Journal des débats 1986-janv-23 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in recognizing, in the Speaker's gallery, Monty Hall and two of the Variety Club of Ontario poster children, Romi Walsh and Maumer Pasanbegovanic, who are visiting the Ontario Legislature on the occasion of the forthcoming Variety Club 1986 telethon.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I know you will permit me to join you in welcoming one of our national heroes, Monty Hall, as well as two young people, Romi and Maumer, as they set out this weekend for the Variety Club telethon, which will be seen in all parts of this great province. Members will be aware that over the years Variety Club has contributed millions of dollars in every corner of this province. I suspect there is not a family it has not touched in some way or other to make this a better province.

As members know, Monty Hall got his professional start with CHUM radio here in the city. We welcome him back to kick off this telethon and a new program called Cash for Kids. I am not doing a commercial, but I am trying to help a little bit.

In case the members may not be aware of this, in conjunction with the food industry in Ontario, 1.7 million booklets like this, which contain coupons that can be redeemed in stores across this province, will be distributed in the next few weeks. The value to the consumer will be $14, but what is more important is that for every coupon redeemed, 15 cents will go to Variety Club.

It is a win-win situation; everybody wins with this program. I hope the members opposite and the people of Ontario will join all of us in making this program a great success, and in ensuring that they all contribute to Variety Clubs, which do so much for this province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for introducing our guests and I thank our guests for the great contribution they are making to our province.

Mr. Timbrell: On behalf of my colleagues in the official opposition, I would like to join the Premier in welcoming Mr. Hall and the poster children, representatives of Variety Clubs. I am delighted to see that their program continues to be the outstanding success it has always been.

Those of us who have been around here a while have many great memories of the events that led up to the construction of Variety Village and its official opening some years ago by our former Lieutenant Governor, the Honourable Pauline McGibbon.

In reference to the program for which the Premier has now given one of the best pitches that could be made, with the exception of one by Mr. Hall, I remember very well when that program was in its infancy and was introduced to us at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

We endorsed it at that time, and join with the Premier in endorsing it and recommending it to the people of Ontario as a way in which they can benefit themselves and also ensure that children are the recipients of so much assistance on an ongoing basis from Variety Clubs and Variety Village and other programs emanating from the clubs and the village in Ontario.

Mr. Rae: I was wondering why, in the last couple of days, we have seen such an emergence in the government of a mood of Let's Make a Deal. Now we have the explanation of the source of this urge to come on down to the doctors who are opting out on extra billing.

I do want to welcome Monty Hall to the Legislature. Mr. Hall has contributed enormously to Canadian show business, and as a descendant of a show business family, it is only appropriate for me to welcome Mr. Hall here and to welcome the two poster children.

I am a member of the Variety Club and have participated in telethons, bikeathons and many events on behalf of the club. I commend it as a charity. Indeed, the current Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) supported my last bicycle run and I will be looking forward to his support in the one that is coming up.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am waiting for the receipt.

Mr. Rae: If he wants to find a seat and ride on a bike, he can do that too.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I said "receipt."

Mr. Rae: I commend the work of the Variety Club to all the members. It is a wonderful organization and it has done a tremendous amount.

While the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) is here, I might say we look forward to the day when the disabled will have a greater crack at jobs as they get older, so the children who are being helped by the Variety Club today will be able to look forward to a world of work, a world of participation and a world of full and equal citizenry in this wonderful province of ours.

In a nonpartisan spirit we welcome Monty Hall and welcome the kids here, and look forward to a very successful telethon that is coming up. Thank you very much for coming.

SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENT

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have another announcement I know my colleagues will permit me to make. I do not have a statement, because I just found out about it and I stand in this House both proud and sad when I share this information with my colleagues. It has come to my attention that our Deputy Attorney General, Archie Campbell, who is sitting in the Speaker's gallery, has been appointed to the Supreme Court of Ontario, High Court division.

That means effectively he must be discharged from his responsibilities here and will be joining the bench forthwith. I am sad because I have had the benefit of his wise counsel often in the last seven months. I am sure I can speak for my colleagues opposite who also had the benefit of his wise counsel and his impartial, objective and first-class legal advice on many occasions.

I am also sad, and this is personal, because he is a former roommate of mine when I was in university. I should say that was the least pleasant part of our association, but it is a great thing for the bench and for the justice system in this province.

Archie Campbell possesses one of the keenest legal minds I know. Mind you, I am not a great judge of keen legal minds, Mr. Speaker, but he is an academician of great repute. I suspect if you talk to the legal community in this province, you will find there are very few with his sense of legal history and his knowledge of all aspects of law, particularly criminal law.

2:10 p.m.

His appointment will be universally heralded as a brilliant one. It was not our appointment, although I would love to take credit for it. For a government which has not been renowned for its great appointments, it has redeemed itself in this one fell swoop today.

I thank Archie Campbell, former QC, for his great service to the public of Ontario. He has been an exemplary public servant. We will miss him professionally and personally.

He is the only deputy who wears Kodiak boots to deputy meetings, and the only deputy -- the only man -- I know who wears seersucker suits in the middle of winter. He is always a treat to have in one's office at meetings because he cleans up all the leftover food from the previous week. He has been very handy from many points of view.

I will save some of the personal reminiscences, of which all of us have so many, for the dinner I am sure somebody will have in his honour. Archie, with respect and affection, Godspeed and good luck.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues opposite and you permit, I would like to support what the Premier has just said and to let the opposition members know that if they want to begin asking the Attorney General questions for the next couple of months, they will have an absolute field-day because Archie Campbell is gone.

Mr. O'Connor: We already have.

Hon. Mr. Scott: If the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) considers what has happened to him over the last couple of weeks a field-day, he has a different conception of that from mine.

I have known Archie Campbell for most of my professional life. He has been a distinguished director of Parkdale Community Legal Services, a fine law teacher, a daring and aggressive advocate and a truly great public servant, of whom this province, whoever was entrusted with the government of the day, may be proud.

In the past six months in which I have had the honour to be Attorney General, he has served, as one would have expected, with devotion, skill and compassion in the interests of the public of the province. I have been more grateful for his friendship and support than I will ever be able to say.

I speak for the whole department which has worked with him, and it is almost like a eulogy, when I say he will be very much missed by us all. To our new judge, Godspeed.

Mr. O'Connor: I join the Premier and the Attorney General in complimenting Mr. Campbell -- whom I cannot quite see, but who is around the corner, I assume -- on his appointment to the bench. On behalf of my colleagues, I cannot think of anyone more qualified and experienced to sit on our highest bench in Ontario. Mr. Campbell has a fine legal mind, and he has shown himself to be a superb administrator.

I do not exactly know the rules of decorum that apply to the Supreme Court of Ontario, and whether construction boots are acceptable. I wonder whether the Attorney General might see fit to spring for a new pair of shoes to welcome him to the bench. I recall one brief incident during estimates recently when we were about to convene the meeting and start the questioning. Not knowing Mr. Campbell all that well, I was somewhat taken aback when he suddenly swung his large leg, with a boot on the end of it, over the table beside the Attorney General and commenced calmly to tie his lace. That was my introduction to Mr. Campbell.

Our congratulations to Mr. Campbell. He will be a fine appointment to our Supreme Court. It will be a loss to the province which he has served so well and for so long. Congratulations.

Mr. Rae: The new judge will need all our good wishes as he approaches the unique life of the bench. I particularly wish him well because, as Deputy Attorney General, he no doubt was the brains behind the rather extraordinary dressing down on the question of judicial salaries that the Attorney General delivered a couple of weeks ago. I wish Archie well as he approaches his colleagues at Osgoode Hall, has lunch and talks about the questions that no doubt preoccupy all of us at lunch time.

I wish Mr. Campbell well. I know he was well beloved by our much-missed former justice critic, Jim Renwick. I know he will do us all proud. I almost feel as if this guy is being buried, but all that is happening is that he is going on to a much better and more exciting career, and we wish him well in that. Godspeed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I would like to announce the second creative contract to be awarded under the Advertising Review Board system used for the selection of government advertising agencies. The Advertising Review Board system was created to ensure that the selection process is open, accessible, fair to all bidders and accountable to the public.

Selected as the new creative advertising agency for the Foodland Ontario promotion campaign is SMW Advertising Ltd. of Toronto. The agency's successful bid for the $1.7-million annual food promotion account is its first attempt to gain Ontario government business. SMW is Canada's 31st-largest agency, with equivalent billings of $32 million annually. It takes over the Foodland account from Case Associates Advertising Ltd.

The Advertising Review Board's choice, a unanimous one by the selection panel, is based on the belief that SMW will provide the ministry with a capable, energetic and qualified team of advertising professionals that can draw upon extensive creative experience in food advertising.

Last October, a news release and advertisements called for expressions of interest in the Foodland account and 46 agencies responded. Some 19 completed the agency questionnaires and six were invited to make presentations.

I am confident the Advertising Review Board selection panel has provided the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food with an agency capable of delivering an aggressive marketing and advertising program for Ontario food products.

Not only do we extend a welcome to Monty Hall and the two poster children, but also we are delighted to have them here to witness democracy at its best.

OVERTIME WORKERS

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I have, on several recent occasions, expressed concern about extensive amounts of overtime being scheduled by some employers, particularly when members of their work force may be on layoff. A number of unions have expressed concern about such situations, urging government intervention to alleviate the social and individual consequences of excessive overtime.

However, many employers submit that the flexibility afforded by overtime is essential to maintain competitive operations, and further, that scheduled overtime cannot readily be translated into new jobs. As well, many individual workers have made it clear that they welcome the opportunity to increase their incomes by working longer hours.

In short, no consensus has emerged on limitations that should be put in place.

Under the Employment Standards Act, the maximum hours of eight per day and 48 per week may be exceeded in certain instances where an employer obtains a permit. The initial standard permits are issued on request, while the employer must show need before being granted a subsequent special permit. These maximum-hour provisions were introduced in 1944 and have not been reviewed since. The government believes an examination is long overdue.

There are a great number of complex issues that need to be addressed from the perspective of both management and labour before any determinations can be made about appropriate reform. To assist us in examining these difficult issues, I wish to announce the appointment of a Task Force on Hours of Work and Overtime. The task force will review current overtime practices and report to me with recommendations respecting the adequacy of existing legislation.

2:20 p.m.

More specifically, the terms of reference of the task force will be as follows:

1. To study and make recommendations with respect to issues related to permissible overtime, the hours-of-work provisions of the Employment Standards Act and alternatives and the administration of these provisions;

2. To take into account in the study and recommendations the need for overtime hours and alternatives to such overtime; factors related to job creation, health and safety and absenteeism where long hours are worked; the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing legislated provisions and improvements or the approaches proposed; and the cost and other implications of amended or new legislation on employers and employees;

3. To examine for the purposes of the study selected situations where substantial overtime is scheduled, including iron and steel mills, metal mines, the automobile manufacturing industry and generally where employees are on layoff; and

4. In carrying out the study and in making recommendations, government ministries, employers, trade unions and other interested groups or persons will be consulted as required.

The task force will be chaired by Arthur Dormer, noted writer and consulting economist. Joining him will be Fitzgerald Allison, vice-president of industrial relations, Abitibi-Price Inc.; Judith Andrew, director of provincial affairs of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; Ray Silenzi, president of Local 1005 of the United Steelworkers of America; and Sam Guindon, director of research of the United Auto Workers Canada.

Given the nature of the issue, the task force will travel and hear submissions from employees and employers in some of the major centres in the province. The task force may submit an interim statement by June if it seems warranted. Otherwise, I would expect to receive its final report by the end of the year.

As an interim measure, and until any legislative changes are recommended and proposed to this House, I have directed the employment standards branch to conduct more rigorous screenings of employer requests for special overtime that supplement the initial standard permit. A particularly compelling case for such special permits will be necessary where the standard permit has been exhausted by hours scheduled over 48 in a week, or where the request relates to maintenance personnel, who may already be scheduled to work up to 60 hours per week under the standard permit.

It should be understood by employer and employee alike that the director of the branch will prosecute those who violate their obligations under the law. However, there remains the problem of those employers and employees who were in violation of the act last year, some of whom are only now, on a retroactive basis, requesting the appropriate special permits.

It is obvious that until recent months employers had no expectation that the branch would insist as a matter of government policy on strict compliance with the act. However, in my view, it would be clearly unfair to launch prosecutions for actions based on past government direction. Therefore, the branch will not initiate prosecutions for violations occurring before January 1 this year. The exceptions will be those cases where specific branch directives to employers to comply with hours of work rules were ignored. In those cases prosecutions will continue to be considered and, in some cases, commenced.

The mandate given this task force is an important one. It is my expectation that its work will lead to reforms that will recognize the legislative interest of all participants in the modern work place.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Hon. Mr. Scott: On November 19 I tabled in this House the Green Paper on Pay Equity. At that time I also announced to the House that, in keeping with our commitment to open and accessible government, we would begin a consultation process on the issue early in the new year. I am pleased to announce today the details of that consultation process.

Starting on Monday, February 10, we will hold a series of meetings in five Ontario cities: Toronto, Windsor, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Ottawa. The meetings will be conducted by a panel of three individuals: C. David Clark, Dr. Gail Cook and William A. Dimma.

The panel will hear representations from a wide range of business, labour, community and women's groups as well as from members of the public. When the consultation process ends, the panel will then report its findings to myself and to the Premier (Mr. Peterson).

A hearings schedule, as well as information on how interested parties can make a submission, will be advertised in Ontario's daily newspapers in the coming weeks. We are inviting those who wish to make a presentation at the meetings to contact the Ontario women's directorate to make an appointment. Selections will be made on a first-come, first-served basis. The directorate will also provide complete information on the process to anyone who may require it.

Interested parties are invited to either present written submissions to the panel or make verbal presentations. In the case of verbal presentations, we are asking groups to file a letter of their intent to appear before the panel and to identify, if possible, the issues they wish to address.

As I said in November, the issue is not whether pay equity will be achieved, but how. This government has already made a firm commitment to the people of the province on equal pay for work of equal value.

The role of the public consultation panel will be to hear all sides of the issue, to learn about any concerns various groups may have, and to get their ideas about how pay equity might be implemented in a fair and reasonable manner.

In addition, the hearings will give the people of the province an opportunity to come to a better understanding of exactly what we mean by "pay equity" and how it will affect them, as men and women who want to ensure that the work place is a socially and economically fair place for all.

