Journal des débats 1986-juil-09 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Sterling: Later today, I will be introducing a private member's bill that will amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act to provide for the control of smoking in the work place.

In essence, this legislation will ensure that no employee will be unwillingly exposed to tobacco smoke in the work place at the level of concentration injurious to health. It will allow a worker to request his or her employer to act to alleviate conditions if the worker believes his or her health is at risk. If the employer does not comply and the conditions are not alleviated within 10 working days of the complaint, the worker may request an investigation by an inspector.

While the inspection is under way and the written report being prepared, the employer must provide a smoke-free environment for the employee to continue working or else the employee will not be required to report for work during that period. Under this legislation, an employer may prohibit smoking in the area of the work place. However, he also may designate, if he so wishes, specific ventilated areas as smoking areas.

This legislation is a sequel to Bill 71, which now has received the support of 20,000 people in Ontario. I believe this legislation is long overdue and much needed by our society. It will give people in the work place a healthy environment in which to work in Ontario.

SMALL BUSINESSES

Mr. Laughren: New Democrats believe small businesses have a tough time surviving because the deck is stacked against them. Federal and provincial tax breaks usually favour big corporations, not small businesses. In the retail sector, independents get gobbled up by multinationals while the government watches. Yet in the past 10 years, small companies have been Ontario's best job creators. Most young people get their first jobs with small businesses, and job creation in the 1980s will need the contribution of small businesses.

It is my belief that, especially in the early years of operation, small businesses often require and deserve special initiatives if they are to survive and grow. In everybody's interest, these initiatives should be directed at specific job creation activities. Instead, in Ontario, the bakery field, for example, is dominated by two major bakeries, Corporate Foods and Weston.

New Democrats share the real concerns of independent bakeries throughout Ontario that a determined effort is being made by these two giants to squeeze out the independents by a campaign of predatory pricing practices. In Sudbury, there are a couple of independent bakers. One of them, Cecutti's Bakery Ltd., with 115 employees, is one of Sudbury's largest private sector-employers. However, it will not be able to compete with a bakery giant that sells bread at below cost.

This government has an obligation to protect the independent bakeries all across Ontario. This province needs legislation along the lines of the Quebec model, which prohibits the use of bread as a loss-leader.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Rowe: I would like to bring to the attention of the government and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins), who no doubt bragged yesterday about government initiatives for tourism in the north, an example of how this government handles information for tourists in the north as reported in the Kirkland Lake Northern Daily News.

A reporter from the Kirkland Lake Northern Daily News called the toll-free number published in province-wide ads and asked for information about tourist attractions in the area. The tourism counsellor told the reporter that Kirkland Lake has little in the way of accommodation or family attractions. The counsellor said: "Kirkland Lake is mostly a half stopover. I do not think you would want to stay there for more than a day." The response to this and another call has local officials angry and the ministry wondering what happened.

Before the minister and his government attempt to solve the problems of the north with Band-Aid solutions such as throwing $5 million at the tourism industry in the north, a mere eight per cent of the total $60 million allotted and an insult to the greatest industry and the second largest in Ontario, I suggest the minister find out what is going on in his ministry before he opens up another box of Band-Aids.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I want to respond to the announcements made by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his cabinet colleagues in Sault Ste. Marie yesterday. I am pleased the government has finally responded to the economic crisis facing the Sault. When this session of parliament opened in April, the first item of business brought before the Legislature by the New Democratic Party was an emergency debate on the economic crisis facing the Sault and Algoma district. The debate resulted from Algoma Steel's announcement of a major down-sizing of operations, with 1,500 new layoffs to be added to an unemployment rate that already approached nearly 20 per cent.

The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and myself followed that up with a motion referring the Sault's economic crisis to the standing committee on resources development for review, a review we were able to get over the original objections of the Premier himself. I am pleased that committee produced an excellent report, issued last month, to form the basis for the government's action.

Clearly, I speak for everyone in Sault Ste. Marie when I express a positive reaction to the initial steps announced by the government yesterday. However, there is much that remains to be done to assure the long-term economic stability of Sault Ste. Marie.

For example, while $5 million was committed to waterfront development, there was no mention of support for a major tourist attraction that is needed to complement the Algoma Central Railway tour train. We also had no response to the major ski resorts proposed for the local area. Most important, we need a solid industrial base for the Sault's economy. We need secondary industry to complement Algoma Steel. This is a start, but we have much left to do.

CEDAR SPRINGS CHERRY FESTIVAL

Mr. McGuigan: I wish to invite members to the Cedar Springs Cherry Festival on Saturday and Sunday, July 19 and July 20, in my home community. Orchard tours, demonstrations of mechanical cherry harvesting, slide shows on processing and a chance to sample cherry pies baked by the women of the Cedar Springs United Church, will be the reward of all those who attend.

Also in attendance at the Canadian cherry-pit spit contest will be the newly crowned world champion, Joe Lessard of Blenheim. Last Saturday, Joe competed against champions from eight countries at Eau Claire, Michigan, and earned a spot in the Guinness Book of World Records. He defeated the three-time world champion spitter while fighting a heavy head wind.

All members are invited to watch from the bleachers or take part in the special VIP-class cherry-pit spit. Last year, I won the consolation prize, and I would appreciate someone taking that honour from me.

BACK-BENCHERS' QUESTIONS

Mr. Rowe: As this first sitting of the House under the new rules draws to a close, I want to take a moment to comment on one of the newest phenomena in this House, the sudden profusion of deep, probing and insightful questions from the government back benches.

Mr. Speaker, I would particularly like to remind you of the very notable questions from the members sitting along the back row farthest from your chair. I have put my comments in verse form for your added benefit:

There once was a back-bench row,

The lobs they were trained to throw.

They thought it was cunning

To keep the clock running

When the Premier had a poor show.

There is a Brampton member named Bob,

The Premier gave him a job.

"Be none too discreet

When I feel the heat.

Jump up and throw me a lob."

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: We all recall that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) made a tough statement in November about repeat orders. The nonsense about repeat orders was going to be discontinued and firm action was going to be taken. I am amazed at either the minister's inability to act or the fact that he is not getting all the information.

I have before me a case involving the ironworkers where an inspector wrote 11 consecutive orders against the same company for the same infraction. I want to know where all this huffery and puffery is leading us when we can have 11 repeat orders for the same violation regarding ventilation and the minister cannot seem to get his house in order.

It is strange that on the 11th visit, the same inspector saw the workers violating a section of the act and threatened to take them to court right away. I find it passing strange that we can have the huffery and puffery, the repeat orders over and over again that were supposed to cease, but when the workers are caught for the first time they are threatened with going to court. I hope the minister can clean up the swamp.

2:13 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I would like to inform the members of my ministry's efforts to ensure that highway construction, both new and continued, is given the priority it deserves in northern and southern Ontario.

More than $800 million will be spent on construction of Ontario roads and highways in the 1986-87 fiscal year. Our highway construction program will involve a $248-million commitment. We are subsidizing municipal road construction in the amount of $299 million, generating approximately $525 million in total expenditures, including the municipal share.

Projects will include work on 103 bridges, comprising 17 new structures, 78 structural rehabilitations and eight structure replacements. In the provincial highway system, we have planned a total of 855 kilometres of construction work, primarily on two-lane roads, involving 279 kilometres of paving, 231 kilometres of grading and paving and 192 kilometres of grading only.

I would like to take this opportunity to outline for the members a few of the year's highlights.

In southwestern Ontario, work will continue on the E. C. Row Expressway and on Highway 403 to complete the section from Oxford county road 14 to Highway 401. A contract will also be tendered for a new section of a four-lane freeway between Highway 8 and Highway 401 in the vicinity of Freeport Drive.

In the Hamilton region, efforts are continuing to relieve the current heavy rush-hour traffic and operational problems. We shall carry out capacity improvements on the Queen Elizabeth Way corridor between Burlington and Hamilton.

This project complements the fine efforts of my ministry in making many major and minor improvements in that area, including the widening of the QEW between Highways 2 and 403, and work on the Burlington Bay Skyway continues.

In the greater Toronto area, or GTA, we have scheduled construction of the northbound lanes of Highway 410 in Brampton from south of Vodden Road easterly and construction of the northbound lanes of Highway 410 from Steeles Avenue north to just south of the CNR line.

On the list of the ministry's continuing projects in the GTA is the construction program for Highway 404 from Highway 401 north towards Newmarket. Work will begin on the final phase, completing the 26-kilometre freeway to Davis Drive in Newmarket.

In the Ottawa area, we are completing two major rehabilitation projects on Highway 417, the Ottawa Queensway, between Maitland Avenue and Bronson Avenue, with the next stage, Bronson to Main Street, expected for completion in the fall of 1987.

In addition, a four-lane, limited-access highway will be constructed to accommodate large traffic volumes on Highway 35/115 and Highway 2 northerly to Enterprise Hill.

This year will also mark the construction of a new interchange, the Taylor Road interchange, on Highway 11 at the north entrance of Bracebridge. This project will include a landfill service road running from Taylor Road north for one kilometre.

My ministry, together with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, is undertaking a number of projects. These include a route designed to reduce traffic congestion within Sudbury and connecting Highway 144 east of Chelmsford and Highway 17 west of Lively.

A new bypass for the Kenora, Keewatin and Jaffray-Mellick area is under construction; it is designed to alleviate traffic congestion on the Trans-Canada Highway through Kenora. Construction will also be completed this year from the west branch of the Winnipeg River east five kilometres to secondary Highway 658. Included will be a structure over the east branch of the river.

Continuing this year will be our remote-airport construction program, with major expansion of the Ogoki airport. Work is also set to begin on the Peawanuck airport and will continue at the Kingfisher Lake and Muskrat Dam airports. Last year, we opened Kasabonika and Cat Lake airports.

These are only several examples of the efforts my ministry is making to provide first-class transportation systems throughout the province. For further information on these and other projects, members and others will shortly receive copies of this year's construction project book.

Mr. Gregory: I would like to comment, generally favourably, on the announcements today by the Minister of Transportation and Communications of some long-awaited road construction. Perhaps the only criticism I can offer is that most of these items are about one year late; some of them have been announced more than one time.

For example; the airport construction was announced by the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) when he was Minister of Northern Affairs. That was quite a while ago. I am glad the minister is following up on these and we are finally going to get something done. Also, mention was made of the Ottawa Queensway, which was supposed to have been completed this fall; it is nice to know the ministry now is going to begin it.

Noticeably absent from the statement is any money designated for improvements to roads in the Metropolitan Toronto area to accommodate and complement the domed stadium. I suspect the minister is going to have to think about doing that very soon. He cannot leave it until next year or the year after to do that, or else the whole project will be an abject failure.

HERBICIDE SPRAYING

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would like to advise the House today that I have asked officials of my ministry to undertake a full investigation into the possibility that tree planters working for the Cedar Snag Silviculture Co. in the Blind River district were accidentally sprayed with the herbicide 2,4-D.

Reports indicate that on June 30 the herbicide 2,4-D was applied to a site in a crown-land forest management unit in preparation for a burn prescribed by the Ministry of Natural Resources and scheduled for the spring of 1987. There is a possibility the herbicide was accidentally sprayed over a portion of a nearby tree-planting area.

A special Ministry of Natural Resources team headed by Ron Reffle of the ministry's forest resources branch is conducting a full investigation. The investigation will attempt to determine whether approved application procedures were employed during the spray operation, review the Ministry of Natural Resources' procedures for herbicide spraying and gather all available information on the possible health effects of the exposure to 2,4-D.

Mr. Reffle is also working closely with staff of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of the Environment, who are also carrying out separate investigations. The Ministry of Labour, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, is determining the amount of herbicide the tree-planters may have been exposed to and how such incidents may be prevented in the future. The Ministry of the Environment is sampling soil and vegetation in the area to determine the extent of the spraying. It will investigate also the procedures followed by the operator of the spray plane.

My ministry is committed to the safe application of all pesticides. I will keep this House advised of all the findings of this investigation.

Mr. Speaker: There are quite a number of private conversations. Will the members dial down the volume on those, please?

Mr. Bernier: I would like to respond to the statement of the Minister of Natural Resources. First, I thank him for bringing this information to the House. However, I find it a little shocking that the minister has to bring a statement such as this, from which we learn that tree-planters are being sprayed with pesticides and herbicides containing 2,4-D, to the Legislature. The minister is very much aware that this item is on the minds of people right across the north and even in southeastern Ontario. Surely the minister can use his influence to impress upon the people using this product to be more careful and more protective.

