Journal des débats 1986-juin-12 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that many lives are needlessly lost on Ontario's lakes through boating incidents and that existing search and rescue procedures often prove to be insufficient due to the elements and the physical size of search areas, the governments should require all small craft on Ontario's Great Lakes to be equipped with two-way radios to allow boaters, when in distress, to communicate with rescuers and facilitate prompt and thorough search proceedings.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: It may seem a little unusual that, coming from a land-locked riding, I would bring a motion such as this before the House, but it is the case that my riding is often all but deserted on Saturdays and Sundays during the summer months when my constituents flee to the Great Lakes for respite. Many of them may be less knowledgeable in boating than are those who live closer to the lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to address the Legislature on this important issue. It is customary when presenting one's resolution to the Legislature to state what a pleasure it is to speak on the issue, but in my case it is not, particularly because two of my constituents died during this past year because of an unsuccessful search and rescue bid. The deficiency of such procedures was graphically and dramatically brought to my attention at that time and I rise to bring it to the attention of the Legislature and the people of the province.

On November 4, 1985, I was called from a meeting to be informed that the family of a Kitchener couple missing on Lake Huron had contacted my constituency office asking for assistance in restarting a search which had been called off the day before by the Department of National Defence. The couple, Arthur Simmons and Julie Schneider, had last been seen fishing near Douglas Point on Saturday, November 1. After two days of a futile search of the waters of Lake Huron, search and rescue proceedings were called off, much to the despair of family and friends who begged Canadian Coast Guard personnel, local MPs and the Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Erik Nielsen, to resume the search.

On November 6, thanks to the co-operation of Deputy Solicitor General John Takach and Commissioner Ferguson of the Ontario Provincial Police, the coast guard resumed searching the lake on humanitarian grounds. The coastguard search lasted only one day and, although the OPP helicopter continued to search for two more days, all efforts to locate the couple proved fruitless.

Had it not been for the recovery of the couple's 14-foot aluminum boat on a rocky beach near Oliphant last month, this sad episode may well have been a minor incident in a long list of such deaths on the Great Lakes. On the red dashboard of the boat was scrawled a chilling diary, testimony to nine days spent on Lake Huron waiting for rescuers who never came.

The question must be asked, why did the rescuers not arrive? Why did the Canadian Coast Guard, which calls itself the best search and rescue unit in the world, with all its rescue resources and expertise, fail to save the couple? We hope the inquest which was called by my colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) for September will answer this question. In the meantime, boaters will continue to go missing on our lakes and lives will continue to be lost needlessly. It is our duty as legislators to do all we can to prevent such tragedies from taking place in the future. It is for this reason that I ask members to support this resolution.

The number of pleasure boats in Ontario boggles the mind. It is estimated that 1.5 million are in the Trenton area of the Canadian Coast Guard, which extends from Quebec City to the east, to Thunder Bay to the west, and as far north as Hudson Bay. The Canadian Forces Base Trenton receives about 2,500 to 2,800 cases annually, and last weekend alone it handled 40 distress calls from boaters. This figure is even more astounding when one considers the number of calls handled by other rescue agencies, such as the Metropolitan Toronto Police force, which may deal with as many as 70 calls a day on a busy weekend. It is little wonder that so many lives are lost annually.

The growing popularity of water derbies, such as the Toronto Star's Salmon Hunt and the Toronto Sun's Fishing Challenge, to mention only two, only exacerbates the problem. This Sunday, as many as 6,000 small vessels will be on Lake Ontario. Many fishermen, caught up in the enthusiasm of the event, will be lured out beyond the limits of their boats and experience.

It has been pointed out to me on a number of occasions that one cannot legislate common sense. We can, however, give common sense some help. It is because of the dramatic growth of recreational boating and a corresponding decline in respect for the elements that I propose this resolution.

At this point I would like to clarify some of the technical aspects of my proposal. The coast guard has recently developed an Emergency Positional Indicator Radio Beacon, which is what I am referring to in my resolution as a two-way radio. The EPIRB, as it has been dubbed, is similar to the emergency locator transmitter which is carried by all aircraft. The EPIRB would transmit a digitally coded, one-second signal every 50 seconds on the 406 frequency, and it would be picked up by SARSAT, the satellite used for locating aircraft and ships in distress. The coded message would be relayed to the nearest Canadian Forces Rescue Co-ordination Centre, and search and rescue proceedings would commence immediately.

The coast guard would then not only pinpoint the location of the transmission to within a kilometre, but it could also identify the owner, the type of boat, the marina it departed from and any other relevant data. This information would be entered into a computer when the transmitter was purchased; it would be similar to the process one goes through when purchasing licence plates.

This system would cut down on the number of false alarms and it would allow the coast guard to decentralize its operations, making it more efficient and more cost-effective. By contacting the Ontario Provincial Police, commercial aircraft or "vessels of opportunity" in the vicinity of the missing boat, searches could then be commenced within an hour rather than in hours. This is especially important in the spring and fall of the year when Ontario's lakes are so cold. I learned to my surprise that hypothermia, not drowning, was the main threat to boaters during these times. It has been pointed out that when the body temperature drops to 32 degrees Celsius, unconsciousness occurs, and at 29 degrees Celsius, one is dead.

10:10 a.m.

On the unpredictable waters of the Great Lakes, the odds of a search proving successful decline by the hour. This was graphically illustrated in the Simmons-Schneider incident last fall. Logistical problems resulted in the start of the search being delayed until the day after the couple went missing. Winds of 18 to 26 knots and deteriorating visibility contributed to the inevitable taking place. I hazard to suggest that had the couple been required to carry an emergency transmitter, they might well have been at home watching the six o'clock news instead of being on it. The events speak for themselves.

Although it seems somewhat inappropriate to discuss the financial aspects of such procedures when lives are at stake, this is often an unmentioned factor. Budgetary constraints have limited the resources available to even the best-trained personnel. One search day is estimated to cost more than $250,000. It costs $75,000 to keep a Buffalo aircraft in the air for a three-hour search. The growing number of vessels will no doubt stretch existing resources to the limit in the years to come. Our search and rescue services have a mandate to provide universal coverage to a sparse population spread over the second-largest country in the world. They will have to be innovative to carry out their job effectively. I believe the concept set out in my resolution will aid search and rescue agencies immeasurably and, I hope, save lives.

As I stated earlier, one cannot legislate common sense. This proposal would require a great deal of common sense on the part of boaters. At present, all vessels up to 5.5 metres in length are required to carry the following items: one approved lifejacket for each person on board; two oars with oarlocks or two paddles; one hand-held bailer or one manual pump; one class B-1 fire extinguisher if the vessel has an inboard motor or a cooking or heating appliance; permanently fitted lights in compliance with collision regulations; and finally, some type of sound-signalling device. This list of commonsense items is far too frequently ignored by boaters who either neglect to carry such articles or fail to maintain them properly. Lifejackets, for example, are often relegated to protecting one's seat rather than saving one's life.

It may be argued that with the inability of the Ontario Provincial Police to enforce effectively the laws we currently have in place, why should we place another statute on the books? Although there is some merit in this argument, I submit that carrying an emergency transmitter would serve as a constant reminder of the dangers of boating.

At present, the Department of Transport includes sailing-plan forms with its boating-safety brochures. It is recommended that boaters complete the vessel information portion of the form and, when going on a trip, list the route, and departure and arrival times, and indicate at what time they wish search and rescue to be called in the event they go missing. The sailing plan is to be left at a marina or with a friend or relative who would call the toll-free number on the form in the event of a mishap. Sailing plans, like other safety measures, are ignored more often than not.

Should vessels on Ontario's Great Lakes be required to carry a locating transmitter, it would have to be mandatory that a sailing plan be filed to ensure effective operation of the search and rescue system. The Canadian Coast Guard, as it does now, would have to verify all requests for assistance before commencing search and rescue operations. With tens of thousands of transmitters on the lakes, the potential for false alarms becomes great and even the best system could easily become paralyzed. Again, the onus would be on the boater to make the system work.

The message I have received repeatedly when investigating this issue is that boaters are their own worst enemies. Poorly maintained equipment and a general lack of respect for the waters of the Great Lakes are repeatedly brought to my attention as causes of boating fatalities.

It has been suggested that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) undertake a major safety awareness program. This suggestion was put forward by my colleague the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) in 1983. In a statement to the Legislature he called on the then Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), to call a conference on boating safety on the Great Lakes and safety awareness programs. The minister's response at that time was that an interministerial committee would examine the issue. To date, I am not aware of the results of such a committee or whether the issue was examined at all. The growing number of boating fatalities is no doubt a tribute to its inaction.

I call on my colleagues here this morning to support this lifesaving resolution. Harsh laws to restrict where boats can travel would be impossible to police and would not work. Education programs should be continued and given increasing emphasis. It is a sad reality, however, that safety programs are heeded by the conscientious and ignored by the careless. The unpredictability of the elements and an attitude of "It cannot happen to me," stack the odds against those boaters who fail to respect the Great Lakes. Common sense cannot be legislated. I recognize this fact. The resolution before the House today acknowledges carelessness. However, it is an attempt to deal in a constructive manner with an occurrence which has become far too frequent in this province.

I recognize there are inherent problems in the system I propose. Batteries, for example, would have to be replaced every two years. It is likely that many of them would be poorly maintained. The EPIRB proposed by the Canadian Coast Guard would be expensive initially. It is estimated that the basic unit would cost approximately $350. There are other systems on the market which could be marketed for as little as $70. I suspect that if this system became widely used, the cost could be reduced dramatically. Wide acceptance and economies of scale would no doubt bring it down. This figure pales when compared to the millions of dollars spent on each and every search. It also begs the question: how much is human life worth? The families of people who have perished in the past few months would no doubt agree that such an item would be a wise investment.

It is sad that it takes a tragedy to illustrate the deficiency in our system. I ask members to put themselves in Al Simmons's shoes. He is the brother of Arthur Simmons, the gentleman who perished this past November. He spent weeks in total frustration this past fall, frustrated with a system that did not work, waiting for results that never came. It is only human nature to question the methods and efficiency of search and rescue personnel in such a situation. It is safe to say, however, that they did the best job they could with the resources they had. This is the central point. The resources they had at their disposal were limited by conflicting priorities and hampered by strong winds, rain and limited visibility. The system I propose in this resolution would facilitate prompt and thorough rescue proceedings. It will help rescue personnel to do what they want: their job well.

In conclusion, I call upon my colleagues to support and endorse this resolution unanimously. This resolution, if successful, will be forwarded to the federal government for its consideration. A strong vote will send a strong message. I ask members to help me send that strong message.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member wish to reserve the remaining three minutes and 20 seconds?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Yes. I do.

10:20 a.m.

Mr. Partington: I am pleased to join in the debate on this motion with respect to two-way radios in boats on the Great Lakes. As the member has indicated, the Great Lakes are of immense size; 95 per cent of North America's fresh water is contained within them. They also make up the greatest surface area of fresh water in the world. Therein lies part of the problem. The use of the Great Lakes has tremendously increased during the past years because of increased recreation, sport fishing and, generally, the lure of this beautiful resource. As the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) mentioned earlier, there are many fishing derbies. There is the Golden Horseshoe derby and the Toronto Sun Fishing Challenge currently going on; the St. Catharines Game and Fish derby ended just recently. Perhaps I should mention some statistics which prove the point of increased use.

Ron Penfound, the 1985 president of the St. Catharines Game and Fish Association, who was the president of the Ontario Charter Boats Association from 1980 to 1983, and the founder of the St. Catharines Game and Fish derby, advises me that in 1976 their first derby had 400 entrants. This year's derby that has just ended had 9,000 entrants. Unfortunately, there was a drowning. Two fishermen set out in a 12-foot boat which capsized. An hour later, one survivor was picked up but, unfortunately, one fisherman perished.

This raises another issue which was mentioned by the member for Kitchener. Lake Ontario is a very cold lake. With these fishing derbies, the season extends from early in the spring to late in the fall. Unfortunately, the lake becomes much more treacherous and hazardous during those times because of its coldness and because of the increased frequency of rough water and storms.

In addition to the question of placing two-way radios in boats, certainly in boats 18 feet and longer and perhaps in all boats that venture out into the Great Lakes, there should be flares on board as a safety device. With respect to those boats, particularly of 18 feet and longer, perhaps they need a VHF marine radio because these are the types of boats that might venture from Port Dalhousie or Niagara-on-the-Lake to Toronto and so forth. When the lake looks calm, it can be a very pleasant trip but, as with all waters, the conditions can change suddenly. When one might be 20 miles from the shoreline, it is important that a boat be equipped with all the safety features.

There are then the different smaller boats. For example, in the Niagara area, one can rent a rowboat in Jordan Harbour and row into Lake Ontario to fish. The question then arises, should a boat of that nature be required to have a two-way radio? Perhaps it should be required to have a citizens' band radio, which I understand runs in the vicinity of $50 to $150. You can get into the situation where the cost of the radio exceeds the cost of the boat. I am not suggesting we should not have that equipment, but the equipment may determine whether boating at that small-boat level will occur.

Perhaps boats of less than a certain size -- 18-feet has been suggested by my friend Mr. Penfound -- should not be permitted on the Great Lakes. Perhaps all motorized boats on the Great Lakes should be required to have a radio of one sort or another, whether it is a citizens' band radio or a VHF radio. A boat of any size, whether it has a seven-horsepower motor or a 50-horsepower motor, can get a few miles offshore.

For a boat that is in difficulties, the lake is so gigantic. It is a great resource. It should be developed further and better for the interests of our citizens, and we should use it, but we should also be careful and recognize that, as the member has said, regardless of the regulations or the requirements imposed on boaters, there will always be people who take a boat out when they should not. Also, unexpected storms always will occur.

In a situation of a few years ago, a couple went canoeing on Lake Ontario in March. Any ordinary person would not even contemplate it, but two people did and the results were fatal.

With the increasing use of the Great Lakes by the boating public, and an increase which we should encourage, it is necessary to provide the best possible protection. That should include some form of radio on any boat that ventures on to the Great Lakes, be it a citizens' band radio or other radio. There should be a requirement for flares, which could be used. For those using the Great Lakes, perhaps there should also be better education as to the potential hazards and the necessity for safety, which could best be done through the various yacht clubs and game and fish associations throughout the lakes. As the member has indicated, no matter how many regulations we impose, there is no guarantee of freedom from danger for anyone who uses the waters of our Great Lakes.

I am pleased to support in principle the motion of the member for Kitchener and I will be pleased to discuss with him the matter of its implementation and how it would be adapted to the various craft that make use of our Great Lakes.

Mr. Swart: Like the member for Kitchener, I do not live in a riding that has any Great Lakes frontage. However, as in his case, in my riding there are numerous people who own boats. Although I have no statistics to back this up, I suggest that because of the location there is probably a higher percentage of people who own boats of one kind or another in the Niagara Peninsula than in anyplace else in Ontario. From that point of view and from my concern for safety, I am pleased to take part in this debate.

I regret that I did not hear all the comments of the member for Kitchener; I had to go out to welcome students from Gordon Public School. Perhaps he gave some explanations that it would have been beneficial for me to have heard.

In any event, on this issue of whether we in this House should require, as the resolution says, "all small craft on Ontario's Great Lakes to be equipped with two-way radios to allow boaters, when in distress, to communicate with rescuers and facilitate prompt and thorough search proceedings," we have to consider, as with everything else in life, the cost benefits.

We consider them in everything that we do. We do it all the time. We do it here in this House. Although none of us likes to admit it, we consider cost benefits in the matter of human life. This Legislature, and especially the government that is in power, constantly has to make decisions on such things as whether we spend money on highways to make them safer and whether we force everyone to have smoke detectors in their houses, as we do not do now. There are such matters as policing our highways. We know that if we doubled the amount of money we spend on policing, it would probably prevent some of the accidents that take place at present, whether by picking up people who are somewhat inebriated or picking up speeders.

On the matter of human life, we constantly make decisions on what we can afford and whether we want to take the measures of compulsion that are sometimes necessary to enforce safety.

10:30 a.m.

This enters into our considerations today. The member for Kitchener mentioned the cost that would be involved if we forced all the boats and small craft to have transceivers, especially of an adequate size and capacity to transmit over the required distances if we were to have them monitored by stations, whether of the coast guard or some other emergency group.

There is the cost involved of monitoring and of setting up the shore stations that would receive these calls of distress and of ensuring that somebody is always monitoring in those stations and somebody is available with the emergency units to be dispatched to those who may be in distress in their boats out on the Great Lakes. I am told that if one wants to have a permanent installation of a transceiver in one's boat of the size and wattage necessary, it would probably cost in the neighbourhood of $500. I am also told that if one wants a portable unit, which would be the kind many people would want, the cost would probably be in the neighbourhood of $1,000.

However, having said that, there is no denying that this could and would save some lives on the Great Lakes. We had an example of that given here today by the member for Kitchener. I point out this applies only to the Great Lakes. Statistics show that most lives are lost on other lakes in central and northern Ontario. There are far more deaths there than on the Great Lakes. Let me admit immediately that those drownings are more often from different causes; not because one cannot get a rescue team there but for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, the majority of deaths in boating accidents or of people out in boats on the lakes do take place on the other lakes, not on the Great Lakes. They are on the inland sport lakes in this province.

I am told, and I believe the member for Kitchener did deal with this when he was speaking, that there is at present a distress frequency, channel 16, which is monitored constantly by the coast guard in this nation. I am also told the number of coast-guard centres is such that, unless one has a very powerful radio wattage output, it will not reach those coast-guard stations. For instance, in the eastern Niagara Peninsula, there is no coast-guard station on Lake Erie in the vicinity of the Niagara region. I am not sure where the first one is to the west, but I am sure it is not closer than Port Dover. If somebody were at the eastern end of Lake Erie, that would not be of a great deal of help unless he had an exceedingly powerful radio. I am told there is a citizens' band, channel 9, but it is not constantly monitored by anyone. Therefore, it would be necessary to set up a monitoring and dispatch service if this were going to be successful.

I wonder also about the question of jurisdiction. Perhaps the member may have dealt with that in his comments. The registration of pleasure craft and, for that matter, of all boats currently comes under the responsibility of the federal government. In fact, those boats which have motors of less than 10 horsepower do not have to be registered at present. Therefore, we would have to set up a whole new system. I doubt very much that the province has the power to do that. Perhaps that is why the member, in his resolution, said "governments" rather than "government." It appears we cannot just pass the resolution or a bill in this Legislature and make it effective. I think we would have the power to monitor and even to establish the rescue units, but I do not think we would have the power to enforce this legislation.

To some extent, there is also the question of desirability. Is it going to apply to all boats? Is it going to apply to sail boats? Is it going to apply to very small boats? If it is going to be effective, it would have to apply to them, and there would be some resentment on that.

There is also the question of enforcement. We would have to have a fairly substantial-sized police force patrolling all the time to ensure that all of these boats did have the radio equipment in them at any time when they were out on the Great Lakes.

All of this has to be weighed in balance, but after weighing it in balance, I will support it. We do require, of course, many safety measures at the present time such as life jackets. In cars, we demand seatbelts, and I am in support of that. There are all kinds of other safety devices which we legislate; therefore, I think it is desirable and I will support the proposal that there be two-way radio on all boats that are on our Great Lakes, even the small ones.

Mr. McGuigan: I am very pleased to rise and support the motion of the member for Kitchener and to congratulate him for bringing this matter to the attention of the Legislature and also to the attention of the people of Ontario.

The first coho salmon were planted in Lake Superior and Lake Michigan in 1966, and the fast runs occurred in 1967. The first people who were aware of this found the fish around the mouths of streams and did not venture out into open waters, but gradually, as the sport increased, people began going into the lakes.

On Saturday, September 23, 1967, nearly 1,000 boats dotted the water between the Platte and Manistee rivers on Lake Michigan. A severe squall, not even a major storm, pounded hundreds of boats to pieces, dozens of fishermen were hospitalized and seven were drowned. After the 1967 incident, small boats retreated to inland waters for the most part and big boats made their appearance. Recently, there have been some nasty incidents in Ontario as well, involving not quite as many people. There have been some even this year.

To give members some idea of the popularity of sport fishing on the Great Lakes, I point to an event taking place in the great riding of Kent-Elgin from July 12 to August 4 of this summer. The event is run by the Pointe-aux-Pins Salmon and Trout Club and is sponsored by Budweiser Corp. The location is the port of Erieau on Lake Erie. The event is estimated to draw 3,000 contestants over the three-week period and bring $1 million in tourist trade to Erieau and nearby communities. Prizes are estimated to be worth between $50,000 and $60,000. The first prize is a 17-foot boat, a 90-horsepower motor and a deluxe trailer worth in total about $16,000. This tournament will be but one of 17 tournaments under sponsorship of Budweiser Corp. this summer in Ontario. The event in Erieau is the sixth annual.

The sport has grown in numbers and in sophistication of the equipment, and safety has improved since salmon were first discovered off the shores of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and Lake Huron. We do not find very many open 12-foot or 14-foot aluminum boats 20 miles at sea on the Great Lakes. In comparison to small inland lakes, the Great Lakes are inland seas and in their angry moments can sink 200-ton fishing tugs and even a 50,000-ton ship such as the Edmund Fitzgerald. The ballad by Gordon Lightfoot has made this tragedy of Lake Michigan a well-known event.

10:40 a.m.

I have spoken to people on both Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, such as Mr. Laird Snobelen of RR 3, Blenheim, an experienced sportsman out of the port of Erieau, and Mr. Bob McGary, a charter-boat operator of 736 Tatra Drive in Oshawa. Mr. McGary told me most of the boats on Lake Ontario do have radios aboard their craft, a portable citizens' band radio costing approximately $80 to $90 with a high antenna costing about $150. While CBs are not quite as reliable as very high frequency marine radios costing $300 to $400, they offer a good deal of protection.

Most operators leave their radios turned on. If a storm is approaching or a boat is in trouble, the message can be relayed from ship to ship and eventually to shore if a rescue vessel is required from port. The CBs have a range of about 12 miles, which may not be enough to reach shore if the boat is 20 miles from shore. Many of them go 20 miles or even to the international border in their search for salmon or trout. Many sports people now are equipping their vessels with marine VHF radios. When they get a weather warning, they switch to the CB channel and relay the message. Mr. McGary assures me the system works fairly well.

Bob also said most boaters now are equipping their vessels with two motors, the second as an auxiliary in case of a breakdown. A small 10-horsepower motor would maintain the ship's headway into the waves in the event of a storm and would take the ship to shore, although at a slower pace. In the event that fog settles in on a ship, the radio would be able to direct the rescue vessel to the general area and the radar-equipped rescue vessel would be able to pick up the lost or stranded vessel.

Bob also said peer pressure is working on careless or novice boaters to see that their ships are properly equipped with the necessary equipment as outlined in the safe-boating guide mentioned by the member for Kitchener.

Bob pointed out there are no criteria or licensing regulations for charter-boat owners. He thinks most charter-boat owners would welcome such a program. Charter captains would be required to take safety courses and provide liability insurance for their patrons. Until this year, it was possible for any boat owner to make one or two charter trips a year and write off 20 per cent of the cost of the boat as an income tax deduction. However, the federal government has eliminated this tax loophole for 1986. Operators of this nature could easily lack the knowledge to protect their passengers. There is an Ontario Charter Boat Association that requires members to meet strict standards, but it is not necessary to be an OCBA member to hang up one's shingle.

The state of Michigan has very strict regulations for charter-boat captains. According to Bob McGary, Ontario would be wise to consider such a move. He also said the continued presence of the Ontario Provincial Police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and harbour marine patrols was a very effective method of bringing safety education to boaters. He stressed the value of education. He said in the past year or so he has been intercepted six or seven times; so in his view that protection is working.

Laird Snobelen of Erieau stressed that the size of the boat was not nearly as important as the seamanship ability of the operator. He was born and has lived within sight of Lake Erie and is a sportsman on the lake. He respects the power and the majesty of the lake. He points out that once you get a few miles from shore, even on a clear day you cannot see the shore. A compass and a spare compass are absolutely essential. Fishing tug operators have told me that people in open boats have asked them the way to shore.