The people who have been chosen to conduct the proceedings are well-qualified for their roles. They all have considerable achievements in their respective fields and bring to the process an objective understanding of this issue and its implications.

David Clark is the president and chief executive officer of the Campbell Soup Co. Ltd. He holds a master's degree in business administration from the University of Western Ontario, has extensive experience in community service, and is on the boards of many national organizations and associations.

Dr. Gail Cook is executive vice-president of Bennecon Ltd., a Toronto management consulting firm. Dr. Cook holds a PhD in economics from the University of Michigan and sits on the boards of a number of companies, including the Bank of Canada.

William Dimma is president and chief executive officer of Royal LePage Ltd. He holds a number of degrees, including a master's degree in business administration, and was dean of administrative studies at York University. He is chairman of the board and director of both Polysar Ltd. and the Niagara Institute.

The panel members know that they have a difficult job ahead of them, that pay equity is a complex subject and that a long-standing situation is not easily or quickly changed, but they are all dedicated and hard-working people, as their records show, and I know will serve the consultation process well.

The panel will consequently ensure that all points of view will be taken into consideration and be brought back to the government prior to the development of pay equity legislation in the private sector.

DRUG SUBSTITUTES

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have two short but very important announcements.

Over the past two weeks, there have been questions in this House regarding the therapeutic effectiveness and interchangeability of the generic drug apo-ibuprofen. Other questions have been raised about the interchangeability of metoprolol.

In order that we might have a speedy resolution to these concerns, I requested that the ministry's Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee hold an emergency meeting to review recent studies and data on these two drugs.

The DQTC met yesterday evening and at that meeting a recent study of apo-ibuprofen, prepared by the health protection branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare, was examined.

Earlier this morning, I was advised that in the opinion of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee, there now exist clinically significant differences in the rate of absorption between apo-ibuprofen tablets and Motrin tablets marketed by the Upjohn Co. of Canada.

It is therefore the opinion of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee that the rate of absorption is therapeutically important when the drug is being administered for the treatment of a disorder that requires rapid drug absorption.

I will take the following action in the light of this new evidence: to protect the public interest, I intend to make application to the courts to secure necessary authority to amend the January 1985 Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary and delist apo-ibuprofen as interchangeable with Motrin. This is necessary because the government's authority to change the formulary now is being challenged in court and because the enabling legislation to make such changes, Bill 55, has been delayed in this House.

Within the next 24 hours, letters to pharmacists, physicians, dentists, their colleges and associations, hospitals and other health care facilities will be sent advising them about the DQTC opinion on apo-ibuprofen.

2:30 p.m.

Regarding the generic drug metoprolol, the DQTC has reviewed the current information and data available, and no change in the status of that drug in the formulary is contemplated. The committee will continue to review clinical information with teaching hospitals and the federal health protection branch to determine whether any significant number of adverse reactions is being detected.

I have also received a reply from my recent telex to the Honourable Jake Epp about this matter. He has assured me that as soon as any new evidence regarding the use of metoprolol becomes available, it will be forwarded to my ministry.

Mr. Timbrell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: My copy of the statement may be incomplete but I do not see an apology to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) for the things the minister has said about him on this issue, nor any credit to him for raising it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

MIDWIFERY

Hon. Mr. Elston: The second announcement today deals with the issue of regulating midwifery. As members are aware, we have under way in Ontario the health professions legislation review, which is examining the regulation of all health professions.

We now have a patchwork of legislation governing the health professions in this province. The Drugless Practitioners Act, for example, dates back to 1925 and has never been amended. The Health Disciplines Act, our most recent and modern piece of legislation in this area, is also in need of amendment. In addition, we have six separate acts for another group of health care professions, while others remain unregulated.

The health professions legislation review was established to make recommendations on the design of new comprehensive legislation that will bring our regulatory system up to date. One of the most important decisions to be made in the course of the review is which professions are to be included in the new regulatory system. I will soon announce the professions that meet the criteria established through the review and that are to be regulated.

The review has also recommended to me that we begin taking steps towards the regulation of midwifery in this province. I have accepted that recommendation, and today I am pleased to announce that it is our government's intention to establish midwifery as a recognized part of the Ontario health care system.

Women and newborns in this province currently receive an exceptionally high level of obstetrical and perinatal care. Over the years, doctors and nurses in this province have made significant and continuing progress towards lowering the risks in childbirth for both mothers and infants. At the same time, a small but growing number of people have expressed a wish to have available the services of a competently trained midwife.

The practice of midwifery is well established throughout the world. Indeed, Ontario is one of the few western jurisdictions where it is not regulated. In many other jurisdictions, the practice is already viewed as a safe and integral element of health care. I believe Ontario citizens are entitled to the same choices.

While the demand for midwifery services is increasing in Ontario, the development of the profession is hampered by its uncertain legal status. Many nurse-midwives, trained outside Canada, are working as nurses on obstetrical wards in Ontario hospitals and in other areas of institutional care, but they are unable to use the full range of their midwifery training.

Other trained midwives without nursing qualifications have been forced to seek employment outside the health care field. Established professions and institutions involved with pregnancy care are frequently wary of involvement with midwifery practice because of potential legal problems and uncertainty about the competence of practitioners.

The risks of midwifery practised outside a regulatory framework and in isolation from the rest of the health care system must be recognized. A number of approaches have been adopted in other jurisdictions. Some use nurses with additional training in midwifery; others train midwives as a separate profession. We must choose the model that is most appropriate for Ontario.

The health professions legislation review has identified various issues that must be addressed in order to ensure the operation of a safe and effective midwifery service in this province. These issues include: the qualifications necessary to become and remain a practising midwife; the relationship between midwives and physicians; the settings in which midwives will provide their services; the kinds of educational programs that will be offered in Ontario to prepare midwives.

In order to respond to these questions satisfactorily, extensive consultation with related health professionals, institutions and consumers will be needed. In order to address these questions, I am announcing today the establishment of a Midwifery Task Force.

The mandate of the task force is to recommend to me and to my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) a framework for how midwifery should be practised in Ontario and how midwives should be educated.

The task force will address such issues as education, requirements for entry to practice, scope and standards of practice, governance of the profession, locations of practice, patient access and whether midwives should operate as independent practitioners or as part of an organized service. The task force will also be asked to recommend the specific steps and the period of time that will be necessary to implement its recommendations.

I am pleased to announce that Toronto lawyer Mary Eberts, a former professor at the University of Toronto's law school who is now in private practice, has agreed to serve as task force chairman.

In order to maintain good liaison with the health professions legislation review, I have asked the review co-ordinator, Alan Schwartz, to act as vice-chairman of the task force. Other task force members will be: Dr. Rachel Edney, family practitioner and former Ontario president of the College of Family Physicians of Canada, and Ms. Karyn Kaufman, associate professor at McMaster University school of nursing.

I have asked the task force to complete its study and to report to me within a year. As they carry out their new responsibilities, I expect that members of the task force will receive full co-operation from the medical and nursing professions and from the midwives' coalition in Ontario. In addition, concerned institutions and related consumer groups will be invited to participate in the development of an appropriate model for the delivery of midwifery services in Ontario.

It is our intention to move forward with this initiative as rapidly as possible, but we will do so deliberately and carefully. I look forward to receiving the report of the task force and to working with the profession, the hospitals, consumer groups and the midwives' coalition so that we can develop the best model for integrating midwifery into our province's health care system.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Timbrell: I have a question of the Minister of Health, who might take this occasion to show that he has learned that, in the parliamentary process, the people's faith in the system is restored when the minister will admit he is wrong, and he was dead wrong on that drug issue.

I noticed that the minister took a few minutes as the House got together this afternoon at two o'clock to get his instructions from the Premier (Mr. Peterson). Can he now tell us what he understands to be government policy with respect to discussions with the Ontario Medical Association? Can he tell us the extent to which he is prepared to sit down and talk to them and offer concessions or alternatives to the present legislation?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The request for information on our dedication to the principle of banning extra billing is appropriate. In fact, we have not changed our dedication to ending the practice of extra billing.

I can tell the members that we have on many occasions offered any number of opportunities for the profession to come to us and speak to us about alternatives to how the legislation is constructed. We will continue to extend opportunities to those people all over the province to come to us and talk to us about how these items might be worked out in the legislation.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Timbrell: The minister will understand that not every doctor can make it to one of the Liberal cocktail parties in order to do that or pay the $1,000 toll-gate entry fee.

Does the minister not agree that it would be better, as was done in British Columbia, in Saskatchewan and in Nova Scotia, to sit down with the medical profession and to negotiate the form and timing of the government's legislative proposal, rather than introduce what the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson) refers to as draconian measures, which should not be enacted in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have continued and will continue, as will the Premier, to offer a forum to discuss this with the OMA with respect to opportunities for finding ways of putting the legislation in a form in which the OMA would like to see it.

The honourable member has pointed out that in Saskatchewan, for example, that profession through the president of its association indicated it wanted to work with the provincial authorities on a piece of legislation it felt would be workable to end the practice of extra billing.

We have yet to receive an indication -- at least I have anyway -- that the OMA is willing to work towards putting together that legislation to end extra billing. I am prepared to accept options from those people with respect to the style of the legislation, but to be very clear, we are dedicated to ending the practice of extra billing in Ontario.

Mr. Rae: Things are hardly the same since the sultan of sulk is no longer with us today.

Mr. McClellan: We are getting some good questions for a change.

Mr. Rae: We seem to be able to get on with the business.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: The sultan of sulk. Does the member want to write that down? He may want to use it some day. I am sure he will, since it comes from the New Democratic Party.

The question I would like to ask the minister has to do with one of several statements made by the Premier in the last two days. One was that one of the options the government is considering is a delay for some parts of the profession with respect to extra billing. Does the Minister of Health not realize there has already been a delay of six months from the point of view of patients who are paying $1 million a week in extra fees? They have now paid $25 million since the election.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister prepared to countenance further delay in extra billing with respect to those patients?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think it is extremely clear that what this government is attempting to do is to reach out and try to work on any opportunity for compromise, agreement and discussion with respect to the professional association. We will continue to work towards trying to find ways of engaging the profession in discussions to refine and make this bill workable, in its opinion as well as ours.

Mr. Timbrell: It is difficult to know how the member thinks he can blame the OMA when it was his Premier who in this House in July said he was willing to negotiate and then walked outside and five minutes later said he would impose the Quebec system. Why would they have any faith, one has to ask oneself? That was not a question.

Mr. Speaker: I thought it was.

Mr. Timbrell: I am asking myself.

Once the minister and the Premier get their act together -- if they get it together -- with respect to discussions with the OMA, I want some assurance that any olive branch he offers by way of amendments to the fee schedule will not exceed the $50 million the government anticipates receiving back from the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am not sure exactly what information the honourable member wants. If he wants to ensure that expenditures will not rise above $50 million in any particular year in compensating physicians, then I cannot give that assurance; I am sorry. All I can tell the members of this House and the public in this province is that we will take every opportunity to discuss options and opportunities for agreement between us and the profession. I think the Premier and I have made it very clear that we will continue to reach out in that regard.

CHEMICAL SPILL

Mr. Dean: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the accident which occurred at the plant of Chipman in Stoney Creek on Tuesday night, can the minister please tell us what system his ministry has for informing the media, and through them the public, of the extent and the nature of a dangerous gas discharge such as occurred at the Chipman plant?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I want to indicate to the member for Wentworth that I was not pleased with the response time or with some aspects of the operation that took place at the Chipman plant on Tuesday evening. It is my intention, through the officials I have spoken to in my ministry, to ensure that we do not have a repeat performance. On a number of occasions, the ministry has responded rather rapidly and effectively. I can think of a number of instances in the province where that is the case.

From attending the press conference the next day at Chipman and from the subsequent information which flowed, the member would know the dissemination of information and the response time both left something to be desired. In conjunction with regional officials, including Bill Sears, the chairman of the regional municipality, and Mayor Napper, whom I will be meeting in the not-too-distant future, we want to ensure that the kind of operation that took place can be improved upon, even though -- and I think the member would agree -- certain aspects of it worked quite well.

Mr. Dean: I appreciate the candour of the minister in admitting that he did not have an effective system in place. That was very obvious, but it is preposterous for the minister to style himself as Minister of the Environment --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member for Wentworth did not expect that, did he? He will have to change his supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Allow the member to place his supplementary.

Mr. Dean: -- when he has no effective system in place for communicating with the public when environmental hazards exist.

In the light of the state of confusion created in Stoney Creek by the inadequacy of the response of the minister and his officials, which resulted in confused media reports during the Chipman fire, does he not think it is about time to establish an effective system?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I know the member would be interested in seeing the kind of system he would be satisfied with in full effect. His predecessors, many of whom sat on this side of the House, attempted to establish such a system. In some cases that system worked quite well and on other occasions it did not work as well as it might have. This was one of those cases.

I mention again that there were some positive aspects. However, when there is a circumstance such as this, where the response has not been adequate in a number of ways, it is important to learn from that example and improve on it, rather than to simply stand here and attempt to defend it. That is exactly what we are going to do. We are going to see an improvement in that.

We were fortunate there was no loss of life or other dire circumstances because of the efforts of many, but that still is not satisfactory to me and I am going to see that it changes.

Mr. Charlton: Could the minister tell us the precise time at which the ministry was notified of the problem and whether the source of the problem was the Chipman plant?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: To my knowledge, our records show that at no time did the Chipman company contact the Ministry of the Environment, as is required. I think it attempted to make a contact or perhaps made a contact indirectly, but to our knowledge, there was no contact made by Chipman to the ministry.

From the information I have been able to gather from the log that is kept of these things, the company did not notify the fire department immediately. The first call to the fire department came from area residents and it responded to that call. It would have been more appropriate if the company had notified the fire department immediately upon the fire taking place.

2:50 p.m.

With regard to our ministry, it is my understanding that somewhere around 7:30 our ministry received a call at the centre. Calls then went out to regional officials to attempt to locate someone who could join the fire department which was involved in the fire, the police department which is in charge of evacuation and the medical officer of health who deals with health matters.

In my view, the response time was not satisfactory. It was not until after nine o'clock, after 9:15 even, that our ministry was at that site. We were not the lead ministry in this because of the fact of the fire, but our ministry still should have been there at that time.

Mr. Dean: In view of some of the events the minister has just recounted, which were known to some of us as well, could he confirm the statement of his official that his ministry's single mobile air-monitoring unit was unavailable at the time of the fire because it was under repair and, therefore, was unable to assist in determining the extent and nature of the gas discharge?