In addition, there is a growing concern in northern Ontario with respect to prescribed burns. There is a very strong rumour in Red Lake -- there are no facts to prove it -- that fire 7 may have been started by prescribed burns. I urge the minister to use his influence and the office he holds to impress upon people the need to use more care and caution in using these herbicides and with prescribed burns.

Mr. Foulds: This is a born-again environmentalist if I ever heard one -- Mr. Spray-and-Burn himself.

Mr. Ashe: Better to be born again than never to be born.

Mr. Foulds: He was the minister who had a scorched earth policy.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: I wish to respond briefly to the Minister of Natural Resources concerning the application of chemicals for herbicidal purposes. I hope this will serve as a warning to the minister that as soon as we start spraying chemicals on the forest, it is out of his control. That is why we were so adamantly opposed to the spraying of chemical insecticides for the purposes of the budworm kill.

I understand this is different, that it has to do with a herbicide application, but it is still a chemical being applied to our forests. I suggest that the people who are applying these chemicals know a lot more about how to kill in the forests than they know how to preserve and conserve what is in our forests. I hope the minister understands clearly and accepts this as a serious warning that what is being done in our forests is not under the control of the people who are applying the chemicals.

APPOINTMENTS IN PUBLIC SECTOR

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to announce my intention to introduce later today four separate pieces of amending legislation that will alter substantially the hiring practices of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario and the land registration system of this province.

As noted in the speech from the throne on April 22, 1986, this government is committed to ending the practice of LCBO hiring by order-in-council appointment. The amendments to be introduced today will live up to that promise and will go further, to include all staff employed by the liquor licence board as well as land registrars employed in Ontario's 65 land registry offices. The combined effect of the amendments will be to give the same fair and impartial hiring and employment standards to employees of these agencies as are enjoyed by all other civil servants.

The entire issue of order-in-council appointments, particularly as it has applied to the two liquor boards, has been a source of continuing public complaint since this government assumed office last summer. Clearly, the time has come for change. The same fair standards will apply to those seeking positions as registrars in the province's land registry system. Until now, they too had been appointed by order in council by the government of the day.

This government is committed to open and impartial hiring practices based upon the applicants' qualifications and seniority, not the applicants' political affiliations.

SUNCOR HOLDINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish to table a report I have received from John Kruger, our special adviser, concerning the government's interest in Suncor.

As members will see, the firm of Dominion Securities Pitfield, which was retained to do the evaluation, has placed the value of our 25 per cent interest at between $87 million and $169 million, compared with the $650 million that was paid for it in 1981.

In his report, Mr. Kruger outlines the various steps taken in an unsuccessful attempt to dispose of the shares. While our negative view of that investment has not changed, we accept Mr. Kruger's conclusion that it would not be prudent to dispose of the shares at this time. However, we will continue to keep the matter under review.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Today, I will be introducing legislation that will greatly assist Metropolitan Toronto in its efforts to make its waterfront cleaner and healthier for Metro residents.

As members of the Legislature are aware, current provincial legislation specifies that revenue from the sale of water must be used to cover only expenses associated with the waterworks system. The bill I will be putting before the House today, at the request of Metropolitan Toronto, will permit the municipality to use surplus revenue from the sale of water to pay for water pollution control projects. This will allow the municipality to accelerate the implementation of necessary pollution control measures. By ensuring that this surplus revenue is used for pollution control projects, we will be helping to protect the water supply for the citizens of Metro Toronto and others who use Metro's water.

At the same time, this bill is in keeping with our policy of encouraging municipal autonomy. The bill will give Metro Toronto more discretion in the way it allocates money to projects that are important to the municipality.

The pollution control measures to be undertaken with this money are essential. Giving Metro the flexibility to use these funds for this purpose means the measures can be implemented more quickly than if the municipality had to raise the money in some other way.

Clean water is one of our scarcest and most important resources. It is vital that we do whatever we can to help improve the quality of water in Lake Ontario.

Mr. Partington: Legislation being introduced today by the Minister of Municipal Affairs will permit Metropolitan Toronto to allocate $30 million from the waterworks fund to sewage works. Metropolitan Toronto is to be commended for putting money into pollution control -- we all need a cleaner environment -- but $250 million is needed in Metropolitan Toronto alone.

The principle of taking from Peter to pay Paul is one thing -- flexibility is important -- but the minister should provide the funds to Metropolitan Toronto and the rest of Ontario so we can clean up our beaches. We need hundreds of millions of dollars, and much of it must come from the provincial government. I hope the minister will make the commitment.

Mrs. Grier: I have grave reservations about the statement we heard today from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. While I am all in favour of municipal autonomy, I am not at all sure the purposes upon which Metro wishes to expend this money are the most appropriate and will be co-ordinated with the initiatives we have seen from the Ministry of the Environment.

Many of us had hoped the $30 million was to be used for improvements to the quality of drinking water. There was discussion about using this money for the construction of a pilot project with charcoal, granular activated-carbon filtration beds. The suggestion that this funding be used to separate storm sewers and sanitary sewers is worth while, but there may well be better expenditures on the building of retention ponds.

In addition, the projects that Metro is proposing through the use of this money, such as extending the sewage treatment plant outfall, will merely be solving pollution by dilution. We heard from the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) just last week that this is not appropriate. I hope the Ministry of the Environment will show some leadership and ensure that if this transfer takes place, it is not merely letting the Minister of the Environment off the hook by spending money from one source while saving it from another location.

2:31 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FORMER MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Premier. I want to invite the Premier to stand up this afternoon, without being equivocal and finding glib ways to get around the issue, and totally and completely dissociate himself, his party and his government from the remarks made by René Fontaine, alleging the Progressive Conservative Party wants to drive francophones out of this province.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I did that yesterday. I was asked on my return, and I said I did not agree with the analysis, nor do I think the Progressive Conservative Party is racist. That does not reflect my view or the view of the party I lead.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier has a candidate in a by-election which he and his party arranged, together with the former minister. As the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) assured us yesterday, he will likely get the nomination and carry the colours of the Ontario Liberal Party into that election with pride.

Given the kind of promise that he would be reappointed to the cabinet, will the Premier require his candidate to issue publicly a total withdrawal and apologize to the residents of Cochrane North and the members of this House who have been misled by those outrageous statements?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I very clearly laid forward my views on the situation. Mr. Fontaine, to whom the member refers, is not a member of this House, a member of the executive council nor the Liberal candidate. He is speaking on his own. I do not agree with his analysis. I said that quite clearly. I do not have the power to control him any more than I have the power to control the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Grossman: May I say to the leader of the government that he has the power to say to someone, whom he has already indicated he may well reappoint to the cabinet, that unless he withdraws those remarks and apologizes totally and completely, he will not reappoint that person to the cabinet if he succeeds in the by-election. That is the power he has over the candidate. I suggest it is his responsibility to set that code of conduct and that standard for prospective members.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Do the Conservatives remember the campaign they ran in the Carleton by-election in 1980?

Mr. Grossman: To the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) I say, stand up and endorse the remarks of Fontaine or button it up.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, I will wait.

Mr. Grossman: Will the Premier tell prospective ministers that any suggestion such as the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Poirier) made in the hall yesterday and such as the Minister of the Environment is now trying to make, both to justify and join hands with René Fontaine, is inexcusable and unacceptable? Will he exercise his power to say to René Fontaine, "Unless you withdraw that, you will not serve in the cabinet of Ontario"?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think my honourable friend would want to go through the history of this whole discussion he raises today, because he would probably be extremely embarrassed about that. As I said, Mr. Fontaine is not a member of the executive council. As members know, his case will be reviewed by a committee of this Legislature. That and any other issue the honourable member would like to raise there or any other issues that his detectives would like to bring forward to discuss at that time would be welcome. I will review all of those facts as they come out before that committee before any decisions are made. I think that is very clear.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the members please allow other members to ask questions?

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Harris: My question is for the Premier. He will know of the important role played by the Northern Ontario Development Corp. in helping to strengthen the northern economy. Basically, not one sawmill or mining road is built in the north without some form of financial assistance from NODC.

Noting the sensitive nature of the work being done by NODC, can the Premier explain why he appointed to its board of directors on May 9 a director of United Sawmill Ltd., who is also the president of Hearst Forest Management, the company that is currently negotiating with the government for a multimillion-dollar forest management agreement?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I told the honourable member, the United Sawmill Hearst area FMA has been under discussion for three or four years with the government, as I understand it. We also know the sensitive nature of that discussion; so we have asked for independent advice on that matter. That will be provided, I believe, by Dr. Baskerville and Mr. Spooner, who will come back and give the cabinet independent advice.

Mr. Harris: That is not the issue at all. I asked the Premier if he did not think it was inappropriate for the Premier to appoint to the NODC board of directors a man who is a director of Hearst Forest Management and president of United Sawmill, a company that is also negotiating on behalf of the sawmills in the Hearst area for an FMA. He did not answer that question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think it is completely inappropriate if anybody uses his position to advantage himself. If the honourable member has some suggestion of that, then I am very interested in hearing of that. I know of no evidence, but if he has something, I would be very interested in hearing it.

As the honourable member knows, we have appointed a wide range of people from northern Ontario with a variety of opinions, and I expect them to use good judgement with respect to the independent exercise of their judgement and opinions in these matters. I expect no one to take advantage of his position for any private gain. That is very clearly my view.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Harris: We are dealing here with the former Minister of Northern Development and Mines. He owned shares in a mining company for considerable personal benefit, as we have seen. The former minister of mines then lobbied his cabinet colleagues to approve an FMA. He is still lobbying the Premier. Now we find one of his business associates has been appointed to the board of NODC by the Premier.

It would appear to me as though Mr. Fontaine has his finger in every economic pie in northern Ontario. I cannot understand why the Premier appears to be surprised that the members of this Legislature have serious concerns about the way the former minister of mines could not seem to differentiate between his personal interests and his public interests, because from the example the Premier sets, it does not appear that he can differentiate.

It was not the conflict-of-interest guidelines that were at fault; it was the Premier's refusal or inability to enforce them. When is he finally going to own up and take the responsibility for this mess?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand the approach of my honourable friend; he would like to blame me for everything. Whether it has happened or not, he is prepared to make wild allegations. Frankly, I do not know what his allegations are. If he is suggesting that there is a conflict of interest, then I am very interested in having that information reviewed. I do not think anyone should profit from the situation. If the member is going to make loose charges, he should make them very specific. He should tell the people of this province what he is alleging so they can judge for themselves.

Mr. Gillies: The Premier is getting too predictable.

Interjections.

Mr. Gillies: It is too predictable.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies).

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Is the member suggesting we should give him a lottery licence?

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Peterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: A little earlier, I was asked a question to which I now have the answer. Honourable members opposite may want to hear it.

Mr. Speaker: For which member?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member for Nipissing asked me a question about some chap we appointed to the Northern Ontario Development Corp. I have determined that it is Roland Cloutier. His was a reappointment. He had been appointed by the previous government. He is a retired manager of United Sawmill. He had been a Tory for more than 20 years, a key campaign manager and adviser to René Brunelle.

Mr. Grossman: Good try. He was not a reappointment, he was your appointment. Staff let you down again.

Mr. O'Connor: Wrong guy.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are trying to be fair. Do members opposite not like these Tory reappointments? If they are advising me to yank him off tomorrow, I will take it under advisement.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Rae: While the Premier is arguing about lottery licences, I would like to ask him a question about the northern economy.

In the Premier's announcement yesterday, what would prevent a Kimberly-Clark, an Algoma Steel or a Kidd Creek from continuing the scenario that has been painted for over a half a century in northern Ontario? Companies go in and make substantial profits; then with poor management, a change in economic conditions or a change in circumstances, they pull out, leaving the community to fend on its own. What in yesterday's announcement increases the obligations of corporations, taking Kimberly-Clark as a specific example, to say the companies are going to have to continue their investments, are going to have to set money aside to ensure that communities will not be left high and dry by those corporations? What is he doing to ensure that corporations cannot simply hit and run the way they have been hitting and running in the north for half a century?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand my friend's questions very well. I understand the enemies he is trying to find in a particular piece. It is a traditional socialist approach to the matter. Is he asking me if there is a law that says they cannot restructure or change with the changing times? If so, the answer to his question is that there is nothing in particular in that regard.

The people are looking at the things we are doing. We have given them a renewed faith in the north. We are working on some of their problems with competitiveness. By and large, there is great optimism because of the renewed interest in northern Ontario.

Mr. Rae: The Premier may find that describing something as socialist is a sufficient statement on its own. He should know that kind of cliché-ridden, sad approach went out a long time ago. He should look at what Rosehart said, at what Fahlgren said, a blessed memory of ancient times. They both said resource planning agreements with companies that are planning to invest in the north are a crucial feature in ensuring that northern communities will not be left high and dry. The Premier's determined Thatcherism aside, it is not going to do any good.