Laird says if you hunt for salmon and trout on Lake Erie, sooner or later you will be caught in a storm. An open boat is an invitation to disaster. He would not go out beyond two miles in an open boat even though he is an experienced boater. In the spring and fall of the year, the salmon are within about two miles of shore. It is possible for open boats to go out and get back in before a storm reaches them. However, in summertime the fish are out in deep water and the hunters, as they call themselves, have to go out 20 or 25 miles.

Even in a cruiser-type boat, a cool head is required in a storm. A full-power dash to shore will put the boat airborne at the crest of every wave with the inevitable crash to the slope of the wave that can smash the boat to pieces. I happened to be on one of these boats about two years ago when a storm arose. The operator headed for shore at full speed. He was a good operator, but it soon became apparent that he could not maintain that speed. He slowed the boat down and, while we were pretty close to being seasick by the time we got to shore, we got there safely.

Seamanship -- the knowledge of how to handle a small boat in four-foot waves -- can mean the difference between a safe harbour and a tragic death by drowning. Laird has a VHF radio in his boat and says most sportsmen have this equipment. The problem would appear to be the novice boater, accustomed to inland boating, who is at grave risk on the Great Lakes. While we cannot stop the foolhardy boater, we do owe a duty of care to the unwary passengers who may think they are in the hands of an experienced operator but could be doomed the minute they head out to sea.

I have listened to the presentations of other members and I do not hear any serious objection to the idea that it be made a requirement that people have these radios on their ships.

Mr. McLean: I would like to spend some time on this resolution. There are some concerns I would like to express. Being a small-craft owner, I have the opportunity to spend some time on Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe and Couchiching Lake. When I realize the difference there is between the Great Lakes and the smaller lakes and bays, I have some concern with this.

This resolution means I would have to be equipped with a two-way radio if I wanted to travel from my home area to Georgian Bay with a few other couples and their craft. I used to own a craft on Georgian Bay and that is where I kept it. At that time, I had a two-way radio on it. I felt it was necessary. But when I travel with some other craft that is equipped with a two-way radio, then I wonder whether it is necessary that I should have to be equipped with a two-way radio. We look at the cost. I am not comparing the cost of a radio with a life; I am comparing what people feel government legislation does. Sometimes we think we are legislated to death.

I believe two-way radios have been a great asset to boaters on the Great Lakes system, but this legislation does not define travelling on the smaller lakes. It says when I go on to the Great Lakes I have to have a radio. Personally, I do not feel the legislation should be on smaller boats. If I had a 16-foot runabout that I wanted to take to Georgian Bay to take the family fishing, would I have to be equipped with a two-way radio to do that?

I realize what has taken place and the background of this resolution. The coast guards are equipped and have usually done an excellent job. However, I feel in the one case that has been referred to, that did not happen.

10:50 a.m.

I have travelled with friends of mine who have two-way radios but I do not. The government is telling me I must also have a two-way radio and I do not feel that is proper. I would like it clarified. I believe it says "any lake in Ontario." Is that correct? That means I would have to have a two-way radio regardless of the lake I am on. I live on Lake Couchiching, which is only three miles wide and 11 miles long. If I want to take my boat out to do some fishing, then I have to have it equipped with a two-way radio. My neighbour uses his boat for water-skiing. It is a 19-foot Starcraft. Is the member for Kitchener telling me that boat would have to be equipped?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: It is just on the Great Lakes.

Mr. McLean: It says, "Ontario's lakes through boating." That is what I am trying to get at here.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: The member should read the fourth line from the bottom.

Mr. McLean: I have some reservations with regard to this motion. I understand why the member is initiating it. This resolution is before us because people go out on Lake Ontario as individuals. However, I still have some concerns about making two-way radios compulsory.

It does not matter which law is passed if people want to do something within the realm of what they like to do. When we say boaters have to be further equipped, then I have some concerns. In reading the boating guide, one finds there has to be a pail for bailing water. That is compulsory. We have to have lifejackets, ropes and many things.

If I have to have a two-way radio, then why is the federal government not initiating such a thing? The other laws are federal. I presume the member wants to make the federal government aware of what is happening. I have some concerns about it and I wanted to put them on the record.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I appreciate very much the comments that were made by all the members who spoke on the issue. I would like to clarify a couple of matters that were brought up by the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean).

I considered including lakes Simcoe, Nipissing and Nipigon in this resolution, which are all lakes on which boats could be lost. As the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) pointed out, the many hundreds of thousands of smaller lakes in the province are lakes on which lives are lost, but not necessarily lakes on which boats are lost because of the size of the lakes.

Initially, it was my feeling the resolution should be reserved to the Great Lakes, which are huge expanses of water on which we have real difficulty finding a lost boat. I also considered wording the resolution in such a way as to make it illegal for a boat under a certain size to go more than a mile from shore. Part of the problem in that regard is that so often when the boat is that far from shore, the operator of the boat is really not in control of or may not know the direction it is going.

In so far as the problem of jurisdiction is concerned, lakes and rivers are squarely federal jurisdictions. There would have to be federal participation in this matter. The administration of the activities, particularly initiating search and rescue activities, comes within the ambit of the Ontario Provincial Police. That is why the concern is in this Legislature. It is hoped that with the passing of this resolution, the issue would be brought to the attention of the federal officials.

Enforcement is not necessarily always going to occur. I am not suggesting we spend a lot of money trying to enforce it. What I am suggesting is similar to seatbelt legislation. If it is against the law, it will encourage a great number of boaters who currently do not have facilities such as this to put it on their boats because they will realize there is the power in force and the moral force of the law there.

The member for Welland-Thorold raised the question of problems of frequency, etc. I did point out during the course of my speech, and I believe that must have been when he was not in the House, that it could be monitored through the Canadian Forces' satellite system and that they could in turn make the local police aware of a boat which was lost, even though the local police might not have facilities to monitor it.

Once again, I emphasize the fact that costs would be greatly reduced with the sale of these items on a mass basis.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The debate has ended on resolution 9.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Barlow moved second reading of Bill 45, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

The Acting Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and he may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. Barlow: I will reserve some wrapup time at the end, depending on how much time my initial remarks take.

I am pleased to lead off on the debate of second reading of Bill 45. It has been proposed in response to continuous representations that I have received as our party's critic for small business. It gives me great pleasure to realize that we can bring forth changes in legislation which not only directly respond to the concerns of business, but at the same time are also responsive to some concerns that have been expressed by labour.

As many members of this assembly will recall, I was the parliamentary assistant far the Ministry of Labour before being appointed by my leader to my present position as opposition critic for small business. Although these two positions might seem to be a bit divergent, I cannot help but feel appreciative for having had the opportunity to serve in both capacities, because it gives me a deep understanding and respect for both labour and business. The best laid marketing plans cannot be successful without a strong healthy labour force to bring them to fruition; and, quite simply, there will not be a need for a labour force if more consideration is not given to those who provide the employment opportunities.

I believe there has been a distortion of the balance between labour and business in the past year. I would like to think that in some small way Bill 45 will help to restore that balance. Bill 45 would require a secret ballot vote for certification of a trade union in all cases where the Ontario Labour Relations Board is satisfied that at least 45 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit are members of a trade union. The act now requires a secret ballot and provides that the board has discretion to decide whether to call a vote when more than 55 per cent of employees are members of a union.

11 a.m.

I have with me today two letters that I would like to bring to your attention. The first one is a letter all members of this assembly received from Judith Andrew of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It is dated May 27, 1986, the same day I introduced Bill 45. I should point out that this letter was not solicited by me as has been suggested. Instead, it was prompted by the passing of first-contract legislation on May 26. Ms. Andrew writes, and I quote directly from her letter:

"At the very least, legislators ought to predicate access to first-contract arbitration on the requirement for a supervised, secret ballot vote for certification. If this is not accomplished, each MPP will be an accomplice in a legislated organizing drive by unions of the province's small-and medium-sized businesses, the sector which provides the majority of net new jobs and whose key advantage is its flexibility."

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is a nonpartisan organization that represents 75,000 independent Canadian-owned businesses, more than 34,000 of which do business right here in Ontario.

I also have a letter from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, once again dated May 27. It too was prompted by the passing of Bill 65 and it expresses this association's belief that there should be a provision for secret balloting for trade union certification. About 85 per cent of all the goods manufactured in Canada are produced by members of the CMA. In Ontario alone, they have about 4,000 members. In commenting on the passing of the first-contract legislation, the vice-president of the CMA says in his letter: "The least that we hoped was to get some agreement on secret ballot. However, it looks like industry has lost another round with government."

The throne speech said, "Ontario will flourish as an enterprising society only when business, labour, educational institutions and government work together to create prosperity and opportunity." Bill 45 is an opportunity to have business and labour work together.

Employers usually take it as a personal affront when their employees are organizing for collective bargaining. Whether it is true or not, management will always be inclined to believe employees are being intimidated into signing a union membership card and that union organizers use a no-holds-barred method of obtaining signatures because, as the Labour Relations Act provides at present, a vote on certification is not required if the union can satisfy the board that more than 55 per cent of the employees are members of the union. A secret ballot representation vote need be directed by the board only if between 45 per cent and 55 per cent of the employees are actually members of the union.

Many employers resist the concept of collective bargaining and recognition of a trade union, causing them to act in an intransigent manner, because they cannot accept the fact that their employees really want to be organized as a union. To have a secret ballot vote required by law for all members of a bargaining unit that has satisfied the Ontario Labour Relations Board that at least 45 per cent of its people have joined the union would indicate clearly to the employer the true wishes of his employees.

Section 2 of Bill 45 deals with the issues of secret ballot voting for strikes and ratification of an agreement. The Labour Relations Act of Ontario does not stipulate that union members must have the right to vote as a precondition to the right to strike. The decision as to whether a strike vote will be called generally remains with the union executive and is governed by the internal constitution and bylaws of the union. However, the Ontario Labour Relations Board does provide that in the event the union calls for a strike, the vote must be conducted by way of secret ballot. The labour relations board further provides that all employees in the bargaining unit, whether members of the union or not, are entitled to vote in the strike vote. The internal constitution and bylaws of a union similarly govern whether union members will be asked to vote to ratify a proposed collective agreement.

Although the general practice in Ontario is to put the issue to a membership vote, the constitution and bylaws of the union may authorize the executive to ratify the agreement without the necessity of a vote. The Labour Relations Act provides, however, that in the event the union calls for a ratification vote, the vote must be conducted by secret ballot and all employees in the bargaining unit are entitled to vote, union members or not.

In preparation for this private members' bill, I conducted a survey of the 49 largest unions in Canada that have locals in Ontario to see, first, whether their constitution or bylaws include the requirement for a secret ballot vote for a strike or for ratification and, second, what they actually do in practice.

The results of this survey show that many unions are amending their constitutions to include this measure as an internal reform movement. However, there still are unions in Ontario which do not allow their membership to vote either by way of their constitution or in practice.

The survey shows that 59.2 per cent of the unions contacted are required by their own constitution, bylaws or government legislation to put a strike vote to their membership. Of the unions contacted, 30.6 per cent said that while they are not required by constitution, bylaw or legislation to hold a strike vote, they always conduct secret ballot votes; and 6.1 per cent said they hold strike votes usually, sometimes or never, as they see fit.

Similarly, when asked about the ratification vote and the ratification issue, 61.2 per cent have it as a requirement at the present time; 36.7 per cent do not have it as a requirement but always have a secret ballot vote; and only two per cent were in the usually, sometimes or never category.

While the majority of unions are either required by their internal constitution or bylaws to call or consistently follow the practice of calling secret ballot strike and ratification votes, Bill 45 will safeguard these rights in legislation. Amending the Labour Relations Act to include this provision would prevent the situation of a union executive being out of touch with its membership and agreeing to a contract which the membership finds unacceptable, or issuing a strike order to a union whose members are not united in their desire to strike. It would make the union executive more accountable to the membership.

I am sure the argument for and against this bill will be not so much whether there should be a secret ballot but whether there should be a vote at all.

As I stated earlier, under our current circumstances, when votes do occur within a union either for certification, strike or ratification of an agreement, they are generally conducted by secret ballot. There does not seem to be much objection to the use of secret ballot as an instrument of implementation. This secret ballot vote has a symbolic, democratic value that a card check can never have. It clears the air of any doubts about the union's majority and it also confers a measure of legitimacy on the union's bargaining authority.

11:10 a.m.

Secret ballot voting ensures a democratic form of decision-making within unions. It gives workers the right to vote. It restores the employees' ability to express themselves with respect to the work place. It frees individuals from intimidation, coercion or interference by the union or by the employer. The process of voting by secret ballot is at the very core of the democratic process.

The preamble to the Ontario Labour Relations Act indicates that a primary goal of the act is to further harmonious relations between employers and employees. To my mind, Bill 45 does just that. I encourage members on all sides of this House to give their vote of support for these amendments to the Labour Relations Act. In so doing, we will send a very clear message to the business community that we do care about and understand their position as employers. To the organized labour of the province we will send a message that we care about their plight as well.

I will reserve the rest of my time for wrapup.

Mr. Mackenzie: I rise to oppose this despicable piece of legislation. I am surprised that the member for Cambridge would bring in a piece of legislation that is designed to do nothing but attack and further take away the rights of workers in Ontario. It does not really surprise me, though.

When he quotes the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and calls it a nonpartisan group, he must believe in the tooth fairy as well. He quotes the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Obviously, it does not like any authority on the part of the workers in Ontario. I did not hear him quote a single union. I did not hear him read letters into the record from anybody in the trade union movement. He talks about whether he has support in the trade union movement. He is from a union town himself and he obviously does not care much about them, because he does not have any support within the trade union movement.

The preamble of the Ontario Labour Relations Act is honoured more often in the breach these days than in the carrying out of it. It says, "Whereas it is in the public interest of the province of Ontario to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and trade unions as the freely designated representatives of employees." How do we do that with this legislation?

I do not believe the member for Cambridge has any understanding whatsoever of what one goes through to try to organize a trade union movement. One comment he made that was accurate was that, in most cases, employers take it as a personal affront when their workers decide they are going to join or want to join a trade union.

I have had the privilege as well as the tough job of organizing workers in a number of units in Ontario. In not a single unit that I organized did I not end up with a petition against the union or an attempt before the board to try to stop the certification of the union. I am happy to say that we finally got certification in every single one I organized, but we had to have thrown out by the board petitions and pressure that came from the company, and petitions that were organized in some cases by the foremen or by the company's lawyers. The pressure that was often put on workers was almost unbelievable.

If members allow this kind of move to go through, they are saying that in the case of workers who have decided they want a trade union, who have organized and who have signed a card and paid their initiation fee to become members of that union and who may have signed up 60, 70 or 80 per cent of them, their word, their signature and their money are not worth a darn. Members do not believe them. They insist they have a vote.

Once members have gone this route and decided to force that kind of procedure in Ontario, an additional hoop that the workers have to jump through, they will have opened up the opportunity for employer pressure. Essentially, once the union has made its application, it is out of the picture. What happens is the company then has the time, before the vote is ordered, to do what it wants to pressure those workers. We are not an egalitarian society. If the member thinks that an employer cannot put the pressure on workers, there is something wrong with his thinking. If he thinks the pressure was not on in the Eaton's case, he is really out of the picture as far as workers' rights in Ontario are concerned.

To qualify for automatic certification, the union has to get 55 per cent to start with. Does the the member think he should have more than 50 per cent after he has been elected? I notice he got elected with 40 per cent of the votes cast, which is nowhere near 40 per cent of the votes in his riding. Maybe he would like another vote after that election to ensure that he has the right to enter the House. There are times when I get a little exercised.

I also ask the members of this House to think for a moment about a request that was made within the past few weeks by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, which recognizes that the distortion in the balance among workers' rights, employers and trade unions in this province is not one that is in favour of the unions, as the member for Cambridge implied. It is one that says workers are under fire and that it is necessary the people in this province start taking the side of legitimate worker organizations which are trying to do something in social terms and workers' rights terms in Ontario.

"Bishop John O'Mara of Thunder Bay, president of the 29-member Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, told the Star that the May Day message" -- referring to this May -- `is a reaffirmation of the church's teaching on labour and social justice. O'Mara said that unions are under attack today, and the church feels a responsibility `to teach the people, particularly our people, and make them aware of the teachings and the work of the trade union movement.'" He goes on to make a number of comments that indicate the attack that is on the trade union movement today.

The member for Cambridge is joining that right-wing attack on the rights of workers. There is no gain whatsoever for workers in the legislation he has brought forward. It boggles the mind. Doies he think there is something wrong with the majority of cards the workers have signed up in the certification drive? Why should that be questioned? That majority of cards is a majority of all the employees in that work place. It is not the type of majority he or I get elected on in Ontario.

Every once in a while we get something before us that would really have a chilling effect in respect of an employer's influence over the employee and his desire to join a union. The time delays it would force and the extra effort that could be made to intimidate workers is enough to make one realize that workers still do not have an awful lot of protection in Ontario. In terms of workers' rights, the jungle is not very far away.

I hope there are some progressive members in the Tory caucus who realize exactly what this bill would do, the uproar it would create and the additional hoops through which it would put the trade union movement in Ontario if such legislation were passed. It would get them absolutely nothing, only another hand up for the companies, which is exactly what the member referred to and is on side with in this legislation.

If he wants to really cause some problems for workers, who are already having a tough time organizing in the current climate in Ontario and in our country, then he can bring in the legislation he has brought forward today. To me, it is a disgrace that a member of this House would bring forward this legislation. It is a waste of this House's time that we are here debating this blatant attack on workers in Ontario. I should not be surprised at its coming from the Tories when I take a look at this party's history of anti-labour legislation. I hope the House turns down this bill by an overwhelming vote, and I hope there are some Tory members who have an ounce of sense left in them.

11:20 p.m.

Mr. Polsinelli: I can best characterize my position with respect to this bill as, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." We have all witnessed recently in Alberta a situation where the former federal Conservative leadership candidate, Peter Pocklington, refuses as an employer to accept the reality and the legitimacy of the trade union movement. The ensuing acrimony resulting in violence is not welcomed. Bill 45 invites this type of confrontation to take root here.

The phrase, "secret ballot," in terms of certification and representation votes is a code word in industrial relations. It stands for the delegitimization of trade unionism. In the parlance of labour-management relations, this is widely known. In relation to ratification and strike votes, the phrase does not carry the same hidden meaning. The underlying premise of this bill is that the current voting procedures do not capture the true intention of organized workers, presumably because union leaders are somewhat dishonest or union members are somewhat ignorant. To support this bill is to support its underlying premise, namely, that unions cannot be trusted. To affirm this proposition is to have impugned both the credibility and the creditworthiness of the trade union movement.

For the trade unions, this issue strikes at a fundamental principle; for them, it is not a peripheral matter. An attack against this principle will be viewed as an attack against the essential viability of the trade union movement. It is poor practice to legislate where there is no indication of a problem. There is no evidence that a problem exists with the current voting procedures. Certification is the first step in the collective bargaining process. It opens the relationship between labour and management in the work place. Certification is, of itself, only a small cog in the entire collective bargaining system. Certification gives the union the authority to bargain with the employer on behalf of the employees in the bargaining unit.

This authority has little meaning if the union does not truly have the support of the employees. Without such support, it is unlikely that an acceptable collective agreement will be reached. Instead, where true support is lacking, the inevitable result is abandonment, displacement or decertification of the union. There are essentially two approaches to certification in North America. The American approach focuses on the requirement that a representation vote be held in every case. This approach leads to lengthy representation campaigns with the resultant delays. Moreover, the representation campaign is an open invitation for employer interference in the process and can and does lead to undesirable animosity between the parties.

Most Canadian jurisdictions have adopted a different approach. In these jurisdictions, evidence of a clear majority of employees favouring the union is sufficient to result in certification without a vote. For example, the Ontario Labour Relations Board can certify a bargaining unit without a vote if there is evidence that more than 55 per cent of the employees are union members. This approach avoids the undesirable delays and animosity which frequently result from the mandatory-vote approach taken in the United States.

At this point I am going from memory, but I recall that in the 1970s, there was a Waisberg commission which reported. At that time, the Ontario Labour Relations Board required 65 per cent to certify without a vote and the Waisberg commission recommended that it be reduced. That former government reduced it to 55 per cent. They had the option at that time to require secret ballot, but it is amazing how opposition changes your point of view.

The Canadian approach has a number of safeguards to ensure that abuses do not occur. For example, where the evidence of union membership indicates that between 45 and 55 per cent of the employees are union members, then a vote is mandatory. In addition, the board can, and often does, order votes where there is evidence of improper sign-up tactics being used by the union. The board has required that all of these votes be by secret ballot. This system has worked well in Ontario.

Bill 45 would also make ratification of strike votes mandatory. This view is directly contrary to the prevailing philosophy in Ontario that internal trade union affairs should not be interfered with unduly. There is a strong rationale for this philosophy. The union has been selected by the majority of employees as the bargaining unit for the unit. As a result of the selection, it has been authorized to conduct collective bargaining with the employer. Inherently, this requires that the union have the ability to make a wide range of decisions about negotiation priorities and the settlement of a contract.

Because they have such powers, unions are able to take into consideration their own unique circumstances in developing appropriate processes and procedures. For example, a union with a geographically diversified membership may find a strike vote an unwieldy mechanism that may hinder the union in obtaining a better deal for its members. As a result, it may develop a less formalized process for determining the wishes of the bargaining unit.

At the same time, it is recognized that individual union members need protection from abuses. The Ontario act provides this in a number of ways. One example is the requirement that if a vote is taken, all employees in the unit must be entitled to participate and the vote must be by secret ballot. The act also imposes a duty of fair representation on the union. More important is the right of union members to insist on changes if they desire them. If the membership is dissatisfied with the leadership, it may elect new leaders. Similarly, they may change the constitution of the union to make such votes mandatory.

The ultimate power under the act is the ability of the employees to decertify the union or to change the union. It is the same power the people of Ontario have. They were not satisfied with the former government. They elected to change it --

Mr. Sterling: By secret ballot.

Mr. Polsinelli: By secret ballot, and that happens in the union movement.

In addition to these mechanisms for protecting employees, the Labour Relations Act also provides for a final offer vote. Under this provision, an employer may put his final offer to the employees in a government-supervised secret ballot. This allows employees to have a meaningful influence on the negotiation of the collective agreement, while not unduly interfering in internal union affairs.

Because the bill impugns trade unions, it potentially erodes their bargaining strength. If the collective bargaining balance is eroded, we confound the pursuit of harmonious relations between employers and employees as required under the preamble of the Labour Relations Act. It is improper, not to mention embarrassing, to support a legislative mechanism that contradicts legislated public policy and, let me add, legislated public policy by the former government, whose members now are sitting on the opposition benches.

Mr. Cousens: I too am pleased to rise in this House, not to speak in opposition but in favour of this important piece of legislation. I would like to compliment the member for Cambridge for the insight he is bringing to this House and to labour legislation through his suggested legislation in Bill 45. As an alderman for 10 years in Cambridge and Galt, as a legislator for five years, as a parliamentary assistant to a Minister of Labour and now as the one responsible, as critic, for small business, the member for Cambridge exemplifies the best of what I see in Ontario politics, the balance that comes from understanding, on the one side, the needs of labour and of people and, on the other side, the needs of employers and business.

I see in this legislation a deep sense of respect that comes through with the integrity the member brings to all his work in this House. We are fortunate to have such people who are going a step further in looking at some of the problems now taking place in the whole legislative process. He is a man who speaks for the people. He speaks for what is right. I am proud to stand and speak in support of his bill.

He also stands for something that has been a characteristic of our party for many years, something that has passed over to all parties in this House. There is respect for both sides: for management, the people who are trying to run a business, and also for the employees, those who make the business run. There is a unity of purpose when both sides, management and employees, work together in a common way, gathering a consensus and having one honourable goal, to make a profit in business and to share the profit and the privileges that go into making that success.

11:30 a.m.