Will he also ensure that unit, and as many other units as are required, will be available and in operational condition in the future to help to protect our residents from environmental hazards?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member will no doubt understand, this unit was not purchased for the purpose of emergency circumstances, although it can be brought into operation in a longer-term spill. If the member recalls the Mississauga incident, in which there was an ongoing spill for some considerable time, the unit was mobilized and used at that time, but it is not in existence specifically for the purpose of responding to an immediate crisis of this kind.

Mr. Dean: Why don't you have a unit that would respond to this situation?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am glad the member asked that question. As the former Minister of the Environment would tell him --

Mr. Speaker: I did not call for a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: -- there is no unit in existence, that our ministry officials are aware of, that could be purchased that fits the criteria the member would like: in other words, a unit able to deal with a large number of chemicals for testing purposes on an immediate emergency basis; that does not exist at present.

The trace atmosphere gas analyser, or TAGA unit as it is called, goes into neighbourhoods and monitors on an ongoing basis. The unit was being prepared, if this had been a longer-term spill, but the emergency was considered to be over and the unit was not brought out at that time. It is my understanding that testing was used. The company itself provided to the people in the area some testing methods and the determination was made from them.

Mr. Speaker: New question. The member for Lakeshore.

Mrs. Grier: My question is to the Minister of the Environment on the same subject.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order? A point of privilege?

Mrs. Marland: It may not be in order, Mr. Speaker, but on behalf of the residents of Mississauga, I would like the Minister of the Environment to explain what an ongoing spill is.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not recognize the member for a question. The member for Lakeshore.

Mrs. Grier: Some of us had an opportunity this morning to meet with officials of Chipman and with residents who were concerned about the spill. A number of very important issues emerged, some of which have been touched on in the minister's answers to previous questions.

In those answers the minister acknowledged that he did not have the capability to do adequate testing of the emissions that were occurring from 6:30 on. Given that fact, we understand that the company's position is that it erred on the side of caution in ordering adjacent residents to vacate their homes at eight o'clock.

On what basis did ministry officials agree to allow the residents to return to their homes at 1 o'clock, given that the officials had done no monitoring and had no idea of the toxicity of the emissions?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member may be aware from her discussions with the officials she has spoken to, that decision was based on the assessment of the fire department, the police department and the medical officer of health, all the officials who were gathered there. It was not a decision of the Ministry of the Environment that those people would be instructed to go back to their homes.

Mrs. Grier: Would the minister not agree that none of the officials he has mentioned had at that point any idea of the nature of the substance that was being emitted, the quantities that had been emitted or the effects those emissions might have on any of the residents?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That may or may not have been the case. As I indicated in my answer to the member for Wentworth, the company itself provided some equipment and had some of its medical people on the site at that time as well and gave some indications to the people who were there about whether they should return. The medical officer of health, the fire and police departments and others would assess it based on all the information they had at the time.

Our officials were not allowed into the press conference. Did they allow the member into the press conference?

Mr. Dean: No.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: They did not allow ministry officials and others into the press conference. I think the member for Wentworth finally did get in and perhaps he heard this. The company indicated it provided some information to those around and did some monitoring. It indicated it would err on the side of what it referred to as safety.

Mr. Dean: I am a little amazed -- I do not know whether to be delighted or not -- that the Minister of the Environment has indicated he is going into the privatization of environmental testing. He said earlier he was not happy with what happened and then he said he would not have any way of knowing whether what happened was right or wrong because they do not have any equipment, but are relying instead on what is in the private sector.

Mr. Speaker: And you would like to ask.

Mr. Dean: I would like to ask how he can continue to serve as minister if he does not run his department any better than this and allows inadequate equipment to handcuff him in determining when there is a danger.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member has to remember that I indicated one does it on a long-term basis. The equipment in effect, the TAGA unit, is a machine that takes approximately two hours to assemble and the technicians have to calibrate the machine to deal with the specific substance. In addition, there is the travel time. We are talking about a machine that was not designed for emergencies.

The member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) asked, "What is an ongoing spill?" An ongoing spill is one in which the emissions continue without being stopped. Ordinarily, that is when this machine has been used, as that member will find out if she checks with former Ministers of the Environment. As the member knows, we are looking on an ongoing basis at the very latest in equipment that is available to deal with any circumstances and we will continue to do so.

Mr. Mackenzie: Is it a fact, or can the minister tell me if I am wrong, that the TAGA unit at least has the capability of analysing the toxins, whereas the measurement the company was using can only give a measure; and that in any event it would probably have taken three or more hours to get that unit from Toronto to Hamilton had it been operational, which it was not? A similar unit should be located in the Hamilton-Wentworth area, given the concentration of industry, chemicals, steel plants and so on.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: To deal with the last part of the question first, it is my understanding the most up-to-date similar machine, the latest equipment, still is not an emergency machine, as the member has appropriately pointed out. The cost of the most up-to-date one is more than $1 million per machine. We would be looking at a number of them to determine where they could be located in the province. As he knows, this machine is used for ongoing monitoring in various neighbourhoods.

The member is quite correct, in that the machine can be calibrated to deal with specific substances that are very close to each other in the spectrum of chemical substances.

3 p.m.

FLOODING

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources about flooding in Essex county and Windsor. I have a copy of a letter dated in October from Harvie Andre, the federal Associate Minister of National Defence, written to the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes), in which he says his ministry was advised by the Ontario ministry that: "The peak in the Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie area was reached in April 1985 and the water level is now receding." What has happened has "apparently resolved the possible flooding threat."

Since I know Windsor is a subject that is going to be on the minister's mind for the next couple of days, I wonder whether he will talk with people when he goes to Windsor, have a look-see and recognize that ice levels now are such on the river and on Lake St. Clair that there is a very real, urgent problem.

Flooding is not simply a hypothetical possibility when breakup comes; it is a reality facing literally thousands of people in that area. Can the minister explain why his ministry gave such bad advice to the Associate Minister of National Defence?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We are certainly very aware of the threat. We feel the high waters will be with us for quite a while. Precipitation is going to be very high. We are looking for help at the federal level because it is of such proportions that I am afraid it cannot be handled by the government of Ontario.

This past week I flew down to Ottawa and talked with Tom McMillan, the Minister of the Environment, who is in charge of that circumstance and asked him to speak with our American friends on behalf of Ontario, which has 4,000 kilometres of shoreline, to see whether a real issue is going to be made of control of the high waters.

I share with the leader of the third party that we are concerned about the future threat, but what he is talking about is probably very cyclical; it moves up and down considerably. We are looking at those things to try to project the future. I feel there is a threat there.

Mr. Rae: The minister has managed to pass the buck not to one other level of government but to three: the International Joint Commission, the federal government and the municipality.

Can the minister explain why, in a letter dated November 28, he stated as follows: "The primary responsibility for the protection of private shoreline property rests with the individual property owner"? I apologize; it is not three, but four, because now he has just shifted it onto the individual home owner. He says, "Governments have never been in a position to guarantee protection from erosion and flooding damage along the Great Lakes."

God gave more help to Noah with respect to what is happening to flooding. Why is the minister not prepared to recognize that the government of Ontario has a responsibility to these home owners and to other people in this area? He can do something about controlling flooding. It has been done for approximately 4,000 years.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I accept the fact that we are responsible for many of the circumstances that relate to our role as the Ministry of Natural Resources. I must also bring to bear the fact that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) is very much involved. While ours is the lead ministry, while we have conservation authorities in the very areas that are threatened and we can do a lot of the monitoring and things that need to be done, we need help from various other levels of government. We could use some help from the leader of the third party, rather than much of the criticism he raises on an issue that is very important.

Mr. Pollock: If the minister is so concerned about flood control, why did he pull the funding of $4 million for a flood control dam on the Moira River at Belleville?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The honourable member is stretching his imagination to use that as a supplementary. However, as long as it is a tributary to the Great Lakes, I suppose one could stretch one's imagination and include it.

The fact is that our conservation authorities have for a good, long time been developing flood plain mapping, doing the things we hope to do to help protect the citizens of Ontario.

I hope the leader of the third party will listen to this, because it is important as it relates to this issue. We have had a very difficult time putting those plans into effect. In fact, one of the problems we are having with many of the areas that are flooded is that they are built within those flood plains. We have to do something to plan so it will not be allowed to happen in the future.

Mr. Hayes: This issue has been raised several times in the past seven or eight months with the Minister of Natural Resources and has also been brought to the attention of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The minister met with municipal officials, representatives from the conservation authority and other groups. These groups agreed that his shoreline protection loan plan was inadequate.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Hayes: Will the minister take immediate action to protect the people and protect the properties along the shorelines of Windsor and Essex counties that are now in imminent danger of flooding this spring or sooner?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We have taken into account the circumstances that exist there; we have met with elected officials and all the people who have some concerns. We met with them all when they were brought to Toronto on four different occasions. They have to share some of that responsibility as it relates to the Municipal Act and those aspects that relate to municipalities.

The fact of the matter is that we are going to need everyone involved to come together to solve the problem. It is not going to be done --

Mr. Hayes: Why don't you listen to them. They pointed out the inadequacies. When is the minister going to do something?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The consideration even today is such that the federal and provincial governments are extending the money that is needed to do the studies, planning and plotting of those areas being flooded. The press release today was a joint effort of Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. We are doing everything we can to resolve the problem.

COURT RULING

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Attorney General.

Does the Attorney General agree with recent statements by crown counsel in this province that the duration of a sexual assault should be a prime and determining factor in the seriousness of that assault?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have not seen the statements. If the honourable member will be good enough to send them over, I will be glad to look at them and provide an answer to the question.

Mr. Gillies: I am surprised the Attorney General would say he has not seen them because they are contained in a letter he sent to me.

In questioning his staff, we found that the determining factors in judging the seriousness of this type of offence are considered to be the duration of the assault, the nature of the assault, whether it was repeated, and the age of the victim. How can the Attorney General remain as minister responsible for women's issues when his crown counsel is sending out a message which implicitly says that an assault on a 12-year-old is by its nature less damaging than an assault on a 15-year-old and that an assault of 15 minutes is by its nature less damaging than an assault of 30 minutes?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I cannot respond to the member's question unless he shows me the document from which he is reading, which he says emanates from the crown law office. If he will show it to me I will be glad to give my views about it at any time.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues.

I would like to ask the minister about the makeup of the hearing panel he has just announced on the matter of equal pay for work of equal value in the private sector. Why does he feel that a panel with the makeup he has described will provide him with any kind of objective reading of how the public feels on this question? This is a panel that has its ears trained on one side; it is used to listening to the business arguments of matters. How can we expect to get any kind of report from this panel that will be useful in looking at how to make up this legislation?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am troubled that an honourable member in this House, who probably does not even know the members of the panel, would dare to say, of three people in this province who are donating their time to this effort at very modest remuneration, that they have their ears open only to one side. Maybe she has her ears open only to one side. That kind of gratuitous insult to people who are willing to serve the Ontario public is not justified.

The panel was selected because we wanted to get three people who were aware of the problems and advantages associated with equal pay for work of equal value in the private sector and who had associated themselves, by study or experience, with the development of these programs. All those people in Ontario, including businesses, trade unions, chambers of commerce and other groups who desire to be heard, will be heard by these people, with the recognition that the consultants have knowledge of the territory that is being considered. I am quite proud of the panel.

Ms. Gigantes: No doubt it is a panel to be proud of for another purpose, but not for this one. I happen to know one of the panellists, having gone to university with her. This is a panel composed exclusively of people with wide business background.

How does the Attorney General reconcile his statement today that the panel will be listening to a wide range of "business, labour, community and women's groups as well as members of the public" with his statement on the next page that people should contact the Ontario women's directorate to make an appointment and that the selection of the people to be heard will be on a first-come, first-served basis? What if all the business people in Ontario get there first?

Hon. Mr. Scott: What griping this is. The fact is that we are meeting in these five cities and we want everybody who wants to be heard to be heard. We have made a simple request that they should write us a letter, they do not have to send us copies of their briefs, so we can tell them to come at 10 o'clock, at four o'clock or at three o'clock and not have them all arrive at 10 o'clock and wait all day and into the evening to be heard.

It is precisely the kind of service that the clerks of the committees of the House regularly perform to convenience people. We have arranged that people will be heard in the order in which they put in their names so that if it is necessary to schedule further hearing dates in other locations, those who have indicated their --

Ms. Gigantes: That will take until next Christmas.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Just hush.

The honourable member sees a cynical objective behind every principle of order. The reality is that the purpose of asking them to put in their names is to achieve a timing. They will be heard in the order in which they submit their requests.

Mr. Gillies: I am astonished that the minister would think it unreasonable that this panel should include a representative either of labour or of the women's movement. I am not criticizing the qualities of the three people he has appointed, but would the minister not now rise in this House and say he will add to this consultative panel a representative of the labour movement and one of the women's movement?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Now there, Mr. Speaker, is a question, and the answer to the question is that we have two panels in the course of preparation, one of which has met already. They will be composed, in the first instance, of representatives of the business community, and in the second instance, of representatives of the trade union movement. I will announce the composition of those panels very shortly.

LIBERAL CANDIDATE

Mr. Timbrell: I have a question for the Premier, knowing he shares my interest in seeing people of all cultural or ethnic backgrounds more involved in the political process. Would the Premier confirm that Styli Pappas, a candidate for the Liberal nomination in the constituency of York East for the soon to be announced by-election, has been asked by officials of the Liberal Party to step aside?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First of all, it is none of the honourable member's business; but the answer is no.

Mr. Timbrell: With all due respect, I would rather share with this House and with the public the responsibility for the political process and not leave it exclusively in the Premier's hands. It is very much my business.

Second, will he ensure that no offers have been made or will be made to Mr. Pappas to step aside with the promise of appointment by his government to some agency, board or commission?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I find this a most interesting question. Here is a man who should have been prosecuted for violating his own party's rules on spending at the convention. Have we brought this up in the House? No, we would never bring it up, because it is an internal party matter. He is a man whose government appointed Morley Rosenberg, a man who was part of a government that traded a judgeship and he comes --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will both members take their places.

Mr. Timbrell: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: While I recognize that I probably hit a nerve and the Premier wants to avoid the question, by using the word "prosecuted" in his comment he implied I have done something that is illegal in the Dominion of Canada. That is patently false and I demand that he withdraw and apologize.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have touched a nerve and I think the matter should be aired in the House. We want to ask the president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, who is a member of this House, to stand up. He set the rules, and this man violated them and his leader violated them. We should bring the full weight of this Legislature to bear to help the poor president who has been beaten up by these two people violating the rules. We are here to help him.