Can the Premier explain the government's reluctance to insist that corporations that have made good money -- it is not a question of good guys and bad guys; it is question of their having made good money in good years -- have programs in place that ensure that some of that money is set aside and reinvested in communities when economic circumstances change?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The typical socialist approach is to look for enemies in this whole piece. I do no see it in those terms. I think the member will acknowledge, along with me, that these companies have had good times and bad times in the past. When they have good times, we tax them and we use those moneys for a variety of programs. He can say it is not enough. He would perhaps prefer a direct taxation program allocated specifically to the north, but we do it in a wide variety of other ways.

He is prepared to argue about the priorities and how much money is going there as opposed to how much is raised there. That is fair enough. We take the Rosehart proposals very seriously. We have reviewed them and we have acted on something like 25 per cent of them, although I cannot be specific. I think we have made an excellent start in addressing some of those problems.

Mr. Wildman: The Premier may believe that this is a traditional socialist approach, but his responses are traditional Tory ones.

If the Premier is not going to deal with the Rosehart report, I refer him to the Liberal policy paper for the north during the last election. It said: "Although there have been countless reports about northern Ontario from government committees, task forces and boards, the government's ad hoc policies have amounted to little more than `a profile in failure'.... `For decades, bureaucrats from Toronto have been coming forward with one program after another that was billed as the solution to your problems. You still have these problems.'"

Can the Premier explain what is different about the approach announced yesterday from the approach of the Tories, which was criticized by his own party in the last election campaign?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me give the honourable member some independent views of the situation that are not as politically motivated. For example, Dennis Nelson, alderman for ward 4 and president of the Sault Ste. Marie and District Labour Council said: "There is no such thing as a quick-fix solution, but the programs being announced will help. Nothing is going to happen overnight." The member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom), who graced us with his presence there yesterday, said it is an important stimulus for our economy.

No matter what we had done yesterday, it was predictable that the member would stand up and say it was not enough, or that he would say what the former governor of the north would say, "You are only throwing money at the problem, and it is not enough money."

I think there is a recognition that this is a serious commitment to address the problems, structurally as well as short term, and that the people of that community and other communities in northern Ontario take it as a significant new initiative. As the member knows, there is nothing I can do to solve the problems of the Sault or Algoma tomorrow by making them competitive, any more than I can do with Kimberly-Clark in Terrace Bay or anywhere else, but we are working on it. If he is asking me to go and punish these companies, if he is interested in going and beating them up, the answer to that question is no.

We have determined a new strategic approach that is going to bring co-operation between business and labour, as we have seen in a number of other areas, and help the people in the north solve their problems.

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

Mr. Rae: I have some questions for the Premier about South Africa. The figures for the first quarter of 1986 are in and show that Ontario's exports to South Africa are up by 25 per cent. They are up from $8.7 million to $9.6 million and imports are roughly parallel. Will the Premier tell us what the government intends to do about these figures? At the same time as he is making great pronouncements, the actual economic relationship with South Africa appears to be growing practically daily.

Is the Premier not aware that in the United States at least 24 major cities and states have taken the step of saying that if companies do business with South Africa, they will not do business with that state or city? The situation is sufficiently grave that Salomon Brothers pulled out of South Africa precisely because it did not want to lose its underwriting business with a number of states.

When is the Premier going to get off the pot and do what needs to be done by saying to companies that deal with South Africa, "You have a choice: either deal with South Africa or deal with Ontario, but not with both"?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I discussed with the honourable member that we started moving on this question almost a year ago, before others had even thought of it and we used our power in that regard. We are looking at other ways to extend our influence with the Ontario municipal employees retirement system and other companies, expressing our point of view to transfer agencies and others in that regard.

The member for York South points out the trade figures. I was not aware of them. I am not sure who is doing it and I am not sure whether those companies are doing business with the government. Perhaps the member has some information I do not have. I would be happy if he would share it with me.

Mr. Rae: The Premier has been getting up in his place for the past two and a half to three months and saying the government is looking at it, studying it and exploring it; yet nothing has changed since the one announcement with respect to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. Nothing has changed since that one announcement. Nothing has been done.

With respect to OMERS, is the Premier aware that on June 2 the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) stated, "The Ontario municipal employees retirement system board has met and confirmed its views that it would invest in nothing associated with South Africa and would divest itself of anything it holds at present," but that is not the case? The OMERS resolution states: "The board opposes the apartheid policies of South Africa and will not hold an investment in any organization that provides support for such policies so long as this is not inconsistent with the board's fiduciary responsibility."

Is the Premier aware of the discrepancy between that resolution and the facts as they were stated by the Treasurer on June 2, 1986?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure I see a discrepancy. It is interesting. I talked last week with Mr. Macintosh, who I believe is the chairman or the president of the OMERS investment policy committee. I told him very clearly the will of the government in this particular regard. He shared that objective. He told me he will divest in a financially orderly way. I assume the member is not recommending he dump all those shares tomorrow morning, particularly in this depressed market. They are going to be getting out of the situation as quickly as is financially responsible in the circumstances. That has been clearly established.

Mr. Foulds: The Premier will be aware that when Bishop Tutu addressed this Legislature he said: "I stand here appealing to people of conscience. Help us. Please help us. Our country is burning. Our children are dying." Can the Premier tell us one single step he has taken, after Bishop Tutu's appearance here, that will help Bishop Tutu and the rest of the South Africans throw off the yoke of apartheid?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: At the risk of telling the honourable member what is discussed in the cabinet, this matter was discussed in cabinet today as other situations and other initiatives are being examined with respect to transfer agencies and other areas where we do have some influence. Can the member tell me one question that he asked six months ago when we were working on this question? It is all very fashionable now, but we were there when it counted and a lot of other people are followers. The member should stand up in his place and admit that.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Premier with respect to his curious mishandling of the Fontaine resignation. Last Thursday, when the Premier was questioned with respect to an article in the Kapuskasing Northern Times, he replied: "I am not familiar with the situation the member raises from the Northern Times." We see today from the Northern Times newspaper that the Premier several hours earlier had talked to a reporter with the Northern Times by the name of Wayne Major and had been informed about the issue. The Premier fudged on the relationship of the forest management agreement and Mr. Fontaine's resignation last Thursday.

Today in Le Nord in Hearst, the newspaper headline is, "If the Agreement Is Not Signed, I Am Not Going Back to Queen's Park -- René Fontaine." The following statement also appears: "`I was not elected to make the people in Hearst suffer. I want this agreement signed before I return to the government. If not, I am not going to back,' says Mr. Fontaine."

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Pope: Something the Premier fudged on last Thursday, in spite of the fact that he talked to the reporter of the Kapuskasing Northern Times a few hours earlier --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Pope: -- was that the Premier said he knew nothing about the Golden Tiger shares; yet Mr. Fontaine says on CBC radio that he did know about them all along.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question.

Mr. Pope: Can the Premier now come clean and tell the people of this province what is going on?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: What is going on is that the member has been chasing the minister for several months now. He thinks he has some suggestions and some allegations as to what he has done, and they will all be reported in this House. That is what is going on. It will go before a legislative committee, and the member can ask any questions he would like to ask.

Mr. Pope: It is the Premier's performance we are talking about. The fact is that he stood up in the House last Thursday and said something when, hours earlier, he had talked to a reporter from the Kapuskasing newspaper; he denies any knowledge and his own member says he has that knowledge.

Will he table all the information in Mary Ebert's files with respect to the former Minister of Northern Development and Mines and make a clear statement to this House right now about what he has been doing about this issue for the last month?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We offered some time ago to let the honourable member make all his suggestions and allegations in a committee. That is the proper place to do that. I am very happy to tell him what I know about the situation and what I have known at various times along the way. Surely that is the appropriate way to deal with the situation.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Morin-Strom: While I applaud the government's public sector announcements yesterday in Sault Ste. Marie on providing jobs for the north and moving ahead public capital spending in the Sault area, we still have to address the long-term solution, which requires industrial development and new secondary industry in northern Ontario.

My question of the Premier is related to the problem of the private sector economy not doing the job in the north and the fact that the Fahlgren report, the Rosehart report and the report of the standing committee on resources development on Sault Ste. Marie all have said that government intervention is needed in the northern economy if we are going to have an economy that will continue to grow and provide the jobs we need in the north.

Does the Premier support the recommendations from those reports for a technology centre to support northern Ontario industry, for regional incentives that will encourage new industrial ventures in the north and for a northern Ontario fund that will help communities diversify their economy?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I told the honourable member, and I am sure he is aware of it, we commenced yesterday with a number of initiatives. Those are by no means the end of what we are planning to do. We are assessing every proposal on its merits, commensurate with our capacity to pay. As I said, we have a number of very useful recommendations there, but I am not in a position to give the member an announcement today.

Mr. Wildman: At the risk of being accused of wanting too much and always being negative, I will ask the Premier for some specifics with regard to the standing committee's report. Can he indicate when the government will make a decision with regard to the studies of the proposed ski resorts north of Sault Ste. Marie as a way of stimulating jobs in the Algoma district? Can he indicate what, if anything, his government is doing with regard to the Algoma Central Railway problem with its freight rates, not the passenger or tour train, but the freight rate concessions that have been demanded by Algoma Steel Corp.? Finally, what efforts is the provincial government making to encourage the federal government to --

Mr. Speaker: I think a two-part question is ample.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There were three questions. With respect to the last one, we have made a number of initiatives in the Wawa area. The member will be aware, with respect to the federal government, that local member of Parliament Jim Kelleher, the Solicitor General, said this morning from Ottawa, "The Premier is to be commended for the actions he has taken, and I fully support him."

What finer endorsement could one possibly have than from Jim Kelleher, the federal minister, in this regard?

With respect to the member's other point --

Interjections.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In my business, one takes credit wherever one can get it. I was quoting the member's colleague, who said it was good. I thought those two gentlemen would stand up and say, "Thank you very much for being so sensitive and for working with us towards meeting our aspirations in that area."

With respect to Algoma freight rates, there is a competitive problem. It costs roughly $10 a ton to move ore from Wawa to Sault Ste. Marie. The reality is that they can move ore from the United States mine, the Tilden mine, about the same distance, for about $6 a ton. That is one of the realities of the situation. There have been layoffs in the Tilden mine as well. Our job is to keep the railway going and to keep Wawa going.

The deputy minister will be having a meeting very shortly with the interested players, including the federal government, in this regard. We are concerned about that. One of the problems with the Algoma Central Railway is that there is a reasonably low freight base on which to put a portion of its costs. Obviously, we would like more traffic to do that. Algoma Steel is paying a disproportionate percentage of the overheads, which tends to make its freight rates higher.

What comes out of all this is that we are aware of the problem; and we, the railway, Algoma, the federal government and others are approaching the problem. I hope we can find a solution to the problem.

Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General has a response to a question asked previously by the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko).

POLICE INVESTIGATION

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am puzzled that this question was asked of me. I presume it was asked by the member for High Park-Swansea because he did not have the temerity to ask the same question of members of the administration he supported. The decisions, by and large, were taken under that ministry.

The investigation by the police into the activities of the York county sheriff's office took place in 1984. A determination, with which I have no reason to disagree, was taken at that time that it would not be appropriate, there being insufficient evidence, to lay criminal charges. That determination was not made by me but by my predecessors. There appears to be no reason to quarrel with it.

He then asked why Mr. Campbell was reinstated. The reality is that Mr. Campbell was discharged and filed a grievance that led to a hearing under the appropriate legislation. During the course of that grievance, it was established to the satisfaction of the hearing officer that he was acting under. instructions from the sheriff, who had been discharged by that time, and that he was entitled to be reinstated. He was reinstated in government employment, not in the sheriff's office but in another office.

Mr. South: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wish to correct information held and expressed in the House yesterday by the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) in regard to --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Any member can get up and correct the record on what that member has said. What you are doing is disagreeing with what another member has said; you will find other occasions to disagree.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Premier and Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Can he tell me how his announcement yesterday in Sault Ste. Marie is going to protect the jobs of the laid-off steelworkers in Sault Ste. Marie, the laid-off iron ore miners in Wawa and the laid-off miners in Kidd Creek Mines?

Mr. Laughren: It was asked.

Mr. Pope: It may have been asked, but it was not answered.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The question was asked, and far more eloquently, just a moment ago. The answer to the question in very direct terms is that the programs will do nothing for that situation now. However, they will broaden the economic base of those communities, bring more stability and bring new job opportunities. I think they will respond.

If the member is asking me for an act to prevent those layoffs or that restructuring, I am not in a position to do that any more than the member was in the position, as the then minister, to prevent the layoffs at Inco. They lost about 10,000 workers under his leadership. He should not ask such silly questions. He knows that.