This role of what happens in the certification of a union is important. It has to do with the first step towards a change in the relationship between the employee and his employer. I believe very strongly in something the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor) said as he was sitting here commenting and thinking out loud about some of the reactions to what was being voiced. I have never before heard the garbage that came from the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). None the less, I heard from my colleague to the right that a secret ballot frees the worker from intimidation from both sides.

Mr. Mackenzie: The member does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Cousens: If my friend disagrees with that, then he really does not understand some of the effects that take place during an election of any kind.

Many unions right now have within their constitutions the opportunity for secret ballots. A secret ballot gives people a chance to be free to express their views without any pressure. I believe that by having a secret ballot at certification the democratic rights of the employee and of the employer are totally respected. There is no secret except that the person has the confidentiality of how he is going to vote. I do not know how people vote in provincial elections and I really do not think I would want to know how they all vote. The fact is that they exercise their franchise and, in so doing, they elect whomever they want. Once one is elected, one serves all the people.

In the case of a union being certified, if we have that open opportunity for all to participate more actively, no one is going to be pushed aside. Their votes will count because they are going to want to exercise their rights. They will able to mark their X in the box they want to put it in without anyone saying, "You are going this way, you are going that way," without having the pressure of the crowd coming in upon them, which is all part of what the member for Prince Edward-Lennox calls intimidation.

I believe part of our democratic form of decision-making allows an employee to make his decision in private if he wishes, and having a secret ballot gives him that important democratic right. I believe as well that there will be greater participation in the whole certification process. When we have changed the statistic to any number over 45 per cent who are anxious to do it, we will have automatically engraved in the legislation that is being proposed in Bill 45 the ability to have a secret ballot. It means that no activist group is going to be putting pressure on. It means that all will be equal.

Many unions already have constitutional amendments that allow for this. Why, then, would the member for Hamilton East and the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli), who has already left the House -- oh, he is here talking with his comrade. We see a lot of this chatting together, the Liberals and the New Democrats. We are glad someone has friends.

We are now in a position to give leadership in the important role of labour negotiations for the establishment of labour. Our party stands up for all. We want to see employees have their rights protected.

I believe strongly, as do the member for Cambridge and I am sure a great number -- I hope the majority -- of the members of this House, that this bill reflects the needs in our communities for that kind of freedom to be exercised. I regret the word that came from the member for Yorkview. I have the feeling inside that he is in a minority in the Liberal Party, just one of the few who have been misdirected by the member for Hamilton East.

Notwithstanding that, I am not exercised, as he is. I am proud to stand up for the employees of the world who want to have a collective agreement. If they want it, I want them to have it. I am glad they can have it, because unions have done a great deal to help the employees in this country. Let us allow them to form when they want to, not just when a small, exclusive group is trying to shove it down their throats.

Mr. Charlton: I will not rise to the level of anger that was expressed by the member for Hamilton East, because I have listened to the member for Cambridge and the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens). The naïveté those two members have expressed here today is frightening. The demonstration they have given us that they are both so totally out of touch with reality is frightening.

Neither of them even understands the reason the member for Hamilton East was so angry. Neither has ever been in an organizing drive, obviously. Neither has ever talked to an employee who has been fired for signing a union card or for participating in an organizing drive. Neither, obviously, has ever talked --

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like the honourable member to withdraw his statements. He does not know what he is talking about. He cannot say that neither of us has done what he is saying. It is wrong. He should withdraw it.

Mr. Mackenzie: if the member has, he sure does not show the results.

Mr. Cousens: I wish the member would speak the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the members please control themselves?

Mr. Charlton: As the Speaker often says in situations such as this, I am expressing an opinion. I said "obviously" because these gentlemen have demonstrated that they do not understand the problems. Obviously as well, they have never talked to employees who have been leaned on by their employer during the course of an organizing drive.

Mr. Cousens: The member cannot say that. He has no way of knowing whom I talk to.

Mr. Charlton: The member demonstrated that in what he said today.

Mr. Cousens: He should not say things that are not true. His opinion is not necessarily the truth.

Mr. Charlton: The member has come in here --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interjections are out of order. I hope the member for York Centre will contain himself. Every member has the right to express his point of view.

Mr. Charlton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They have come here today with a paternalistic piece of legislation that chooses to impose on people who have already made their decisions that their decisions are not the correct ones. During the course of his comments, the member for Cambridge talked about unions not allowing their members secret ballot votes on strikes or ratifications. I point out to him that unions do not impose those conditions on their members. It is the members of the union who vote to set up the bylaws and the constitution of the union in the first place. It is not the union leadership, but the members of the union who create the procedure.

The member talks about democracy and he is here trying to impose a decision on those who have already made their democratic choice about how the procedure in their union should work.

As we all know, there are the Peter Pocklingtons of this world. We have seen the situation going on in Alberta around the meatpackers' strike. We have seen the comments from the owner of that company not only about his existing relationship with the union, but also about his future role in terms of the operations he runs.

The two members from the Conservative Party who have spoken today are trying to tell me and the other members of this Legislature that the likes of Peter Pocklington, and there are thousands of them across this country, are not going to try to intimidate those who work for them as to whether they should be members of a trade union. They have asked us to impose a vote procedure on trade unions when a majority of the members have already signed union cards and paid their dues.

I can count and most people on the Ontario Labour Relations Board can count.

Mr. Cousens: Has the member ever belonged to a union?

Mr. Charlton: I have talked to thousands of them. We meet with them every day.

Mr. Cousens: See; there you are.

Mr. Mackenzie: He was the president of one. That is more than the member can say.

Mr. Cousens: I can say a lot more than he can.

Mr. Charlton: I have also been on organizing drives, which obviously, as I said before

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member please disregard the interjections and address his comments to the chair?

11:40 a.m.

Mr. Charlton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, those of us who have been on organizing drives know a little about what goes on when employers start to lean on employees. We know the difficulty trade unions and people who decide for themselves that they want to organize go through when an employer makes up his mind that he does not want a union and that he is going to do everything in his power to see there is not one. Nobody has taken into account, in the preparation of discussion around this bill, the kinds of pressures that were brought to bear in the Eaton's strike and the organizing drive that went on prior to that strike.

This legislation totally ignores the realities for working people, especially the working people in the community that is supposed to be represented by the member for Cambridge in his role as critic, that is the small business community. The member does not seem to understand the additional pressures that can be brought to bear on employees in the small business sector. That has always been true.

That is why the largest employers have been the first to be organized by trade unions. There has always been strength in numbers. We all know that. To organize an Inco or a Stelco, although it may be a lengthy process because of the time it takes to get a majority of signatures on a majority of the cards, there is strength in numbers. Those employees feel much more comfortable in expressing themselves openly.

In the very sector that is supposed to be represented by the member for Cambridge, the small business sector, we all know that in the intimate relationships that exist in small businesses what is going on in the shop is well known to everybody. The pressures that can be brought to bear and the intimidations that can be wrenched into the system in that kind of situation are at their very maximum. This is the very sector where this kind of legislation will do the most damage.

This is the kind of legislation that will say, in effect, to the vast majority of people working in the small businesses and small manufacturing sectors in Ontario that they likely will never have the opportunity, even if they so desire, to become members of a trade union because the intimidation that will be brought to bear on them or numbers of their colleagues in their work place will be, in most cases, unbearable.

There will be employees let go because they are talking about organizing a union; there will be employees let go because they sign a card. There will be no protections as there are in the process we now have where members can sit down together, decide they want a union, sign the cards and make their application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Nothing up until that point has impeded them because they have not had to notify the employer that any of that is going on.

Once the application is made to the labour relations board, the employer is obviously aware, and that is when the pressure begins. Even if 95 per cent of the employees have signed union cards, the member wants to delay that procedure and allow a vote to take place somewhere down the road and allow time for that employer and that small shop to start putting the pressure on individuals. As I suggested earlier, that is going to push all the people in that sector into a very difficult situation in terms of their desires and rights to express those desires openly and freely without intimidation.

The members of this party cannot support this piece of legislation. The people in the trade union movement and even the majority of people who are not in the trade union movement in this country will not support this piece of legislation because they understand what has gone on.

I urge the members of the government party and those other members of the Conservative Party who have not taken a position in support of this legislation to think very seriously about opposing it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wellington South has nine minutes.

Mr. Ferraro: Mr. Speaker, I assure you my comments will not take nine minutes. Much to the chagrin of my colleague the member for Yorkview and much to the disgust of the New Democratic Party, I rise today in support of the bill being proposed by the member for Cambridge.

The perception if one supports this bill is that the supporter is in the pocket of business and management. If one opposes this bill, the perception is that the concerns of the labour union are the prerequisites of that individual's statement.

Quite frankly, I do not trust all business managers and employers. It is safe to say, at least in my opinion, that one cannot call all union organizers Mr. Clean as well. To take that to a third level, I do not trust all politicians, at some levels in particular.

Having said that, there is one undeniable truth that I do trust. There is the democratic principle by which every member in this House is elected, that is, based on a secret ballot. Yes, I am sure management will coerce employees in certain situations for their own individual causes. Yes, union organizers from their perspective have, in some respects, to use aggressive methods to sign up cards and so forth.

Let me give an analogy. This House will know I recently had an unfortunate 51-day teachers' strike. I can say unequivocally to the members of this House that when I spoke to teachers who were on strike, they hated in some respects the fact that they had the right to strike or had to vote for a strike, as individuals. However, when they put that person with two or three others, they toed the union line.

Interjection.

Mr. Ferraro: The members opposite are afraid to hear the truth.

I want to sum up this. In my opinion, failure to support this vote will, in essence, condone the fact that we are elected under false pretences. Failure to support the bill of the member for Cambridge will indicate we are afraid of the truth.

I am not in the pockets of business or in the pockets of labour unions, but the one undeniable fact I am proud to say is that I speak as a member of this House because I believe in the people. Unless the people can have the undeniable, legitimate and justifiable democratic right to vote as they see fit in secret, then I suggest anything else we do as politicians is not right.

Mr. Sterling: I did not expect to get an opportunity to speak in support of this bill, but I do so for many of the reasons that have been put forward by the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro).

It is important that I also would support other amendments to labour legislation that would further democratize the process. I believe that both representatives of management, the employer, and representatives from unions should have an opportunity to present their cases in a full and open way to the workers in such a manner that they can weigh both the pluses and minuses of either having the union represent their interests with management or not having that particular union represent their interests with management.

We all know as politicians what type of intimidation can take place when someone comes to us with a petition to sign, with a cause to support or whatever. We may not feel very strongly about supporting that cause, but we may feel a rejection of supporting that cause will cause us some political harm.

If an organizer came to me, such as the member for Hamilton East, who happens to be much greater in size than I am in physical stature, and the members know how forcefully he spoke in the Legislature when he was dealing with this matter, I might feel intimidated by his very size and by his bombasity in terms of what he might do as an organizer in asking me to sign a card to join a particular union.

11:50 a.m.

In reply to the arguments put forward by those who would like to paint into a corner anyone who would support this measure to further democratize the process of organizing by saying, "You do not care about the worker; you do not care about unions," etc. , I have a great deal of respect for the unions. I talk constantly with the presidents of the unions that are in my riding. I talk about the problems they are having with management. I have no concerns with the unions I represent in my riding.

However, I also have the concerns of union members who come to me who do not think their union is properly representing them. I had a problem recently with pipefitters working out of Kingston. They were taking an attitude that was detrimental to the pipefitters who were located down in my area of the riding.

There can be problems in unions, and those things have to be discussed in the open and cases have to be presented in the open. However, in the final analysis, as the member for Wellington South put it in the best possible way, there has to be a time when a person can vote without the employer coming and looking over his shoulder, without the union coming in and looking over his shoulder, without the problems that those two kinds of intimidation can create in a man's work and on his livelihood, on his family, on his whole life. Therefore, I do not understand how the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and his parliamentary assistant can stand there and say it is a great sin to democratize further the process of certifying a union.

I commend the member for Cambridge for bringing this forward. I know he is going to be subjected to the kind of rhetoric we heard from the member for Hamilton East and the kind of garbage we heard from the member for Yorkview, acting as a straw man for the Minister of Labour. I commend the member for Cambridge for having the intestinal fortitude to bring this issue to the floor. Many members have thought about it and have wanted it here. I thank him for doing it and I will vote in favour of his bill when I get a chance to do so.

Mr. Barlow: I thank all the members who did participate in the debate, some a little bit more than others, mind you.

Mr. Wildman: The member has five minutes to persuade me to vote for it.

Mr. Barlow: All right. I am going to work on it right now.

This bill was not introduced as a we-they, white hats-black hats issue. It is not a business-versus-labour issue. I feel this is something to further the democratic rights of all individuals who are being organized by a union. Those who have signed a card have the opportunity then -- I guess I am really saying exactly what the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) just said of sitting back and thinking quietly about what a certification vote will do: "Do I really want to be in a union? Do I not want to be? I have had pressure put on me by my peers in the work force. I have had pressure put on me on the other side by management."

Incidentally, this is already covered in the Labour Relations Act. Intimidation and coercion are not allowed; it is against the law to do that. If there is talk about petitions being filed by management, I feel it is well covered in the Labour Relations Act as it is at the present time.

I heard the Minister of Labour interject, "Where is the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) today?" The member for Brantford was going to be speaking in favour of this bill, but he had to be away today. He told me that some two weeks ago.

I thank the other members of my party for supporting me. I thank the member for Wellington South for supporting this piece of legislation. He told me he did want to speak on it and he had the opportunity to do so. Along with our other colleagues in this House who are of Italian extraction, he is at a meeting with the president of Italy, or some such dignitary from Italy at the present time. Unfortunately, my colleague the member for Wellington South will not be here to vote, but I am sure he has convinced many of his party colleagues to support him.

This bill covers three particular areas. It covers the area of secret ballot vote in the case of strikes or ratification of a contract. At present, about 90 per cent or more of the unions in the province, either by their own constitution or by practice, have a secret ballot vote for a strike or the ratification of a contract. To put in law what is already in practice is a simple, straightforward amendment.

The other amendment, the one on union certification, is one that has probably raised the ire of some of the members of the House. I remind the member for Hamilton East that I talked to union representatives as recently as last Thursday about the amendment I was putting forward to the Labour Relations Act. While I must admit I did not receive full unanimity on the total bill, we did have an excellent dialogue. I have talked to them in the past about other matters and I am sure I will be talking to union representatives in the future in my riding.

Mr. Warner: Not if this passes.

Mr. Barlow: The member is right, we have a big union town. Without both the organized and unorganized workers in Cambridge, I would not have been elected the last time. I hope the New Democratic Party does not feel that all members, because they are unionized, are supporters of the NDP; they are not. I count a great deal on many of the unionized workers to support me during any election campaign, and they do support me. I have them working on my campaign.

At present, in the certification process, if the number of cards signed falls between 45 per cent and 55 per cent, there is automatically a vote. I am saying let us extend that vote. It is a democratic right for those employees who want to sit back and think about it to give them the opportunity to have a vote, whether there are 45 per cent or 80 per cent signed up in the union. Let them have a democratic vote.

I do not know why anybody should be afraid of that. Management should not be afraid of it. They cannot be afraid of the democratic right of their people. I do not see what the fear is. l cannot see unions being afraid they are going to lose some of their support after some attacks on personalities, etc. l do not see why they should be afraid.

If the employees of a company feel that company is not treating them right and they want to be unionized, they are going to vote in favour. They will say: "Yes, I do want to support the union. My X goes on the ballot that I want to support a union in my company." That is a simple matter. It is a democratic right of each and every one of us. All of us in this House were elected by the democratic right. It is an extension of that democratic right.

SEARCH AND RESCUE OPERATIONS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. D. R. Cooke has moved resolution 41.

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

12 noon

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Mr. Barlow's motion for second reading of Bill 45, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Cousens, Dean, Eves, Guindon, Harris, Hennessy, Lane, McCague, McFadden, McLean, O'Connor, Partington, Pollock, Rowe, Sargent, Sheppard, Smith, D. W., Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Taylor, Treleaven, Turner.

Nays

Allen, Bossy, Bryden, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Foulds, Gigantes, Grier, Haggerty, Hart, Hayes, Laughren, Mackenzie, McClellan, McGuigan, Miller, G. L, Morin, Morin-Strom, Newman, Philip, Poirier, Pouliot, Ramsay, Reville, Smith, E. J., Van Horne, Warner, Wildman, Wrye.

Ayes 26; nays 31.

The House recessed at 12:09 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BURLINGTON NEWSPAPERS

Mr. Jackson: It is a great privilege for me to rise in the House today to pay tribute to the local community newspapers in Burlington.

The Burlington Post has been acknowledged by the Canadian Community Newspapers Association as the best newspaper of its class in all of Canada. The Burlington Gazette garnered a first and three second-place prizes, and was acknowledged the third best in its class for the entire country. These newspapers were in competition in the largest circulation class, against the biggest community newspapers in Canada.

I have had occasion to refer in the House to our two community papers, because I have found them to reflect the needs and concerns of all the people in Burlington. In fact, it was the strength and excellence of the community coverage of these papers that formed a large part of my arguments against the redistribution proposal that would cut away a portion of southeast Burlington and put it in the proposed Oakville South riding, away from the natural communication flow for Burlington.

With that digression aside, we in Burlington are justifiably proud of the work that the staffs of our two newspapers put into providing us with the best community coverage in Canada. I am proud to be able to take this opportunity to give them this recognition they so richly deserve.

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to say a few words about hunger in Ontario and the growing difficulties with hunger in cities such as Toronto. As of today, I learned from Second Harvest here in Toronto that it has distributed more than 260,000 pounds of food in the first five months of this year, more than it did in all of last year.

The Scott Mission is giving out 1,700 bags of food a month. Stop 103 is expecting to distribute $300,000 worth of food, more than double what it did last year. The Salvation Army is having trouble keeping up with its clientele, and FoodShare got rid of 170,000 pounds of potatoes in two days without any difficulties at all. There are people suffering terribly in this province.

In January I asked that there be a task force established to review our whole social assistance network because people are now so dependent on this kind of assistance for their day-to-day nourishment, on an ad hoc basis with no nutritional guarantee.

In the throne speech, the minister said we were going to get this task force. We still do not have it. He said we would have a report by the end of the year; that is obviously impossible at this point.

The Liberal government is not making the problems of the hungry in this province its priority, as it should be. I and this party decry that situation.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Like that of many members of this House, my constituency office gets two or three calls a day in support of Bill 94 and practically no calls opposing it. My staff was surprised yesterday, therefore, when we received seven calls in a row asking that Bill 94 be withdrawn to avoid a doctors' strike.

Curiously, the fifth caller identified herself as Gail Hill, 520 Westheights Drive, Kitchener, and a patient of Dr. Michael Thorburn, who happens to be the director of District 3 of the Ontario Medical Association. She said she was opposed to Bill 94 and she finds her doctor inaccessible at the present time.

My assistant's curiosity got the better of her and she looked up Mrs. Hill in the city directory, to find her listed as the receptionist for Dr. Michael Thorburn, director of District 3 of the OMA.

I direct Mrs. Hill, if she has any concerns, to contact the emergency number at the Ministry of Health, Zenith 6-9100. The phone lines are waiting.

APPOINTMENTS IN PUBLIC SECTOR

Mr. McLean: I want to emphasize to the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) the concern I have encountered regarding appointments by the provincial government to various boards in the province. One case in particular is the police commission in Orillia in my riding of Simcoe East.

Since last February this commission has been unable to function because two provincial appointees have yet to be named to this five-member board. This is an important board in any municipality, and the fine police force we have in Orillia can carry out its mandate for only a limited time without a policy-making body to give direction.

As members may be aware, the police commission deals with salaries and licensing. At this very time in Orillia we have a problem with taxi licensing matters that requires immediate attention. This matter would normally be dealt with by the police commission. This cannot be done at this time since only one person appointed by the province is with the commission. The two other appointees are representatives from the city council.

I urge the Solicitor General to expedite the appointment of two very qualified people to complete this commission roster and thereby allow the police work to continue with a minimum of disruption. The Orillia police force must be allowed to continue with the fine work it has been doing and to deal with other related matters. The Solicitor General knows the criteria for selection of members to this board. Should he require any assistance, I shall be delighted to oblige him.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. McClellan: I am sure all members will want to join with me in expressing a great deal of concern about the tragedy that has befallen the people of Jamaica. There has been a flood, with a great loss of life, loss of homes and destruction of property. Many people here in Ontario will be concerned about the situation in Jamaica and anxious about friends and loved ones.

To all those who have a direct relationship with this tragedy, we issue our deepest sympathy. We urge the government to see whether there are ways and means of providing some emergency assistance to the people and the country of Jamaica during this time of great stress and tragedy.

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Partington: Late in 1985, Mainstream, An Unsheltered Workshop, was created in St. Catharines. Its mandate is to serve the developmentally handicapped and moderately mentally retarded who could, with the appropriate training, become productive members of society. The design of this program was conceived in cooperation with the area associations for the mentally retarded and in consultation with local representatives of the Ministry of Community and Social Services to fulfil a need not currently covered under existing legislation.

Mainstream was led to believe that it would become eligible for financial support once the new fiscal year began for the government of Ontario, and it made its 1986 plans accordingly. The uncertainty of ministry funding has made it necessary for the local staff of the agency to work for the past three months on a volunteer basis. The United Way of St. Catharines and District learned of this and immediately took steps to rectify the situation with additional funding to sustain the program.

In the recent budget introduced by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), an allocation of $17 million over two years is earmarked to help integrate the developmentally handicapped into the community. I suggest that Mainstream should qualify for some of these funds and that the government take immediate steps to free up these funds to protect this very valuable program in the riding of Brock.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. Warner: As many members realize, disabled students in northern Ontario have not received the kinds of benefits that disabled students in southern Ontario receive, even though those in the south are not adequate.

The government will be aware that it has received presentations from the ad hoc committee on the disabled groups in northeastern Ontario and the Centre of the Disabled in North Bay. I urge this government to take the requests seriously and to provide the kind of assistance that is required for accessibility to facilities and for the type of learning aids required within the educational setting, so that all students, including those who are disabled, can make use of the educational facilities and programs that are being provided in our province.

Unfortunately, in this situation as in so many others, the north always takes the back seat. The very best is given to southern Ontario and whatever is left over goes to the north. It is time we provided equality to the north, in this situation to disabled students.

FISHING TOURNAMENT

Mr. McGuigan: I want to make the members aware that from July 12 to August 4, the Pointe-aux-Pins Salmon and Trout Club is holding its sixth annual tournament. This will bring about 3,000 contestants and an estimated $1 million in tourist revenue to the port of Erieau and the surrounding communities. I invite any members who are interested in salmon and trout to participate.

2:11 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE DAY

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the government of Ontario, I rise for the purpose of recognizing a special event that occurred 88 years ago, on June 12, 1898: the establishment of a free, independent, democratic Republic of the Philippines.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the members of the House the special guests who are in the gallery today representing the government of the Philippines: Mrs. E. Berengual, the acting principal officer of the consulate of the Philippines; Eloy Belo, chargé d'affaires, embassy of the Philippines; Consul Cabrera of the consulate of the Philippines; and many distinguished leaders of the Filipino community.

Philippine Independence Day is not only an important date in history, but it also has great significance to our Canadian citizens of Filipino heritage.

Though many of us take our democratic system of government for granted, the celebration of the 88th anniversary of the establishment of democracy in the Philippines serves as a useful reminder to all of us that for the tradition of freedom to be preserved, it must be valued and guarded with vigilance.

In recognition of the important contribution that Canadians of Filipino heritage have made to the economic development and cultural enrichment of our province and country, the blue, red and white flag of the independent Philippines was raised this morning. These Philippine colours have become an international symbol of the indomitable spirit of democracy and serve as an inspiration to us all to strengthen the bonds of friendship, respect and affection we have for the Filipino community.

Therefore, in recognition of this special day, the government of Ontario proclaims June 12 as Philippine Independence Day.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: On this very special day when special guests are in the Legislature, I ask the unanimous consent of the House so that our party and the third party can respond.

Mr. Speaker: There has been a request for unanimous consent. Does the House agree?