Mr. Timbrell: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am raising a point of privilege. My privileges have clearly been abridged by the Premier. He has neither withdrawn nor apologized and I insist on a ruling from you.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on this point, there is some fundamental ambiguity in what the Premier said. I think we can accept that the phrase "should be prosecuted" has certain basic connotations with respect to the force of the criminal law, and none of us would want to see the criminal law used against the Tory party at this stage of the game. Perhaps the game protection law or some law of that kind would be appropriate, but not the full force of the criminal law. Given that fact, I am sure the Premier will not want it to be said that the Mounties or the Ontario Provincial Police or somebody else should somehow be involved in whatever may or may not have occurred at the Conservative convention. I call on him to clarify and withdraw that remark in so far as it has that connotation.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the discussion, which has taken a considerable amount of time. I do not believe the subject under discussion is a matter of law. However, I did hear the Premier say the member should be prosecuted. I wonder whether the Premier can find some other word, because that is quite strong. Will he withdraw that word?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I would never imply that the Mounties or the OPP should come after my dear friend in the circumstances. I just assumed that since he has broken the internal laws of his own party, there might be a problem. I do not expect --

Mr. Speaker: Will the Premier withdraw?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Premier has withdrawn.

Mr. Shymko: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: As I think we in this House have traditionally been allowed to do, this may be the occasion to remind the honourable members on a nonpartisan basis that the Premier's office signed an official proclamation on behalf of this Legislature on the 60th anniversary of the declaration of independence --

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, you are abusing question period time.

3:20 p.m.

A AND P FOOD STORES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question for the Premier that will also touch a nerve, one that is in a slightly more serious vein than that in which we have been involved for the past few minutes.

I have been made aware that a number of Dominion stores that were remaining since the A and P sale are now being sold. On February 1, Square One will close; February 15, Sherway and Orillia will close; February 8, 55 Bloor St. will close; March 1, 2285 Sheppard Ave. will close; February 1, 985 Woodbine Ave. will close; February 1, Warden Woods Mall Dominion Store will close; February 22, 1089 Kingston Road will close; and on March 8, the Napanee store will close.

The Premier has known that this would be happening. We warned him about this systematic divestment since last May, when he received the first correspondence. I have spoken to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) on this any number of times. What is he going to do to protect the workers who are being left with no protection at this time?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Is the member telling this House today, and telling me, of some new news? I am not aware of the new news that he brings to us. I am aware, in general terms, of the sale. I do not know what the plans are for anyone else taking over, or what is going to happen, but I am prepared to look into it and see what we can do to assist.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: All of these stores are being closed. Some of them are being sold to the Mr. Grocer and other kinds of independents with no guarantee for those workers. As the Minister of Labour is well aware, there is a systematic approach to reducing each of those stores to fewer than 50 employees so that nobody is eligible for severance pay.

The Premier has known about this for months. We have warned him about it for months and nothing has been done to protect these workers. What is he going to do now that we have warned him of is happening? Soon there will be no Dominion stores left, or maybe one or two in name only by April 1.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We will look at the situation. If there are any laws being violated in this province, we will make sure that stops. I will ask the Minister of Labour to take a very close look at it.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Gordon: I have a question of the Treasurer in the absence of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling). How many rental units will be built in Ontario in 1986?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not know. The member has seen the allocation of funds in the budget of October 24. He knows the commitment made for the support of housing in this province, particularly compared with the inadequate support in recent years. We have to make up for lost time.

The Minister of Housing has announced his policy. He brought forward bills to this House. I can assure the member that in the allocation of funds, both in the present fiscal year and in the coming fiscal year, there will be dollars sufficient to meet our commitments.

Mr. Gordon: Given the fact that even the government's most optimistic projections in its assured housing policy fall far short of the forecast need for housing in this province, and given the fact that we have people living in tents, in motel rooms, in gas station washrooms, will he tell this House what his government will do over and above what it has already committed to rectify this situation?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The answer has been given to the member and his colleagues repeatedly over the last weeks. The remedy does not lie in a week or a month, but it lies in the usefulness of new policies designed to meet these demands, which have grown up over many years where the allocation of funds and the allocation of policy and thought have been most seriously inadequate.

The people of the province have indicated their strong support for the initiatives taken by the Minister of Housing. I can assure the member we are striving to meet these needs, and I trust we will.

Mr. McClellan: I am sure the Treasurer has been made aware of the article in Wednesday's Toronto Star by David Lewis Stein wherein Mr. Stein indicated that there is a tremendous amount of confusion with respect to how many housing units the government intends to finance itself, first in 1985-86 and, second, in 1986-87, and what the share of those units between the federal and provincial governments is under an incredibly complicated new funding formula.

Will the Treasurer review the confusion that is set out in Mr. Stein's article and undertake to come back to the House, perhaps with the Minister of Housing when he returns, and present to us a clear and understandable statement of how many units the government intends to fund in 1985-86 and how many the government intends to fund in 1986-87 in addition to federal allocations?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will bring the honourable member's request to the attention of the minister.

CANCER TREATMENT CENTRE

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware that the executive summary in the report of the Provincial Role Study of Cancer Services in Ontario, looking into the organization of cancer treatment services in the province, states in part, "Not to approve development at the Ontario Cancer Institute since 1972 and to build a new centre in Sudbury appear problematic."

I am sure the minister is aware that people are vitally concerned about the words "appear problematic." Will the minister assure the people of Sudbury and eastern Ontario that funds will be made available in the new fiscal year 1986-87 to construct the cancer centre?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman continues to express an interest in that project, and I thank him for the question. It is a follow-up to earlier inquiries that he and the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) have made.

We have checked with staff in the institutional branch of our ministry and, as I understand it, the planning process is going on at the Sudbury site. As far as I know, the timing in terms of intentions of flowing funds is on line. I have not received a final report on the status and I cannot tell the member when all the money is flowing, but I understand the planning process has been going as anticipated over the last several months.

Mr. Martel: I am a little nervous because the minister has not said yes definitely. Provided that the plans are finalized, will the minister make the money available whenever the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) brings in his new budget for this construction year?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am not sure just how far the planning process has allowed us to flow funds. I know money is flowing to help them to do the planning. I do not know that I can tell the member honestly that money is there to put a spade in the ground because I am not sure it is at that stage. All I can say is that I followed up on the inquiry he and the member for Sudbury made earlier with respect to the status. I had understood from earlier discussions with the ministry's institutional branch that plans are proceeding as they should.

As to the other question about exactly how much money is flowing, I do not know, but as soon as I get a final report from my officials I will share that with the House and with the two honourable members.

Mr. Gordon: I thank the minister for his answer today, but there is one point that bothers me, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and many residents throughout northeastern Ontario.

As the minister is well aware, the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation has said it does not have the third it requires to pay its share of the capital cost of the new northeastern Ontario cancer treatment centre. When the member for Sudbury East asks the minister whether he is going to provide the moneys, what he is really asking is, in the event that the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation does not have its third, will the ministry and/or the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines provide that other third so that this cancer treatment centre can go ahead? I would appreciate an answer to that.

Hon. Mr. Elston: That is the further question I have asked my institutional people to look into. They were not aware of the difficulty with respect to the third or whatever level of funding. They are now seeking out answers and trying to come to grips with the problem. The institutional branch had understood that everything was proceeding normally. I have asked them to check into that and other aspects so I can provide a little more detail with respect to money flow and opportunities for that area.

I can tell the members that we would not have been working with the oncologists in Sudbury if we were not anticipating providing the mechanism for planning to progress to construction.

3:30 p.m.

TRAPPING CONTRACT

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Will the minister explain why he has slandered the professionalism and the abilities of trappers in the Chapleau area by refusing, in his letter dated October 31, 1985, to insist that they be given an opportunity to participate in a state of Michigan project to capture and transport live martens from the Chapleau crown game preserve, a contract in excess of $50,000, which amount represents a 25 per cent increase in revenues to the Chapleau trappers and much needed employment for the members of the Chapleau Area Trappers' Council.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That was no criticism of the trappers of the Chapleau area. It was a joint effort whereby we were going to allow a marten to go into the United States to renew that species in an area where this kind of project was well worth consideration. The people who were brought in to do the trapping were paying for the research and for the program, and they had some concerns about how the trapping should be carried on in order to take those animals back and make certain they would fulfil their expectation of renewing the species.

We in Ontario can be very proud that we do this kind of research with moose, geese and martens and bring the kind of impact from the other direction in the form of wild turkeys.

Mr. Harris: The minister knows that Ontario trappers would never be trapping in Michigan. The contract involves Ontario wildlife. It is an Ontario crown preserve. Ontario trappers certified by our government want to do the work. The staff wildlife specialist for the state of Michigan says he wants to use Ontario trappers, particularly in the future. That is more than they can get from the Minister of Natural Resources.

Will the minister now acknowledge the rights and skills of the trappers? Will he contradict a statement by the ministry that they do not have the expertise to live-trap, and will he respond to their request -- as even the state of Michigan wants him to do -- and establish a provincial policy giving Ontario trappers and other wildlife professionals first right of refusal for all --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The honourable member is going beyond the bounds of good common sense when he says I have suggested that our trappers are in any way less able to do their job when they trap animals for furs. We were talking about very special research in which one had to live-trap the animals.

I suggest to him that in the future, if co-operation can be obtained from the state of Michigan on these kinds of resources, our trappers will be given every right to participate in that kind of program.

Mr. Laughren: Can the minister briefly give us a very simple assurance: namely, that this will not happen again?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I do not know that I can give that kind of assurance immediately. I am suggesting that I would share with the member the reasonableness if we are going to have an exchange. I am prepared to say now --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am going to say it, if members will listen. I am suggesting that our trappers in Ontario have top priority; and yes, this minister will do everything that can be done in their favour.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services about the tremendous increase in liability insurance that has been assessed against the associations for the mentally retarded in this province. As of January I the rate will have increased by 446 per cent in St. Catharines, 685 per cent in Welland and 887 per cent in Niagara Falls. Those increases were flagged last August and the ministry has known about them for months.

Will the minister, realizing, as he must, the serious impact this will have on the operation of the associations, tell this House whether he has had consultations with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) and whether that minister indicated that those kinds of increases could be justified?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have had considerable consultation with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and I can share with the House that the minister has been most helpful in assisting several of the agencies to which this ministry transfers funds to get insurance when they could not get it themselves.

The member will be aware of the fact that an agency right here in Metro Toronto that provides day care services was faced with the lack of insurance as of February 1. That has been rectified through the good work of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and I publicly thank him for it.

Speaking to the more general question, we have said very clearly to the various agencies with which this ministry works that we will not under any circumstances see their services reduced, that we will assist them in finding insurance from other sources and that we will also assist them in funding those sources, whatever they happen to be.

On the question of whether or not the rates are valid, I am sorry, I cannot respond to that.

Mr. Swart: Since the minister has said he does not know, nor does the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations know, whether those rates were justified, let alone worthy of rollback, recognizing that constitutionally the province has full responsibility for insurance rates -- let us make no mistake about that -- will the minister now go further and tell this House that he will provide the total extra funding over and above the four per cent normal transfer to pay the additional cost of that liability insurance?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the member is probably aware, we sit down with each of the agencies to whom we transfer funds and allocate to them the range of funds, depending upon the services they require to meet their needs. I am reasonably sure that all of these agencies are going to include in their service plan for this coming fiscal year the fact that they have increased costs of insurance, and that will have to be built into the transfer funds that we provide to them for a whole range of services.

I obviously cannot tell the member that there will be an automatic amount put on top, but I can clearly tell him that is a factor that will be considered and we will be fair and reasonable with our transfer agencies in including this figure.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I was cut off during question period, but I just want to ask the Speaker for the privilege of informing the members -- as was done by the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) in November 1985 -- of certain events which the members of this Legislature --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate that a very short time ago the member sent me a note saying he would like to bring up a point of privilege and then, in brackets, "of information." I have to say this is a point of information.

I had a request from another member asking if he or she could stand up. I wrote back and said that the proper way to inform members of this is by memo through the mail. I hope the member will be agreeable to that.

There have been occasions when, early, as soon as the House rises, if I am notified prior to the opening of the House, that has been done. That would be the case and will continue to be the case.

Mr. Shymko: I would like to have clarification on a point of order, therefore.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled that the honourable member cannot at this time.

Mr. Shymko: I find it unprecedented in terms of the privileges of members of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have made the ruling.

3:40 p.m.

PETITIONS

CONSTITUENCY BOUNDARY

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition which reads as follows:

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

"Whereas both reports of the electoral boundaries commission have recommended that the townships of Thurlow and Tyendinaga, the town of Deseronto and the Tyendinaga Indian reserve be removed from the Hastings-Peterborough constituency;

"Whereas these municipalities are part of Hastings county and work with the provincial and county offices in the city of Belleville, the county seat, rather than offices located in other county seats;

"Whereas these four rural municipalities have a community of interest with other rural municipalities in Hastings-Peterborough;

"Now therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Lieutenant Governor and the Ontario Legislature to leave the townships of Thurlow and Tyendinaga, the town of Deseronto and the Tyendinaga Indian reserve in the Hastings-Peterborough constituency."

This is signed by 36 members of the Foxboro Second Milers Senior Citizens Club.

I have another petition. I am not going to read the whole thing, just the following:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Lieutenant Governor and the Ontario Legislature to leave the townships of Thurlow and Tyendinaga, the town of Deseronto and the Tyendinaga Indian reserve in the Hastings-Peterborough constituency,"

This is signed by 29 members of the senior citizens club in Deseronto.

Another petition reads:

This is signed by 91 members of the Plainfield Women's Institute.

Another petition reads:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Lieutenant Governor and the Ontario Legislature to leave the townships of Thurlow and Tyendinaga, the town of Deseronto, and the Tyendinaga Indian reserve in the Hastings-Peterborough constituency."

This is signed by 19 members of the Carmel Women's Institute.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

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

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Ministry administration program, $7,121,700; heritage conservation program, $22,559,700; arts support program, $51,777,400; citizenship and multicultural support program, $10,241,700; libraries and community information program, $12,665,000; and capital support and regional services program, $43,653,100.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolutions:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Energy be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Ministry administration program, $4,479,300; policy and planning program, $3,271,800; energy management and technology program, $21,340,900; Ontario Energy Board program, $1,684,600; and energy investment program, $33,250,000.