Mr. Pope: Let us talk about the leadership of the Premier in terms of job creation.

Mr. Speaker: By way of supplementary.

Mr. Pope: He is in charge of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. Can he explain to me why, at the very time he expresses such great concern about job creation in northern Ontario, his ministry, through its agency, the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, is closing down all that railway's rail express offices in the Tri-town region of Kirkland Lake, New Liskeard and Timmins, at a cost of 20 jobs? Is that his idea of job creation in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let us look at the facts here. In the programs we announced yesterday, thousands of jobs are being created for the short term as well as a number in the long term. We are responding to a difficult situation as best we can in the circumstances. I find it passing strange that those members and the former governor, who presided over the decline of the north and who did virtually nothing except run around the place or fly in, are now saying it is all our fault.

Mr. Grossman: What is the government doing about those offices?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: These problems have been coming for 10 years, and at least the people of the north now are sure they have a sincere and determined government here, and that is something they welcome.

AMATEUR HOCKEY

Mr. Martel: In view of the absence of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins), I would like to ask the Premier a question. In May 1985, Dr. Charles Tator and Virginia Edmonds presented a report entitled Spinal Injuries Due to Hockey. There were 88 spinal injuries in Canada, including 53 spinal cord damages, 44 of them in Ontario. A national survey will start in the next two weeks for an update. Is the Premier aware that, with only the figures from Ontario present, the figure has risen from 88 to 94? Is there a government somewhere in Canada with the courage to put an end to the mayhem of these young men?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I was not aware of the specifics raised by the honourable member, but I know he has a very sincere and ongoing interest in this subject, which is shared by a number of members of this House. The minister is concerned about this, and I think in the reasonably near future he will have an announcement and approach to the question that the member may feel is leading towards a resolution of the problem. Of course, the member will want to give his advice.

Mr. Martel: I want to quote one paragraph of the most recent report I have received from Dr. Tator. "The most common mode of injury is a push or a check from behind with a slide head-first into the boards. Those affected are young men with a mean age of 17; half of them will be in wheelchairs for life."

Most of the accidents occur because of hitting from behind, which is a cowardly act to start with, and many of them occur because of the use of a stick as a weapon, the sort of action we would not condone anywhere except in arenas. Can the Premier tell me whether we are prepared to stop the mayhem? Somebody has to do it to protect these young people.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is interesting that hits from behind are considered quite normal in this House. However, the member makes a very good point. I do not mean to make light of the suggestions he makes.

As I said, the minister is addressing this issue. Frankly, I am not current enough to give the member all the details on that, but the minister will do that in the very near future, and he values the member's advice on this matter. I am sorry I cannot tell the member any more about it at the moment.

DASH-8 AIRCRAFT

Mr. Bernier: I have a question for the Premier and Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Now that he has returned from Sault Ste. Marie, the home base for the Dash-8 aircraft operated by norOntair, I am sure he will have the answer to my question.

I remind him that two Dash-8 aircraft purchased from de Havilland Aircraft in Toronto sprang that company loose; it is producing literally hundreds of airplanes. Those two aircraft were destined to fly in northern Ontario, one in the northeast and one in the northwest. The previous Minister of Northern Affairs confirmed to the people of northwestern Ontario on four separate occasions that those airplanes would fly in northwestern Ontario and bring to the people of northern Ontario the comfort and service they deserve and were destined to get from the previous administration.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Bernier: Now we read that Mr. Fontaine said on June 11 they were going to sell those two aircraft or lease them out. As the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, can the Premier confirm that he will sell those aircraft, or will he keep them and operate them in northwestern Ontario as the people want?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I regret to tell the honourable member that I am not in a position to confirm or deny his information. I have been the minister for only about a week now, but I must say I am thoroughly enjoying it. The member must admit he has never seen such action in a week in northern Ontario.

I will check into the information the honourable member requests. I know he has a lot of experience with buying an aircraft and then selling it when an embarrassment comes about.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Remember the jet? Did he really sell it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: His former jet, which he traded for his executive water bombers.

I appreciate the question, and I will get back to the honourable member with the details.

Mr. Pierce: I know the Premier has been the Minister of Northern Development and Mines for only a little more than a week now. I also know he has been in the House for a couple of months, and he is aware of the hearings that were held by the Jack Stokes commission; he has made reference to them on many occasions. He knows of the recommendations of the Jack Stokes commission, and he knows of the commitment of the former Minister of Northern Development and Mines with respect to reporting to this House on the accident that took place in Sault Ste. Marie surrounding the Dash-8.

Will the Premier now give us an update on the Dash-8 service for northern Ontario and on what is being done with respect to the crash that took place in Sault Ste. Marie in December 1985?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In my capacity as Minister of Northern Development and Mines, I will speak to the Premier and we will develop a consensus on this matter. We will get back to the member very shortly. I apologize to the honourable member that I am not completely on top of the situation, but I will get back to him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) would like to ask a question if the other members will allow it.

BAKERY PRICES

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations concerning the pricing practices of Corporate Foods and Weston bakeries. Those two companies control the market in Ontario. It appears they are discounting bread in an apparent attempt to drive the independent bakeries out of business so they can carve up the market between themselves at prices that suit themselves. Does the minister think it is appropriate to allow these two corporate giants to engage in these predatory pricing practices in which they treat bread as a loss-leader and then simply carve up the market between themselves when the independents are gone?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member for Nickel Belt raises an interesting question. I should tell him, first of all, that combines and competition are under federal jurisdiction. Having said that, my ministry does monitor the price of bread very carefully. If we felt that concentration was affecting the consumers, we would make those representations to my federal counterpart.

Mr. Laughren: The minister seems to know a lot more about salami than about bread.

In Sudbury, Cecutti's Bakery has been in business for almost 80 years and employs 115 people. It is one of the larger private sector employers in the Sudbury area. It will not be able to compete for ever against these pricing practices by Weston and Corporate Foods.

First, will the minister launch an inquiry into the pricing practices of Corporate Foods and Weston? Second, will he introduce legislation, as Quebec has done, to prevent large bakeries from using bread as a loss-leader?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If the member will forward the details to me with his representations, I will be happy to send them to my federal counterpart and ask for his comments.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Premier and Minister of Northern Development and Mines with respect to the northern Ontario programs of which he is so proud. He made much of his performance in the past week. His performance was so impressive that Dennis Abernot, president of Local 2251 of the United Steelworkers of America, is urging the New Democratic Party to support us and throw him out of office in northern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Is your question, "Does the Premier agree"? No? Question, please.

Mr. Pope: I have just received a disturbing telegram addressed to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) from Chief Lindbergh J. Louttit. He is chief of the Wahgoshig band, which made an application under the Ontario native economic support program. It says:

"The Wahgoshig band is the most underdeveloped band in Ontario, having virtually no permanent shelter, no medical services, no transportation, no telephone communication, no hydro, substandard road access, no education facilities and only recently has established a drilled water well for a potable supply. Our children critically suffer from dysentery and bleeding bowel infections as a result of these substandard health conditions."

Is the Premier and Minister of Northern Development and Mines satisfied that this band has had to wait for seven months in these conditions and has yet to get an answer from the ministry that is administering the program?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I apologize to the honourable member; I am not familiar with the circumstances he raises in his question. By way of preamble, he suggested a realignment of the accord. He always has the option of putting a no-confidence motion in this House and we will go to the people and test these things; he should feel free to do that. I gather that has taken a little of the bravado out of him. If he wants to send me a copy of the telegram, I will quickly investigate it and get back to him and to the chief.

Mr. Pope: For the benefit of the native bands and the people of northern Ontario, when is he going to ensure these programs are properly administered and get the bureaucracy off the backs of this band and make sure it gets proper accommodation and facilities?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will investigate the situation and get back to the member, but let me tell him one thing: if there is any apology to be given in this House about the way native people are treated in this province, the Conservatives are the ones who should be standing up and apologizing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. All interjections are out of order.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. Grande: My question is for the Minister of Revenue. Property taxpayers in the city of York are paying the highest property tax rates in Metropolitan Toronto, yet they have the worst services in the Metro area. More than 3,000 residents have signed a petition that I will introduce today attesting to this fact and demanding action by the government. Now that the reform of property tax at the Metro level appears doomed to failure and this regressive tax levied without regard to one's ability to pay still continues, will the Treasurer inform us as to his government's plans to reform the system of property taxation?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member will have received and read carefully the report I tabled from the Ministry of Revenue some months ago, written by a group chaired by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), my parliamentary assistant, called Taxing Matters. It had a proposal for far-reaching reforms that had been considered by the components of Metropolitan Toronto.

I agree with the member that the matter did not proceed as some optimists might have expected, but unlike the member, I do not feel the whole operation is dead. Further discussions will continue during the summer months. I do not, however, hold out much hope for the contention the member has made that property taxation should be abolished and replaced by an additional industrial tax, let us say, or whatever he is proposing. It seems to me that is overly optimistic on his part.

Mr. Grande: The Treasurer is aware of the situation. I want to quote from one of his recent correspondences to me, dated April 25, in which he says: "Our studies indicate the properties in the city of York are generally overassessed." He also knows Metro Toronto will decide against his market value assessment proposal. Can the Treasurer inform me in a serious way, because it is a serious problem in the city of York, what reforms will assist my constituents in the riding of Oakwood in coping with this regressive tax?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Metro-wide reassessment is the approach most favoured by me. However, I think the honourable member is aware that the city of York is one of the smaller components of Metropolitan Toronto and that its assessment base is somewhat skewed -- which is a word we use in the ministry -- having to do with the balance pertaining to industrial, commercial and residential properties.

The matter is of concern, and I have to confirm to you, Mr. Speaker -- I know you are concerned about this -- the honourable member has written me repeatedly on this important matter, and up until now I have not been able to respond satisfactorily as to what policies the government will bring forward that will reduce the taxes of the residents of his city.

My own alternative is Metro-wide reassessment, and I still feel this will occur at some time in the foreseeable future.

DRUG QUALITY AND THERAPEUTICS COMMITTEE

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Minister of Health. Can the minister confirm the resignation of three medical doctors from the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I was mildly distracted, but I believe the question was, are there resignations? The answer is that there has been one temporary withdrawal from serving on the board as a result of the dispute, and there has been one retirement.

Mr. Andrewes: I understand three members of the medical profession have withdrawn their services from that committee.

I remind the minister of his comments to me in response to the question of November 22, when he said this about the committee:

"I can assure the members of the Legislative Assembly and the people of the province that we are vigilant in the Ministry of Health with respect to the drugs that are licensed and with respect to the quality of drugs that may be seen to be interchangeable or substitutional."

I want to ask the minister whether he can indicate how he expects this committee to function, to protect consumers and to do all the things he says he is prepared to do.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I can tell the public that there is a maximum membership of 15 members. Currently, we are reviewing the appointment of two new people to the board. As I said, one individual has withdrawn temporarily from serving on the committee. However, we do not function with just one or two people; we use the full mandate of the board. We rely on information that is submitted to us from other sources as well, but my information to the member and to the public is that the committee is functioning and that we continue to be vigilant; we also continue to look for people to serve on the committee when there are opportunities of appointing new people.

JANITORIAL SERVICES

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that the cleaning contract between the Ontario Science Centre and Modern Building Cleaning Inc. expires on August 31 and is out for tender? Is he also aware that the workers, who are members of Ontario Public Service Employees Union Local 549, find their jobs threatened because the science centre has not stipulated in the tender package that the workers are to be retained or that their working conditions, as outlined in the collective agreement, are to be maintained? In the tender documents, why has the centre referred only to the government's fair wage policy, which is more than $1 an hour less than the workers are getting under their current contract?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Obviously, since the Ontario Science Centre does not fall under my ministry, I am not aware of the tendering of that contract. I will take the matter up with the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) and look into it.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister will be aware that the cleaners at the science centre have an average of 10 years of service and are paid only $6.30 to $7.40 an hour; that is the entire range. Why would these workers be denied the protection offered the staff at the Queen's Park complex, for example, where successful tenderers have to recognize the service, seniority, hours of work, wages and benefits of the workers? Is this not a clear double standard? What is the minister prepared to do to correct this gross injustice and guarantee the jobs and benefits of these workers?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I understand the feelings of my friend opposite on this matter and that his party has expressed its concerns on a number of occasions on the cleaning contracts.