Agreed to.

Mr. Shymko: I join with the member for Parkdale in greeting the special representatives of the Filipino community on this occasion. We have all shared the aspirations and emotions of the Canadian Filipino community recently when we witnessed a fundamental democratic change in the Philippines. We celebrate this 88th anniversary. Almost a century ago the aspirations of the Filipino people to live in freedom and sovereignty were heralded. That process has continued. As we know, that process constantly faces challenges in any sovereign and independent state.

In welcoming our delegation and in acknowledging this very special occasion, we are reminded of the price that sometimes has to be paid for independence and freedom. What we have witnessed in the Philippines with the present leadership of President Corazon Aquino is a process of change that was not violent but a process that represented in a major way the aspirations of the Filipino people. I know the challenges of the present president will continue. I hope the unity that is shared today and the challenges for that solidarity and unity of the Filipino people is shared by their community in Canada so that the vigilance for the democratic institutions and what is symbolized by that process continue. We congratulate the Filipino community for its great contribution to Canada.

In conclusion, of all ethnocultural minorities, the Filipino community has the highest proportion of professionals who provide the leadership and set an example for many other minorities in this province and in this nation. I welcome and I join with the honourable member on this very special day.

Mr. Rae: I am sure all of us in the House want to join with the remarks that have been made by the Minister without Portfolio, as well as by the member for High Park-Swansea. I will be very careful not to say anything complimentary about the comments of the member for High Park-Swansea, because I know whenever I do it always appears in his newsletter the next time round.

I want to say to my friends in the Filipino community that we in our party have not only watched with open hearts the events of the last few years in the Philippines, but also we have worked with so many people in the Filipino community who have made Canada their new home in creating greater awareness in our own ranks and in our own province of the events that were taking place in the Philippines.

All of us in this last year have had reason to celebrate the triumph of democracy again. This is not a hollow day. This is not simply a celebration of something that took place many years ago. This is an opportunity, and I think it is our first opportunity, for us to express to the Filipino people and to the new Filipino government our congratulations on their struggle and on the courage Mrs. Aquino has shown over the last number of years in the face of tremendous personal loss. Her courage and ability, her considerable political talent, her ability to mobilize and to encourage the democratic forces around her are an example that has inspired democrats -- and I use that in its small-d form -- around the world. Liberty won a great victory, not only in the Philippines but also in the world, with the victory of Mrs. Aquino and we share in that today.

TOURISM

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I would like to announce two initiatives that will bring more visitors and more tourist dollars to our province. Both of these initiatives reflect commitments made in the speech from the throne. They are part of my ministry's tourism strategy tailored to meet the needs of northern and eastern Ontario.

First, a $1.5-million annual program aimed at our neighbours in Quebec will soon begin. Quebec is our largest source of Canadian visitors, outside Ontario. It is a market with tremendous potential; one that was largely unexplored by the previous government. This government intends to reverse this neglect with a new, aggressive marketing strategy.

This strategy will focus primarily on attractions and events in eastern and southern Ontario. The program will include media advertising, direct marketing and enhanced customer service. Direct marketing may include direct mail programs, house-to-house mail drops and sales calls in selected areas in western and southern Quebec.

These efforts will help to make new inroads into the Quebec market. To meet the increased demand that will result, additional bilingual staff will be hired, French-language telephone inquiry service will be expanded and appropriate French publications will be produced.

The impact of our campaign in Quebec will be greatest in eastern Ontario because of its proximity to Quebec and the number of attractions located there. This is an exciting new program, and I am confident that it will draw more Quebec travellers to Ontario from now on.

The second initiative I would like to announce today, and one that was specifically referred to in the speech from the throne, will support the Quebec marketing program. The Lancaster travel centre will be upgraded and converted into a year-round operation and made more accessible for the disabled. This centre is just 14 kilometres from the Quebec border and is the only source of travel information at this main entry point for Quebec visitors.

The Quebec marketing program will bring more tourists to Ontario and an improved Lancaster travel centre will give a favourable impression of our beautiful province. This government feels that it is high time we encouraged our neighbours in Quebec to come and visit us, and it is a pleasure to see this campaign move into high gear.

Mr. Rowe: The Minister of Tourism and Recreation has proven to this side of the House that he will read absolutely anything that is put in front of him.

For months now, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) and the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon) have pointed out the lack of a marketing strategy for the Quebec market and the Lancaster travel centre situation. If the minister really wants to help encourage tourism dollars to eastern Ontario, and in particular the Lancaster area, he should tell his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) not to eliminate the excellent weed harvesting program which was carried on in the St. Lawrence area under the previous government.

I read about with interest, and I welcome, the upgrading of the Lancaster travel centre for the disabled. I only wish the minister had had the decency and had been available to meet with the disabled tourist representative for whom he does not seem to have time. I suggest the minister put a little more thought into his next statements.

Mr. Pope: I must rise to address myself to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation whose only contribution to date to eastern Ontario tourism has been to give new meaning and definition to the term "Johnny-on-the-spot."

Over the past three years, the Ministry of Natural Resources advertised the provincial parks in the Quebec market in Montreal and in western Quebec. We sent representatives of the Ministry of Natural Resources, including parks managers, into the Montreal area to meet with tourist groups and service groups to encourage them to come in.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Zero last year.

Mr. Pope: Last year it was this government's fault. It was in power last year. Our commitment to getting Quebec tourists into Ontario is there for the record. The minister can rewrite history all he wants; it ain't true.

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to comment briefly on the statement of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation concerning the program for eastern Ontario, and the welcoming of francophones from Quebec. I think the comments made by the Conservatives have been mean-minded. I would like to suggest to the minister, as he works on this program, that I hope it will mean it is a forerunner of the fact that Algonquin College will be getting a hospitality centre.

I hope that the $1.5 million will be spent among advertising agencies in eastern Ontario to talk about the splendid offerings that we have to both francophone and anglophone Quebeckers who will come to visit, and that we will let them know about the marvellous francophone festival in Ottawa which occurs annually.

CANADIAN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY WEEK

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As many honourable members know, the first Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week begins on Sunday, June 15. The principal goal of the week is to increase the awareness of employers, employees and the general public to the benefits of occupational health and safety programs in minimizing injury, illness and death in Canadian work places. On behalf of the government of Ontario, I am pleased to endorse this worthy objective.

In this regard, I note the work of the Ontario branch of the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering in helping to organize the week. It is particularly appropriate, because it seems to me that awareness and the communication that produces awareness are basic to achieving health and safety on the job.

If work places are to be healthy and safe, employers and employees alike must be aware of potential hazards, must have the knowledge to cope with them, must communicate that knowledge clearly and must act positively in accordance with it. The obligations to be aware, to know, to communicate and to act affirmatively lie at the very heart of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The government has enhanced those obligations through new policy, procedure, regulation and law and will continue to do so in the interest of the occupational health and safety of the working men and women of this province.

Mr. Gillies: On behalf of our party, I want to join with the Minister of Labour in acknowledging the first Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week which will commence on Sunday, June 15. I am sure the minister will agree that this very important occasion comes at a difficult time. It comes at a time when work place accidents are up rather significantly in our province. It comes at a time when the minister is concerned about the reaction of his ministry to these problems and has had to launch an investigation into the operations of his ministry. It comes at a time when the standing committee on public accounts has to consider the operation of the safety associations.

I think it fair to say that every member of the House shares our concern that Ontario's work places be as safe as possible. All of these things I have referred to are heading in that direction, and notwithstanding the problems I see this as a very positive development indeed.

I join with the minister, and I hope all members of the House in their own ridings will join in marking this very important occasion. Of course, we congratulate the Ontario branch of the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering for its initiative shown in organizing this very important occasion.

Mr. McClellan: I would like to respond to the statement of the Minister of Labour in which he announced the Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week beginning this Sunday.

We have very little to celebrate this year, 1986. The statistics for industrial accidents over the past year show a massive increase in work-related accidents.

Quite frankly, the work of my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) over the last three or four months has demonstrated to the entire province that this minister and this ministry have not come to grips with the problems of safety on the job any more than their predecessors had in the previous government.

I note with amazement that the Minister of Labour announced health and safety week without a single, solitary reference to the Industrial Accident Prevention Association. There was not a word about the IAPA which received $34 million, if I am not mistaken, from the Workers' Compensation Board to promote health and safety.

The question, of course, answers itself. The IAPA appeared before the standing committee on public accounts a week ago and it was unable to account for a single dime of the $34 million given to it by governments to promote health and safety. It is on notice of summons to reappear to the public accounts committee to explain the stewardship of those funds, and the stewardship of its responsibility.

We expect it will be unable to account any more than the minister has been able even to mention it in his statement.

I hope that next week we will see some announcement from the minister. I hope he will be able to table an explanation of the work of the IAPA and an accounting of its expenditure of funds. I hope he will explain what he intends to do with Bill 101, which is on Orders and Notices. I hope he will explain why the occupational health clinic on the Lakeshore has not been funded by his ministry, and why it may be closed as early as September of this year.

I hope the minister will have some concrete announcement next week, during health and safety week, to tell us what his government intends to do and that he will not simply try to get by this occasion without any comments of substance or significance.

GO TRANSIT

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Last fall, I outlined to the Legislature plans for the long-term expansion of GO Transit train services in the greater Toronto area. The first phase of that expansion was to be the addition early this year of another weekday train to Burlington, making a total of three round trips between Burlington and Toronto.

Canadian National had given approval in principle to operate the new train but when detailed assessment got under way, the railway found a number of unforeseen operational impediments. The further the investigation went, the greater the complications. Unfortunately, we could not implement new service sooner.

Eventually I met with CN vice-president John Sturgess and, as a result, a way was found to resolve the problem. I am happy to announce the new train will start operating, not only to Burlington but also to Hamilton, on October 27. In other words, as of October 27, there will be three daily round trips between Toronto and Hamilton.

Further, the package to be introduced in October makes changes in GO's morning rush-hour schedule. These changes provide increased capacity along the entire route west of Union Station. With the three Hamilton-Burlington trains running express for the portion of the trip between Clarkson and Union Station, many passengers will enjoy faster service in addition.

The evening change is much simpler but equally beneficial, with a new semi-express train leaving Union Station early in the rush hour to make the run through to Burlington and Hamilton. This is only the first step in a phased program which will see us operating full GO train service to Burlington within the next few years.

[Applause]

Mr. Gregory: I want to join in the applause to the minister for the announcement of the additional GO train service and the fact that, in his very persuasive way, he has convinced Canadian National's vice-president, Mr. Sturgess, to go ahead with this. One wonders why he did not talk to Mr. Sturgess before he made his announcement last fall. It might have saved a lot of trouble and it would have made the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) much happier had the homework been done first.

While congratulating the minister for this announcement, I hope he will not regard this as being a substitute for the much-needed rapid transit to serve the communities to the west of Toronto. While realizing that GO Transit is very important, it carries only a small portion of the required transit service to the communities west of Toronto.

I am also a little surprised that, while announcing the good news of the additional service, the minister did not take the trouble to announce the inevitable increase in rates which, as I understand it, will be announced on Friday. Had that been a part of the statement today, it would have given a more complete picture of what will happen in the future. Apart from that, I congratulate the minister on his announcement.

Mr. Mackenzie: I want to indicate to the Minister of Transportation and Communications my pleasure at his announcement of a third round-trip service right through to Hamilton.

Leaving my house at 7:30 this morning and arriving here at 9:30 is some indication of the kind of traffic jams we have along the Queen Elizabeth Way. It is my impression they have been getting worse and not better.

The need for the service to run on a regular and rapid basis, right through to Hamilton, is obvious. I am just a little bit concerned about the minister's final comments, that is, "This is, of course, only the first step in a phased program which will see us operating full GO train service to Burlington within the next few years."

I am hoping it will not be a number of years. I hope his intention is to go right through to Hamilton and not just to Burlington with that GO train service.

2:35 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on this difficult day for the people of Ontario, I have a question for the Minister of Health. We have been informed that, as of today, across Ontario the medical advisory committees have resigned in approximately seven hospitals, the chief of staff has resigned in 23 hospitals, all or most of the doctors on the medical advisory committees have resigned in 24 hospitals and, in at least two hospitals, the abortion committees have either resigned or are not functioning.

With this kind of chaos in the system, and given the fact that our colleague the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) singlehandedly avoided a tragedy yesterday, could the minister tell us what steps he is taking that will meet his obligation under section 6 of the Ministry of Health Act, "to oversee and promote the health and the physical and mental wellbeing of the people of Ontario"?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It became very clear that it was direct intervention by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario that assisted the patient whose case was brought to the attention of the House in a belated fashion yesterday by the member for St. George. The member would have to say that the college has served the public interest well by taking the action that we know it can take and did take in this effort. The college is performing its role. The Ontario Hospital Association is also playing a role, and we are fulfilling the mandate of monitoring and being aware of what is happening to patient care inside the hospitals.

The honourable gentleman must be aware that patients who are being served by physicians are continuing to receive care in those institutions. He has said it is chaos. I have contacted several institutions and found that there is no chaos. In fact, the patients are receiving care from the physicians.

Mr. Grossman: The Public Hospitals Act, section 32, requires every board to establish a medical advisory committee, which committee is in place to ensure the health and safety of the patients at that hospital. The minister's obligation under that same legislation is to administer and enforce the act.

Given that in the course of a day perhaps 200,000 medical services are performed in Ontario and, to take the minister's estimates, about 50 per cent of the doctors are participating in the strike, at least 100,000 to 200,000 people are going to be inconvenienced, to put it mildly, in Ontario today.

In view of this chaos in the hospitals and the 100,000 to 200,000 patients being inconvenienced, can the minister tell us why he or the Premier would not pick up the phone today, call the Ontario Medical Association and stop inconveniencing 100,000 people in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: In this province the physicians decide when they deliver service to their patients. They have done that for years before and they are still deciding when they deliver service, what service to deliver and what type of therapies to provide for their patients. That is something I am not intruding upon. I do not have the expertise to make a judgement. The OMA executive obviously feels it can direct and require its members not to serve patients. That is an unfortunate decision on its part. I have no intention of intruding into that relationship.

It is very interesting to reflect upon the history of a strike that occurred in 1982. A headline was printed in the nationally distributed daily of the day, originating here in Toronto, that said, "Grossman Waiting for OMA to Call Him Before He Deals With the Strike." It seems to me that this gentleman has some nerve in talking about picking up the phone.

We are in touch with the people, we are monitoring the situation and I am confident the patients are being served.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: I would invite the minister to ask the OMA whether there were constant conversations between me, our negotiating committee and the OMA in 1982, and to reflect upon the difference between the 1982 circumstance and the incredible standoff and words of greed and harshness, describing the OMA as living in a time warp, that have singlehandedly caused the withdrawal of services affecting 100,000 to 200,000 patients in Ontario today.

How is the minister going to ensure that he meets his responsibilities under section 6 of the Ministry of Health Act, "To oversee and promote the health and well being of the people of Ontario and to be responsible for the development and maintenance of comprehensive health services," if his response is not to pick up the phone and end this fight?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind all members that when the Speaker is on his feet, members should resume their seats.

Hon. Mr. Elston: This gentleman keeps trying to indicate that there is some serious catastrophe. If he has word of something happening that is a catastrophe, he should tell us. We are reviewing and monitoring every situation and have very close daily contact with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the hospitals and the Ontario Hospital Association to monitor situations. I can tell the honourable members and the public that we are making contact with those institutions where difficulties are reported to us.

I can also tell the member opposite there is something more in this system. The boards of the hospitals are meeting and they are carrying out their mandate to manage and administer their hospitals by making arrangements with their medical staffs. For public information, there are some people who have resigned as chiefs of staff only for the purpose of attending committee meetings, but who have undertaken to provide the services and review the circumstances under which the medical services are being supervised. There are no catastrophic things happening out there.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Premier. He made a statement in the House yesterday regarding his government's dealings with friends of the Liberal Party that was so riddled with inaccuracies and omissions that we are going to have quite a few questions to ask.

In the light of the remarks made publicly by the manager of the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp. that he was well aware and the IDEA staff was alerted that the application for a grant by Graham Software was by Mr. Graham, a former partner of Mr. Schwartz, a good friend of the Premier, did the Premier not think, as part of his investigation, he should tell the House who in his government alerted the IDEA officials to this relationship?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Because of the allegations made by the member and suggestions left in a number of people's minds, given the things he has said, we did look at it and we invited the member and anyone else to look at this whole thing through the standing committee on public accounts. I have never met Mr. Graham and had never heard of him, but because he had been publicly castigated, criticized and pilloried by the member, I had my assistant chat with him today. This is what he said:

"Upon questioning, Mr. Graham stated he is not a supporter of either the federal or provincial Liberal parties. He has in fact donated money through fund-raising functions to Mr. Terry Jones, former Progressive Conservative member for Mississauga North. He also supported Mr. Don Blenkarn but does not remember if he gave him money. Neither Mr. Gillies nor his staff ever tried to reach him with regard to obtaining information about the company and its activities. He said, `I never even heard of this guy until three days ago.'

"Mr. Graham said he was approached by the fund-raisers of Mr. Larry Grossman who sought his financial support for Mr. Grossman's attempt in the November 1985 Tory leadership campaign. He went out for lunch with one of the fund-raisers but he said, `I did not like the direction Grossman was into and I declined to support him financially. "`

That is all I can tell the honourable member.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: The Premier as usual is most amusing, and as usual has failed to answer the question. The Premier also said in his statement that Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Graham had not had a business relationship for some three years. In fact, they were both officers and partners in the Polaris company well into March 1985. The sequence of events is most interesting. They were partners in Polaris. That company was sold. Mr. Schwartz appears in this government as a member of the Premier's transition team and then months later both former partners are receiving multimillion-dollar grants from this government.

Did the Premier not think that rather interesting series of events was also worthy of his consideration in his so-called investigation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member obviously was not here yesterday and I invite him to invite all these people to the standing committee on public accounts. Let him invite the board of IDEA Corp., invite Mr. Graham and Mr. Schwartz. He should invite anybody he wants. He may want to show up himself and testify if he has some information that will be helpful in determining these things.

I gave him the best information we had yesterday. If he is not satisfied with it, and obviously he is not, then he should call forward some of these people whose names he is bandying about. He will want to satisfy himself about the way the grants were made, whether they are at arm's length. I know he assumed we put influence on Mr. Macdonald. He is suggesting he is subject to some kind of political influence.

The member questions the integrity of a number of people in this House and I think he should call these people before the public accounts committee. He should do this and then I think he will have a better sense of his responsibility for using his soapbox in this House and he will do better research before he stands up and says some of these things and tries to slander people.

Mr. Gillies: The Premier has again failed to answer the question. It is not the integrity of anyone outside of this chamber that is being questioned. I suggest to him that by making such an inaccurate statement as the one he made yesterday, by altering the facts and dates of the involvement of these various individuals, whether he likes it or not, he is in this up to his immaculately tailored elbows.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary. Be careful.

Mr. Gillies: Will the Premier be able at least to advise the House of the exact role Mr. Schwartz played in his transition team? Would he confirm information that the opposition has that he was located in the office of the Chairman of Management Board and that his work directly involved contracts and computers?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Some of his work has been of assistance to us. He has been reviewing the computer programs. This was some time ago. I am not too sure if he is still doing that or not. As the member knows, there is a plethora of computer programs with communities, through the educational system and through the community program of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, that were generally recognized to be quite a mess. We sought advice. He was not paid for that. That was done voluntarily. Mr. Schwartz has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money to this project. It is a nonprofit project, as the member may be aware.

If the member suggests the facts are wrong, I told him yesterday that I gave the information to the best of my ability in 24 hours. Call them forward. Bring all the documents forward. He may want to review the entire process of reviewing grants of this government and past governments.

Mr. Gillies: If the Premier answered a few questions, we may not have a need for one.

Mr. Grossman: What is the answer to the last question? Can the Premier answer the question? Does he know what Schwartz was doing on his transition team?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member would also want to look at a government grant announced on April 23, 1985, for the International Telecommunications Discovery Centre in Brantford.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Premier take his seat?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It occurred to me that you might be going to draw the attention of the House to the statement made by the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) when he indicated the Premier had altered the facts. I think it is quite appropriate for the member to disagree with the facts, or as they are perceived, but to indicate that the Premier or any other honourable member altered the facts, in my opinion, is unacceptable.

Mr. Gillies: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker:There has been a point raised by the government House leader.

Mr. Gillies: It is speaking to the point raised by the government House leader.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The point was raised that the honourable member stated the Premier had altered the facts. There seems to have been a considerable number of words. I believe I asked the member to watch what he was saying. Under the circumstances, I should take a look at Hansard.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago when my leader was speaking and you stood, I distinctly heard you indicate that when you stand, any member of the assembly who is standing should sit.

The same circumstance occurred a few seconds ago when the Premier, the leader of his party, was standing. You stood, sir, and he remained standing during the course of his deliberations and discussions with this House. Why do the same rules not apply to both sides of the House?

Mr. Speaker: That is an interesting comment. I think I should refrain from referring to it. I am doing my best to keep the House under control as fairly as possible, and I will continue to do that.

[Later]

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In the first question I asked the Premier, I believe I may have said that dates were changed in the Premier's statement.

An hon. member: Altered.

Mr. Gillies: I am sorry if I said that. I meant to say the dates were incorrect in the Premier's statement. if I said "altered" and by inference --

Mr. Rae: The member said the Premier was in it up to his elbows and that the Premier had altered the dates.

Mr. Gillies: He certainly is up to his elbows. Speaking to the point, if by inference the suggestion was that the Premier changed the dates, then I withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker: I understand you withdraw.

Mr. Gillies: Yes.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Health. It is a particularly pertinent question in view of his remarks a couple of minutes ago that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is "performing its role and patients are receiving care." I believe those were his exact words.

There is a person in my constituency, Mrs. Zyma, who quit a seasonal job because she was scheduled for major surgery this week. She has just been informed major surgery cannot be performed and cannot be rescheduled in view of the indeterminate length of the withdrawal of services by the doctors of the province.

Does the minister think that is appropriate behaviour on the part of the medical profession?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As I said to the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) yesterday, I would have preferred to have heard about this matter earlier so that we could have referred it on quickly to be dealt with. In the situation yesterday, the college was able to make some arrangement. It is quite possible we may be able to do something for Mrs. Zyma.

Under the circumstances, I appreciate that a physician has made a determination that he or she does not wish to deliver service. In that situation, I invite the honourable gentleman to give me the details of the matter so that I can have it referred and assistance can be found.

Mr. Laughren: I will be happy to do that. I should tell the minister I was in touch with the college of physicians and surgeons this morning, and at two o'clock it had not even returned my call.

Is the minister aware that in this situation we have a woman with five kids at home who had to quit her job to have this surgery done? The Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission does not view her case as acceptable for benefit because she is not ill. She can do her job, but she has to have major surgery with a long recuperative period.

Does the minister think it is acceptable that this goes on? Does he understand we are not talking about elective surgery? Is that what the minister thinks elective surgery means? Does he agree with the OMA that this falls into the category of elective surgery?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As Minister of Health, I do review situations such as this. I would have invited an earlier intervention by the member to me so we could have reviewed it.

I understand the college is holding a special meeting today, which probably prevented a direct call back to the member. I understand efforts are being made to return calls as they come in. They were meeting this morning.

I do not know the circumstances of the case. It may be that the honourable gentleman knows them better and can make the determination that this was not elective. I am not a physician and I cannot make that judgement. The college has the resources available. Advice can be sought and it can extend its best efforts to assist people who have difficulties along the lines the member has described. If he is asking me to define for him whether that was an elective-surgery situation, I cannot do that because I do not know the circumstances.

Mr. Laughren: It has nothing to do with the surgery being elective. It has to do with the abandonment of a patient; that is what it has to do with. Why has the minister not already put in place some contingency plan so that when this occurs, people know who to phone? There must be many people across the province who do not know where to turn when something such as this happens. That is why they are phoning the offices of the members of this assembly. What contingency plan does the minister have at this point to make sure this does not continue?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Through the local offices of the Ontario health insurance plan and through other ministry offices, there is opportunity to make contact. We have people available in my ministry to receive calls from the public and we have received some. Hotlines have been set up by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. I think the member would be able to get in touch with me. Yesterday I invited people to contact me directly. If he called me, I apologize for not getting back to him. I do not think be called me, but if he did, I did not receive a note.