That supply in the following supplementary amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Energy be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Ontario Energy Board program, $1,067,600; energy investment program, $305 million.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on the Ombudsman be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Monday, January 27, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Tuesday afternoons during the committee's consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General and Bill 7.

Motion agreed to.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28(a), the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) has given notice that he is dissatisfied with the answer to a question given by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). This item will be discussed at 10:30 this evening.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am tabling the answers to questions 126, 127, 128, 150, 151, 156, 157, 161, 174, 175, 176 and the interim answers to questions 152, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159 and 160 in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Friday, January 24].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

NON-SMOKERS' PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Sterling moved second reading of Bill 71, An Act to protect the Public Health and Comfort and the Environment by Prohibiting and Controlling Smoking in Public Places.

Mr. Speaker: As the member is well aware, he has up to 20 minutes. If he wishes to reserve any of that for the end of the debate, he may advise the chair.

Mr. Sterling: I shall so reserve it.

I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this issue of nonsmokers' rights before the Legislature today. As much as I would like to take credit for the fine timing by which this bill is being brought forward during National Nonsmoking Week, I must admit it has been by good chance rather than good planning. However, this week does focus on the detrimental effect on the public of first-hand and second-hand smoke.

At the outset, I would like to put forward a few of many statistics on the hazards of the use of tobacco to put the problem relating to tobacco in perspective as to how serious it really is.

Canadians in general are leaving the habit of smoking. In 1970, about 41 per cent of the population were regular smokers, whereas in 1983 this had been reduced to about 31 per cent. An interesting fact pointed out in the 1983 statistics of the Department of National Health and Welfare is that it seems the more educated a person is in our formal education system, the less likely he is to smoke. Forty-seven per cent of the people who have not finished high school are regular smokers, while only 20 per cent of the people who finished university are smokers.

Therefore, we can perhaps draw the conclusion that more informed people or those who are able to seek information in relation to the hazards of smoking have rejected the idea of smoking.

3:50 p.m.

Perhaps the most significant factor in this whole debate on smoking and the sanctions government should take against smoking relate to the fact that 30,000 deaths in this country are attributable to smoking. One fifth of the deaths that occur in this country and this province are related to the habit of smoking. Those statistics relate to first-hand smokers in general. However, this bill deals not with the effects of smoke on smokers, but with those who do not wish to smoke and by circumstances are forced to breathe someone else's smoke. My objective in bringing the Non-Smokers Protection Act before the Legislature is not to penalize those who wish to smoke, but rather to protect those of us who are subjected to that smoke.

According to a recent study done by Dr. House for the Ministry of Labour in June 1985, which has gained international recognition but seems to be less recognized here at home, evidence indicates that as much as 86 per cent of the population of Ontario encounter second-hand smoke at work or at home. Dr. House also concludes that there is now sufficient evidence to show there have been detrimental health effects because of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke.

A recent study by the United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates that between 500 and 5,000 nonsmokers die each year in the US of lung cancer caused by others' cigarettes. It has been long recognized in this province by the Workers' Compensation Board, going back to 1979, that smoke damage in the work place is a compensable work-related injury from the involuntary smoke of other workers.

We should not wait for more and more studies, as the tobacco industry is suggesting. Its credibility is well known, as evidenced by its stalling techniques over the past 20 years in dealing with first-hand smoke. We should not wait to protect nonsmokers from what is indeed a health hazard in the inhalation of second-hand smoke.

One might ask why a provincial law is necessary when many municipalities have already passed bylaws dealing with this matter. Though many of our larger municipalities have done this, many other municipalities have not. This is particularly true of small municipalities where municipal councillors are not full-time and do not have the time to deal with health-related issues. Also, many small municipalities, quite frankly, do not have the expertise to draw up a bylaw dealing with this kind of matter.

We now have in place in this province dozens of sets of rules dealing with smoking in public places. We now have an indication that municipalities want to start to draw up bylaws to deal with smoking in the work place. Do we want different rules for each of the different seats of municipal government across our province? In my opinion, such a different set of laws is foolhardy and the answer should be no.

As lawmakers in this province, we should attempt to make the law as clear as possible so that the public understands it. Different laws across the province invite confusion. If the municipalities take the lead in formulating nonsmoking protection laws in the work place, we will not only have confusion in dealing with smoking in public places but we will also have a plethora of laws across the province dealing with the matter.

What we need and what I am proposing in this bill is a uniform minimum provincial standard to deal with nonsmokers' rights in the public place and in the work place. Quite frankly, I am getting a mixed signal from this government as to whether there is a commitment to reduce smoking in our province.

In answering a letter to Mrs. Evelyn Johnston of Markham, dated September, 1985, the Premier talks about co-ordinating and collaboration and developing a national strategy to reduce smoking; but his government has not made a definitive statement against the use of tobacco, which has detrimental effects on the health of our provincial citizens. It is causing somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000 deaths in this province. Yet we have a government that is reluctant to take a leadership role in this area. In fact, the opposite may be true.

Experts agree that the consumption of tobacco is directly related to the price of tobacco products. The deterrent of higher tobacco prices has a greater effect on the younger people of this province, because of their limited income, than it does on our older people.

Recommendation 4 of the 1982 report of the Ontario Council of Health said the government should double the price of tobacco in one year. What did this government do in its October budget? In effect, it condoned a decrease in the price of cigarettes, which has taken place over the last year and a half. In order to keep consumption of tobacco at the same levels as it was in June 1984 through the effect of price on the consumption of tobacco, it would have been necessary for the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) to increase the price of tobacco not by one cent, but by 18 cents.

Since June 1984, there has not been an increase in the tax on tobacco. If the Treasurer had wanted to indicate to this province that he wished to keep the consumption of tobacco down, he would have allowed the ad valorem tax to take place. If there ever was an argument for an ad valorem tax, this was it, because then the tax on tobacco would have increased with inflation and kept the consumption of tobacco down. It also would have added some $125 million to the provincial Treasury.

If this Legislature passes this act, it will not only protect nonsmokers, but it will send out a clear statement that we in this Legislature are against smoking because of its hazardous health effects. A clear statement from the government would indicate to our young people that it is not only socially acceptable to make this statement, but it is desirable to be a nonsmoker. If this act is implemented, the nonsmokers in our society would insist on their rights and act as proper examples for our young people. It would have a very positive spinoff for those young people. This legislation does a number of things. It protects nonsmokers in public places by guaranteeing smoke-free areas for individuals who choose not to smoke. This bill severely restricts smoking in public places where children, who have greater vulnerability to the hazards of second-hand smoke, are present. It provides special rights for nonsmokers in health care facilities. It also permits the government to go ahead and make regulations governing smoking in the work place.

4 p.m.

Unfortunately, I did not have the time or the expertise to formulate all of the laws in relation to making reasonable and practical rules for smoking in the work place, but this is permissive and allows the government to go ahead with that process.

I did not get these sections out of the air. I referred to the report I mentioned earlier that was done for the Ontario Council of Health. The report is entitled Smoking and Health in Ontario: A Need for Balance. Of course, because the bill may have minor flaws in some sections, I will be happy to consider constructive amendments if this bill passes.

To gain support for this bill I advertised its intent and objectives in the Ottawa Citizen and the Kingston Whig-Standard, and in the last two days I have received some 120 replies to that advertisement. These replies indicate a very healthy support for my bill in the Ottawa and Kingston areas.

I add as a matter of personal interest to you, Mr. Speaker, not hoping to influence your vote on this matter, that there was heavy representation from the riding of Carleton East. I mention for the benefit of the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South) that there was very heavy representation from his riding as well. I notice he is not here today, but I know he is going to come back and vote in support of this bill at 5:50 p.m. I will be most happy to pass along to each of these respondents the voting record of the members on this bill.

It is also interesting to note that, because of the expense of my ad and the fact it was not covered in the legislative expenses, I asked in it for contributions towards the support of this ad. To date I have received approximately 25 per cent of the cost of the ad, and that is in the first two days. I also indicated to people that excess funds, if there were any, would go to the Canadian Cancer Society and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario because they deal with the detrimental health effects of smoking.

In summary, I will reply to those who ask: "Why do we need to regulate smokers? Why do we need more regulations? Why can we not just let people do what they want to do?" While I myself do not think it is wise to smoke, I have no objection if an individual makes that move and wants to go ahead and smoke. I object to close friends doing it because I think it will have a detrimental effect on them and I do not like to see my friends get sick.

However, as a nonsmoker, I do not believe I should be forced to breathe other people's smoke in order for me to carry out the normal functions of a citizen here in the province. I do not believe my personal choices or habits should harm others, but in this case a person who smokes and subjects me to his smoke is infringing on my rights in much the same way as does someone who assaults me in another way.

I accord no lesser importance to this than I do to someone who gets in his car after drinking and drives while he is impaired. He is a risk to the citizens of Ontario, and I feel it is time that we in Ontario show leadership in protecting the nonsmokers of this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): I would advise the House that the debate on this bill will conclude at 4:48 p.m. and that pursuant to the order of the House on Tuesday, January 21, 1986, all questions with respect to this ballot item will be deferred until 5:50 p.m. today. The member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini).

Mr. Swart: That is not normal rotation. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Yes, I heard you. It is my mistake. The member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Swart: I am very pleased to enter the debate in support of this bill submitted by the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling). As he has already stated, its purpose, as we would all agree, is to ensure that as far as possible, nonsmokers will be protected in public places from the adverse health effects of second-hand tobacco smoke.

There is no question that the bill is appropriate and timely. New calls are coming from health authorities all across Canada, particularly in this province, for additional steps to minimize the tremendous health problems created by tobacco smoke. I am one of those people who clips from the newspapers, and I am very conscious of the growing calls for further steps in this regard.

Just a couple of months ago a new organization was formed called Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada. They have called on both the federal and the provincial government to take meaningful action, not only to reduce the effect of smoking on nonsmokers, but also to encourage more and more people in our society, particularly young people, to be nonsmokers.

The Addiction Research Foundation issued a release only two days ago setting out the same kind of goals. It was issued during "weedless" week, and it is a very informative and compelling document for the passage of this kind of a bill and for the encouragement of many more people to break the smoking habit.

As legislators, we have an obligation to listen to these voices when they are authoritative, as they are. I therefore want to commend the member for Carleton-Grenville for bringing forward his bill in this House at this time. We are usually behind the rest of the world in measures with regard to anti-smoking regulations and the public promotion of a decrease in smoking.

I listened to the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. this morning at a very early hour on my way to Queen's Park. A report was quoted that said that Canada has the sixth poorest record of more than 100 nations in governmental and public activities against smoking.

4:10 p.m.

We are behind for the reason that we have not had governments with the courage to take the kind of measures the smoking issue warranted. Although I commend the member for raising the issue and bringing forth this bill today -- I know he is absolutely sincere in doing so, because he is a man who has taken a stand before on issues that may not have been popular -- it was his government, during the last 42 years, that refrained from taking the action it could have taken that might have saved hundreds, if not thousands, of lives which have been lost because of the smoking habit in this province.

The member mentioned a report I want to refer to called Smoking and Health in Ontario: A Need for Balance, which was tabled in May of 1982. That was three years before the Conservative government of this province lost control, and yet during that time there was no action taken by the Conservative government on this very comprehensive report; although I suspect the member for Carleton-Grenville may have tried to push the government into it.

The significant thing about this report is that it was submitted to the member of this Legislature who is now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) and who was Minister of Health at that time. He took no action whatsoever on the report.

First of all, as the member well knows, that report documented the very serious consequences of smoking or inhaling somebody else's smoke. There is a section on the health consequences of smoking and while I am not going to take time to read a great deal of it, I do want to read the first clause.

"Smoking causes death, disease and disability. Overall death rates for male smokers are 1.7 times higher than for nonsmokers, 1.3 times higher for females. The risk of dying between the ages of 35 and 65 is two-and-a-half times higher for daily smokers of 25 cigarettes or more than for nonsmokers. Coronary heart disease is a chief contributor to the excess mortality. Death rates also are higher for chronic obstructive lung disease and for several cancers, especially lung cancer."

Then it goes on to make a number of recommendations. The first recommendation concerns protection from passive smoking. If one looks at Bill 71 which is before us today, we find section 3 is taken to a large extent from that first recommendation. It is a good recommendation. It is a good bill and I am not being critical of it.

Recommendation two calls for additional protection of special groups. It says the government should amend the Public Hospitals Act to require hospital boards and directors to make provision for smoking and nonsmoking areas. This would ensure that nonsmoking patients are not exposed to tobacco smoke, etc. If we look at the bill today, that is section 4.

Then we have recommendation three concerning smoking in the work place which is section 5 of this bill. I am not being critical of the member for having taken many recommendations from this report and putting them in the bill because this was a good report. It was a comprehensive report. It was a study that was done in great depth.

I suggest if the Conservative government of this province, as a government, had been sincere, this bill would have been brought forward at least two or three years ago. The government gave no leadership on this very important health matter during the 42 years it was in power.

As is the member, I am conscious of two adverse effects of reducing the numbers of people who smoke. This is not really the intent of the bill, but certainly is in this health report. We know, first, there would be a loss of income to farmers and jobs in the tobacco factories.

Second, some feel there is an impingement on what people consider to be their right to smoke. Some people might even consider it their right to smoke in this House, but we do not permit that sort of thing.

Although there is some validity to both arguments, I suggest that, on balance, the health consequences outweigh considerations of individual right. If there are further reductions in smoking, there will be more money available to be spent on other things that will create jobs. I know that is no satisfaction to people who may lose their jobs or farmers who may not be growing tobacco, but it is a fact that it will take place. Other jobs will be created and the money will be spent on those.

I want to conclude by asking the Liberals whether some of them will rise and give a commitment that in the near future they bring in some legislation of their own, or to permit this bill to pass, go to committee and have third reading, so we will have some meaningful legislation in the province.

Mr. Mancini: Perhaps I will deal first with the last suggestion of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), and he can correct me if I am wrong. This afternoon we are in private members' hour to give our views on the matter put forward by the member for Carleton-Grenville. The member for Welland-Thorold has asked individual members of the Liberal government to get up and espouse this as government policy by promising that legislation will be introduced or that we will let this bill proceed to third reading.

In my recollection of things past, the member for Welland-Thorold has always been critical of past governments and past government members who used and abused private members' hour for the government party or for reasons not associated with private members' hour.