I have indicated in the past and indicate again today that we are looking carefully at this issue as part of a general review of the Labour Relations Act. I can only repeat what I promised the honourable member in answer to his first question: I will take it up immediately with the minister and see what can be done, even though the tenders have gone out.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Barlow: The Premier is aware that Waterloo Region Shoe Manufacturers Ltd., a company owned by five different shoe manufacturers and whose resources are used by some 27 other shoe companies throughout Ontario, made an application to his government some five weeks ago for funding through the new high-technology fund to offset the cost of acquisition of a micro-dynamic computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing system and the addition of remote, on-line design terminals.

Can the Premier advise the House whether he has reviewed this application and whether he intends to provide this support, which is so badly needed by an Ontario industry that employs some 10,000 people?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sure the honourable member would not want me to use political influence on this grant. His friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) might get all bent out of shape. I could not do that.

Mr. Barlow: It is not a matter of political influence in any way, shape or form. The letter came addressed to the Premier and was dated June 3, 1986.

When the Premier answered a question regarding the $17.5 million that his friend Mr. Schwartz managed to secure prior to the establishment of the Premier's council, his own words were, "We may very well make some decisions prior to the formal introduction of the council because time is somewhat of the essence."

For this industry, which employs 10,000 people, time is of the essence. Will the Premier please advise this House why Waterloo Region Shoe Manufacturers Ltd. has not been able to receive this assistance as it was secured by his friend Mr. Schwartz?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot understand the honourable member, whose colleagues have been so critical of an investment that was made by this government in our high-technology future in technology transfer and education --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: His friend from Brantford has been yapping about this matter. I do not know how the member can turn around and ask me to take a different view. One has to take a consistent view. Is he asking me to interfere personally and give them the grant? As he knows, I am not in a position to do that. It will be reviewed by the ministry, as everything else will that we look at, and we will make our assessment based thereon.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Foulds: For the past 16 weeks, a special adviser to the Premier, John Kruger, has been indicating the sale between Urban Transportation Development Corp. and Lavalin would be completed within the next two or three weeks. He repeated that statement last weekend, on week 16. Can he tell us what is taking so long?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It just shows one how human we all are. It has been a long and difficult negotiation; there is no question about that. It is a very complex and complicated deal. The member knows it is complicated by the outstanding liabilities of the company, but we are committed to turning it over to the private sector.

My hope -- and if I am wrong, the member will stand up in this House again next week or the week after and accuse me of something nefarious -- is that we will have an announcement in the next three or four days. If it is five days or eight days, I hope my honourable friend will bear with me, but we are moving towards a conclusion.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: It sounds like the most movable feast in the calendar of this Liberal government. With northwestern Ontario experiencing an unemployment rate of 12 per cent, or in excess of that, consistently over the past several months, can the Premier tell me what steps he is taking for economic renewal in the northwest, not only with UTDC but with the waferboard plant of Great Lakes Forest Products and with the closures at Shebandowan and Ear Falls?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is aware of some of the initiatives we took yesterday. I am not sure whether he considers the Sault the northeast. I do not know whether it is the north centre, the northeast or the northwest. I am not sure how he categorizes the Sault. Our initiatives of yesterday include, in broad terms, the entire north. We are committed to the push that we demonstrated yesterday. He will see many more announcements in the months to come. We are committed to the same things he has been talking about in this House for a long time.

The sale of UTDC will help Can-Car in Thunder Bay. It will go a long way further than the retention option towards securing its economic future as an integral part of that community. I think my friend will be very happy with the results of what this government has negotiated.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Wiseman: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Earlier this week, the minister mentioned that fair boards would be covered by liability insurance. I checked out most of my fairs. Most of them fall into the categories of horse racing, midways, liquor or beer, or all four. They will pay $1,000 for $1 million worth of coverage. A year ago, they paid about $750 for $5 million of coverage. Will the minister consider paying for this year only half of the cost of the additional insurance for our fairs across this province so that many fair boards that just break even will be able to hold their fairs this fall?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The short answer is no. The agricultural societies have been assured they will be granted coverage under the liability insurance pool. They have been assured they will be given the coverage at very reasonable rates. In most cases, those rates will be very little higher than they have been in the past. I do not understand the member's problem. The agricultural societies have been assured they will get coverage.

PETITIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Polsinelli: I have two petitions. The first one, regarding beer and wine in Ontario grocery stores, was signed at the Jane and Finch Food City in my riding. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, wish to express our objection to you, as our elected representative, to any legislation which would exclude us and our place of employment from the opportunity to sell our customers any products simply because we are not a so-called independent store."

Mr. Barlow: I have four petitions which relate to the sale of beer and wine in corner grocery stores, a matter that has come up over the past few days. I will not read the rather lengthy petitions. These are presented by 31 employees of the Cambridge Food City, 47 employees of Zehrs Market in Preston, Cambridge, 10 from Zehrs Market Brierdale Plaza in Cambridge and six from Zehrs Market at Cambridge Shoppers Mall, Cambridge.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Polsinelli: The second petition 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."

Mr. Cordiano: I have a petition on behalf of a number of concerned citizens, which 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;

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. Grande: I have two petitions addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The first reads as follows:

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

"City of York residents pay the highest property taxes in Metro Toronto, but we still have bad roads, poor snow removal, backed-up sewers and insufficient services. This is due to our small industrial and commercial assessment base. For more than 10 years, the provincial government has failed to act.

"We petition the provincial Liberal government to correct this injustice by providing special direct grants, as it did in Sudbury, to the city of York to maintain and improve services while offsetting the higher property taxes paid by York residents."

[Remarks in Italian]

These petitions are signed by more than 3,000 residents of the city of York, the riding of Oakwood.

USE OF THIRD LANGUAGE

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The member has been speaking in a third language. I simply want to ask you whether or not this is standard procedure. In the past, I believe I was prevented from using a third language in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for the point.

3:40 p.m.

MOTIONS

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 87

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the order for second reading of Bill 87, An Act to revise the Loan and Trust Corporations Act be discharged and the bill be withdrawn.

Motion agreed to.

REFERRAL OF BILL 77

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the order for third reading of Bill 77, An Act to revise the Representation Act, be discharged and the bill referred back to committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE TRAVEL

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on public accounts be authorized to adjourn to Vancouver, British Columbia, to consider matters relating to the domed stadium and the annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Speaker: 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.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Mr. Timbrell and Mr. McCague exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that, notwithstanding standing order 71(a), government business be considered tomorrow morning, July 10, 1986, with routine proceedings at 2 p.m. and that the House sit through lunch.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The motion is amended slightly from the one that originally came to me, but has been agreed to by the three House leaders.

Mr. Speaker: 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.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved first reading of Bill 119, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act.

Motion agreed to.

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved first reading of Bill 120, An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act.

Motion agreed to.

LAND TITLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved first reading of Bill 121, An Act to amend the Land Titles Act.

Motion agreed to.

REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved first reading of Bill 122, An Act to amend the Registry Act.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 123, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Sterling moved first reading of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Sterling: Obviously, some of the members missed my earlier comments. I explained that this legislation will ensure that no employee will be unwillingly exposed to tobacco smoke in the work place at the level of concentration injurious to his or her health. It will allow a worker to request his or her employer to act to alleviate conditions if the worker believes his or her health is at risk.

WOMEN'S SECRETARIAT FOR SPORT AND FITNESS ACT

Ms. Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 125, An Act to establish the Women's Secretariat for Sport and Fitness.

Motion agreed to.

Ms. Gigantes: The purpose of the act is to establish the women's secretariat for sport and fitness as an office in the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation for the purpose of improving access to sport and fitness programs for girls and women and increasing the opportunities for their participation in these programs.

TOMMY DOUGLAS DAY ACT

Mr. Foulds moved first reading of Bill 126, The Tommy Douglas Day Act, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: The purpose of this bill is to commemorate the banning of extra billing in Ontario by naming June 20 after the father of medicare in Canada, Tommy Douglas.

Mr. Douglas said at the New Democratic Party convention in Regina in 1983, "We pledged ourselves 50 years ago that we would provide health care for every man, woman and child irrespective of their colour, their race or their financial status and, by God, we are going to try." By God, we did it in this province.

3:50 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

REPRESENTATION ACT (CONTINUED)

Consideration of Bill 77, An Act to revise the Representation Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I understand the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) has two amendments involving name changes. If they are the ones we expect, from our side we are prepared to accept them.

Miss Stephenson: Because the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) is absent at the moment, I will move that the name of the riding currently referred to in the act as York-Ontario be changed to Durham-York to reflect more accurately the geographic area represented.

Mr. Chairman: Do you have this amendment in writing?

Miss Stephenson: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Do the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) have a copy of this?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes.

Mr. McClellan: We are aware of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: You are not going to object to not having a copy.

Mr. McClellan: No, we are not. We are going to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Miss Stephenson moves, on behalf of Mr. Stevenson, that the name of the riding currently referred to in the act as York-Ontario be changed to Durham-York to reflect more accurately the geographic area represented.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Miss Stephenson moves that the name of the riding currently referred to in the act as Armourdale be changed to Willowdale in order to reflect more accurately the geographic area represented.

Motion agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

ELECTION FINANCES ACT (CONTINUED)

Consideration of Bill 103, An Act to revise the Election Finances Reform Act and to amend certain other Acts respecting Election Financing.

On section 39:

Mr. Chairman: When we broke off at 6:30 last night, we were at the point of voting on the amendment of the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) to subsection 39(2) and the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) was entreating the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) to read something.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: She wanted me to read something further. It was relevant and the House is taking that into consideration. Unfortunately, the honourable member is leaving for another committee responsibility at this time.

Miss Stephenson: No, I am not.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Oh, damn.

Mr. Chairman: Is the member for York Mills through with this?

Miss Stephenson: No, I am not.

There is no doubt that the intent of the section read by the Treasurer and House leader is at least to begin to find a mechanism to solve the problem raised by the member for York Centre. However, the time frame is probably rather long because it requires the commission to examine and report to the Speaker and for the Speaker to report to the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly then determines whether there is a rationale for some modification of the formula.

It would be more sensible to have some kind of flexibility built into the act so that it could be dealt with in a relatively short time. It appears that the length of time necessary in some circumstances might be such that the member could be discharged from the Legislature before the action that is prescribed at the end of the section is undertaken or completed. That is worrisome.

Although I recognize the intent of the section, it does not have the kind of immediacy that there is in some circumstances, such as the unusual one suggested by the honourable member. That is probably the only circumstance that should ever be considered, when an area of the province is growing so rapidly that the number of constituents has increased by almost 50 per cent by the time the next election is called before anything has been done about the formula for that riding.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We feel there is sufficient protection. The Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses can make the recommendations to the House, and I see no reason that it should be delayed in any untoward way. If I were looking into my crystal ball, I would say that after the next election there will probably be a full five years for adjustments.

Mr. McFadden: The member for York Centre is away today on constituency business of an urgent nature. I said I would rise to see whether the Treasurer had reconsidered his thoughts of yesterday with regard to the amendment put forward by him, which is now before this House.

Last night my colleague reviewed the projected population growth for the riding of Markham. His estimate is that over the next 10 years the population of that riding will likely grow from its present level -- I gather it is now at about 75,000 -- to about 200,000. As of now, the local municipality has already approved a sufficient number of housing units that would accommodate at least 65,000 new people who would be coming into the riding. He anticipates that over the next 10 years the population of his riding could well double.

As a consequence of that, it seems reasonable that the maximum amount be increased to deal with the hardship that would be faced by the member for York Centre. I do not know whether the Treasurer has seen it in his heart as of today to change his mind on this amendment. It does not look as if he has. I urge him, on behalf of the member for York Centre and the constituents of that riding as well as other ridings which are in a position similar to this, to consider this amendment favourably and to allow it to go through.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We have expressed our views on this and we would like to have the motion put.

Mr. Chairman: Do you mean the vote?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Just let it go at that. We have not changed our mind.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cousens has moved that subsection 39(2) of Bill 103 be amended by striking out "$0.25" in the 11th line and inserting in lieu thereof "$0.50."

Motion negatived.

Section 39 agreed to.

Sections 40 to 45, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 46:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Nixon moves that subsection 46(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "and an amount equal to 20 cents for each dollar of actual campaign expenses to the maximum expenditure limit" in the eighth and ninth lines and inserting in lieu thereof "or an amount equal to 20 per cent of the maximum expenditure limit."

4 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This clarifies a section that was a bit mystifying having to do with the subsidies payable to the individual candidates. No one wants any lack of clarity in this important section and therefore I hope all sides will support the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Section 46, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 47 to 55, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 56:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Nixon moves that subsection 56(2) be amended by deleting the last four lines and inserting in lieu thereof, "as candidates at a by-election for which a writ was issued prior to the day the act receives royal assent."

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This means the previous act will apply in any by-elections until September 1.

Motion agreed to.