All I am saying is that I am prepared to intervene on these things and people will then know exactly where to call. If the honourable gentleman is saying that this was an emergency situation and that it was not elective, I cannot make a judgement on that because I do not know the situation and I do not know the circumstances. Let me pursue it for him. A little later on I will be pleased to look at the circumstances he has provided.

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Can he tell us why there is not one highly publicized, well-known, widely distributed, widely diffused, universally known, universally accessible telephone number that every person in this province can call with a complaint or concern that they are not getting the service they think they deserve?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Zenith 6-9100.

Hon. Mr. Elston: There have been efforts through the daily press to make available the number just mentioned by one of my colleagues, the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke). I think it is available. If the member wishes, we can tell the people about it better. There has been an indication in the daily press of where to call. The members know they can contact me directly. A fair number of people know what my number is. We could make the information more readily available. We will speed up our efforts to disseminate that information if there are areas of the province that are not well served by that information.

Mr. Rae: The Ontario Medical Association is placing advertisements. One can hear them on the radio every day. It has huge ads in the newspapers. Why is the government of this province, which has presented the bill to the Legislature, not at least publicizing a way in which the people of this province can express their concern and their outrage at having been left out of the health care system they feel they belong in and should have access to, and at not having received services they feel they are very much entitled to? Why does the minister not at least take that approach instead of saying, "Everybody knows what my number is"? Not everybody knows what the minister's name is. Let us get the numbers out there so we can deal with the issue.

Hon. Mr. Elston: If the honourable gentleman is alleging that patients have been abandoned, as was alleged by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), that is a particular complaint that we can deal with and lodge with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Each member of this Legislature knows that very well. Each member who receives a call should be operating on the basis that he can come directly to me. I have asked the members to do that. We will act on the calls and refer the people to the various places if follow-up action is required.

I am taking the information provided by the member for Nickel Belt and the member for York South (Mr. Rae) as an indication that we have not disseminated the telephone number widely enough. I will look into a means of disseminating the number much more widely. I saw those numbers printed in at least one of the daily newspapers. It seemed to be visible enough. However, I can appreciate the coverage may not be appropriate for certain other areas of the province and we will look into the areas that are not well covered.

3 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I never thought I would have to give the Liberal Party lessons on how to advertise, but that appears to be necessary in this case. What we need is a hotline.

Has the minister met personally with the college? Can he give us an assurance that the college will be stating very clearly today the differences among elective, necessary, urgent and emergency services and surgery? Can the minister give us the differences among them? Can he assure us that the college will be giving us those differences, so we will not continue to have situations where each physician is making up his own mind without having any clear sense of precisely what the rules and guidelines are? Can we have those clarified? Can we have them stated and widely diffused so everybody -- patients and doctors -- knows precisely what is going on, what his rights are and what his access ought to be in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is asking the college to prediagnose every case.

Mr. Rae: No, I am not.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It seems that way.

Throughout the province, medical staffs have been looking at each item as it comes to their attention. The physicians have been making decisions about what is elective, what is emergent, what is urgent and otherwise. In calling a fair number of hospitals myself, I have found arrangements are being made to ensure the integrity of patient care in those institutions.

I have not met face to face with the college, but I have been in personal contact with the college in the days leading up to this, and today I was talking to Dr. Dixon. I can tell the honourable gentleman and the members of this Legislature that I am in personal contact not only with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario but also with the Ontario Hospital Association and individual hospitals where problems could develop.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Gillies: My second question to the Premier concerns one part of his statement yesterday that was particularly informative and gave us new information. We were aware that Wilfred Caplan was acting as a financial consultant to the Wyda corporation, which received a $3-million equity from the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp. Until the Premier revealed it in his statement, we were not aware that Mr. Caplan is also a senior vice-president of that firm and is shown as such in the records.

Would the Premier comment on the propriety of $3 million of public funds going by way of a grant to a company of which the spouse of one of his ministers is an officer?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of personal privilege and answer that question, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: The question was directed to the Premier. Does the Premier wish to redirect?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer it to my honourable colleague.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I would like to give an answer that is complete to the honourable member and to clarify.

My husband, Wilfred Caplan, is and has been since 1971 a financial consultant to small business in this province. At no time has he ever been legally an officer or director of the Wyda company. He was retained by Wyda last spring, in or around May, prior to the change of government.

Mr. Runciman: May 2.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not ask for a supplementary.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: He was retained to oversee the financial and accounting operations of the company. Wilf undertook to attempt to secure secondary financing from the private sector. To further that aim, and as an accepted business practice, Wilf was referred to as the vice-president of finance. He is not an officer or a director, nor has he any beneficial interest in the company.

After the change of government, he retained the advice of Blenus Wright, assistant deputy minister of the Ministry of the Attorney General, in order to comply with the very stringent conflict-of-interest guidelines. Wilf asked Blenus Wright this question: "Because my wife is about to enter the cabinet of Ontario, can I continue in my business in this province or will this put me out of business?" He was told there were very strict rules and regulations under which he could continue. He was told he could not hold equity in a company that had a contractual obligation. In fact, the conflict-ofinterest guidelines are such that no member of this cabinet can hold stocks or shares in any public or private company. All was divested.

He was also told -- and if the House will permit, I would very much like to clarify that --

Mr. Harris: If the minister feels this is so important, why did she not stand up during statements and clarify this matter?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: If the House would let me, I would very much like to proceed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is question period, so a supplementary.

Mr. Gillies: First of all, I would ask whether it would be in order for the minister to answer this question, as it does not relate to her ministerial responsibilities. However, I will direct my supplementary --

Hon. Ms. Caplan: You do not want to hear the truth.

Mr. Gillies: I would very much like to hear the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was redirected by the Premier to the minister. The minister has responded.

Mr. Runciman: She should not have accepted it.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Several allegations have been made. If the House consents to revert to statements, we will be happy to hear the statement.

Mr. Polsinelli: Who made the allegation?

Mr. Speaker: A question was asked to --

Mr. Harris: I was told I did not want to hear the truth. That was an allegation by the member opposite. Do members want to hear it again?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member said you did not want to hear the truth?

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, in answer to an allegation that I did not want to hear the truth, I said I would seek unanimous consent to revert to statements. Let us have the statement we should have had earlier.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member suggests we revert to statements. That is impossible.

Ms. Fish: It is not impossible.

Mr. Speaker: It is not impossible, but it would be --

Ms. Fish: You are going to say we cannot revert to statements?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) has requested --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Ask a question. Does the member want the facts, or does he just want to raise a fuss and make allegations?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nipissing has asked whether the House would agree to revert to statements so that the minister can complete the comment.

Agreed to.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: To continue, in or about August 1985, Wilf was informed that Wyda was about to approach the IDEA Corp. as a potential investor. He stressed at the time that he could not be involved in any financial arrangement; he insisted that his consulting relationship be disclosed to the IDEA Corp. at that time, and it was done. In fact, Wilf signed an affidavit, which was filed on closing, to the effect of what exactly his relationship was with the IDEA Corp. and that he had no beneficial interest, no financial interest and would not benefit financially in any way.

3:10 p.m.

When he asked Mr. Wright whether he could continue in business in this province because of the fact that I had honour to serve in this cabinet, he was told there were specific ways in which he could do business. The caveat was that it be open and clear and that there not be any question about my involvement in any way. As a member of this government, as Chairman of Management Board, as chairman of cabinet or as Minister of Government Services, I have not dealt with any of the investment decisions in any way, shape or form to influence the investment decisions of the IDEA Corp., nor would I.

My husband has made a great personal and business sacrifice. In March he began a new business in metal trading because of the difficulties during this past year and his belief that his clients would be penalized. He would have to advise them that he could not represent them to the fullest of his professional capacity, if they were excluded from the ability to deal with the government. Therefore, he has begun a new business.

I would like to know how many people at the age of 52 would change their professions to accommodate their wives and their ability to serve in this Legislature. I deeply regret the attack of the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) on my family's credibility and the distress that this has caused my family and my integrity.

Mr. Gillies: As a supplementary, it is not the minister's integrity that is being questioned; it is her judgement.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: It would appear from the minister's statement that her husband belatedly came to the same conclusion to which we have come, that it was not appropriate for him to continue in that type of business.

I say, by way of supplementary to the Premier --

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is to the minister. The minister responded on direction from the Premier. As in the past, I have always said that a supplementary goes to the minister who responds to the question. Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it out of order to have a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: I really wanted to find out whether there was a supplementary. However, if you have a point of order, I will listen to you.

Mr. Harris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Under standing order 29(f), it says, "A minister to whom any oral question is directed may refer the question to another member who is a member of a board or commission to which the question applies." I suggest to you, sir, that you erred in allowing the transfer. We corrected that error by allowing the statement the minister had prepared. Can we now go back to the question to the Premier with a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: As in the past, the supplementary must go to the minister to whom the question was directed. As we all know, it is possible with unanimous consent, if the House wants to give unanimous consent. Is it agreed?

Agreed to.

Mr. Gillies: My supplementary is to the Premier. We have a situation here where a minister of his government has a very close member of her family working with a company which received a significant benefit from an agency of the government. As I said earlier, I do not believe it is so much a question of integrity as of judgement. When everybody from the manager on down at the IDEA Corp. knew of the relationship of Mr. Caplan to this government, does the Premier still stand by his contention that there was nothing inappropriate in this transaction?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: A few minutes ago the member was questioning our, my or her integrity and that of some other people; now he is questioning our judgement.

Mr. Harris: No.

Mr. Davis: We are certainly questioning yours.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Sure, he was. Let me tell him what really is the discussion. I have nothing to hide in this situation. I invited him -- and I wish he would take advantage of the opportunity -- to bring all this before public accounts. Call Wilf Caplan. Call the minister. Call me. Call the IDEA Corp. He can call anybody he wishes and satisfy himself, or he can stand up and make the allegations he makes on a daily basis.

I want to tell my honourable friend something. What is on trial in this situation is his judgement and it is not showing up very well at the moment. There are other aspects of his judgement and the judgement of the situations he participates in that could be discussed as well. An example is his announcement of the International Telecommunications Discovery Centre grant in Brantford of $5.5 million during the campaign with virtually no scrutiny. Let us bring that back. He consistently shows bad judgement. It was all done with Blenus Wright.

Mr. Gillies: If the Premier would just answer one solid question --

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Where is Larry?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It just shows my friends who turn so holier than thou --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: One serious question --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Miss Stephenson: Cover it up. You just did.

Mr. Breaugh: Let us get fast Eddie Goodman to investigate this.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let us take them all to public accounts.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I notice the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) chooses to step out when his colleagues decide to sling mud. Is there any particular reason for that?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It appears to me we may need a short period to cool off.

Mr. Breaugh: They have to hide.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Yesterday and today. What is wrong?

Mr. Harris: The leader was here for part of it; now he is off on an airplane.

Mr. McClellan: Throw the member out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I said, I believe it is just about time for a short period to cool off.

Mr. Rae: I will cool it off. I will shut down the place. I will turn the lights off.

PAPER MILL

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: No, it is not about that; it is about another question.

I want to ask him a very serious question with respect to Kimberly-Clark. He will know of the announcement that was made by the company and he will know that thus far we have no clarification and no further knowledge with respect to what will happen to the jobs in the mill and what will happen to the jobs in the bush.

Can the minister tell us why the government has not appointed one individual who would be responsible for co-ordinating on behalf of the people of the province its negotiations with the company and why that individual has not been given the power to talk to the company, to talk to all the ministries involved and to talk to the towns involved?

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: Why has that not been done in order to protect the jobs that are at stake in that part of northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I take this as a very good suggestion from my friend the leader of the third party.

When the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and I met with the company for a couple of hours about a month ago, they told us they would get back to us within a month or a month and a half. They were here this week to discuss the matter with my friend the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). They are looking at a plan, but they themselves do not know where they are going. They have told us when they are sure, they will come to us. At that time, I will give consideration to the honourable member's idea.

Mr. Rae: We are still back in the old days where Kimberly-Clark, based in Georgia and Texas, comes back to the minister to tell him what the story is going to be and then the government of Ontario responds. That is not good enough and I do not believe the people of the province think that is good enough when it comes to those 2,000 jobs.

3:20 p.m.

The minister knows full well those 2,000 jobs represent the livelihood of at least three communities and represent the economic lifeblood of those three communities. Can the minister tell us why he is not negotiating a serious resource planning agreement today which would give a long-term assurance to the people in that part of northern Ontario? Can he tell those people in Terrace Bay and in Longlac why he has not negotiated a resource planning agreement which would give them the assurance that their jobs would be there, not just for another year, not for five years, but also for decades to come, because that is where they belong?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First, the problem at Kimberly-Clark does not affect only two or three towns; it affects the whole of northern Ontario. We are looking at it seriously. We were told a few weeks ago by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) that if they do not operate the resources part the honourable member is talking about, they will not have the right to utilize the forests. We were told about that two weeks ago.

I want to reassure the member that my home town too is affected by Kimberly-Clark. I ask him to give us a little time on this because, as I say again, they did not tell us they would come back at the end of the year. They asked to be given up to the end of July. They are working on a plan and, at that point, we will meet together with the ministers involved and I will look at the plan the member is talking about and maybe put somebody to work on this issue from July on. At this point, they do not know and I do not know myself; nobody knows. We will have to wait.

I have met with the president as often as the member has and I have met with other people in the company, and they told us that. I am going to Nakina in the first week of July. I will be in Longlac, Geraldton and Terrace Bay. I will spend a week after the first of July to meet the people of those areas to find a solution. I will be back in this House when they report to me.

IDEA CORP

Mr. Gillies: I want to go back to one of the earlier questions to the Premier that he did not answer. What was the role of Abe Schwartz in his transition team?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: He assumed a role in government in the period when we were putting together a group of men and women from across the province to assist in preparing ministers. I am not sure of all the details, frankly, but I could check them out. I think he was involved in making sure new ministers would have executive assistants, interviewing people and helping to make sure we would be ready to go in a relatively short space of time. It was that type of thing.

Mr. Gillies: Would the Premier be aware, or could he share with the House, whether any of Mr. Schwartz's activities within the government during that time would relate to the field that he has pursued through the Exploracom project with the $17.5-million grant? Were any of his activities related to computers, dealing with computer-related companies or with officials of this government who are putting together computer-related projects at a rather fast rate?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Not as far as I know, but I want to amplify that a little bit. As a former minister, the member will be aware that there have been some problems with the electronic delivery systems in the government in the various programs that have been undertaken. We wanted to make sure we were doing the right thing. I know he has given advice to the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) on his computer programming.

Mr. Davis: Is that how IBM got in?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Perhaps not there, but he has given advice on what types of systems to get, etc.

He charged no money. He did not charge for expenses. It was done on a volunteer basis to assist because he is recognized in most reasonable quarters as one of the authorities in this country on computers and data technology. He was not contracting on behalf of the government for his own purpose or for anyone else. He has not profited in any way. As a matter of fact, it has cost him a great deal of money to do that.

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

Mr. Foulds: I have a question of the Premier. Is he aware that the Eminent Persons Group report yesterday indicated that South Africa faces what could be the worst blood bath since the Second World War unless international pressure is brought to bear to abolish apartheid?

He will recall saying to Bishop Desmond Tutu, when he spoke here in the Legislature on May 30: "You have given much hope to all those who seek justice. In this province we have sought to contribute to that cause with acts of symbolism but of substance as well, and I can assure you, sir, our commitment will not diminish."

Can the Premier tell me one concrete act of substance his government will take to put pressure on the government of South Africa? Will he tell companies they have a choice -- that they can do business with South Africa or the government of Ontario, but not both? Will he tell the Ontario municipal employees retirement system board it must not merely pass resolutions deploring apartheid, but it must divest itself of its investment in apartheid?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me take the honourable member back in history and remind him of the leadership this government has provided in this regard. I am not suggesting there is not more we can do; we are exploring ways. Does the member want to be specific? Is he saying, for example, we should not buy uranium from Rio Algom, and if it does not stop doing business in South Africa, we should close down those uranium contracts and close down Elliot Lake?

Mr. Wildman: No.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If that is what he is saying, he is entitled to his point of view on that situation. We have not done a broad canvass about our contractual relationships, with whom we are doing business as a government and whether they are involved in other countries. Sometimes these things are very hard to find out.

We have issued in a very clear way the view of this government. We have banned the importation of South African wines. We have done the same thing in all our purchases. We have moved on OMERS. It came back with a report to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) saying it was going to divest.

Mr. Foulds: No, it did not.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is my understanding.

Mr. Foulds: No, it did not. The Treasury officials contacted the Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not have a copy of the resolution with me, but I will send it to my honourable friend. He may not approve of the wording, but my understanding is that over a period, it will divest. The Treasurer is at present looking at the entire situation with pension funds and other holdings with respect to the things we can reasonably do and provide the leadership we would like to provide. I know where we stand. We have moved in a thoughtful way and taken steps that a lot of other governments in this country have not taken.

Mr. Foulds: If the two steps I asked of the Premier are too large a bite for him to take out of Bishop Tutu's allegorical eloquence, perhaps he can take one small bite.

Will the Premier withdraw all liquor currently on the shelves of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario stores in Ontario? For example, will he ask the Cumberland Street store in Thunder Bay to withdraw the three brandies, the four wines, the one port and the two sherries it was selling at one o'clock this afternoon? Will he tell Toronto's Queen's Quay, Jane and Finch, Coxwell and Bayview Village stores to withdraw the South African liquors they are selling? Will he tell the two stores in London, the all-brands store and one other we contacted, to withdraw the South African wines from their shelves today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Now I know where my honourable friend spends his spare time. Seriously, in response to his question, the answer is --

Mr. Foulds: Why will the Premier not treat it seriously?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am treating it seriously. I ask my friend what would that accomplish. We would not be making any statement with respect to South Africa. We would end up with that inventory in a warehouse. Does the member want us to throw it down a sewer, or would it be better to sell it, get the money and contribute those moneys to worthwhile projects here and/or abroad? By pulling that stuff off the shelves today, we would not be punishing anybody in South Africa or sending a message in any way; it would only be wasting money. I do not know what the total amount of that is, but we said at the time --

Mr. Foulds: The government's words are cheap, but its actions are limited.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is wrong. With great respect to my honourable friend, we are selling that stuff; we did not buy any more. We said at the time we were going to do this, as we have to run this government, in a reasonable, businesslike way. Those moneys will come into revenues to pay for hospitals, schools and a number of other programs we have in this province. His advocating just throwing away money is not sensible to me, particularly when it does not make a point.

3:30 p.m.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Hon. Mr. Conway: I shall try very quickly to respond to a four-part question by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) earlier this week about provision of French-language special education services in the national capital area.

First, there were no programs offered because there were none required of the two separate school boards in Ottawa-Carleton, according to my latest information. I have identified three visually impaired French-speaking students in the current school year. All of those students are being provided for in the regular school program, according to the identification and placement review committee.

Second, contrary to the honourable member's statement, there are seven teachers in Ontario who are qualified to teach the visually impaired students in French.

Third, contrary to the member's suggestion, we do accept qualifications from Quebec and we have done so in one particular case that has allowed a fully qualified teacher of the visually impaired to be teaching in Cornwall.

Fourth, as a ministry we are taking specific measures to address by this summer the problem areas the member has mentioned at the W. Ross Macdonald School in Brantford, offering the French Braille course for the first time and, by next year, the first part of the specialist program.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am glad there is some action being taken. As the minister knows, that course is not going to be a credit course and I hope it will be one. The problem is one of program and the IPRC. I will put it directly to the minister. When boards tell him they are providing what those kids need, I say those boards are wrong.

How does the minister explain that of the four boards in the entire Windsor and Essex county area, only one board provides any special programs for blind kids? The Essex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board serves only two kids in that whole area. Most of the kids are sent to the Brantford home. The school boards have been reluctant to provide proper programming for our visually impaired because people in the IPRC do not know what they are talking about when they are dealing with visually impaired kids.

Hon. Mr. Conway: If the member has specific information he would like to share with me, I can assure him that I will be most anxious to follow up. We are taking steps to provide additional resources and programs. The member knows Bill 82 sets out a framework that sets local board responsibility. I regret he does not feel local boards in some areas are discharging their responsibilities. Again, if he has specific evidence he would like me to assess, I would be more than pleased to do so.

Finally, because the member in a quiet moment the other day again made the comment about noncredit courses at W . Ross Macdonald, I tried to follow that up. I am not yet sure what he is talking about. Perhaps he can enlighten me later today.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Gregory: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Will the minister tell this House his opinion on whether negotiations with the government and Lavalin Inc. regarding the proposed sale of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. are proceeding well?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I assure the member they are.

Mr. Gregory: If the minister believes the negotiations are going so well that he can answer in one word, why is the chairman of British Rail Engineering, a company which has had a keen interest in a joint-venture proposal with UTDC, coming to Toronto this Friday, that is tomorrow, to meet with government officials and Lavalin Inc.?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I was not aware of the meeting that is taking place. I assure him that in talking with BC Transit officials during my trip to Vancouver this week, as indicated earlier, they have confidence in the company and in the transaction that is under way. They are exploring not only the two extensions I mentioned previously, but also five extensions to the system out there.

EXTRA BILLING

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

It is my understanding that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has just had a press conference which was attended by Dr. Dixon and Dr. Catton, the president. I understand that Dr. Catton said, and this is as close to a quote as I can get: "We do not know what a strike is. We have had no experience of it. We do not know if what is going on today is a strike." Dr. Dixon -- again I am quoting from my notes and I can only assume they are accurate -- said: "Our mandate is to uphold standards of individual practice. We do not have any legislation to deal with a profession collectively."

The minister has passed the ball to the college and it appears it has decided to drop the ball. Can the minister tell us what the response is going to be now?

Hon. Mr. Elston: There was no passing of the ball at all. I can tell the honourable member that I share responsibility in situations such as this, as does the college and as does the administration of hospitals. In many ways, it is a shared responsibility and we are fulfilling our responsibility and carrying out our mandate by being in touch with the places where there are difficulties. When the college was called upon yesterday by the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), it responded effectively.

If the honourable gentleman is suggesting the legislation be amended in some way, he should make that suggestion. I can tell him right now that we are carrying out our mandate and are responding to situations effectively. The college is carrying out a role, as is the Ontario Hospital Association. I might also remind the member that I am assured by administrators of hospitals, boards of directors, governors or whatever they may be termed in a particular community, that patient care is being provided.

Mr. Rae: I may have been in a different place this week, but I distinctly recall asking the minister several questions and hearing many other questions asked. His answer to every question that has been asked has been, "Go to the college and raise it with the college," or "I will take it to the college," or "I will phone the college and deal with the case on an individual basis." If he has not been passing the buck or passing the ball, I do not know where he has been. That is what I have heard and I think it is what most people have heard the minister say during the last week.

The college is saying it has no standards. It does not appear to have any. It says it does not feel it has legislation that would allow it to deal with this kind of problem on anything other than a purely individual basis. Does the minister share that view? As the minister responsible, what does he intend to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have indicated clearly that when circumstances arise that provide us with an ability to make a decision, when the real circumstances are available for us to make the determination, we will make those determinations. What is happening now right across the province, as the member knows, is that a large number of our physicians are providing service. I have been in touch with hospitals, with the college and with the Ontario Hospital Association personally. I have been directly in contact to ensure that things are moving on.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that I have no way of responding to a press conference, or whatever, that I was not at. I do not know the contents, but if he is suggesting that the college is asking for more legislation -- I do not think he is saying that, but he is suggesting that there should be more legislation -- perhaps he should make himself clear.