I see that the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), the chairman of our standing committee on procedural affairs, is here. He, myself and others, particularly members of the New Democratic Party, have fought long and hard to maintain the independence of private members' hour.

I am very surprised that because the member is in favour of something himself, he now wants us to do what he and we criticized the past government for doing. The member for Welland-Thorold has been here for some time, and he knows the procedure and the system very well. I do not plan to participate in any way in continuing in the destruction of private members' hour. I am speaking as a private member because that is what this is all about.

As I said earlier, I am very surprised at the suggestion by the member. I know for a fact and I can say without hesitation that if the member for Welland-Thorold would talk to the member for Oshawa, the present chairman of the procedural affairs committee, he would probably hear exactly the same sentiments I have expressed.

I caution the member for Welland-Thorold in his attempt to further destroy and minimize the impact that ordinary private members may have during our once weekly debate. One or two hours per week is set aside for us so we can be private members and speak on a point of view we feel strongly about. I am surprised the member wants to change that.

I have heard all that stuff before from past Conservative governments. I did not like it then and I do not particularly like it now, although deep in my heart I have a great deal of fondness for the member for Welland-Thorold.

4:20 p.m.

Before I inform the House of some of my views, I have to confess I am a part-time smoker. Usually I smoke the cigarettes of the member for Oshawa, and even this morning during our committee hearing he was kind enough to offer me a cigarette when he saw my tongue was hanging out.

I am not sure whether my friend from Oshawa did do me a favour, because I have to concur with all the medical evidence that is available today that smoking is not beneficial to one's health. How damaging it is to one's health is somewhat uncertain, but we know for a fact that it is not beneficial.

I have reviewed a report entitled The Health Effects of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, done by the special studies and services branch of the Ontario Ministry of Labour in 1985. I have reviewed this report and I found some of its findings and statements to be quite interesting. I never realized that we had things down so precisely.

The report referred to two types of cigarette smoke. One is sidestream smoke and the other is mainstream smoke. It refers to mainstream smoke as that which a person who is smoking inhales himself. Sidestream smoke is the smoke that emanates from the cigarette and whatever smoke comes out of the individual after he has done whatever he is doing in smoking a cigarette, cigar or pipe.

The evidence in the health effects report indicates that the sidestream smoke we are talking about, which is what the member who introduced the bill is trying to protect us from, has been and continues to be studied not only here in Canada but also in the United States and in places in Europe. I believe the report specifically refers to Switzerland.

It is stated in the report that there are definite harmful effects from sidestream smoke, and it lists five: (1) the irritation of eyes, nose, throat and a general annoyance associated with these irritant symptoms; (2) the exacerbation of pre-existing diseases, especially asthma and things of that nature; (3) respiratory symptoms, such as coughing and increased rates of upper and lower respiratory tract infections, which particularly affect the pulmonary function test in children who are exposed to sidestream smoke from their parents and wherever else they may be. There is an item 4, but it is highly technical and I will skip over that one. Item 5, the scariest one of all, is lung cancer.

The report goes on to say that the effect of sidestream smoke is greater in an enclosed area where there is very poor ventilation. We can take that for granted.

The smoker has made the conscious decision that this is exactly what he is going to do: he is going to smoke when he feels like it or wherever he is not precluded from doing so at the present time, as he is in elevators and other places. However, I am very concerned about the nonsmokers who are subject to sidestream smoke. I do not think we can frame legislation that would be able to encompass every situation, but I am in favour of expanding the areas where people cannot smoke; for example, on airplanes. I do not see why anyone should have a cigarette on an airplane. Most of the flights are short. There is also a danger of fire.

I am in favour of expanding the areas already restricted. On top of that, I am in favour of some type of legislation which would allow a majority number of workers in a work place to have some restrictions put in place. That is where I stand. I thank the member for bringing such a timely topic to the House.

Mr. Treleaven: I am pleased to speak on Bill 71 and I thank the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) for his indication of support for my stand. I am opposed to this bill and will be voting against it.

The proposer of the bill, the member -- thanks again to the member for Carleton, who is agreeing with my stand --

Mr. Sterling: Carleton?

Mr. Treleaven: The member for Carleton-Grenville.

Mr. Sterling: I am not agreeing with the member's stand.

Mr. Treleaven: No, with Bill 71, he is considering only the consumers. He is not thinking of the farmers and the people in the tobacco industry.

We have to remember that farmers who grow tobacco are growing a legal crop. They have been making their living that way for several generations. They are not hoodlums or criminals. They are farmers who choose to grow tobacco instead of corn or any other cash crop. In 1980, there were 2,200 farmers in the tobacco business. Now, it is down to 1,800. That is 400 farmers who are no longer in business. The usual rule of thumb is that one multiplies by 10 to get the number of jobs lost. Thus, 4,000 jobs have been lost in the tobacco belt, which is not a very big area. That is an extremely large group to go unemployed in one industry.

Mr. Philip: How many other farmers are out of business?

Mr. Treleaven: There are many others. Tobacco farmers are suffering the same ills as a lot of farmers of other agricultural crops. The reason for it is decreased tobacco consumption. Bill 71 is symptomatic of that decrease in consumption and the health lobby behind it.

As recently as 1982, the crop was 238 million pounds in a year. Last year, it was 170 million pounds. This year, who knows what it will be. The tobacco auctions are not open yet so we do not know how many pounds, whether 170 million, 190 million or whatever, were harvested this year. We do know the tobacco companies needed only about 120 million pounds.

I will give an example of the plight of the tobacco farmer. I am sure my friend the member for Elgin would know better than I that at its height two or three years ago, when one bought tobacco rights -- the right to grow and sell tobacco -- it was roughly $2.50 a pound. It went down recently to $1 a pound, and now there is no market.

Therefore, if one takes the average farm which has a quota of 120,000 pounds -- would that be fair? The member for Elgin can nod his head if he thinks I am roughly right. There are many larger and some smaller. Therefore, one sees the average tobacco farmer has probably lost $200,000 or $300,000 on his quota alone. That does not take into account that his farm has gone way down in value. The kilns he has on his farm he cannot give away, let alone sell. He is suffering tremendously.

My friend the member for Welland-Thorold was talking about farmers, the dollar value and so on. The Ontario government takes more than $500 million a year in taxes out of the tobacco industry, which is far more than it puts into agriculture. The last agricultural budget is far less than $500 million. That is what it takes out in taxes from one industry alone, and that is only the Ontario government.

4:30 p.m.

This is a good example. The average farm with a quota for 120,000 pounds produces about $4 million in tax, which is used for a lot of other things. Frankly, I believe some of it should be put back into the farming industry to help those being removed from agriculture and the farming business as Bill 71 and others like it, and efforts of the nonsmoking lobby, take effect and become more powerful.

I had prepared a list of ways we could help farmers, but I do not think I can do better than go back to an article in the Tillsonburg News of December 20, 1985. The headline is "Municipal Reps Meeting Nixon." It says, "Six members of the Committee of Concerned Tobacco Area Municipalitiés are scheduled to meet with provincial Treasurer Robert Nixon Saturday in Paris."

It goes on to talk about giving him a brief, and I will read from that. It says better than I can say what the agricultural industry in the farming sector needs.

"The original brief suggested, aside from a moderating of government tobacco tax policies, a quota removal program." That means we should use some of the money we have been taking from them in taxes and buy back the quota, buy back the rights and take it out of production, so that at least these farmers do not go out of their farms with nothing. At least they can go out with something, after paying off the bank, and after the tobacco quota is taken out of circulation.

Another thing the article mentions is "consideration of financial losses to farmers resulting from the purchase of now redundant tobacco equipment; consideration of farm families left without employment." I have to refer to the stupid, silly, farmers in transition program this government has brought in: $6 million for all the farmers in Ontario, including the tobacco farmers, who are going off the farm. When we break it down, we pay minimum wage for up to six months to one member of the family who has left the farm. Big deal. He has just had a tobacco operation that was probably worth $1 million, he has gone from the farm, he has lost it, and we are going to give a minimum wage to one member of the family.

Interjection.

Mr. Treleaven: That is right. This is relevant to Bill 71. Maybe the minister does not like me calling the FIT program stupid, but I have just had a chance to say it a second time.

In this meeting with the Treasurer, this is the other side of it, "unemployment insurance benefits, severance benefits and continued funding for tobacco research and alternative crop research." Somebody else mentioned alternative crops to help farmers out. My friend the member for Welland-Thorold did. They need extremely heavy subsidization of the Delhi research centre to try to come along with alternative crops, ones that will not unduly affect the other sectors.

People will say they can grow tomatoes on that land. If they put all the tobacco land in tomatoes, the tomato industry is up the flue. With peanuts it has been a long, tough go. Perhaps my friend the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) will be more familiar with this than I am, but at this point, when the Americans can dump peanuts at 25 cents a pound across the border in Ontario, we sure cannot compete with that. In fact, we cannot even break even on growing peanuts in the Treasurer's riding just south of mine.

In conclusion, without going through these many other things that the tobacco industry needs, I cannot support Bill 71. It lacks help for farmers. That is the other side of the equation. Massive assistance must come to the tobacco farmers hand-in-glove with this nonsmoking bill and other bills like it. There must be a balanced approach to this. As we bring in the nonsmoking groups -- and they have very good statistics to back up their contentions -- at the same time they should consider the farmers who are growing this crop and give them some help as some of them are forced out of business.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. I am disturbed by the comments of the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) who would oppose this bill because it might result in less smoking in Ontario.

It seems to me the case has been overwhelmingly developed as to the cost to society at large and to individuals in our province as a result of the health risks associated with smoking. The issue of farmers who are currently growing tobacco is one that has to be addressed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and a program has to be put in place to divert their production capabilities into other products.

There is no doubt about that, but I do not see it being relevant to this bill, which is addressing a very important issue, one the public is becoming more and more concerned about and one on which the evidence is building up concerning the hazards and dangers of second-hand tobacco smoke to nonsmokers.

I rise to support Bill 71 because I fully support its objective, which is to protect nonsmokers from the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke. As my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold has laid out so well, the 1982 report of the Ontario Council of Health lays out the facts and the effects of smoking on health in Ontario as well as the need for an approach to ensure the level of smoking is reduced and there is protection for the health concerns of the residents of this province.

I am particularly concerned about the health effects of second-hand smoke and its potential to cause chronic lung disease and lung cancer, plus its detrimental effect on those susceptible to asthma, emphysema and heart disease. I am particularly concerned about children and young people who are put into an atmosphere where they are subjected to smoke against their own volition. Harm is being done which may affect them for the rest of their lives.

I believe these are costs being borne by all of us. These are not costs or risks being borne solely by smokers in society. These are costs not only to those who contract an illness and are unable to work, but also, with respect to health care, these are costs borne by the taxpayers of Ontario.

We have to pay for the health care costs of damage and illness caused to smokers, and as the evidence now indicates considerable damage is being done to nonsmokers who are subjected to second-hand smoke. I believe nonsmokers do have a right to breathe clean air and should not be subjected to the smoke of those who wish to partake of cigarettes, pipes or cigars.

From the point of view of my own family, I have some personal concern about this. My wife suffers to a degree from asthma. We find there are certain types of events, locations and restaurants which we feel uncomfortable visiting because she has this problem. As a result, we currently have to restrict the places where we can be in attendance, at least to some degree.

4:40 p.m.

As well, there is the experience I have had. I am a nonsmoker and I recognize the types of experience in the work place, in an office environment when having to share an office with a smoker. Conflict results between one worker who feels he has the right to smoke and cannot function properly if he is not able to smoke at a certain frequency during the day and a nonsmoker whose lifestyle and ability to work are influenced by that smoke.

This bill provides for a reasonable set of circumstances that would restrict smoking in public places and in certain environments. Section 2 restricts smoking in public places generally, subject to the designation of specific areas as smoking areas. The language in this section is reasonable and provides a reasonable compromise to allow those who want to smoke an area where they can smoke.

Section 3 asks that the proprietor or other person in charge of an enclosed area make reasonable efforts to prevent smoking by posting a sign designating a seating area where smoking is prohibited.

Section 4 deals with an important part of the bill, which would prohibit smoking in certain areas of health facilities. If nowhere else, health facilities are areas in which smoking should be severely restricted. Many patients suffer particular diseases and illnesses that can be aggravated by tobacco smoke. This section includes the right of every patient to be placed in a nonsmoking room within a hospital or health facility, which is a right every patient should have.

Section 5 provides for nonsmoking areas in work places, which is vitally important. Most people spend a considerable portion of their day in the work place. For nonsmokers, particularly those who have no smokers in their family, the biggest area of conflict with second-hand smoke is during the hours they spend in the work place. That is where this bill could have a tremendous effect on the amount of time people are exposed to secondary smoke.

Overall, this bill is reasonable. I hope the government, despite the opinions of the member for Essex South, will let the bill go forward and be brought to committee for debate and not be held up, as previous governments have done with private members' bills in the past. The Conservative government in the last 42 years had no interest in letting private members' bills go on for possible passage by the Legislature. I hope this Liberal government will take a different tack on private members' business.

I want to express my complete support for this bill and I hope we get a very strong vote in support of it in the Legislature today.

Mr. D. W. Smith: I am also pleased to rise and speak on Bill 71, which was brought forward by the member for Carleton-Grenville. I support this bill in principle. I do not want to stand up in the House and say I am against the tobacco producers and all the industries affected by the tobacco industry.

I could compare what this bill is trying to do, in my opinion, to the car that may be speeding down the highway. From time to time, it may go out of control. It does cause damage and death from time to time, but we have not thrown the cars off the road. We make changes in the highways or pass laws saying that people have to change their way of thinking.

When I say I am supporting this bill in principle, I am not taking anything away from the tobacco industry or trying to kill it. I have had cancer in my family. My mother died from lung cancer, but I know she never smoked a day in her life. I have to think that perhaps all of these things are not caused by smoke. I will not take up any more of the members' time, but I wanted to make that one point.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to thank all of the members who spoke on this bill, in particular those who are going to support it. I appreciate it very much. I say to the member for Welland-Thorold that when we were in government, as Progressive Conservatives we did not pass such a bill. We had an opportunity perhaps to do so. I make no excuses for that. I did not approve of the previous government's actions on it. We should have taken action at that time. However, there has been more recent evidence indicating that second-hand smoke is indeed a health hazard, as the report of June 1985 stated. Therefore, there is more reason to act now than ever before.