Section 56, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 57 to 61, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee reported two bills with certain amendments.

FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES ACT / LOI DE 1986 SUR LES SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 8, An Act to provide for French Language Services in the Government of Ontario.

L'hon. M. Grandmaître propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 8, Loi assurant la prestation de services en français par le gouvernement de l'Ontario.

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: Lorsque j'ai présenté le projet de loi 8 sur les services en français, le premier mai dernier, j'ai constaté que cette Assemblée a reconnu que nous venions de franchir une étape historique.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the entire country will be following our debate closely. I am sure it will demonstrate that we all believe in equality and fair treatment for all Ontarians whether they speak English or French.

Le fait de garantir le droit de recevoir des services en français constitue un défi majeur pour l'administration. Il est en fait très rare qu'une loi touche tous les aspects et toutes les activités du gouvernement de l'Ontario. Le projet de loi que nous considérons aujourd'hui touche le ministère, les agences, les conseils, les commissions, les institutions ainsi que toute la gamme des organismes para-publics.

Members will appreciate that the bill before them is the product of widespread consultation not only within the government apparatus but also with representatives of the francophone community and with many expert advisers. I am convinced we have succeeded in giving a strong guarantee of French language rights and in designing a practical and realistic system for the delivery of government services in French.

L'article 5 constitue le fondement du projet de loi. Il reconnaît clairement le droit de chacun à être servi en français par le gouvernement de l'Ontario, dans la région désignée de la province, et à communiquer en français avec le gouvernement.

Les citoyens pourront éventuellement avoir recours aux tribunaux si ce droit n'est pas respecté. Cet article s'inspire de l'article 20 de la Charte des Droits qui garantit le droit de recevoir du gouvernement fédéral des services dans les deux langues officielles du Canada.

Ministries and other government agencies are given three years to develop and implement the wide range of services that section 5 guarantees. They will be assisted in that task by the Ontario French Language Services Commission, which will make practical suggestions on the best way to meet our goals within the prescribed time limit. Our consultations also show clearly that a certain flexibility must be built into the act.

Proper acknowledgement of the autonomy of transfer payment agencies dictated that not all parts of the vast governmental structure could or should meet the automatic three-year deadline. Cabinet, therefore, retains the authority to designate certain parts of the system where we have succeeded in creating the necessary French-language capacity in those institutions. This does not amount to a list of exceptions. Cabinet has every intention of exercising its authority to ensure that all services are available in French as soon as is humanly possible.

Je crois que tous les députés ont maintenant une idée précise des dispositions du projet de loi 8 sur les services en français ainsi que des mécanismes d'application. Je serai heureux d'écouter les commentaires des députés qui voudront prendre part à ces débats en deuxième lecture de ce projet de loi qui est très important pour la population de l'Ontario et pour celle du Canada en entier.

M. Guindon: Il me fait plaisir, aujourd'hui, de supporter le gouvernement avec la présentation du projet de loi 8 en deuxième lecture. Pour réitérer un peu ce que l'on a dit dans le passé au sujet de la prestation de services aux francophones par l'ancien gouvernement, je dois dire qu'on s'attendait aussi à quelque chose de nouveau, à un grand renouveau dans le système du gouvernement concernant les Canadiens français.

On s'attendait à un système qui apporterait tout un changement et au lieu de cela, je trouve que c'est le même système qu'on avait avant, avec un pas en avant. On continue à faire le même progrès, mais c'est bon. Je dois vous dire que je suis fier d'être en position de supporter une telle loi. Aussi, en temps et lieu, nous aurons peut-être des amendements à proposer.

Aussi, je voudrais apporter des commentaires sur ce qui est arrivé dernièrement à la Législature ou en dehors, au sujet des députés ou membres francophones. Ma mémoire ne me reporte pas très loin, mais je me rappelle que Stewart Smith, aux environs du 18 mars 1981, avait dit, dans le Nord, je ne sais pas trop où, que le Parti conservateur haissait les francophones. Il s'agissait là de propos inflammatoires. Nous avons aussi entendu, il y a quelques jours, ceux de l'ancien ministre du Développement du Nord et des Mines (M. Fontaine) qui a fait un énoncé à la radio et nous savons tous très bien ce qu'il a dit.

C'est une autre attitude qui prévaut souvent au sein du Parti libéral ou du gouvernement. C'est aussi l'attitude qui prévaut aux Affaires francophones qui, à chaque fois qu'il y a un retard ou à chaque fois que l'on pose des questions au sujet de l'avancement des projets de loi, que ce soit dans le cas du projet de loi 8 ou autre, on blâme les Conservateurs. On dit: n'est-ce pas terrible qu'on n'avance pas avec la deuxième lecture? C'est la faute des Conservateurs, c'est la faute à Guindon.

Ca n'aide pas l'attitude de l'Assemblée législative. Ca n'aide pas à la coopération et à la bonne entente. Mais tout de même, je dois vous dire qu'en principe, je suis fier de l'appuyer parce que vous savez, dans notre coin de l'Ontario, à Cornwall, au cours des années 50 et même un peu avant, nous avions deux et même trois écoles secondaires opérées par les frères, les prêtres ou les soeurs. Ecoles francophones dont nos parents et grand-parents payaient des taxes séparées pour des écoles séparées et aussi payaient pour les écoles secondaires francophones. Il est venu un temps où ça coûtait vraiment trop cher et que c'était un fardeau trop lourd à supporter.

Petit à petit, une à une, nous avons perdu toutes nos écoles secondaires. Une chance que l'Université d'Ottawa ne soit pas tellement loin et nos élèves ont toujours eu la chance de se rendre à l'Université d'Ottawa. Mais sans la préparation donnée à l'école secondaire, c'était assez difficile. Nous avons constaté beaucoup de progrès depuis les 15 dernières années et puis, nous avons notre école secondaire. Nous avons une succursale de l'Université d'Ottawa à Cornwall, au Collège St-Laurent et je dois vous dire que ça fait chaud au coeur de voir que ce projet de loi devrait, à mon avis, être capable de procurer des services en français et les garantir dans l'éducation pour qu'enfin nous puissions un peu, pas seulement un peu mais beaucoup, améliorer le sort des jeunes francophones en Ontario et je parle surtout de mon comté.

Comme vous le savez, dans l'Est de l'Ontario, les francophones n'ont pas eu tellement de chance pour des raisons économiques ou autres. Nous avons le taux d'éducation le plus bas et nous avons le taux de chômage le plus élevé. J'espère qu'avec la loi 8, nous pourrons remédier autant que possible à ce problème.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that I and my party will support Bill 8 in principle, and at the appropriate time we will probably have some amendments.

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: Je remercie le membre de Cornwall (M. Guindon) pour son appui et celui de son parti. Je crois que le temps est propice pour le gouvernement de l'Ontario de reconnaître non seulement le besoin de services à la population francophone. En plus de donner les services, il faut les garantir dans tous les domaines offerts par le gouvernement de l'Ontario, que ce soit dans les domaines de la santé, des services sociaux ou de l'éducation. Je suis absolument d'accord avec lui lorsqu'on regarde le progrès qui s'est fait dans la province de l'Ontario, surtout au niveau de l'éducation. Je crois que la province a progressé.

Excepté que le progrès, l'étatisme, il y a un certain temps pour cela. Il y a une limite à cela et le projet de loi entend très clairement y mettre fin et garantir, après trois ans ou peut-être avant, que la Commission sera en place pour évaluer la qualité et la quantité de ces services et même améliorer ces services. Alors je peux affirmer, non seulement au membre de Cornwall, mais à tous les gens de cette Assemblée que nous sommes déterminés à offrir ou à garantir les services dont la population francophone a toujours eu besoin.

Mr. Guindon: I have no questions to ask the minister, but I am proud to participate for a few more seconds and to say we will give it our best shot. With all three parties together, we should be able to rectify a great many problems that have affected a great section of our community, the francophone community. For many reasons, they have had problems in the past. It takes the type of legislation we have here today to move ahead and make great strides.

Mr. Rae: I rise to indicate our support for second reading of this legislation. While I have been advised to keep my remarks very brief, I want to speak personally for a moment.

As I have recounted on a couple of occasions -- I think the last time was at the general meeting of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario -- I was born in Ottawa. I can remember when Vanier was Eastview. It is good to see the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin) in the chair as I say these things. I can remember when French was a hidden language in Ottawa. It was a language of the street and of the home among French-Canadian families, but it was not a language of work; it was not widely accepted or used, even within the federal civil service or the federal government.

I do not mind admitting that as four- or five-year-olds, we used to have gangs, as I am sure kids still do. Language was frequently the basis upon which kids would join whatever gang they were going to be part of.

If we look at the history of this province, we have come a long way. That is why all of us were astounded by the comments that were made recently by Mr. Fontaine. I will leave it at that.

The province has come so far that it is important for us to reflect on that fact for a moment. I say this as one who has been critical of governments and of the progress we have made. We are at a state of consciousness with respect to accepting the rights of people to speak French, not only at home but also in school, and to have access to services.

In my view and in the view of our party, we have come far enough that it would make sense for us to be talking not simply about a framework law, if I may translate the French, but about entrenching the rights of the francophone community in our Constitution. I want to say for the record that it is the view of my party and my very strong personal opinion that, having come the distance we have come over the past 20 years, it would make sense for this Legislature to be actively pursuing the entrenchment of French-language rights in the Constitution.

4:20 p.m.

I am fully aware of the controversy that has been caused and of the difficulties that have arisen in Manitoba. I have discussed them on many occasions, not only with representatives of the francophone community in Manitoba but also with members of my own party. I want to suggest that we in this Legislature and in this province have an opportunity to go that extra step.

I do not regard the passage of Bill 8 as the last step at all. It is simply a step on the road towards official recognition of French-language rights in our Constitution. I, for one, will not be satisfied until that happens. I will not be satisfied until it is possible for people to work and live in French, to accept it as a language of everyday life in this province and to see that as a normal and healthy development.

I cannot help but notice that the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) is here. I cannot resist her presence -- I know her willingness to participate in the debate -- to say that there remain contradictions.

There are a number of public facilities in Ontario, which the government of Ontario is encouraging Quebeckers to visit, where one cannot get services in French. Today, one cannot get a tour of the Ontario Science Centre in French. Kids who are going to French immersion classes in Toronto today and who are going in French immersion classes to the science centre for a tour are having to take those tours in English. That is something we should recognize.

I was asked in French by a Quebecker where the washroom was the other day. I assume he was a Quebecker. We were standing right by the room that had "Men" on it. I realized that all the signs in this building are still in English.

We have to make a change of our own consciousness that will extend to our public facilities and to the services we are intending to offer in the spirit of rapprochement and welcome to French-speaking Ontarians and to French-speaking Canadians who come to this province and who come to this city, the capital of Ontario.

I regard this as a first step. I have some suggestions for amendments. I very much hope that the matter can be referred to committee of the whole House so we will be able to discuss those amendments. I will express in English, because I am going to revert to my fractured French in a moment, the basic amendments we want to suggest.

First, I am not convinced that a three-year period is necessary in all instances. Second, it is my opinion and the view of our party that this bill gives too much discretion to the executive, to cabinet, and gives insufficient power to the individual to challenge the discretion of cabinet. If we were serious about entrenching rights, the purpose of this act would be to say to the francophone in Kapuskasing, "If you are not satisfied with the level of service, you have a right to go to court and get the government to comply." That right should be given more clearly to the citizen as an individual than to the executive.

In the light of certain decisions that have been made this week, there are some questions I have always had about the wisdom of courts in their determination of the rights of the individual. We may disagree from time to time on that, but I think it is an important way of keeping the pressure on and of keeping the dialectical relationship between the individual and the Legislature. We should not simply revert to giving all the power back to the executive.

Section 7 is language that is written for the convenience of the government and not for the rights of the citizen. We have to recognize that and try to deal with it.

Nous sommes sur la voie d'un changement nécessaire dans la province. Nous avons fait un progrès important ces dernières années, selon la mémoire des gens qui sont en Chambre. Je me souviens personnellement du genre de français. C'était une langue cachée dans la province et au Canada. C'était une langue de la rue, une langue familiale, mais non une langue de travail et c'est une chose que nous avons changée.

Nous avons changé et je dois dire que c'est le gouvernement fédéral qui a commencé le processus. Nous avons débuté par la reconnaissance officielle des droits linguistiques avec la Charte des Droits. Nous avons l'enchâssement de ces droits dans la Constitution, mais ce n'est pas une question légale, c'est une question réelle; le fait que nous avons changé la culture politique du Canada. Nous avons changé la culture politique du pays et maintenant, nous avons une obligation, une chance, une opportunité de continuer avec les changements dans la culture politique de la province de l'Ontario.