All I can say is that, so far in this province, services are being provided to the patients. I am concerned with patient care, the college is concerned with it and the administrations and the boards of directors of all the hospitals also wish to provide quality care to the patients of this province.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. McLean: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Some time ago you allowed the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) to reply to a previously answered question just after the leader of the third party had put two questions. I think the record will show today that the third party has asked more questions than the government side. I would think that when ministers have a response to make, it should be when their turn comes in rotation.

Mr. Speaker: I will discuss this matter with the member privately. I have all the records for the last year and I would be glad to show him those.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Poirier: I have a petition that reads as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

This is signed by 45 people from my riding.

PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr. Rowe: I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To His Honour the Lieutenant Governor:

"We, the undersigned public school supporters of the town of Bradford in the county of Simcoe, do hereby petition the Ministry of Education to reconsider its decision to deny funding for the building of a new public elementary school in Bradford. This school has been approved by the Simcoe County Board of Education as its first priority for a number of years."

3:40 p.m.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented a report on simultaneous interpretation and moved its adoption.

Mr. Breaugh: In this report, the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly has recommended that simultaneous interpretation be provided of all proceedings in the legislative chamber and of all committee proceedings in the Amethyst Room. If it is adopted, not only will members be able to express themselves in English or French, they will also have the assurance that other members will understand their remarks. The provision of these facilities is an important step in the history and development of the Legislature and will benefit all members and those persons observing the proceedings. Now comes the interesting part.

Dans ce rapport, le Comité permanent de l'Assemblée législative a recommandé qu'un service d'interprétation simultanée soit assuré pour toutes les délibérations ayant lieu dans la Chambre et pour toutes les délibérations de comités ayant lieu dans la salle Amethyst.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Formidable.

Mr. Breaugh: No heckling in English or French while this is under way.

Si cette recommandation était adoptée, non seulement les députés auraient-ils la possibilité de s'exprimer en anglais ou en français, mais ils seraient certains que leurs remarques seraient comprises par des autres députés. La prestation de ce service constituera une étape importante dans l'histoire et l'évolution de l'Assemblée législative et elle profitera à tous les députés et à toutes les personnes qui assisteront aux délibérations.

On motion by Mr. Breaugh, the debate was adjourned.

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that all of the estimates referred to the standing committee on general government by order of the House on Monday, June 9, 1986, be transferred to the standing committee on social development for consideration in the order shown in Orders and Notices.

Motion agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the select committee on energy be continued for the purpose of completing its report on Ontario Hydro affairs, with the following change in its membership: Mr. Polsinelli for Mr. Sargent.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the select committee on energy be authorized to meet on the morning of Monday, June 16, 1986, and, if required, on the afternoon of Wednesday, June 18,1986.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ALLIANCE FRANÇAISE OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Callahan moved firstreading of Bill Pr16, An Act to revive l'Alliance française de Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

HEALTH CARE ACCESSIBILITY ACT (CONTINUED)

Consideration of Bill 94, An Act regulating the Amounts that Persons may charge for rendering Services that are Insured Services under the Health Insurance Act.

On section 4:

Mr. Chairman: We carried all of section 3 and the new sections Tuesday. The parliamentary assistant is here for the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). He has an amendment to subsection 4(1).

Mr. Ward moves that subsection 4(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "$10,000" in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof "$250 for a first offence and $1,000 for any subsequent offence."

Mr. Ward: Very briefly, the amendments in section 4 are consistent with amendments that have previously been made in that the amounts deemed to be unauthorized payments can now, in the vast majority of circumstances, be recovered through the Ontario health insurance plan by withholding payment. The new fines that are proposed are realistic and in line with the previous amendments that have been made to this legislation.

Mr. Andrewes: The government has obviously had sober second thoughts with regard to its draconian system of extracting penalties from practitioners. We congratulate the government on that. We will be proposing a substantive amendment to section 4, a substitution to the section as it now stands. Therefore, we will not be supporting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other honourable member who wishes to address the amendment of the parliamentary assistant?

Miss Stephenson: I have a comment.

Mr. Chairman: I asked whether there was any other honourable member who wished to speak on this amendment to subsection 4(1) of the bill.

Miss Stephenson: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Then stand up. The member for York Mills.

Miss Stephenson: The inclusion of this section, even amended, is one of the primary irritants of this bill as far as the honourable members of the medical profession are concerned. The suggestion that the reduction of the fine from $10,000, which was punitive and unwarranted, to any amount as a correction for this action is specious.

The idea that there should be any fine for ethical behaviour which does not necessarily comply with the honourable minister's idea about what physicians should do flies directly in the face of the traditional understanding of the role of the self-governing professions in our society. I simply warn the parliamentary assistant that if he or the minister believes this minor move will in any way reduce the irritation or resolve any of the difficulties, he is entirely wrong. That will not happen.

3:50 p.m.

This is an affront to a profession which has behaved responsibly and admirably throughout many thousands of years of human history. It has done so in Ontario in support of the health insurance program. It has made suggestions about ways in which the current problems might be eliminated, but all those suggestions have been rejected by the deaf ear of the government.

To suggest that simply reducing the fine that was included in the first draft of this legislation will solve the problem is ludicrous. I suggest strongly to the parliamentary assistant that he do his very best to persuade the minister to withdraw this section of the act completely, if he cannot persuade him to withdraw the entire act.

Mr. Ward: For the balance of section 4, I wonder whether I should amend the original motion or put it again. The balance of the amendment is that subsections 4(2), 4(4), 4(5), 4(6) and 4(7) of the bill be struck out. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, may I include that in the amendment?

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ward withdraws the original amendment and moves that subsection 4(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "$10,000" in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof "$250 for a first offence and $1,000 for any subsequent offence."

Mr. Ward further moves that subsections 4(2), 4(4), 4(5), 4(6) and 4(7) of the bill be struck out. So that we all understand this, and for a moment I did not, the parliamentary assistant has withdrawn his original motion that was put at the beginning on subsection 4(1) and incorporated in it an additional motion that he was going to put. Is that clear?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We will be supporting the amendment in line with the new enforcement mechanism that has been introduced by the minister. I think the fines as suggested are adequate and the new enforcement mechanism will allow the responsibility to be taken away from the patient and put on to the government. The two go hand in hand and therefore we concur.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Henderson moves that section 4, as amended, of the said bill be struck out and the following substituted in lieu thereof:

"4(1) Every practitioner who contravenes section 2 is guilty of an offence.

"(2) Every practitioner convicted of an offence made under subsection 1 is liable for a period of not less than three months and not more than six months to limit all charges for services rendered to insured persons to the amounts payable under the plan for those services and, for that period, shall accept no fees for insured services except from the plan.

"(3) No practitioner may enforce collection of any fee charged or billed in contravention of section 2.

"(4) No fee charged or billed in contravention of section 2 is payable.

"(5) Every practitioner to whom subsection 1 applies may, at that practitioner's option and on giving notice to the Minister of Health, choose to carry on practice without billing the plan, in which event that practitioner may charge or bill patients directly.

"(6) Where subsection 5 applies, no patient of a practitioner to whom subsection 5 applies is entitled to receive any payment or benefit from the plan for services rendered to the patient by that practitioner.

"(7) Subsection 2 does not apply where the patient in respect of whom a contravention occurs is not,

"(a) over the age of 65 years;

"(b) receiving general welfare assistance or family benefit allowance;

"(c) receiving benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and has no other source of earned income;

"(d) a member of a group prescribed by regulation or who meets conditions prescribed by regulation; or

"(e) a recipient of service rendered in a hospital emergency department or for such other services as are prescribed by regulation;

"and the practitioner,

"(f) is billing for services rendered while practising in an area, hospital or clinic designated by regulations where more than 50 per cent of the practitioners in the same field of practice or specialty do not bill or accept payment for more than the amount payable under the plan for rendering an insured service to an insured person;

"(g) in each of the previous three consecutive months billed more than 50 per cent of his or her monthly billings on the basis of the amounts payable under the plan for rendering insured services to insured persons; or

"(h) has been granted dispensation from the application of section 2 by the Minister of Health.

"(8) Nothing in this act precludes the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario from investigating complaints initiated by patients and making such recommendations as it considers appropriate.

"(9) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

"(a) prescribing groups for the purpose of clause (7)(d);

"(b) prescribing conditions for the purpose of clause (7)(d);

"(c) prescribing services for the purpose of clause (7)(e);

"(d) designating areas, hospitals and clinics for the purpose of clause (7)(f); and

"(e) prescribing methods of determining whether any charge or billing is in respect of services rendered in a particular area, hospital or clinic.

"(10) The minister may designate, on the recommendation of the appropriate regional health council, practitioners for the purpose of clause (7)(h)."

Would you carry on, Mr. Henderson?

4 p.m.

Mr. Henderson: By way of speaking to this amendment to section 4, I shall begin recalling that my use of the word "draconian" in reference to this bill last January kindled no small stir within my own party ranks. Since that time, I have heard this word "draconian" flow from the lips of none other than the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and many of my colleagues.

I therefore believe as I rise to speak in support of this amendment that I can claim a little credit for resurrecting within this assembly the memory of the legendary Draco, purveyor of harsh morality and severe and punitive sanctions about 600 BC. Yet many of the legislative measures of the notorious Draco pale beside the initial unamended measures of section 4 of Bill 94. With no intended offence to Draco's memory and descendants, my amendment to section 4 takes many giant steps in the direction of reasoned problem-solving and democratic liberalism.

My amendment brings reason and rationality to the matter of penalties under section 4 of this bill. It provides that a physician guilty of an alleged offence will have to opt in and provide his service at the OHIP rate for three to six months. That is an appropriate penalty related to the nature of the alleged offence. It makes sense to say that if the privilege of contracting with the patient outside the provincial plan is abused, the practitioner loses the option to exercise that privilege. There are many precedents for that kind of measure in society. The privilege is there to be enjoyed, but if it is abused, it is lost.

This amendment does not propose a gentler or less significant or less costly penalty. To be required to opt in to the provincial plan would be for many opted-out practitioners a greater financial penalty than the fines that are proposed in the amended version of section 4 of this bill or even those proposed in the initial unamended draft of this section. This is not a gentler penalty, but it is a more appropriate penalty. I recommend it to the consideration of the members of this House.

This amendment also provides for exceptions to the penalty I have put forward, but it maintains the absolute ban on extra billing, which is felt by my colleagues in caucus and the Premier and the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) to be in some way essential to the assurance of accessibility.

The amendment provides that where the physician has billed the patient more than the plan rate and the patient is not a senior citizen or a recipient of welfare or family allowance, is not dependent on workers' compensation benefits and does not require emergency treatment, we will refrain from imposing a penalty on that physician, pending further study, provided the patient has a real choice in the kind of practitioner he chooses to see.

For that withholding of penalty to apply, my now familiar stipulation will pertain, that half the practitioners in the doctor's field of practice in the area, hospital or clinic where the service was rendered must be opted in or else half the doctor's billings in the previous three months must have been submitted at the OHIP rate.

In my opinion, those are reasonable provisions and reasonable exceptions to the penalties provided for under this section. As well, there are provisions in this amendment for the minister to individualize his consideration of special circumstances and special situations.

This flexible approach to penalties and sanctions would preserve the intent of my colleagues to ensure accessibility and avoid a two-tiered health care system. It would impose a total ban on extra billing and thereby literally fulfil our campaign promises during the election one year ago. It would similarly fulfil our commitments under the Liberal-New Democratic Party accord to legislate a ban on extra billing.

The broader issue of what sanctions should apply when sanctions are deferred by this amendment, which was not covered or mentioned in any campaign promise I know of, should be referred for further study and negotiation to a body that includes representatives from both government and the Ontario Medical Association.

The idea of deferring penalty is in no sense a new or surprising concept. It finds ample precedent in the frequent practice of the judiciary of reserving judgement and suspending sentence. Do our doctors not deserve as much consideration under the law as convicted criminals? I drafted that sentence as a rhetorical question, but on reflection, I feel I should pose it seriously.

To say that this amendment commends itself to our consideration as a last-ditch effort to stave off the potentially disastrous consequences of a province-wide withdrawal of physicians' services, with all the rancour, suffering and potential risk to health and life that entails, surely understates its value. Physicians would not like this amendment and would not accept this bill as amended by this proposed amendment to section 4; but it is entirely possible that they would see in this amendment enough of a gesture for their need for professional freedom and for an arm's-length relationship with government, enough of a gesture towards their honour and their dignity, to be willing to restrain and refrain from large-scale service withdrawals.

I am, therefore, proposing this amendment to section 4 in yet another attempt to foster a reasoned rethinking of the effects of this bill while preserving its goals and intent and its specific provisions. I assume I no longer need to make the point that the government's aim of assuring full accessibility to health care is one I fully embrace. The vow of the Premier and the Minister of Health to avoid a two-tiered system of health care is one I similarly embrace. Most Ontarians embrace those objectives and those principles.

The idea of this amendment is to ensure that the unparalleled accessibility to health care enjoyed by the citizens of Ontario is not diluted in years to come. In my view, neither the proclamation nor the constitutionality nor the enforceability of this bill without substantial new amendment is to be taken for granted at this time.

In this amendment, I address the difficult issue of penalties for violation of what many feel to be an unnecessarily iron-clad insistence that the needs of those groups in society that are disadvantaged in so far as obtaining health care services is concerned should dictate to everyone else the pattern of services delivery provincewide. Without further amendment, the penalties and the stipulations embodied in this section of the legislation are, in my view, unwarranted, inappropriate, excessive and clinically counterproductive.

I offer this amendment because it is a useful principle of creative endeavour in all fields that creative productivity is discouraged by fettering, controls and punitive sanctions. One does not tie lead weights to the feet of an acrobat; nor does one demand that a magician wear a straitjacket, nor an astronomer wear sunglasses in his work nor a surgeon wear padded gloves. One does not conscript physicians to the state under threat of punitive sanction and expect excellence in service to continue.

This amendment flows from a principle of optimal freedom, ubiquitous in human nature. It applies to the nurturance and development of children. We see it in the training of professionals in universities and other programs of study and apprenticeship. Certainly, it holds in the professional development and working conditions of legislators, who are guaranteed certain privileges and freedoms by virtue of their necessity to represent the views of their constituents without undue inhibition and restraint.

I do not believe most legislators in this assembly realize what a dreadfully limiting and constricting piece of legislation is comprised in section 4 of Bill 94. I offer this amendment to that section in a last-ditch effort to avert what I believe will be catastrophe.

Physicians and other practitioners face incredible demands. This amendment recognizes in its prescription of penalties that doctors must stay abreast of burgeoning technology, which is advancing at an incredible rate on countless frontiers of countless fields of medical-scientific exploration. Physicians must stay abreast of basic clinical science and technique by which they apply their art and science on a daily basis.

4:10 p.m.

Doctors must cope with the incredible work load imposed by the demands of suffering patients and must work day and night to fulfil their professional contractual obligations. They must maintain a collegial relationship with colleagues, for each physician is part of a system of care delivery, the effectiveness of which depends on harmonious relationships among specialists, generalists and various allied health practitioners.

Doctors must maintain involvement in a variety of hospital and other community activities and on a daily basis be ready to interpret each and every aspect of their art and science to an increasingly sceptical and questioning public. They must already worry about the penalties attached to professional misconduct and the threat of lawsuit in the event of falling short of any of a large catalogue of listed transgressions or alleged transgressions. Doctors already face the severest penalty of all in knowing that the cost of a momentary lapse of concentration or alertness can be a patient's death.

I offer this amendment to penalties, knowing that faced with these crushing responsibilities physicians require a great deal of what some legislators are, I hope, coming to recognize as professional freedom. My amendment speaks to this question of professional freedom because it offers a system of penalties that is more sensible, more relevant to the alleged offence and more compatible with the physicians' sense of professional honour and professional dignity.

This amendment provides for reasonable exceptions to punitive sanctions in recognition that more investigation, more understanding and more negotiation is required to arrive at a sensible sanction against what some perceive, erroneously, as a freedom-threatening accessibility to care. The punitive nature of the penalties envisaged in section 4 of Bill 94 heightens the ambience of civil conscription implicit in this bill. To conscript an entire profession in peacetime in a democratic state is a serious and disturbing matter.

I would love to dwell on that a little and offer some examples and comparisons from other regimes, other jurisdictions and other eras, but I will restrain myself from doing that because I would seem to be indulging in the proliferation of further rhetoric in a matter where the rhetoric has already flowed with some gusto.

The kinds of penalties proposed in section 4 alarm me. I believe my amendment puts forward a more sensible, a more rational, a more moderate, a more liberal democratic and a more wise approach. Liberalism claims to be the party of individuals, the party that defends individual freedom. Individual patients and individual doctors in Ontario claim the right to deal with each other at arm's length from the state and from politicians. Do we defend that freedom or do we not? I for one will.

Rarely in the history of democracy has any profession been so severely threatened as by the provisions of the unamended or even the amended section 4. No profession ever was so severely threatened and so severely curtailed in its freedom to negotiate a simple contractual agreement with a patient or a client.

Insurers, even government insurers, do not dictate the value of goods and services. Imagine a state insurance plan that set a particular insured value on one's home at the expense of the taxpayers of the province, that insisted the owner could never sell the home on the open market for more than the value of the government-sponsored insurance, all that backed by the threat of stiff fines and escalating sanctions. Which of us will stand for sanctions such as that in a democratic state?

Should section 4 of this bill become law without the amendment I propose, I can think of no other profession in western democracy that will have its fees so rigidly set by government, no other profession that will be so rigidly forbidden by the state from negotiating a simple, contractual arrangement with a client, no other insurance that will try arbitrarily to assign the value of goods or services and no other professional who could be so severely punished for charging just a few dollars more than the insured rate for a service.

Even prostitutes are not sanctioned as severely as proposed in section 4 in their contractual arrangements.

Mr. Shymko: The member must be kidding.

Mr. Henderson: No, I am not kidding. I regret to evoke such unseemly contractual comparisons, but it cannot escape my observation that the contractual arrangements of prostitution are not so encroached upon by the state as will be the contractual arrangement between the physician and a patient under the terms of section 4 of this bill.

We do not permit soliciting for the purposes of prostitution; fair enough. Let us amend Bill 94 to prohibit and punish soliciting, or as we would call it advertising for the purpose of establishing therapeutic contracts outside of the dictates of the government insurance plan. Let us do that with section 4, if it is not already done within the existing legislation or regulations.

Will the state not treat the contract with a physician with as much consideration and respect as the contract with a prostitute? Surely the contract of the second oldest profession in the world deserves as much consideration and respect from the state as the contract with the oldest.

What kind of democracy is this that proposes that doctors be fined and otherwise punished for negotiating a simple contractual arrangement with somebody who comes to seek their assistance on a matter of personal pain and suffering? Another legislator once observed that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. The state, I propose, must also conscientiously limit its place in the clinical consulting rooms of patients and their physicians. We are conscientious enough about that in the matter of the relationship between a prostitute and a client. Surely contracting with a doctor deserves at least as much respect, and surely section 4 should carry an amendment to achieve that goal.

I find myself wondering where the penalties I oppose are coming from. I worry about the role and possible bias of nonclinicians to the exclusion or near exclusion of clinicians in the preparation of this bill. I worry that the latter-day estrangement between clinicians and health administrators is reflected in the ambience of these sanctions.

Physicians who watch these amendments as they course through this Legislature believe they see the wisdom of experienced lawyers in the regulation of the practice of law. They see the wisdom of educators in the governing of education and the wisdom of business people in the regulation of commerce, but they do not believe they see the wisdom of experienced clinicians in the drafting of laws and amendments to laws that shape and regulate the practice of medicine, and they think it is high time that changed.

They see in section 4 of this legislation yet another measure that stifles their freedom to offer the quality of service of which they are capable. They are very angry and very determined. My amendment will not change that overnight, but it would be a very important first step.

I offer this amendment because physicians in Ontario feel discriminated against and scapegoated. They feel men and women who team about the practice of clinical care have come too much to control and stifle the practitioners of clinical care. They feel that to learn about how others practise is not the same as to learn what it is like to practise. They feel that those who learn about clinical practice, in general, develop too little awareness of the stresses, challenges, difficulties, impediments and other trials that must be faced and overcome by practitioners who deal day by day in the practice of their art and science with suffering patients.

Physicians, therefore, feel the sanctions imposed by section 4 of this bill are unwarranted. They feel, as do I, that section 4 emerges from a point of view that is too far removed from an understanding of what it is like to have to do the job.

The amendment I proposed to section 4 helps move Bill 94 just a little closer to its purpose, to solve the problems of extra billing without intruding unreasonably and in a counter-productive way on the freedom and flexibility that is necessary to the practitioners of good care. At least I hope that is its purpose.

4:20 p.m.

I have known lots of models for how doctors should be paid and I have personally been opted out, opted in and salaried at different times of my career and training, but under the penalties of section 4, this is not a bill about how doctors should be paid. These penalties make section 4 an instrument of removing choice and options. They enforce an arrangement whereby, at a time when government is straining to meet the escalating costs of health care, we jettison under drastic penalty a useful mechanism whereby so-called extra billing may bring funding into the health care system from, if the mechanism is properly regulated and fine-tuned, those most readily able to afford a little more for care.

That is precisely the principle government invokes with its well-accepted system of progressive income tax. The same principle is invoked by this amendment to the penalties of section 4. Can such a principle not apply to billing for clinical care if, and this I stress, the penalties are adjusted and fine-tuned to remove the potential for unfairness and abuse and to guarantee that patients have a choice? Ontarians have unparalleled access to health care. Let us not throw away the baby with the bathwater just because the bathwater needs a little work.

I offer this amendment because I do not believe government has the right to impose severe penalties on that minority of doctors who want to work at arm's length from the state, nor to instruct them under threat of such severe penalization that professional freedom in contractual matters is against the law. I do not believe government has the right it claims by section 4 to forbid that minority of patients, if it is a minority, who want to seek a doctor who works at arm's length from the state. I do not believe the people of Ontario will wish to sanction such a punishment. I do not believe they want the state to gain that kind of control over the lives of citizens in Ontario.

I am proposing this amendment because I hear it said that people want an end to extra billing and that the people are always right. But Ontario is not a dictatorship of the proletariat. A growing minority of the people, if it still is a minority, do not demand an end to extra billing. They do not support penalties such as those now framed by section 4, which insists they may not seek a physician who offers a particular time intensity, kind of experience, extent of training or clinical style. They feel those punishments are an intrusion on their liberty as citizens.

I believe the people of Ontario care about the rights of minorities, visible or otherwise. I am a populist, but I am a populist who knows people are best served by professionalism in professional matters. I put forward this amendment to section 4 in the service of a populism that recognizes the benefit to people of professionalism. In our discussion of the kinds of sanctions appropriate under section 4, we should remember that freedoms not always exercised can, none the less, be deeply cherished.

I propose this amendment to section 4 because I believe the penalties of section 4, like the measures of section 2, are simplistic and ill advised. To be sure, mankind yearns for simplistic solutions to complex problems. When simplistic solutions and penalties curtail our freedom, we sometimes rationalize it is the necessary price of some supposedly overriding goal; but simplistic solutions fail in the long term, sometimes tragically, sometimes horrendously.

My amendment proposes an approach to sanctions that blends firmness and commitment to a worthwhile principle with flexibility and understanding in its approach to the problem of policing our principle of ensured accessibility.

I propose to be the kind of politician who, in important matters of principle and conscience, stands for his beliefs. My constituents and my children in years to come will have reason to know I was a politician who took great pains to be right and then stood firm in my beliefs. I refuse to support punitive measures for colleagues who render one of the most important services in society and who are in the fight of their lives to defend their freedom on behalf of themselves and their patients.

This is a historic moment in the history of medical care. It may well be that how Ontario goes in this matter of professional freedom, so will go the rest of Canada. A 5,000-year tradition of professionalism and professional freedom will be decided right here, right now, in Ontario in 1986.

For the benefit of the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and any other members who share his intolerance of creative divergence within a party caucus, I wish to approach my conclusion in support of this amendment to section 4 by quoting from the report of the federal Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, usually known as the McGrath report.