I would like to empathize with the tobacco farmers. It is unfortunate they are involved in an industry which does produce a product very detrimental to our people's health. I think the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) is correct. The problem should not be resolved by encouraging our people to continue consuming more and more tobacco products. The problem has to be resolved by dealing with their business problems.

I feel very much for them, but as the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) indicated, if we put 400 farmers out of business -- I think that was his figure -- we have to compare it to the resulting loss of life in this province. There are 8,000 souls we lose to death. I would rather lose my job than die.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The time for consideration of ballot item 13 has expired.

Pursuant to an order of the House on Tuesday, January 21, 1986, all questions with respect to this ballot item will be deferred until 5:50 p.m.

HEALTH CARE ACCESSIBILITY ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 94, An Act regulating the Amounts that Persons may charge for rendering Services that are Insured Services under the Health Insurance Act.

Mr. McLean: I would like to speak briefly on Bill 94. I was hoping the minister would be here to listen. I am not one to be critical of him. I want to dwell more on the direction I feel this province should be taking with regard to health care.

With the Liberal bill to ban extra billing for doctors, we face the danger of losing some of our health care specialists. That is one of the main concerns. This, in turn, could affect the principle of accessibility in health care.

4:50 p.m.

With the previous arrangement, we all had the option of going to a doctor who was in the Ontario health insurance plan, or if we had the financial wherewithal we could opt for another doctor who would extra bill. We have now lost the freedom of selection, as in all likelihood those doctors who did extra bill will probably now move to other areas. They are the key specialists such as we have at the Hospital for Sick Children and the Toronto General Hospital. We have one specialist even in my area who has taken out papers to apply to a hospital in California.

Many people do not realize that doctors who extra bill will accept the Ontario health insurance plan rate as full and final payment in some cases. I have been told that even those who extra bill do so to only about one quarter of their patients.

Bill 94, An Act regulating the Amounts that Persons may charge for rendering Services that are Insured Services under the Health Insurance Act, holds a great deal of significance for the people of this province. I fear not many people realize the ramifications inherent in the changes this Liberal government is proposing.

Accessibility is my primary concern and the concern of my party. I am afraid a ban on extra billing will curtail that accessibility. I am inclined to go along with the doctors who condemn this ban. I am inclined to believe the freedom for which a professional person studied and worked so diligently is more of a motive than greed, as implied by the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson).

We have one of the best health care systems in the world; not just the free world but the entire world. The free world naturally attracts the most qualified professionals. We built our health care system in this province under the free world concept. I think this concept is in jeopardy.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party have nurtured this system from infancy to its current status as the best in the world. The minister may care to argue with me about this assertion, but let me remind him of two of the more recent and most celebrated operations that took place in Ontario. Both involved intricate surgery to separate two sets of Siamese twins and subsequent surgery to rehabilitate the youngsters, who were from Trinidad and Malaysia.

The people charged with the wellbeing of these youngsters did not take the children to the USSR, Cuba or even to Britain. All those countries have had socialized medicine for years. I cannot recall one occasion when a person has requested that an operation be done in Cuba.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, can you ascertain whether there is a quorum?

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells rung.

4:57 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: There is a quorum. The member for Simcoe East may continue.

Mr. McLean: As I was saying, I cannot recall one occasion when a person has requested an operation to be done in Cuba. Why not?

It should be shown for the record that there are no ministers in the House, not even the Minister of Health, while we are discussing Bill 94.

Mr. Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister is tied up in a meeting and has asked me as his parliamentary assistant to carry the bill. I will be taking copious notes on the member's remarks.

Mr. McLean: An excellent substitute, I must say.

There is no incentive for these people to strive for improvement in their field. They get a guaranteed stipend from the government, they work their routine hours and they see their patients with the same degree of concern as a Detroit assembly-line worker would. Work in the health care system there is not as it is here in Ontario.

Accessibility does not exist in other jurisdictions as it does today in Ontario. The waiting time for elective surgery in Britain runs into months. I could only guess at the waiting time in even more socialistic countries. I have heard it could be years, as high as eight years in some of those countries.

The treatment of a patient in these socialistic medical systems is at best deplorable by our standards. One recent example of this treatment comes to mind when I think of Ron Stewart, the federal member for Simcoe South. He was admitted to a Soviet hospital with acute appendicitis. I talked with him after his return to Ontario. He said that if the medical problem had not overcome him, the ill-treatment in the Russian hospital would have.

He was one of the fortunate ones. He was considered a foreign dignitary and given the best of care under the socialistic medical system. We certainly pity the native peasant. Can one imagine the treatment he or she could expect? We have a health care system that is admired and respected even by the Americans. Why would any Minister of Health or any provincial government want to downgrade the system? It is beyond me and beyond most of the doctors in the province.

One good doctor friend of mine in Orillia suggested that if the minister is out to break the back of the Ontario Medical Association, to break down the pride, professionalism and freedom Ontario doctors have enjoyed for decades, then he is bang on target and is going about it in the prescribed manner. Dr. Don Philpott has written an interesting essay on our health care system with a history of the medical practice. He is a constituent of mine in Simcoe East and I place considerable value on his comments.

We Canadians possess the amazing capacity for starting programs that have already been tried and abandoned in other nations. We take on these projects because of their obvious merit, sure that we as Canadians can overcome the pitfalls that have led to their demise elsewhere. We did it with the open classroom, hailing it as the greatest new concept in modern education, a full eight years after it has been phased out of schools in the United States, and we are doing it with state-controlled medicine.

This system evolved from the breakdown of the state-controlled medicine spoken of by Plato in the ancient Greek city-states 200 years earlier. In this system there was free access to physicians by all, supported by the state so employers would not have to worry about protecting the health of their employees and the slaves. It became apparent over the ensuing century, however, that state-employed physicians gave a reduced level of care very quickly and very directly, rarely spending any time with individual patients or having a chance to get to know them as people. Out of this developed a second level of care for those who were more concerned than the others about their health and the quality of care. This occurred outside the state scheme and physicians were paid directly for their services.

Physicians demanded fair payment for services given. There were two levels of payment. Plato is very firm about this principle in his writings, and he even states patients should be billed while still a little ill and therefore appreciative of their services. He is quoted by Socrates who pointed out that Hippocrates paid his students for treating his own ailments. Incidentally, Socrates also charged for his services of cleansing the mind and the spirit and likened himself to a physician of the soul.

In more modern times, Cuba had state-controlled medicine in the early 20th century and likely still does. It was apparent by 1925 that the top people were no longer entering the profession because of decreasing social stature and level of income. Just as in ancient Greece, there was a diminished level of care for the patient.

In the past quarter-century, Great Britain has had its national health scheme. That was a great boon to this country because it stimulated the exodus of large numbers of British-trained graduates, most of whom came to Canada or went to the United States or Australia. In turn, it provided many job opportunities in Britain for the many medical graduates from India who were eager to join the national health system. The system has now degenerated to the point where a full 85 per cent of elective surgery is done by private surgeons in private hospitals. Otherwise a patient might wait five years to get a hernia fixed.

This is a bad solution because many of the private hospitals do not have the safeguards of the national hospitals, but patients would rather take that chance than wait.

It is interesting to note that Great Britain currently spends more on health care than does Canada, but so does every other western nation. In real dollars per population, we have been on a downward slide since 1971. The Australian government recognized the problems of Britain's system. Years ago they modelled their system after Canada's medicare, which at that time was the best in the world and better funded in real, uninflated dollars than it is now.

Since then, because of government regulation of the medical profession and imposed fee settlements in Australia, the system has been abandoned. In its place are privately funded insurance schemes through competitive companies, providing a variety of schemes, on the whole less costly than the Ontario health insurance plan. There is still universal access and government-subsidized premiums for those who need them.

The great Canadian experiment goes on. I fear that now, just as in Plato's day, state-controlled medicine will provide basic, mediocre services, Band-Aid treatment for diseases, with little time for learning about, much less looking after and educating the patient as a whole, a person with individual problems and needs.

Perhaps for most this will be sufficient, but inevitably there will be those who place a higher value on health and demand more. Once again, those patients will make individual arrangements with physicians to pay them directly for the kind of treatment they desire and feel they deserve.

This government is banning extra billing solely as a matter of political expedience. There is a vast difference between political expedience and responsible government. The Premier promised to end extra billing and damn the torpedoes. He did not promise to end the world's best health care system, but that is what the doctors say he is doing.

This party is not fighting to preserve the doctors' right to extra bill. We are fighting, plain and simple, to maintain the excellent health care system to which the people of this province have been accustomed.

When a member of the minister's own party who is a physician in psychiatry refers to the proposed changes as draconian and punitive, and says they will lead to the deterioration of quality in the health care system, then the minister must get some kind of message that his Band-Aid scheme is not on target as far as the public good is concerned. When the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson) says he felt the Liberal Party campaigned on a promise to negotiate an end to extra billing, what does the minister think the average voter understood? Could the average voter have been misled?

This government has managed to antagonize the lawyers with the abolition of the Queen's counsel title. They aggravated the pharmacists with their refusal to negotiate on Bills 54 and 55 until the pressure of this opposition persuaded them of the error of their ways. Now they are antagonizing the medical practitioners of this province. A ban or prohibition of extra billing by doctors may sound good, but when we consider the ramifications, it is not good sound legislation.

As the minister may remember from the writings of Dr. Philpott, doctors do not serve well under a socialist scheme, and the people are not served well when we consider the small percentage of doctors who opted out under the program as we had it under the Conservative government in Ontario.

5:10 p.m.

That program was working, and I have had people from my riding say they felt the system was serving the people even when we had 11, 12 or 14 per cent, depending on the figures, whichever we care to use. They never felt slighted by extra billing. If they felt their practitioner was worth the extra, they paid it. If they felt they could get equivalent service from another doctor, that is where they went. They had the freedom this government wants to legislate away.

I do not want to go to a doctor who feels, in the eyes of this government, that he is equal to an assembly-line worker. I am not making a class distinction. I am emphasizing only the type of work done by people in our society. I am emphasizing the difference in study and training required for a physician or surgeon and an assembly-line worker. If government members wish to have their appendixes removed by the boys on a Detroit assembly line they can be my guests, but I urge them not to subject all the people of this province to that calibre of professionalism.

I wonder whether the members of the government have taken the trouble to tell their constituents that their doctors might pack up and leave if they bring in their restrictive legislation. Already, according to my sources in the profession, some of the better doctors in my riding are paying considerably more attention to those headhunters' brochures from the United States. Doctors are accustomed to consulting. Has the government attempted to consult with them on how they view the proposed legislation? Does the government not realize they have a legitimate interest in this bill? Does it not feel they could add a dimension other than political expediency?

Members will be interested in what we have in the Conservative Party and what we are concerned about. We are increasingly concerned that the Liberals are not striving to achieve a kind of balance and stability in this matter which we consider so very important. Our leader, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), has noted that some people suggest the government's blind eye to consensus and partnership is the result of the tremendous pressure being applied by the New Democratic Party which has control of the policy agenda of this government.

Mr. Wildman: If only that were true.

Mr. McLean: That is true. He feels, however, that it is more closely related to the sparkling allure of expediency and the attraction inexperienced governments have to take the easy way out.

Extra billing was not an issue with the majority of Ontario voters. It was manufactured as an issue by the Liberal campaign sloganeers. Let us set the record straight here and now. About 12 per cent of all doctors in Ontario extra bill. These doctors do not extra bill all the time, only 25 per cent of the time. I hope the minister will agree with me that in the vast majority of cases, the opted-out doctor does not extra bill his or her patients. Our research indicates that only three to four per cent of all Ontario residents are extra billed in the course of a year.

In whose mind is that an issue? In a democracy, the majority rules. In this situation, I am concerned the vast minority is ruling, in the form of the third party. Confrontation is not the route to success in this matter. The Liberal government should try a new experience called consultation. If the doctors in this province resort to job action, the government must take full responsibility. I do not want to see the people in the province suffer or be inconvenienced, as they will surely be, if the government persists.

I can give the sentiments on our health care system of a random sampling from my riding of Simcoe East. Almost 85 per cent of the people in my riding were satisfied with our health care system. About 16 per cent said they were not satisfied. We all stand to gain more by listening to the people than by listening to Liberal election sloganeering. I prefer to be accused of acting responsibly than acting in a manner which could only be described as politically expedient.

I advise the government to listen to the people and, as the majority of people in Ontario do, ignore the NDP. That is what the majority did.

Mr. McClellan: Oh, not everybody ignores the NDP.

Mr. McLean: There are not very many who do not. There are more who ignore the NDP than like it.

Mr. Wildman: If Socrates had heard this speech he would have drunk hemlock willingly.

Mr. McLean: I was just about to close, but now I think maybe I should go on and talk for another half hour and give those members a little advice.

There is one point that has been missed by the government when we talk about the health care system in this province. One of the key points I have been making for years to the people of my riding and to previous ministers is that in order to better our health care system, we need more nursing homes, more extended care beds and more acute care beds. I do not think there is a hospital in this province that does not have several people in long-term care. That long-term care would be better provided for in additions that could be built to nursing homes or to other facilities that are there for our ageing population.

When we can provide beds at costs of less than 50 per cent of what we are paying now in hospitals, why has the ministry not taken the initiative to provide more acute care, chronic care and extended care beds in the province, thus leaving the hospitals for the people who are in need of operations?

Mr. Epp: The member is speaking in support because he is speaking for more money. The government needs the $50 million for hospitals.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. McLean: He talks about $50 million that the doctors are extra billing, but it is going to cost five times that much after we are done with this because doctors are going to want increases in their salaries. There are people out there now who are paying extra because they want that extra service. The member cannot tell me a doctor right out of medical school is worth the same as a doctor who has been practising for 10, 15 or 20 years. To whom would the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) go if he were going? Would he go to my brother? I bet he would.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: He operated on my two children, took their tonsils out and did an excellent job. I have the highest respect for him.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a proper point of privilege.

Mr. McLean: I can tell the member one thing: he is not extra billing.

Mr. O'Connor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: May I ask for a quorum call, please?

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

5:22 p.m.

Mr. McLean: I was just getting warmed up. I was comparing some of the statistics we have read and heard about. I was talking about the $50 million the province is going to save. When we talk about saving money, I always look at the other end, at what we are going to spend to save that money.

It is going to cost five times as much when all is said and done because the increase in fees the doctors are going to request is going to be substantial. No one can tell me that professionals who are going to lose 10 to 30 per cent of their income are going to be satisfied with a seven, eight or 10 per cent increase. A 2.7 per cent increase would be about equivalent to the $50 million that is being taken away. The statistics do not add up.