J'ai donné des exemples en anglais, en disant clairement que même maintenant, nous avons des exemples et je vous en donne un: je me souviens que j'étais guide parlementaire en 1966-1967, à Ottawa, et si un groupe voulait avoir un tour en français, il devait le demander et on était prêt à le donner. Je me souviens que comme guide, je disais au Président de la Chambre, M. Lamoureux: pourquoi les francophones doivent-ils insister, dire je veux un tour en français? Pourquoi ne pas donner un choix clair, où il serait également officiel et acceptable d'avoir un tour en anglais ou en français?

Puis on a vu le changement se produire avec le Premier ministre M. Trudeau et je dois dire que c'est lui qui a été responsable du changement psychologique et national à Ottawa. C'est changé et c'est une bonne chose que ce soit changé. Je dis que c'est une question que M. Trudeau a défendue avec un courage féroce.

Oui, cela a changé à Ottawa, mais pas à Toronto. Quand je suis devenu député, j'ai été frappé par le fait que même à la Chambre, le français était une langue cachée. Ce n'était pas une langue de chaque jour. C'est pourquoi je vous dis que nous devons apporter ce changement. Le projet de loi 8 est un début, mais seulement un début et j'espère qu'après que la Législature l'aura accepté, alors nous pourrons continuer les discussions avec le gouvernement du Québec sur l'enchâssement constitutionnel des droits dans la province.

La question du bilinguisme officiel dans la province est pour moi la partie importante. C'est non seulement une question symbolique, mais une question réelle; que le français devienne une langue de chaque jour, une langue officielle, non seulement une langue cachée, mais une langue de travail, aussi acceptable que l'anglais dans la province de l'Ontario.

Hon. Ms. Munro: I am very pleased and obviously very anxious to speak in support of this most significant bill, Bill 8, An Act to provide for French Language Services in the Government of Ontario. I feel -- and feelings are, after all, so much a part of our culture -- that this bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be brought before this House, and I say that as an anglophone. It addresses something that has for too long been badly neglected: the equality of the two founding groups in this country.

It has been my personal conviction that equality comes through understanding, and understanding through communication. I too, along with many other parents in Ontario, have enrolled my son in French immersion school. In Hamilton, the interest is so great that there are long lineups for parents and ongoing pressure for additional seats and funding, not only for the privilege of language but also for enjoying an experience, the language aspect of culture in the French language.

Johnny, my son, is becoming fluent in both official languages without a trace of his mother's sincere but anglophone accent. He is doing so well that he now thinks in both French and English.

I cannot stress enough the significance of the work being done within our French immersion schools. For that, I congratulate the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) on the thrust taken by his ministry in this field. I also congratulate Hamilton for its compassionate support and lobbying strength -- Steel City with steel.

4:30 p.m.

The bill is not about anglophone rights necessarily but about the rights of francophone Ontarians to access services in their own language. I rise today, therefore, not only to support a bill that will promote the French language but also to underscore an even deeper issue, the equality of all people throughout this province.

As the Minister of Citizenship and Culture in this province, I have the responsibility of promoting, enhancing and developing the undeniable fact that Ontario is a multicultural society and that people from all cultures, races, languages or religious groups have equal standing and opportunity. This bill recognizes and embraces this principle.

In response to the member for York South (Mr. Rae), my ministry will work quickly to make services available in both official languages so that everyone may enjoy our marvellous institution, and that holds for all our agencies and for the ministry in general.

Finally, I congratulate the minister responsible for francophone affairs for creating a bill which in many respects is stronger in its approach to French-language services than even our Charter of Rights. I note that the charter makes provisions only for French-language services to the government and its agencies, while this bill also involves paragovernmental organizations receiving funds through the government. This is an important and necessary step.

In concluding, I urge all members of this Legislature to support this bill and to ensure its speedy passage.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am quite pleased to see that this House has come to its senses and realized that we must improve services and guarantee francophone services throughout this province and through our agencies. Every ministry of this government has recognized the need to provide better services.

I was particularly touched by the member for York South because I know of his commitment, not only his private or personal commitment but also that of his party, to official bilingualism in this province. I can assure the honourable member that it is a first step. Bill 8 is not the end of the world. It is a first step, but it is a step in the right direction. I know he will be offering some amendments.

The member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon) has also brought to my attention that some amendments might have to be considered. I welcome these amendments because it shows we are willing even to improve Bill 8. I know I will receive the co-operation of all members of this Legislature.

The anecdotes recalled by the member for York South were very appropriate because we not only have to improve signage throughout this province, especially on provincial buildings or ministries, but we also have to prove we have grown up in the past 10 or 15 years. We welcome the francophone population to participate in the growth of this province, especially the cultural growth and enrichment of our culture.

Alors, il me fait énormément plaisir de recevoir l'appui des deux Partis de l'opposition, celui des Néo-Démocrates et celui des Conservateurs. J'espère que lorsqu'on présentera la troisième lecture et le vote sur le projet de loi 8, ce sera unanime. Je crois qu'il est temps, comme je l'ai mentionné auparavant, que les trois Partis, surtout le gouvernement de l'Ontario, reconnaissent la nécessité et le besoin de ces services et je veux remercier spécialement le ministre des Affaires civiques et culturelles.

I know the dedication of the minister when it comes to cultural affairs. l know I can count on her support and I will need her guidance when it comes, probably, to new amendments to the bill. I thank her for her support.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT ACT

Consideration of Bill 54, An Act to Authorize and Regulate the Payment by the Minister to Specified Persons on Behalf of Specified Classes of Persons for the Dispensing of Specified Drugs.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any questions, comments or amendments?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Some amendments have been proposed. I have a series of amendments. I have an amendment for a new section 16a, an amendment to subsection 17(1), adding clause (ka), and amendments to subsections 17(2), 17(3) and 17(5).

Miss Stephenson: I have a significant number of amendments to sections earlier in the bill than those noted by the minister.

The Deputy Chairman: To which section?

Miss Stephenson: Section 1 to begin with.

Mr. Andrewes: We are dealing with Bill 54.

Miss Stephenson: Yes. Then to subsection 4(1), section 16a, clause 17(2)(a), subsection 17(5) and section 18.

Mr. Andrewes: I believe the member for York West (Mr. Leluk) has some additional amendments.

Mr. Leluk: Those are all the amendments we will be proposing to Bill 54.

On section 1:

The Deputy Chairman: Miss Stephenson moves that section 1 of Bill 54 be amended by adding the definition of "designated pharmaceutical product" as follows: "A product that is not a drug as defined in the Health Disciplines Act and is designated by the regulations."

4:40 p.m.

Miss Stephenson: This is to ensure that those products which are included as benefits under the Drug Benefit Act, but which are not defined as drugs under the Health Disciplines Act, are listed in order that they may be eligible in the most appropriate way. Because they were not listed, it was felt that perhaps they might be deleted from that benefit in certain circumstances or all circumstances to the detriment of the patients who are supposed to be enjoying that benefit.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable member has indicated that there is concern about certain removal of benefits. That was not anticipated in the legislation. She knows clearly that section 16a, which we distributed some time ago, was designed to prevent that event occurring, and in combination with the amendment to clause 17(1)(ka), would allow for the designation of those nondrug products. That clearly having been demonstrated by the precirculation of our intended amendments, would clarify and eliminate the need for the amendment which has been proposed by the member for York Mills.

Miss Stephenson: Although there is provision for this under the sections amended by the minister, and we recognize that is so, it would appear to be appropriate that such products be defined in the definition section in order that everyone be absolutely clear about what the minister is talking about.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Since the regulations will actually set out and list the products which are going to form the benefits under this piece of legislation, it will be very clear through the regulations what is intended by a designated pharmaceutical product.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to speak on this amendment? There being none, shall Mr. Leluk's amendment carry? Miss Stephenson moved it on behalf of Mr. Leluk. Is that correct?

Miss Stephenson: That is right.

Mr. Chairman: All right. I heard both ayes and nays.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 1 agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Leluk moves that subsection 4(1) of Bill 54 be amended by striking out "unless the charge or payment as authorized by the regulations" and substituting therefor "unless the patient or the person presenting the prescription is informed before the prescription is dispensed of the opportunity to request a specific interchangeable product and is willing to pay the price difference between the listed product and the requested product."

Does anyone else have a copy of this amendment? The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) do not. Does the minister?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Yes, I have a copy.

Mr. Leluk: This amendment is very important in that it deals with the consumer's right of choice to pay the price difference, if he so wishes, between the listed product and the prescribed product. I have received letters, and there is one in particular I would like to refer to from the Epilepsy Association, Metro Toronto. It says:

"It is well established that interchangeable drugs produced by different manufacturers can perform differently in the body. In treatment of seizure disorders where medication is taken over an extended period of time, fluctuations in blood levels of anti-convulsant drugs can lead to loss of control, seizure or produce toxic side effects. To have patients switched between brands of a particular drug, either knowingly or unknowingly to them, can lead to significant changes in the blood levels of that drug."

They go on to say, "This amendment would allow patients to have dispensed the brand of anti-epileptic drug that their physician has prescribed rather than be at the legal requirement of the pharmacist to supply the interchangeable product that he or she has on hand at that time."

We in our caucus support the right of choice of consumers in this province to pay the difference in price if they so wish.

In a question to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on June 23, I specifically said that the proposed Bill 54, subsection 4(1) "requires that pharmacists supply the lowest-cost list drug for the elderly and welfare recipients under the Ontario drug benefit plan. The bill as currently drafted denies consumers the right to pay the price difference between the lowest-cost drug and the drug prescribed by the doctor." I asked the Premier whether he would "assure this House that final legislation will allow seniors and those on welfare the right to choose and pay the price difference if they wish, or will they be forced to swallow the pill the government tells them to?"

The Premier's reply was: "We on this side of the House never make anyone swallow bitter pills. I appreciate my colleague opposite's new-found advocacy for consumers, and I know he will want to take advantage of discussion in this House to put forward his views on behalf of the people of this province. That is who we" -- referring to the Liberal government -- "are fighting for all the time -- the consumers, the people of the province -- and we are glad to have the member join us."

Does the minister share the Premier's views and will he therefore support this amendment, which deals with consumers' right of choice?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is obvious I support the Premier's views on our advocacy for consumers and the people of the province. There is no secret about that. The member understands quite well from his involvement in our deliberations in committee that the current regime of delivery of medications allows people to request more expensive brands and to pay the difference. Under the current proposed legislation that is in front of us in an unamended fashion, that regime will be maintained. We are not changing anything along those lines. We do not see a need for the honourable gentleman's amendment to be included in the current legislation.

I am pleased with the member's support with respect to the items that will protect consumers and wholeheartedly endorse his position of desiring more information for consumers all the way through the piece. However, his amendment in these circumstances and in the conditions of the current bill are not required for the purpose of allowing people to pay extra if they wish to request a different product.

Miss Stephenson: May I ask the minister a question? Is the procedure to be exactly the same, that when a physician decides that no substitution should be made in the product, for example, that an elderly individual is receiving, he must write "no substitution" as well as complete the additional form that is necessary to have some support for filling the prescription? Is that what the procedure will be?

4:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I understand the procedure will be changed in one circumstance. With respect to no substitution, "no substitution" must be written by hand. That will not change. It is quite clear that the purpose is to turn everybody's mind to the condition of the writing of the form. My understanding is that the only thing that will change is that the doctor must actually write "no substitution."

Miss Stephenson: That is not the question I asked. I recognize that is the requirement built into this act.

The minister is saying there is no change from present practice. The present practice is that if a specific drug is required and prescribed by the physician and "no substitution" is noted on the prescription, the only way the pharmacist can be reimbursed appropriately for filling that prescription is to have the physician complete the additional form, which has the designation "M something," and submit that in order to ensure that it is filled. Is the minister saying that procedure will be exactly the same for all these prescriptions for those who are beneficiaries of the Ontario drug benefit plan and that after this legislation is passed there will be no change in the procedure?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am advised by officials that there will be no change along those lines.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Apparently, we have a list of amendments that was not clear. Will the members look at their amendments and see if there are any other than those which I now name: section 16a, the minister; subsections 17(1), 17(2), 17(3) and 17(5), the minister; section 18, Miss Stephenson.

Miss Stephenson: No. In Bill 54, there is also subsection 14(2) and an additional subsection 14(3) in order to accommodate the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The chair does not have copies of those.

Miss Stephenson: I will be glad to share them with you.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other amendments, questions or comments? If so, in which sections?

Mr. Leluk: I have amendments to subsection 16a(2), clause 17(2)(a), subsection 17(5) and section 18.