I quote page 8 of the McGrath report: "Private members on the government side have certain rights and duties ....In the normal exercise of their legislative functions, government members should be able, without fear of retribution, to amend or defeat clauses in bills; make amendments to bills implementing ways and means motions; reduce estimates as a mark of disapproval of either the administration or of a particular program; concur in committee reports critical of government activities and administration; and reject proposed legislation outright or pose amendments."

I have stayed well within these guidelines in my opposition to Bill 94. I quote the McGrath report again: "Precedent shows that responsible government does not break down and government does not become unworkable when the executive bows to the wishes of the House on a wide variety of matters in a wide variety of circumstances."

I quote that in support of my amendment to section 4 of this bill because I believe this amendment would solve a vexing, pressing, urgent and dangerous problem. I say that particularly in response to the member for Windsor-Riverside, who proposed that I should resign from the party of which I am a member and sit as an independent member of this Legislature.

Liberalism is a party of reform. There are times when we need to think about reform to the reform. Liberalism is also for me a party that stands for the freedom of individuals. I believe the member for Windsor-Riverside fails to understand the duties and responsibilities of a private member on the government side, if not the duties and responsibilities of a member on any side. That is not entirely surprising when one thinks about it because his party is light-years from the experience of government.

Notwithstanding my recent suggestions to the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), who is not in the House, I will happily, and any day at all, defend the approach I have taken to Bill 94 as being within the boundaries of the Liberal democratic tradition of reform and within the honourable jurisdiction of any progressive and informed member of any legislative assembly in a democratic state.

Physicians are engaged in the fight of their lives for professionalism and professional freedom. A substantial minority of citizens in Ontario demand the right and the freedom to deal with their doctors at arm's length from the state. A small minority of doctors want the freedom to stay at arm's length from the state. Liberalism claims to be the party of individuals and the party of individual freedoms. Do we defend those freedoms or do we not? I for one will.

I urge my colleagues in government and my colleagues in medicine to return to and stand firm in the principles of liberalism and professional freedom.

4:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have a brief comment. The nature of the amendment suggested by the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson) is such that the government cannot support it. We have already moved an amendment to section 4 as it had been previously placed to reduce the fines. That being the case, l reject the amendment of the member, which would strike out the entire section 4, which we had partially already dealt with.

Mr. Henderson: If that is the minister's reason for striking this amendment, I would be happy to reframe it in such a way as to preserve the penalty proposed in his amendment, that is the $250 fine, and incorporate that in this amendment with the exclusions and provisions for deferral and further study of penalties in that category of situations I described that I believe warrant further study.

Hon. Mr. Elston: If I may finish out on that, that is the immediate reason. The other reason is that this amendment would enshrine something this bill is designed to deal with, extra billing. I do not think the member could seriously expect us to consider the enshrinement of extra billing in this legislation when the intent is to end extra billing.

Mr. Henderson: I do not necessarily want to prolong this phase of our discussion. I was not necessarily expecting the minister to support this amendment. This amendment does not enshrine anything. It preserves a total ban on extra billing. It provides a penalty that is different from the one the minister provided but I would happily try to rework that section of my amendment.

It simply defers the question of penalty to further study and negotiation with the Ontario Medical Association providing that the patient has had a choice of what kind of practitioner he or she chooses to seek, and providing that the patient does not fall into any of those categories that most people agree ought not be subjected to extra billing. It does not enshrine anything.

It preserves the absolute legislated ban on extra billing in exactly the way that even those who construe it most literally say we promised during the campaign and in the Liberal-New Democratic Party accord. It simply suggests that under certain situations where the patient has had a choice and where the patient has chosen to be extra billed and to see that kind of doctor, and where there are not any situations that would militate against that being the case, under those circumstances the question of penalty, sanction and fine be subjected to further study and negotiation.

As I have said, such a mechanism does not compromise the principle and does not even compromise the letter of the law of this legislation. I believe province-wide withdrawal of services could be averted. It is in this spirit that I put forward this amendment.

Miss Stephenson: May I ask the minister for his rationale, since I did not hear the reason for his summary dismissal of the amendment proposed by the member for Humber? The argument that has just been put by the member for Humber that indeed the position of the government -- tunnel-visioned, single-minded and wrongheaded though it is -- is preserved even in this amendment.

There is a means of dealing with those who may be considered to be involved in an infraction of this law, which is reasonable in terms of attempting to provide a mechanism for discussion of appropriate kinds of sanctions in those circumstances.

As I said, I did not hear a reason from the minister. I did not even hear a rationale. I simply heard what I call a somewhat bloody-minded pursuit of the direction the minister has taken from the beginning of this legislation, giving no indication that he has thought about the legislation at all.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have spent a little bit of time thinking about this legislation. We made amendments on the basis of the bill which was initially introduced. We have a mechanism designed to work in an administrative fashion where there would not have to be a finding of guilt, as there is in this one. We have a section 4 we can use if that is deemed appropriate. We think the legislation, with the amendments which have already been put in place, is appropriate to deal with the situation of violation of the statute.

In reviewing this, we do not feel it will provide us with any other necessarily better mechanism for ensuring compliance with the act. It is really trying something like the Quebec model, which we discussed on various occasions, whereby patients opt themselves out.

Miss Stephenson: No, it is not. It has nothing to do with the Quebec model.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable member obviously does not want to listen anyway, speaking about tunnel vision and all that sort of stuff she just made herself so eloquently provide for Hansard for later years. I can tell the member we think the mechanisms we have already amended into the legislation will be effective and appropriate on the point of ensuring that people are not extra billed in the province.

Miss Stephenson: I will defer to my colleague the member for Humber first. Then I will reserve the right to speak.

Mr. Henderson: I do not wish to prolong unnecessarily this phase of our discussion, but in the minister's response just now I think I heard two reasons for rejecting this amendment. I understood one but I am not so clear about the other.

The one I understood was that he does not want to enshrine or include the Quebec model. I would be prepared to consider amending this amendment in such a way as to satisfy the minister on that. I was not sure I understood the other part of his reason. If the inclusion of something that has come to be known as the Quebec model is the problem, that could be got around somehow if my colleague would otherwise consider this amendment.

The real reason for considering an amendment such as this right now is the possibility that it would ward off -- I guess it is too late to ward it off, but it would pre-empt a province-wide withdrawal of services. That surely is a sufficiently laudable objective to merit very careful consideration of whether there is not something here that could work and could succeed, at least to provide a breathing period for some further consideration and further discussion in a way that only encourages a sober second thought of the penalties we provide under this bill. As I said before, the totality of the legislation against extra billing is preserved under this amendment.

Miss Stephenson: I perceive a difference between the section referred to by the minister, subsection 5 in this amendment, and that which is permitted under Quebec legislation. As far as I can see, subsection 5 suggests that if the physician is charged with and is considered to be guilty of an offence under this act, he then has the option of moving in the Quebec direction. That is not what the Quebec legislation says. The Quebec legislation provides that option without any designation of guilt.

I must admit I find it extremely difficult to accept the definition by the minister that an individual who is practising in an ethical manner and dealing particularly with his or her patients in an ethical manner as described and defined by the code of ethics of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario should in any circumstance be deemed guilty of an offence, even though the minister's piece of legislation says this is guilt.

4:40 p.m.

I find this very difficult to accept. I do not know whether the minister understands this. He might understand it if we were able to persuade any government in Canada that any lawyer in Ontario who served a client and charged anything beyond the legal aid level was guilty of an offence. This is the problem. In this legislation and with the penalties, the government is insisting that physicians are behaving like criminals. Deep in his heart, the minister knows they are not. He also knows he is penalizing them for the purposes of his political prowess and the political accord with the New Democratic Party. I find that reprehensible on the part of a so-called responsible politician.

Even if the rest of the act must go forward, the minister should at least consider seriously the amendments put forward by his colleague the member for Humber, who is providing an avenue that softens the blow just a little. It does not remove the blow by a long shot, and I agree it will not be acceptable to a large number in the profession, but it does soften the blow a little.

The minister's somewhat juvenile action of reducing the penalty from what was an absolutely criminal amount of money, $10,000, to something in the order of $250 or $1,000, is simply not sensible. It does not provide the direction that will solve the difficulty, the impasse we have reached in Ontario. I request that the minister think again soberly and quietly, as his colleague has suggested, about the disruption, distress and disturbance he is causing in Ontario.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I will be brief. It will come as no surprise to the member for Humber that we will not be supporting his amendment, which is an obvious fallback position to the amendment he introduced last week on section 3. Subsection 7 of this amendment is simply the amendment he moved on section 3 a week ago, except now it is in the double negative. As he said when he sent this amendment around, in the event his amendment to section 3 of the bill did not carry, this was his fallback position.

In view of what is happening in Ontario today, the member for Humber clearly demonstrates that he is still at the train station and the train is long gone. The train has almost arrived at its next stop. Rather than continuing to debate the principle of this bill, those people opposed to it should accept the democratic will of this Legislature and of the people of this province that there is going to be a ban on extra billing. That is the reality. Let us get on with it and deal with other issues in the health care system. To continue to debate the principle of the bill does not serve the member for Humber nor the people of this province well.

[Interruption]

The Deputy Chairman: Order. May I remind the people in the gallery that they must remain silent.

Mr. Henderson: It occurred to me that at some point in the presentation of this amendment or in speaking to it, somebody was going to rise and say it was the same amendment I put forward before. Had that occurred during the text of my remarks, I was prepared to define about a dozen ways in which it differs. I will not prolong this discussion nor take the time of the House to do so. Suffice it to say I am satisfied it is a very different thing to talk about amendments that qualify or put certain conditions on the description of an offence on the one hand, and qualifying or refining or proposing further study of the nature of a penalty on the other hand. Those are two different things.

In my amendment that I sent around, which the member for Windsor-Riverside received, I did not say it was a fallback position. I said I had revised my amendment to section 4 to render it free-standing because I did not want the penalties I was prescribing to simply apply to the revised section 2. I had to revise them in such a way that they would be free-standing and generally in accord with my intent, which is to try to avert a catastrophic withdrawal of services throughout the province. It is not a fallback position. It is yet another attempt to ward off crisis in a way that I think responsible legislators in this assembly would wish to do.

I should pick up the metaphor of the train station and the train long gone. I do not want to labour that one too much, but it is a favourite technique of a particular approach to politics and social issues to take one's own ideals as though they were a reality and say that is the existing situation and that anybody else's ideas are in some way retrogressive, counter-progressive or something.

I submit the train is not long gone. The train is in the station, smoking and hissing with steam pouring out of it. It is in urgent need of major mechanical attention and is in serious danger of blowing up. To say that the train is long gone is at least a rather considerable overstatement and even quite wrong, metaphorically speaking.

This amendment does not question the principle of this bill. I assume the principle of this bill, because it is called the Health Care Accessibility Act, is to ensure accessibility to health care on the part of the people of Ontario with, if we like, a secondary principle of avoiding the creation of a two-tiered health care system.

The principle of this bill was preserved in my first amendment. It has been preserved in everything I have said about this bill. It was preserved in my speech in January and even in my remarks on May 7 before the physicians' meeting in front of this building. The principles of this bill have never been in question. I do not even think they are in question on the part of the OMA. The principles of this bill stand. We want universal accessibility to health care in Ontario. We want a fair system. We do not want a two-tiered system, a double system of care.

This amendment not only preserves the principles but also preserves the letter of the law. It preserves the definition of the prohibition against extra billing in precisely the form the minister, the party and the Liberal-NDP accord put it forward. All it does is suggest that under certain circumstances we ought to think a little bit further about the penalties. We ought to discuss them with the OMA and some of our physician colleagues who, after all, among other things, are partners in this business of the provision of health care services. It suggests that in the matter of penalties we ought to think just a little bit more. There is no question raised here about the principle of this bill. It stands intact.

Mr. Andrewes: I rise to indicate that we will be supporting the amendment, particularly since it is an amendment that keeps alive the spirit of discussion and negotiation and, as the member has indicated, it is perhaps a last-ditch effort to avert a catastrophe in the health care system. We will be supporting his amendment.

The member for Windsor-Riverside suggested in his comments on this amendment that Dr. Henderson had missed the train, that it had gone to the next station and he was still waiting for it. He also said it was the democratic will of this Legislature and this province to enact Bill 94 as the government has proposed. I remind him once again, as I have on previous occasions, that it is our job in this Legislature as elected representatives of the people to make sure that all the views of all the people are represented.

4:50 p.m.

If the member for Windsor-Riverside wants to suggest that all the views of all the people in this province are represented by Bill 94 as it now stands, amended and proposed by the government, then he is wrong. I want to urge him to consider that there are other people, other views and other times and places in which this legislation will play out very critically on the lives of people in this province.

The member for Windsor-Riverside should keep in mind that we, as does he, have jobs to do to make sure that all those views are represented. He perhaps is offended by the extent of the debate that has gone on here for eight days. I suggest again that since this bill is one of major proportions, one that has a major impact on the lives of nine million people in Ontario, the time we spend in debate and in amending the bill is time in which the process of democracy and fairness will be well served. We may not agree on the final outcome of the debate, but the time spent here in earnestly approaching the intent of this legislation and having a reasonable discussion is time well spent.

Mr. Warner: It is a stall.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Andrewes: The member suggests this is a stall. I want to make some comments with respect to the amendment and I want to make one or two comments with respect to the comments made today by the member for Humber.

The member proposed in his amendment a deferring penalty, as he described it. To some degree, it is a creative idea. He sustained his argument by example. We would agree that health care professionals deserve every consideration of the laws of the legislation and of the fairness of Parliament. He has proposed his amendment, in his words, in an attempt to avert a catastrophe, as a last-ditch effort to avert a catastrophe in the health care system. That is why we will be supporting the amendment.

In our view, any measure that can be proposed at this juncture that would avert a catastrophe, and that is probably too gentle a word, is a measure worth considering and worth our endorsation. For the last week now, we have suggested to the government that it consider the appointment of a mediator who could sit down as an impartial individual with the government and the OMA to try to resolve these issues.

The Deputy Chairman: Direct your remarks towards the amendment.

Mr. Andrewes: I apologize if my remarks have strayed from the amendment. I have been very careful not to do that. I will try to come back to the question.

The member for Humber accurately suggested that what was missing in Bill 94 was the experience of clinicians in drafting the legislation. All of us here at certain times feel a sense of inadequacy as we make laws and debate rules, bills and regulations. We feel a sense of inadequacy because we do not have the background, experience or training in the law, medicine or other disciplines which would effectively give us all a grounding for better input into these discussions. Therefore, it is appropriate that as we make laws, we elicit the views of all parties concerned. It is called consultation. It is perhaps something in which all of us participate in varying degrees from time to time. Some criticism has often been expressed about certain groups, whether they are legislators or lawmakers in other forms, of their failure to consult. It is in that kind of framework that democracy is best served.

What the government has decided to do with Bill 94 is to elicit the views of the public. That is done in various ways. It is done by way of polls; it is done by way of trying to win consensus; it is done by way of judgement. Indeed, the government has decided to elicit the views of the public and has, in its view, expressed the public's view on the issue of physicians' remuneration in Bill 94. I believe even the government would have to admit that the public's view, as solicited in January 1986, let us say, has changed significantly on this issue. The public's view as solicited against a background of other health care issues is quite different than it might be on the specific issue of physicians' remuneration.

In proposing Bill 94, the government has moved to propose what I would appropriately describe here as populist legislation. It has moved to do that without the views and support of a group of people who are probably most directly impacted by this legislation. It has decided to deny them that kind of consultation, to which they are due.

Therefore, the issue is escalating. It is our view, and the view of the member for Humber, which we share, that it is now the responsibility of the government to act to end the rancour that has been fostered by the introduction of Bill 94 and the continued discussions between the government and the OMA that have not fostered resolutions to this issue. It is time for the government to act responsibly to end this rancour, and if this amendment goes one step towards doing that, we have accomplished something here today.

Once again, I indicate our support for the member's amendment and urge all members to consider their own position of support.

5 p.m.

Mr. Shymko: I thought I would have an identity crisis for a minute.

I join with the member for Lincoln in support of the amendment of the member for Humber. I want to congratulate, as all of us do, a member of this Legislative Assembly who has the courage to stand up for certain fundamental principles that he cherishes, notwithstanding our understanding of the pressures that our party system puts upon each one of us to toe the line, so to speak.

Unfortunately, we do not have the congressional system that exists south of the border, but I am sure the comments that were made by the member for River-Windsorside about crossing the floor were made in jest. I know they were made in jest.

An hon. member: River-Windsorside?

Mr. Shymko: Pardon me, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke). If there is anyone who is firm on principles and stands up for them, it is that member. I know he shares the same views that I have of support for the member for Humber and for the position he has taken.

It takes courage indeed to stand up for one's principles, sometimes in disagreement with one's leader and in disagreement with one's party. My sentiments, I am sure, are shared by members of the governing party and also, I hope, by its leader and by the minister.

The senior member of the governing party, the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman), was here a few minutes ago. I wanted him to confirm my recollection of Hansard. The present Premier (Mr. Peterson), then a frontbencher of the opposition party, stated some years ago some different views on the whole question of extra billing. As a matter of fact, he supported extra billing in this House. The phrase he used in defending extra billing six years ago was that it was a necessary safety valve.

I stand to be corrected by some of the senior members who are currently members of the executive council, such as the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and others, whether it is true that the words coined by the present Premier some six years ago were that it was a safety valve one needed to preserve the fundamental freedom and independence of a profession. He held these views quite firmly as a matter of fundamental principle.

Perhaps as influences go on the road to Damascus, something may have happened and he may have been converted to changing that view of some three or four years ago, a recent conversion. I stand to be corrected.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member is straying a long way from the amendment.

Mr. Shymko: As I refer to the amendment, the limited understanding I have of the intricacies of this bill and of the impact this amendment will have in the future, since we cannot predict it, is that through this amendment what we see provided is a safety valve. It is my understanding that it is a safety valve to try to bail out this draconian piece of legislation, a last attempt by a man who sincerely shares --

An hon. member: That is total nonsense.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) is not only in the wrong seat but in the wrong section.

Miss Stephenson: He is certainly in the wrong party.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan), I notice, is also making comments while he is not in his seat.

Mr. Shymko: We will welcome the member for Humber at any time. We may have some reservations about some other members, such as the member for Nickel Belt, crossing to this side of the House, but I am sure the member for Humber would be welcomed.

I refer to another comment made by the member for Humber in his explanation of the reasons for his amendment. I believe he made some reference to the dictatorship of the proletariat in some other jurisdictions, a dictatorship, a form of government that none of us certainly supports or shares. Philosophically, he certainly sees the intrusion and the destruction of our independent professions. In history, if one follows from the French Revolution on, the first victims in any attempt to establish dictatorships are our independent professions. I understand this is what the member for Humber referred to, not that we will see such a system appearing in this country.

I would like to make some reference to what is happening in the Soviet Union. When we go to third reading, I will quote directly from an excellent textbook which was recently published, describing the Soviet health system as it exists today, contrasting or making a comparison. In the Soviet Union, all doctors are civil servants. They are paid by the state and they have what are known as polyclinics. A polyclinic is one which is operated by the very same state-paid doctors. They are allowed to operate during so-called off-hours. This is after five or six. Here in Canada the off-hours for a doctor would be after three o'clock -- I do not know -- excluding Wednesdays.

These clinics are allowed to charge extra fees even in that dictatorial regime. Imagine that. Here is a piece of legislation in this great country, the land of freedom, the land of free enterprise, the land of opportunity, by comparison to the Soviet Union, which has state-salaried employees, doctors, who are allowed to do what we may describe as extra billing.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Is the member saying the Soviet Union is better than Canada?

Mr. Shymko: I am not saying that.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I do not believe it.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Shymko: God forbid that system. I will give an example of another jurisdiction, a safety valve that may have been referred to by the member in his comments, and that is the United Kingdom.

Mr. Callahan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The honourable member is taking us on a travelogue. Under the standing orders, I submit he is out of order and I ask the Chairman to rule him out of order.

Mr. Chairman: His analogies are quite a piece away from this amendment of the member for Humber. I ask him to stay closer, please.

Mr. Shymko: I will try. I recall the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) came some two and a half hours late for a committee meeting of which he is the chairman because he went on a doctor's visit, which took some two or three hours. I know it took the honourable member some travelling yesterday to get the right diagnosis of his problems, but I am not doing any travelling. I thank you for correcting the remarks of the member for Brampton, Mr. Chairman. I am commenting on the subject.

Mr. Chairman: Disregard the interjections from wherever.

Mr. Shymko: It is hard to disregard these interjections sometimes.

Mr. Chairman: Do so, however.

Mr. Shymko: I go back in my "travelogue" to the United Kingdom, our motherland, if we go back in history. The parliamentary system we know today evolved in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom was progressive. Before the turn of the 19th century --

Mr. Chairman: No, member.

Mr. Shymko: I will not try to

Mr. Chairman: Order. It was within the rules when you were speaking of the comparison with the Soviet Union. That was relatively close to the amendment at hand, but the United Kingdom at the turn of the century is not. Please get back on the amendment.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Shymko: I stand to be corrected. I will move a little faster through history and will not refer to the 19th century but to the present reality of a system where there is no extra billing, namely, the United Kingdom.

I would like the members of the third party to listen carefully to what I have to say. In the negotiations of their contracts today, all the unions are asking for private health care insurance -- can members imagine it? -- because amendments such as the one proposed by the honourable member were not listened to and were not introduced when the present system of public health care was adopted, in which all doctors in the United Kingdom have become civil servants. It has totally destroyed that system.

The working class of Britain, the workers who supposedly are represented by the third party here today, refuse and abhor the public health system, which is in a total shambles, and demand private health care insurance as part of their contractual arrangements. Private health insurance is the most rapidly expanding business in the United Kingdom.

This is a warning of what will happen here 20 years from now unless we heed the call of this amendment and the courageous stand taken by the member for Humber.

Miss Stephenson: There is one section of the amendment that was referred to specifically by the minister as one he rejected, and that is what he considers to be the Quebec option. It has a different point of entry from the Quebec legislation, but there is a matter in that section of the member's amendment which is troublesome to me.

Mr. McClellan: There is a falling out among thieves.

Miss Stephenson: No, there is no falling out. Do not be perturbed about this question.

I want to know what the member feels about this and what he feels could be done about it. There is an appropriate and valid point of concern in that, if a patient chooses to attend or seeks services from a physician who has taken the option to function under section 5, as the member has outlined it here, that patient gives up the benefits of the insurance program for which he or she has provided not only taxes, as in the public school system, which is the kind of argument which is usually posed by the government when this is raised, but also the premiums he or she has paid as a member of the public of Ontario.

The premium is voluntary in many instances, because there is no mandatory insurance program in Ontario. The only mandatory thing about the insurance program in this province, from here on, is going to be the way in which physicians can be reimbursed. It is legislated that they must be reimbursed in one direction only, but it is not mandatory that members of the public be participants. It is not mandatory that a whole lot of other things apply. The only thing that is going to be mandatory applies to the profession, which is providing most of the health care under the system.

I want to know from the member for Humber whether it provides him with some disquiet that the patient would be so denied if he or she makes the choice to attend a physician who functions under section 5 of his amendment.

Mr. Henderson: It does indeed provide me with some disquiet. I agree with everything the member for York Mills has just said.

Mr. Laughren: Thank goodness. I would hate to think there was a falling out this morning.

Mr. Henderson: It is kind of the member to say so.

My reason for including this was to make some attempt to come up with an amendment that might have some hope of being found acceptable by the minister and by my colleagues over here. It is a compromise, if the members likes, on top of a compromise on top of a compromise.

Philosophically, I cannot argue with very much the member for York Mills says. This is really why I do not like the so-called Quebec plan. It has created in Quebec something very analogous to what we face in education, where parents who already pay education taxes in order to send their youngsters to public schools, have to pay all over again if they want to send their youngsters to private schools. In effect, they pay twice.

Under the Quebec plan, as the member for York Mills quite rightly states, the patient pays the first time through taxes or premiums or whatever measure of funding of OHIP would be eventually settled on. The patient pays the first time, or someone pays on his or her behalf, for medical care and then under the so-called Quebec plan pays all over again if he wants to exercise what is to me a very understandable right and freedom to be able to seek a practitioner who functions at arm's length from government. That seems to me to be a most reasonable thing for a patient to want.