I want to repeat some of the things I mentioned earlier. For our health care system to get better, we have to get the people out of the chronic care beds in the hospitals. We have to get them into care where they will not be tying up hospital beds. That is the answer. I have been saying this ever since I have been a member. There have to be additional nursing home beds. As we are all well aware, our population is ageing percentage-wise and more homes have to be built for them. That would be a step in the right direction. It would free up some of the hospital beds that are so badly needed for patients.

The lack of facilities for terminally ill patients is one of the keys. Have members ever had a friend or relative who has been terminally ill and has spent years in hospital? I know, and it is not nice. There should be facilities for those people so as to free up beds for operations.

If the Liberals stop extra billing by doctors, they may in turn increase the costs of medical treatment to each and every citizen in this province. That will happen. Our leader asked in the Legislature if the Premier would guarantee that doctors who have lost 10 per cent to 30 per cent of their income as a result of the ban on extra billing will not be looking for fee increases in excess of 2.7 per cent. I can assure members they will. The fee increase, we anticipate, will range between $90 million and $120 million. This increase will come from only one source, and that is the people of Ontario.

The ban on extra billing is part of a Liberal strategy to get elected again. Who can blame them for that? However, they should not be taking it out on the people of this province. It is part of that party's commitment to the New Democratic Party to enable it to stay in power. The New Democrats are the deputies in this House.

It sounds good, but I feel it will come back to haunt all of us in the form of higher taxes, increased sales and personal income taxes, and other taxes. The elimination of tax on food costing less than $1 is not going to amount to much of a loss of money to the Treasurer. I was looking over it this morning, and one does not get much for less than $1.

This bill is going to hurt the very people it is intended to help. When the Premier has refused to guarantee that doctors will not increase their fees, one could just about count on the fact that they will, and we will all pay more. Had we maintained the status quo, only those who could afford the extra tariff would have had to pay.

This health care system we have, as I said earlier, is the best in the world. Where do all the people come from for operations or to have their hearts or lungs replaced? We saw on television last week the people who came here from Chicago, from Montreal, and Paul Rimstead's niece from Jamaica, I believe. We have the best specialists in the world.

There is a doctor in my area who has been offered $250,000 plus expenses to go to California.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Does the member know that one cannot buy insurance down there?

Mr. McLean: I tell the minister one can buy insurance down there and I am going to tell him another thing: I was down there a few years ago and a friend of mine had a stroke. He ended up in hospital for two weeks. The member should have seen the payments he had to make before he got out of there.

Mr. Wildman: That is the system the member is defending.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. McLean: It cost $18,000 for two weeks in the US.

Mr. Wildman: That is what the member wants for Ontario.

Mr. McLean: That is what the member's party wants for Ontario, not ours.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member please address the chair.

Mr. McLean: We want to maintain the health care we have and not to have it deteriorate in the way the NDP wants it to.

When my friend was in Florida and had the stroke, everything that was brought to his room, a Kleenex, a needle, a towel, was billed to him. There was an entry fee of perhaps $75 for certain things. Nobody gets in without it costing a lot of money.

I have in-laws who live in California. When one was home for Christmas, he told me what it cost for health insurance: $5,000 a year for a family. What do we pay here in Ontario, with the best health care system in the world? Most of it is taken care of at one's place of employment. We have not seen anything yet. When one goes to the US, say Washington, and asks any cab driver about the health care system, he will say what they pay, and that is their big concern.

Mr. McGuigan: Whose side is the member on?

5:30 p.m.

Mr. McLean: I am on the side of maintaining what we have had in this province during the last several years: the best health care system in the world. From what I see, that is not what the government wants to maintain by this bill. It wants to have a two-tiered system and I do not agree with it. That is exactly what is going to happen. It happened in Britain and it will happen here. I can see it coming.

I could go on for half an hour, but then everybody would have all the knowledge I have. I just wanted to put those points on the record. I am sure the parliamentary assistant will relate those concerns to the minister, for whom I have very high respect. I know he is in a tough portfolio; it is a really tough job.

I have a brother who is in the Ontario health insurance plan. It never bothered him until this bill came in to stop extra billing. He has never extra billed; it is not the principle of extra billing. It is the principle of the freedom we have fought for in this country, the freedom for all the years these people have gone to school.

If the government wants to make them all wards of the government and pay them a salary, the same thing will happen here as happened in Quebec. The government will put a limit on how much they are going to get in a year. In nine months they will have their limit so they will go somewhere for a holiday, and then who is going to care for their patients? It will happen. The professionals here will be leaving, and that is what bothers me. I do not want to see that happen, but it will.

I believe what we need -- and I have said it before -- are more beds other than in hospitals to help care for the elderly and the chronically ill, people who do not need the extensive care that others need. My wife does volunteer work at the hospital. It happens to be on the fourth floor in our hospital, where the terminally ill are. It is not very nice, but her gift to society is to do some volunteer work and I commend her for it. What they have there is the same as in every hospital in this province.

I want to conclude by saying that we should keep the health care system the best in the world. Let us debate Bill 94 further, have it in committee and get the other side from the professionals who are involved, who have not been talked to or involved in any negotiations. It has been confrontation all the way along, and I would like to see the doctors, the ministry people and the minister come to a satisfactory agreement whereby the doctors will remain happy one way or another.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to be able to speak on Bill 94, a bill that proposes to put an end to extra billing in Ontario. I am a little concerned about some of the comments we have heard from the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) and some of the other comments we have heard during the course of this debate from the Conservative members to my right.

Although they go on at length defending the practice of extra billing, defending the doctors who are charging exorbitant rates to citizens of this province, they will not make a clear statement about whether they will vote for or against this bill on second reading. This is a repeat of the position they took on the bill on pharmacies during the last couple of weeks. They held up the legislation. Then when it came time for a vote, they just sat there and quietly said "aye" without a voice of dissent, and the bill was passed after they had held it up and had apparently spoken in opposition to it all the way along.

It would appear that a similar tactic is being employed on extra billing. They have not been able to come to a position on this bill. As a result, they are holding up legislation in Ontario until they can find a position on this bill.

I am concerned about a couple of comments by the member for Simcoe East in questioning why the state should be involved in medicine and health care. He stated his opposition to state control of medicine. One really has to question whether, under his objective, we would be heading for free market health care, the ultimate dual tax system. If the state is not properly involved in health care, one has to question in what area of society the state should be involved. Perhaps his solution is that we should all be under a system of anarchy.

Another point that he made was his contention that this legislation is being brought forward as an issue of political expediency. I have a hard time seeing how that can be a complaint when the vast majority of people in Ontario want an end brought --

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I recognize a quorum.

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells rung.

5:41 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: There is a quorum. The member for Sault Ste. Marie may continue.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am glad to see some of the Tories have returned. It was interesting to see how they all ran out once their member finished speaking.

Ms. E. J. Smith: How about your own members who ran out? Your party was down to five.

Mr. Harris: Where have your members been all day? There is not one minister in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sault Ste. Marie will continue with the debate.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to get back to Bill 94. I am pleased to support this bill on second reading. This bill, the Health Care Accessibility Act, will prohibit physicians, optometrists and dentists from charging more than the Ontario health insurance plan scheduled rates for insured services.

The right of doctors to opt out of OHIP is not affected, but the opted-out doctors will no longer be free to charge more than the OHIP rate. I think this is a reasonable approach. It is certainly one I support and it has been adopted by other provinces in Canada already.

The OHIP payment will be the same whether it is billed to the plan by an opted-in doctor or whether it is paid to the patient of an opted-out doctor; so there should be no economic incentive for the doctor to opt out, although apparently a number of them are using opting out as a tactic. I note that the bill bans extra billing, but does not ban opting out.

As well, the bill goes on to authorize the Minister of Health to enter into agreements with the associations representing the physicians, optometrists and dentists to establish negotiations to set rates for payments on the insured services. I hope the OMA will take advantage of that provision to get involved in discussions with the ministry on rates and will not continue to boycott that option.

They have to take responsibility for doctors they represent, and not just those opted-out physicians who apparently control that organization, even though they represent a very small minority of the total number of doctors in the province.

I am pleased the bill does not make provision for any special increase in payments for insured services that would give doctors more money. The minister has already stated he does not expect to adjust the current deal, which runs to April 1, 1987, and provides for rate increases much higher than the current level of inflation.

I am proud to be representing a party which has long advocated the position we are taking in this debate on extra billing. The New Democrats and their predecessor, the CCF, have been the originators of universal, publicly operated medical care in Canada. In 1947, the first public hospital insurance plan was instituted in Saskatchewan by Tommy Douglas and in 1962 Saskatchewan pioneered the first provincial medicare plan under Premier Woodrow Lloyd.

At that time, in early 1960, when the Saskatchewan CCF promised to introduce such a medicare program, the same arguments we have been hearing in this debate from the Conservatives to our right were put forward by the Conservative Party in Saskatchewan and by the medical association. One would think the Conservative Party would have moved ahead a little by now and would not still be sitting in the backwoods.

The concept of medicare is one of sharing of risk to protect all citizens against the crippling costs of medical bills that occur by chance, based on those who are fated to be stricken with illness or serious injury. Medicare is a concept all or the vast majority of citizens stand behind. I am proud to speak in support of the need for universal coverage through a public, nonprofit, comprehensive plan. Vital to the principle is the principle of portability and one-price medicare.

These principles were included in the federal legislation supported by all three federal parties. It is quite interesting that the Conservatives in Ontario are in contradiction with their federal colleagues who supported the bill that now provides for a $1-million-per-week penalty on Ontario for allowing extra billing. Because the doctors of the province are billing patients an extra $1 million per week in payments above the set fees, we are being penalized a second time another $1 million per week by the federal government in withheld transfer payments. We are being penalized twice by the doctors who are extra billing.

The Ontario New Democratic Party has opposed extra billing since its 1970 convention, at which time it was resolved by the party "to establish machinery for the determination of fee schedules for physicians and other professional personnel, leading to the elimination of unilateral price determination by professional associations and extra billing of patients." That provision is the principle we have stood behind for the past 15 years and we are pleased to see this legislation finally come forward in Ontario.

I am pleased the Liberals have finally joined us, although as late as 1983 the Premier was having second thoughts about extra billing. However, in 1984 they adopted the principle of eliminating extra billing in the province. It was included in the accord signed by the Liberals and the NDP last May. As a result, we are finally seeing action on this issue of vital interest to Ontario citizens, an issue supported by 83 per cent of the population of Ontario, according to the latest polls.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the honourable member could find an appropriate place to relax until after the evening meal when he might want to continue.

Mr. Morin-Strom: That will be fine.

Mr. Speaker: You would like to continue after eight o'clock?

Mr. Morin-Strom: For a brief moment, yes.

On motion by Mr. Morin-Strom, the debate was adjourned.

5:57 p.m.

NON-SMOKERS PROTECTION ACT (CONTINUED)

The House divided on Mr. Sterling's motion for second reading of Bill 71, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Ashe, Barlow, Bradley, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cureatz, Dean, Epp, Eves, Gordon, Grier, Haggerty, Henderson, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Laughren, Leluk, Mackenzie, McClellan, McFadden, McGuigan, Morin-Strom, Newman, O'Connor, Philip, Poirier, Runciman, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Swart, Sweeney, Ward, Warner, Wildman.

Nays

Callahan, Cordiano, Ferraro, Knight, McNeil, Nixon, Reycraft, Sargent, Treleaven.

Ayes 40; nays 9.

Mr. Speaker: The bill will go to committee of the whole House.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, as the proponent of the bill, can I not direct it?

Mr. Speaker: The standing order says it goes to committee of the whole House unless a majority of the House wants it to go somewhere else.

Mr. Sterling: I think the majority of the House would like to see it go to the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions. I have consulted with the chairman of the procedural affairs committee.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the bill going to the standing committee on procedural affairs will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

Do you want another vote on it?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, it can go to a standing committee. However, I do not think procedural affairs is the appropriate one. It should be directed to the standing committee on social development where the Health estimates are carried.

Mr. Sterling: I am only referring it to the procedural affairs committee because the time of the social development committee is tied up and the procedural affairs committee has indicated it has time to consider this matter.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, while you are considering this, I know I am going to get advice from the other two House leaders on the disposition of a good deal of work, if we ever get to a time when these matters can be directed. If you would leave it to the House leaders, we would be glad to listen to the advice you have, but the recommendation from the government House leader is that it be directed to the standing committee on social development.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the government House leader has agreed that it go to the standing committee on social development.

Mr. Sterling: The majority of the House wants it to go to the standing committee on procedural affairs.

Mr. Speaker: We are having firsts around here all the time.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member has stood up a couple of times. He has undertaken to find a committee that, in his opinion, can undertake that review.

It is the custom of the House for the House leaders to allocate the work, not by vote but by agreement in looking at how the work is going to be properly handled. It is a departure for an individual member to direct the work to the committee on the basis of his private arrangement on which committee can handle it. It is the responsibility of the House leaders to do that.

I ask for the support of the House in support of the three House leaders in this connection. If we simply direct it to an appropriate standing committee, we can assure the member that it will be so directed.

Mr. McClellan: I do not think the assumption that the procedural affairs committee will be free during the interval necessarily holds. There may be other plans. I suggest we agree to the bill going to the appropriate committee and the scheduling take place when we see what the total volume of work is in all the committees.

Mr. Speaker: It would appear to me there is majority consent that it go to an appropriate standing committee, if we can leave it in that manner.

[Later]

Mr. Speaker: On that last item of business, disposition of Bill 71, we will not know where to put this matter of business in Orders and Notices. I hope the decision about where the bill will go to committee will be made before too long.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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

This evening and tomorrow we will continue with second reading debate of Bill 94 on extra billing.

On Monday, January 27, in the afternoon we will continue with second reading of Bill 75, the French-language governance bill; followed by second reading of Bill 94, which will continue on Monday evening.

On Tuesday, January 28, we will have second reading of Bill 65, first contract legislation. In the evening, we will resume second reading of Bill 94, extra billing.

On Wednesday, the usual three committees may sit.

On Thursday, January 30, in the afternoon there will be private members' public business standing in the names of the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) and the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South). In the evening, we will continue with second reading of Bill 94, if necessary.

On Friday, January 31, we will continue with second reading of Bill 94, if necessary.

The House recessed at 6:05 p.m.

23 janvier 1986