next week.

Tonight there is a minor change from the business paper on the members' desks. We will do third readings of Bills 36 and 6 and then complete Bills Pr3 and Pr7; we will then complete the committee stage of Bill 9. If that work is done we will go directly to Bill 46.

Tomorrow we will consider government motion 7, which is on page 11 of today's Order Paper; then we will resume the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

On Monday, June 7, we will complete the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs. The House will not sit on Monday night.

On Tuesday, June 8, we will continue the budget legislation both afternoon and evening, with second reading of Bills 111 and 116 in the name of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller); then we will continue with Bills 112, 113, 115 and 114 in the name of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe).

On Wednesday, June 9, the usual three committees may meet in the morning: justice, general government and resources development.

On Thursday, June 10, in the afternoon we will consider private members' ballot items in the name of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh); in the evening we will continue with budget legislation with the Minister of Revenue.

On Friday, June 11, will be second reading of Bills 1, 2, 3 and 4, and committee of the whole House on those bills and on Bill 125 in the name of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry).

The House recessed at 6:12 p.m.

3 juin 1982