To repeat myself, I do not much like the subsections of this amendment, but I would be prepared to let them stand if by so doing I would have the support of the minister in putting the amendment forward.

Miss Stephenson: Could I then ask a question of the minister if he would stop wandering around the House seeking the support again of the New Democratic Party?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I was talking to the member's colleague.

Miss Stephenson: That is nice. I am glad. Would the minister like to go and sit down? I cannot address a question to him unless he is in his seat.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: We are simply trying to figure out how much longer the filibuster would take.

Mr. Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Miss Stephenson: It is quite interesting that the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) would raise that question because I was informed of something by one of my constituents today by telephone that he had been told by the local NDP association in York Mills-and there is one. It is relatively small but there is one. As a matter of fact, the member for York South (Mr. Rae) would wish it to be a good deal smaller by several members who are leading the attack against him at next week's convention of the NDP in the whole area of support for separate school funding.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: By the way, this is the second anniversary of Bill 30, and those people did not even mention it.

Miss Stephenson: There are much more important anniversaries today than even that. This is my wedding anniversary. I must tell members that 38 years seems a lot shorter than the past two years.

Mr. Mancini: The member's husband deserves a medal.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is okay; we will let the member go home and celebrate.

Miss Stephenson: Oh, no, that is not going to work.

My constituent informed me that an executive member of the local NDP had said very clearly in a rather public forum that we were delaying this bill. He suggested the NDP had been bruiting about the fact that there had been clause-byclause debate on this bill in committee. We in this House know there has not been clause-by-clause debate of this bill in committee. The minister brought the bill back to the House so that we might do clause by clause in this forum. I believe it is our responsibility to examine every word in every bill in order to ensure that whatever we pass has been scrutinized appropriately.

The minister has stated very clearly and unequivocally that the Quebec option is absolutely unacceptable to him. I want to know the reason for that lack of acceptability for the Quebec option, because we have never been given that kind of rationale or reason. He still did not explain it when I asked him the question a few minutes ago.

Mr. McClellan: The member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) could have told you.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is not appropriate that be discussed. We are talking about this amendment.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Bellwoods and the member for York Mills are interrupting the minister, who is trying to be heard.

5:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The Quebec option has been discussed in various forums. I do not think there is any advantage to having people opted out of participation in the insurance program. From my standpoint, I would like to see people taking advantage of the insurance program for which they pay tax dollars, as was indicated earlier, and for which many pay premiums. It is my understanding that is one of the biggest problems with it.

The other indication I can make to the member is that in our chats with the Ontario Medical Association and the executive, they have said they do not like the idea of a Quebec option, perhaps because of the things that have happened in the Quebec scene as opposed to the option itself. I do not really know.

At one point when the Premier of this province was questioned in July 1985 and he mentioned the Quebec option, the OMA cancelled some meetings we had scheduled with respect to other matters, providing us with a sense of protest about the mere fact that this thing was brought out as a possibility.

That is the reason from the medical association's standpoint. My reason happens to be on the side of the patients being opted out by somebody making a decision they would not participate. That is the reason I do not like to go with the Quebec option. The Quebec option is not this bill. The member has pointed out that subsections 5 and 6 of the amendment invoke something akin to the Quebec option into the legislation. From my understanding, that is not appropriate, and we are not going to be supporting the amendment.

Miss Stephenson: I recognize the words expressed by the minister. I am delighted to know there was at least one OMA position he listened to and supported for perhaps the right reasons. The position of the profession about the Quebec option has always been that its concern about it was consistently and substantially that the patients would lose the benefits of the insurance program to which they were contributing.

The minister still has not solved the problem of the unilateral or one-sided mandatory nature of health care within Ontario, as evinced by this bill and in the kinds of penalties he is supporting in terms of this bill, as opposed to those supported by the member for Humber. He is not willing to say every single person in the province must participate. He is not willing to say this legislation should mandate participation by all patients in the insurance program in Ontario. He is willing to mandate the physicians and in some limited circumstances to mandate the dentists and the optometrists into the health care system in quite an inappropriate way, but he will not mandate the people of Ontario to participate in the health care system.

I am not sure his argument can hold much water if he is willing to consider some flexibility on one side and no flexibility on the other side. He comes down in the middle, saying the patient would lose the benefits and, therefore, he could not accept it. Why will he not mandate participation by all citizens? Why will he not make it law that every single citizen of Ontario must have an OHIP card and must pay the premium or be provided with the subsidized premium situation? Why does he not do that?

Mr. McClellan: Is that the member's policy?

Miss Stephenson: No. I am asking why he is so willing to mandate physicians and other health care professionals into this program but not willing to mandate the people into the program.

Interjections.

Miss Stephenson: All I want is an answer to my question.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is a rhetorical question.

Miss Stephenson: It is not a rhetorical question.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is a stupid question

Miss Stephenson: The member may think it is stupid but that is a measure of his intelligence.

Mr. Chairman: The member is not on her feet.

Miss Stephenson: Shall I get up and say that to him?

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister wish to respond?

Hon. Mr. Elston: No.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other honourable member wish to discuss the amendment of the member for Humber? There being none --

Miss Stephenson: The member for Humber.

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry. The member for Humber.

Mr. Henderson: I have a question of my colleague the minister.

Mr. McClellan: Give him a limousine. Try a different approach. Put him in the cabinet.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Henderson: This is a serious question which will not take very long. The minister can give me a one-word answer.

Mr. McClellan: It is a serious filibuster. It is a serious waste of time. We can sit all night.

Mr. Breaugh: I think the member is going to get a one-word answer.

Mr. Henderson: If I were willing to remove the Quebec option and anything else the minister does not like in this amendment, noting that it preserves the total ban, and to find out from Dr. Moran or Dr. Railton that it would indeed avert a province-wide service withdrawal, is there any way the minister could consider supporting it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am sorry. We have a section 4 on which we just voted. It was amended. That is the section I prefer. We are satisfied with that section.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other honourable member who wishes to participate in the debate on this amendment?

5:50 p.m.

The committee divided on Mr. Henderson's amendment, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 24; nays 56.

Mr. Chairman: We now have an amendment to section 4 from the member for Lincoln.

Mr. Andrewes: I wish to withdraw the amendment to section 4 that I originally circulated. We have had some minor wording changes.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Andrewes moves that section 4 of the bill, as amended, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"4(1) In this section, `college' means,

"(a) the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario in respect of physicians;

"(b) the College of Optometrists of Ontario in respect of optometrists; and

"(c) the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario in respect of dentists.

"(2) Where a person believes that a practitioner has contravened section 2 of this act, the person may complain, in writing, to the registrar of the practitioner's college;

"(3) Where the registrar receives a written complaint under subsection 2, the registrar shall forward the complaint to the college's complaints committee, and the complaint shall be dealt with in the same manner as a complaint under the Health Disciplines Act."

Incidentally, to the member for Lincoln, the motion is the one circulated this afternoon. There is no change from that.

Mr. Andrewes: No. It is the last document that was circulated, the most recent editing.

I am taking my cue from the minister in clause-by-clause study of Bills 54 and 55, where there was some momentary editing done to the government's amendments, so I do not feel at all concerned that we have not had a lengthy time to peruse this amendment. Nevertheless, the intent of the amendment, as it is proposed now, is not significantly different from the original amendment that was submitted.

I would like to make some comments regarding the history of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario because it is significant in respect to this amendment. Our initiative here is to have matters of discipline in the self-regulating professions of medicine, optometry and dentistry continue in that tradition whereby those professions, by dint of legislation passed in this House and periodically updated by this Legislature, have been given certain authorities to discipline their members for various matters of misconduct that come before the disciplinary bodies.

My comments will be primarily directed towards the college of physicians and surgeons, since the physicians of the province are the group that is most severely impacted by this legislation. It is the self-regulating body that probably carries with it the most history and best illustrates the desire of the profession and of this Legislature to allow that profession a degree of self-regulation.

Mr. Chairman, as you well know, being a student of history, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario was established by an act of this Legislature in 1869, described as the Medical Act. It brought about a fundamental change in the role of the profession and established for the first time a professional college that was to be governed by a council. The college was given the power to administer licensing exams that physicians were required to pass before they, as applicants, could become members of the college itself.

The council, the governing body, received a large measure of control over the area of medical education. In 1869, after this act was passed, the council set up a legislation committee whose purpose was to consider further amendments that would add significantly to the regulation of the profession and to the impact of the work of the college.

In 1870, the council published its first regulatory requirements to be met by potential members who were seeking to write its examinations.

In 1874, amendments were passed to the Medical Act, which was the act, as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) will recall --

Miss Stephenson: He was not around in 1874.

6 p.m.

Mr. Andrewes: If he was not around, from his studies of history and his attempts to convey those historical notes to his students back behind Earl's gas station, he would well remember that in 1874 the Medical Act underwent significant amendment. The most significant amendment concerned the levy of an annual fee by the council itself. It also inserted a grandfather clause according to which all of those practitioners who had been registered under previous acts were entitled to transfer their registration. If they were not registered, those persons could be treated as unauthorized practitioners, and the council turned its attention to eradicating the large numbers of unauthorized practitioners that were prevalent in the province in that period more than 100 years ago.

The council established an official prosecutor for the whole province and this system remained in operation until 1896, when provisions were introduced regarding discipline and professional misconduct. Interestingly enough, practitioners who were found guilty of professional misconduct would have their names struck from the register, erased. They were no longer registrants in the college and were no longer recognized by their peers as being part of that noble profession.

In 1887 another set of amendments set up a procedure for disciplining members of the college itself. The council appointed a discipline committee, which acted as a quasi-judicial committee not unlike the one that exists today. It established grounds for bringing members before the discipline committee. As an example, if a practitioner was found guilty of, heaven forbid, a felony or of infamous or disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, he or she could be brought before that disciplinary committee.

The period from 1887 to 1912, probably a period of --

The Deputy Chairman: Order. There are too many conversations.

Mr. Andrewes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you are vitally interested in what I have to say even if the rest of the chamber is not.

The period from 1887 to 1912 --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We are getting there: 1912 is the year I was born.

Mr. Andrewes: That was about the time the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was created -- not born, created. During that period, the college itself had gained control over the profession but to a large extent lost control over the whole area of medical education. It lost that control to the universities, which were now becoming a major part of the educational face of Ontario.

It was during this period that disciplinary procedures were first set up in the act about 1887, but no cases were referred to the disciplinary committee until the meeting in 1889 of the council itself. It was two years later before a case was referred to the disciplinary committee. A letter of apology from a doctor, charged and found guilty, in return for suspension of the action for which he was found guilty, became the routine solution to most of the disciplinary action.

Strangely enough, and this would be a matter of some interest to the lawyers present here, most of the early discipline cases were concerned with advertising. In 1908, the council began disciplining abortionists, but interestingly enough, the council today appears to have relieved itself of that obligation. In 1896, the council set up a complaints committee, the duty of which was to advise the prosecutor whether to proceed in cases where there was some doubt.

During the first 50 years of the council's operation, the council itself was concerned with creating a profession of medicine by establishing a body of practitioners with uniform educational requirements and a code of professional behaviour and professional ethics. In the period from 1912 to 1939, we saw the development of the present-day attitudes towards disciplining members of the profession.

The question of discipline became much more of a focus for the college and for the council. From the time it first obtained the power to discipline the college members, the council was reluctant to erase practitioners' names, since it often felt that penalty was too severe. In most cases, council followed its original policy of taking no further action if the offender simply apologized. In 1919, however, council was given the power to suspend the member's licence for a specified period of time instead of expelling that member from the college and erasing his or her name, as was its prerogative.

It is rather interesting that the bulk of the disciplinary cases concerned statutory offenders and problems related to the tendency of certain doctors to experiment along lines that were considered unprofessional. Moving right along, in that period from 1940 to 1967 -- if the Chairman is thinking of calling me to order --

The Deputy Chairman: No. I think you understand the point.

Mr. Andrewes: I am attempting to develop a reasoned logic for why the member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro) and his colleague the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) and others would support this reasoned amendment, whereby the consistent policies of this Legislature to grant to the professions the right to regulate themselves should be followed as part of Bill 94. It is useful to refer to some of the history, because without our history there is no future. Members will know that expression, brought to them by Petro-Canada.

During the period from 1940 to 1967, the college obtained increased disciplinary powers and the public's attention turned the power of the college itself over to its members and led it to expect the council to police matters which it felt were outside its jurisdiction. In this period, the college began taking a more active part in assuming responsibility for its members' professional behaviour.

6:10 p.m.

In 1942, for instance, legislation provided for erasure from the register once a doctor had been found mentally ill or incompetent. The college took on further responsibility, asking the Attorney General of the day to advise the council on any conviction against a medical practitioner. Before this, the practice had been to rely on some fellow practitioner to bring the matter to the council's notice.

The council realized that many complaints made against doctors were not the subject of disciplinary action, so they created local mediation committees which sought to resolve problems by interviews with the doctor and patient. Also about this time, the council became more willing to define what would be considered unprofessional conduct. It increased its willingness to broaden the concept of misconduct.

In 1960, it began revising the legislation concerning discipline. The first major change dealt mainly with the procedures for dealing with mentally ill doctors, drunkenness and drug addiction. An amendment also added the power to erase for improper conduct in a professional respect as well as for infamous or disgraceful conduct.

I might pause here and suggest we could consider some self-regulation for members of this chamber that would produce some guidelines around the question of infamous or disgraceful conduct.

In 1962, the college condemned the sale of accounts by doctors to a third party. In 1963, there was a change in the definition of professional misconduct.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there a possibility you can come directly to the point in discussing the amendment?

Mr. Andrewes: I said at the outset I was attempting to build a bridge between the history of the college and of this Legislature in giving to the profession --

The Deputy Chairman: Make sure you come to the point as soon as possible.

Mr. Andrewes: I intend to, sir. I have one more brief page of notes, which I will get to in a jiffy.

In the case of a doctor who was convicted of an offence, the doctor's name was to be erased without a hearing. If a practitioner was found guilty of professional misconduct, the committee could either reprimand the offender or suspend the practitioner for a period of up to three months. If neither penalty was considered appropriate, the committee would refer the matter to the council. Council could then refer the matter back to the committee for further consideration and impose any penalty that was available to the committee, suspend the offender for longer than three months or order the name stricken from the register.

In 1965, there was an amendment to the Medical Act which defined professional misconduct as including a finding by the discipline committee of conduct unbecoming of a medical practitioner, or incompetence. It was then that a new complaints committee was formed, with the power to consider complaints against doctors. When it was decided further action should be taken, the matter would then be referred to the discipline committee.

In 1966, an amendment was passed which enlarged the functions of the discipline committee and gave it the power to suspend the memberfor up to 12 months and also to impose a suspended penalty on such terms and conditions as it deemed advisable. Where the committee referred a case to the council for sentence, it recommended what it felt would be the most appropriate penalty.

In 1966, the Ontario government established by order in council a committee of the healing acts --

Miss Stephenson: Arts.

Mr. Andrewes: I am sorry, a Committee on the Healing Arts, to review and make recommendations for legislative change in the health disciplines. From this committee, which reported to the Legislature in February 1970, evolved the Health Disciplines Act of 1974, which regulated nursing, dentistry, pharmacy, optometry and medicine.

The complaints committee remained in place but added that complaints could be lodged by members of the public as well as by members of the college. It is at this point that I come directly to the amendment, because it was at that juncture, in 1966, that the public was allowed to make complaints directly to the complaints committee, and it is through the mechanism we are proposing that an individual who offends the intent of Bill 94 would be brought to some reckoning by his peer group.

The complaints committee was given the power, among other things, to take such action as it considered appropriate. The discipline committee, when decided by the council executive committee or complaints committee, can hear and determine allegations of professional misconduct or incompetence against any member. The new act, Bill 94, does not give the discipline committee the power to take whatever action it deems appropriate or advisable.

The regulations passed under the Health Disciplines Act with respect to optometry, dentistry and medicine provide what is appropriately known as a shopping list of what might be considered to be professional misconduct. After a review of this list, there does not appear to be a provision under which the college could take the position that a contravention of section 2 of the Health Care Accessibility Act, Bill 94, was professional misconduct.

Since the inception of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, its powers to regulate the medical profession have continually been expanded. Both the complaints committee and the discipline committee have, I believe, operated successfully in dealing with allegations of professional misconduct and incompetence. I am sure a number of members will recall that in 1983 this House passed an amendment to the Health Disciplines Act permitting the council to establish a peer review committee, a further expansion of the self-regulating powers of the council and the college.

Medicine, dentistry and optometry have always been self-regulating professions. What I have attempted to do is to trace the history of this self-regulation in one of those professions step by step, indicating at various junctures in that history where this House has seen fit to expand the powers of the college and the role of the self-regulating body. I hope this House will see that it is necessary to be consistent with the Legislature's intent over the years.

Mr. McClellan: No, we do not see it.

Mr. Andrewes: The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) says no. Perhaps he does so frivolously, knowing he supported previous legislation that gave additional rights to the profession to self-regulate. This is in keeping with that program.

The House itself should consider seriously giving the college the power to deal with the physicians who contravene section 2. If this amendment does not pass, the only person who will be able to deal with a doctor who contravenes section 2 will be the general manager, and only as it relates to the setting-off or the contra-accounting of extra-billed dollars.

In conclusion, the amendment brings into focus the consistent intent of this Legislature over the years to give powers of self-regulation to the profession. We know it will be the government's wish to follow that long-standing tradition.

6:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have a concern as to whether the honourable member actually contacted the colleges he has listed here or whether this was done without consulting them. It is my impression that the amendments that have already been made to the bill are suitable and appropriate enough to make sure the bill is enforced. I am happy enough with those, but the member might want to tell us whether all the colleges mentioned have been consulted and whether they have consented to the role he sees them playing.

Mr. Andrewes: The answer is no.

Hon. Mr. Elston: That being the case, that tells us even more that we ought not to support the amendment, since there has been no consultation. In any event, we do have a mechanism that is quite suitable and appropriate to enforce the legislation.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: When we were debating the pharmacy bills in committee, Bill 54 and Bill 55, the Conservative Party consistently said that items of pricing and fees should not be dealt with by the college because they are not matters of professional conduct. Bill 94 deals very clearly with fees for doctors. I assume the Conservative Party wants to be consistent and understands that professional misconduct is something the college deals with and insurance matters are something the government deals with.

Miss Stephenson: The questions I posed early in the public hearings of this debate were related to the concern I had expressed, and which other physicians have expressed, that Bill 94 brands as criminals those individuals who are seen to contravene the government's decision that the only fee to be charged for any service by any physician is that determined by the government in terms of the OHIP level of benefits.

When that statement was made, I was informed that this was not a criminal act, but simply a violation of a piece of legislation and, therefore, could not be considered criminal. As some members may know, there is a course of action within the college that is automatic. When a physician is charged and convicted of a criminal act, there is an automatic loss of that physician's licence. The minister was at pains to tell me this could not be considered a criminal act. It was simply an infraction of a piece of legislation that was within the health insurance field of Ontario.

If there is any kind of action that is considered to be inappropriate in this area, I would like to know whether it is then considered a fraud on the part of the individual physician if that kind of billing is carried out. I do not know of any other definition that would be appropriate, since the minister is insistent that there must be some kind of monetary fine for the action taken. I would like the minister's legal definition of what he is expecting the penalty section of this bill to provide for the implementation of this piece of legislation.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable member has substantially made her case several times that she does not like the fines sections.

Miss Stephenson: I am asking the minister a question. This is not question period. Why does he not answer the question for a change?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable member knows that the whole focus of our legislation has been to put in sections that will not necessitate going through fines. If that is unacceptable to her, we have alternative ways of enforcing legislation.

Regarding the question she asks about why we are not going to support a system that forces the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the College of Optometrists of Ontario and the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario to enforce this legislation when they have not even been consulted about it, I do not think it is an appropriate amendment. That is really the bottom line as to why we are not supporting this sort of mechanism.

We have not even talked to them about it. I have talked to the college of physicians and surgeons, for instance, about this legislation and inquired into its thoughts, since it has been before the House for some time. What we are looking at is the reason this is not appropriate. It is not appropriate to move an amendment when one has not even talked to the body that is responsible for administering the public interest in this province and trying to put this on its shoulders without talking to it.

Miss Stephenson: That is not the question I asked.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Whether it is the question or not, the essence of the amendment is that the member is throwing the responsibility on the college without even having taken the opportunity to phone it up and talk about it. That is what the essence of this amendment is, and it seems to be the reason we are here talking about clause-by-clause amendments. She is doing something and I have indicated quite clearly that we are not supporting the amendment.

Miss Stephenson: The minister still has not answered my question. The question was, what kind of legal category does this infraction of the law fall into? If it is not fraud or a criminal act, what is it? Could it be construed as noncompliance with a regulation that relates to the delivery of health services, which could be considered to be a practice unbecoming a physician in terms of not complying with an act that is written in Ontario? If that is so, then there is reasonable legal precedent and reasonable argument to consider the college an appropriate site for the examination of this.

The minister should not just shake his head at me. I did take the opportunity to talk with members of the council of the college about this subject. Most of them are apprehensive about it because they have never dealt with this kind of situation. Members of the college of optometrists are less apprehensive.

I do not know at this point, because I have not talked to the president of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons about the matter at all, but I have talked to others in the dental profession who believe that, if the government is going to suggest there is something unprofessional about the behaviour of a doctor -- and that is what it is saying -- who charges more than the amount the government has decided is appropriate for that service, or a dentist or any other, on the basis of the negotiation with the amount that is made available by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) --

Hon. Mr. Elston: No. The OMA decides what is appropriate. Make that very clear. You used to decide that.

Miss Stephenson: The minister should not tell me it is the final decision only of the profession. I know better than that because I have been around for longer than he has.

If this is unprofessional conduct, I really want to know whether it could not be considered to be an appropriate responsibility of the governing bodies of the professions involved. That question is one I have put to those governing bodies, and I believe that although they are apprehensive, this would be a more appropriate route to deal with it than by imposing fines of the kinds the minister is suggesting.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Just to provide the answer, the fact of the matter is that if they breach this statute, the colleges can all consider whether there has been professional misconduct and they will deliberate on that in their roles as protectors of the public interest. I think we can leave that.

Miss Stephenson: Therefore, we do not need the minister's section at all.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Yes.

Miss Stephenson: No, we do not. In that case, we do not need the penalty section that is currently within the act and it would be more appropriate to have this section.

Because I see what time it is, Mr. Chairman, I would move that we adjourn the debate.

I am sorry. I am supposed to move that the committee rise and report.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall we proceed first with the vote on the amendment?

All those in favour of Mr. Andrewes's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the government House leader, I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Administrator has been pleased to assent to a certain bill in his chambers.

Assistant Clerk: The following is the title of the bill to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 13, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act and the Education Act.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have the honour to report that the standing committee on social development has completed its consideration of Bill 30. We look forward to having the bill reported back to the House on Monday. I know all members would like to congratulate the chairman and the members of the committee for a solid year's marvellous, patient, productive work.

I also want to congratulate the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and the parliamentary assistant for all the good work they have done. I am sure there will be some comments on Monday on a more formal basis.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to indicate the business of the House for the coming week. On Monday, June 16, and Tuesday, June 17, we will continue with Bill 94 in committee of the whole House, if needed. This will be followed by Bill 30, if reported, and third reading of Bill 94, if reprinted.

On Wednesday, June 18, there will be second reading, and committee of the whole House if required, on Bill 43, shoreline property assistance; Bill 79, municipal bonuses; Bill 11, condominium conversion; Bill 76, Grassy Narrows; Bill 98, foreign arbitral awards, and Bill 72, powers of attorney.

On Thursday, June 19, in the morning, there will be private members' business standing in the names of the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini). In the afternoon, there will be Bills 94 and 30, if not completed, or legislation not completed on Wednesday.

The House adjourned at 6:34 p.m.

12 juin 1986