Sections 4 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 14:

Miss Stephenson: I move that in subsection 14(2) the word "physician" be deleted. This is to be followed by another amendment which complements it and adds a subsection 14(3). That is what I was going to suggest I might do, if that is all right with the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Is subsection 14(3) dependent upon the passage of subsection 14(2)?

Miss Stephenson: No, it is not, but it does complement subsection 14(2) because it prescribes the circumstances under which the inspection of records should be carried out. Subsection 14(2) deletes one word, "physician."

Mr. Chairman: I really think we should do it separately. If you put them together and members wish to defeat one and pass the other, we will have problems and we will have to revert. Let us deal with subsection 14(2) first.

Miss Stephenson: If the word "physician" is not deleted, subsection 14(3) becomes something of a contradictory motion, although it is not really. What we are doing is attempting to ensure the maintenance of patient confidentiality in the inspection of records carried out by an inspector.

Mr. Chairman: Miss Stephenson moves that in subsection 14(2) the word "physician" be deleted.

Miss Stephenson: What I am suggesting is that if this is not carried, there is danger that patient records might become a part of the inspection which is carried out for purposes that have nothing to do with the clinical record of the patient but have to do only with compliance with the legislation and the method of payment to the physician who is dispensing.

This is in the section in order to ensure that there is a mechanism which will require physicians who are dispensing physicians to keep records which will be available to inspectors. The lack of clarity and precision regarding the records which are to be made available to the inspectors from dispensing physicians could lead to the abuse of patient confidentiality by the exploration of patient records that are of a clinical nature.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The ability to inspect must be extended in this fashion to both the offices of the pharmacy and the physician. I can tell the honourable member that she played an important role in fashioning the confidentiality section which precedes section 14 -- section 13, which we just passed -- and from that standpoint, we spent some time in committee determining that the information which was required to be gathered for the purpose of this act would remain confidential in any event. We have debated that issue substantially. In fact, we have provided for the conditions of confidentiality about which she speaks, for which she seeks to remove the one word. I would not support the removal of this one word from the section.

Miss Stephenson: The minister is, unfortunately, mistaken. The confidentiality that is alluded to in section 13 is that confidentiality which relates to all of the records having to do with the acquisition of drugs, the purchase of drugs and the dispensing of drugs. It does not have to do with clinical records of patients. Clinical records of patients, as the honourable member should know -- and I am sure does, as the Minister of Health -- are confidential records that can be released only under specific circumstances. We wish to ensure that those circumstances are not breached by the requirements of this act.

5 p.m.

I assumed the minister would consider this to be an appropriate and a friendly kind of recommendation since there is no restriction upon the examination of records other that patients' clinical records in the amendment I propose as subsection 14(3) -- no restriction whatever, except for clinical records of the patient. I do not think the minister's money-counting or form-examining inspectors really want to look at the clinical records of patients. I do not think that is so at all. All we are trying to do is to ensure that this does not happen.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Miss Stephenson's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for York Mills have an amendment to subsection 14(3) of the bill?

Miss Stephenson: The minister has just ensured that those who have absolutely no knowledge of clinical records or the clinical treatment of patients will have access to clinical records of patients within dispensing physicians' offices. I believe there should be some kind of protection within this bill against that. I really do not understand the attitude of the minister in this very important act.

Hon. Mr. Elston: This is an important act.

Miss Stephenson: It is not protected. Unfortunately, the minister does not apparently understand this. I suggest that, although he has defeated the deletion of the word "physician," it might be well to consider ensuring seriously that there is an addition of a subsection 14(3) to this act that would simply state that an inspector may not examine records related to case histories or clinical management of patients in dispensing physicians' offices.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Is the member moving this one or a new one?

Miss Stephenson: No, I am not moving this one. I am moving an amendment to this one. The minister has just made this one redundant or a contrary motion. All I am doing is adding some kind of protection for patients, which the minister does not seem to want to have.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What are we speaking on right now?

Miss Stephenson: We were trying to speak on subsection 14(3), which is no longer an appropriate amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Is the member for York Mills moving this subsection 14(3) or another amendment to subsection 14(3)?

Miss Stephenson: I am suggesting to you, Mr. Chairman, that it would be wise, given what has just happened, not to move this amendment, but to introduce another amendment which would simply state --

Mr. Chairman: Do you have the other amendment?

Miss Stephenson: No, I will have to write it out. I anticipated that the good common sense and rationality of the minister would prevail.

Mr. Chairman: Order. We will stand down subsection 14(3).

Mr. McClellan: Why should we stand it down?

Miss Stephenson: This was an addition.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, subsection 14(3) deals with matters under the control of a wholesaler or manufacturer. I do not think that the member for York Mills really wants to amend subsection 14(3) at all. She may want to add another section or subsection.

Miss Stephenson: I was adding a new subsection 14(3).

Mr. Chairman: That is right. I understand she wishes to add a new subsection 14(3). Can we stand down the entire section 14 to permit her time to write it?

Miss Stephenson: The additional amendment would simply be that an inspector may not examine --

Mr. Chairman: You are reading an amendment adding a subsection 14(3)?

Miss Stephenson: Subsection 14(3), which is not that which has been distributed.

Mr. Chairman: We have to have something. You must read out your amendment.

Miss Stephenson: That is what I was about to do. It reads:

"An inspector may examine all records other than those relating to the case histories or clinical management of patients in dispensing physicians' offices."

Mr. Chairman: You are deleting the balance of that?

Miss Stephenson: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: So those last words are "in dispensing physicians' offices."

Miss Stephenson moves that the following be added to subsection 14(3) --

I am having trouble. It is subsection 14(3). Do you really mean that?

Miss Stephenson: I am adding a new subsection 14(3) and renumbering the subsection 14(3) that is currently there. We can make it 14(2a); I do not care.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps legislative counsel can give a bit of direction on the numbering of this.

I will read this, and perhaps the member for York Mills will correct me if I am not correct. Miss Stephenson moves that the following section be added to the bill:

"14(2a) An inspector may examine all records other than those relating to case histories or clinical management of patients in the possession of dispensing physicians."

Is that correct?

Miss Stephenson: Yes.

I believe I have made the comments that are necessary. This is simply to ensure that the confidentiality of patients' clinical records is maintained under any inspection process carried out under the authority of this bill.

I believe it is something that is required to ensure that confidentiality, which is extremely important, is maintained and is, in some circumstances, required by law.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I agree confidentiality is an important concept, and we have provided for it. I do not think the member will be accomplishing anything new with this proposed amendment.

We have adequate protections now. She may forget that we have a system that is already up and functioning and running with respect to an operating Ontario drug benefit program. Although she has played an important part in talking about the confidentiality section previously mentioned by me, we have enough protections without going into this sort of exclusion.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 14 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: According to my list, the next amendment is in section 16a. Am I correct, Minister?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Yes.

Sections 15 and 16, inclusive, agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elston: This is the same amendment that is in the package of material I received from the Health critic of the official opposition.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Elston moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following new section:

"16a. (1) This act applies with the necessary modification in respect of designated pharmaceutical products, and for the purpose a designated pharmaceutical product shall be deemed to be a listed drug product;

"(2) Section 16 and subsection 17(2) to subsection 6 do not apply for the purpose of subsection (1)."

Hon. Mr. Elston: This amendment does deal with the issue which was raised previously by the member for York Mills, when she introduced an amendment to the definition section surrounding designated pharmaceutical products. These two subsections in section 16a are designed to allow us to provide benefits under the plan for what are known as nondrug products. That being the case, this is a necessary amendment and I believe it is fully supported by all three parties in the House.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Leluk: My amendment is really a motion to be moved in committee by the minister. Is he going to move an amendment?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Yes. I did move subsections 16a(1) and (2).

Mr. Leluk: You did move subsection 2?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Yes.

Mr. Leluk: My amendment is to subsection 16(a)(2). The one I have before me spells out that subsection 17(2) to subsection 17(6) "do not apply for the purpose of subsection 1." Is that correct? Is that what you have?

I would like to move an amendment to that. I move that subsection 16(a)(2) be amended by striking out "subsection 6" and replacing it with "subsection 5."

Mr. Chairman: I see your amendment is to subsection 16(a)(2). The "a" should not have brackets around it, because it is an amendment to the minister's section 16a.

Mr. Leluk: I stand corrected.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Leluk moves that new subsection 16a(2) be amended by striking out subsection 17(6) and replacing it with subsection 17(5).

Mr. Leluk: This amendment proposes to remove subsections 17(2) to 17(6) from applying to this section. We believe subsection 17(6) appears to have been included in error in the exclusions. Possibly the minister could comment on that.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Subsection 17(6) was not included in error. From what I understand, the essence of this motion is to eliminate subsection 17(6) from the exclusions and then we can go up to subsection 17(5). This is the first time I have seen this, so I want to understand what it is. I am seeking guidance from my officials, understanding that there has been no error and that subsection 17(6) was to be included in the exclusions. I am just now trying to find some extra information about the exclusionary items, if I can be allowed a moment. This is a new presentation.

Subsection 17(6) should not be excluded from this because it is part of the entire best-available-price program and regime. It should continue along, because subsections 17(2) to 17(6) obviously make up the best available price, and we are looking at maintaining the benefits of nondrug products on the basis of their current schedule of benefit listing, rather than introducing that scheme to these nondrug-product benefits.

Miss Stephenson: What is the rationale for the exclusion of the best available price for the drug products not so designated?

Hon. Mr. Elston: When we dealt with this in the committee, it was overlooked that we had not included nondrug benefits in the discussions. We introduced the amendment, section 16a, to allow us to continue to offer nondrug products as benefits. I do not think there was ever any anticipation of dealing with those under the best-available-price scheme. We are maintaining those benefits at the current level and under the current regime. I think that is the best way to handle them under the Ontario drug benefit plan.

Miss Stephenson: Why should we deal with one set of benefits in a different way from the remainder? I do not understand any argument I have heard the minister put forward so far as being in favour of maintaining a stance of doing it one way with those that are considered drug products and another way with others.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is clear that under the Ontario drug benefit plan, nondrug products have always been considered in a different light to drug products. I do not see any reason for us to change that situation. We have different rules for the nondrug products now, as I understand it.

5:20 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Leluk's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

On section 17:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Elston moves that subsection 17(1) of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

"(ka) designating pharmaceutical products for the purpose of section 16a."

Hon. Mr. Elston: That falls in line with our previous amendment. It is to allow us to make regulations designating these pharmaceutical products that are the subject matter of subsection 16a as previously put.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Elston's motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Elston moves that subsection 17(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(2) In determining the amounts payable by the minister under subsections 5(1) and (2), the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall prescribe from time to time the best available price of the drug,

"(a) as determined by the minister from such sampling as the minister considers appropriate; or

"(b) as estimated by the minister, if the minister considers the information reasonably available to the minister is insufficient for the purpose of ascertaining the best available price,

"and prescribe a percentage of the best available price, not less than 10 per cent nor greater than 20 per cent, to be added to it."

Hon. Mr. Elston: This would allow the minister, when making determination of the best available price, and the Lieutenant Governor designating such, to take a sampling without having to go through what could be determined to be an exhaustive sampling, one that would allow an appropriate sampling so there could be an amount of information available from which to make a reasonable decision to determine the best available price.

In addition, it would allow an estimated best available price if the samplings were not sufficiently available. The current subsection would prevent the minister from making an estimated best available price in circumstances where information might not be as forthcoming as might otherwise be the case. This would allow that to occur. It would help in making the program of best available price workable and allow a quick determination of and collection of information needed to put the numbers together for printing of formulary and price information.

Miss Stephenson: When does the minister think it might be difficult to obtain the sampling that is necessary and under what circumstances does he think he might not get any information when this bill requires that if a drug or a drug product is to be a benefit, the information the minister requires must be submitted by the companies and wholesalers involved?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have had part of this discussion before with the honourable member. It surrounds situations where some supplier decides we may not have jurisdiction to require him to submit information.

One of the very difficult tasks we have is getting the information and deciding on a price that will be used for our printing. If someone says, "We will not give you a price," the only leverage we have under the regime of the current Bill 54 is to delist the product. We think that is not a good deterrent in as much as I as minister would feel hard pressed to take a product out of the Ontario drug benefit program as a benefit to the people of the province, particularly when they may have been on the product for a considerable time. This will allow us to do an estimate and still keep the product as a benefit for the people in Ontario.

Miss Stephenson: I remind the minister that in assessing the best available price he does not have to depend only on the manufacturer. He can inspect the records of wholesalers, pharmacies, chains and all sorts of institutions across the province and determine from that source what the best available price is for almost anything that is available under the formulary or the drug benefit plan. There is no reason to suspect that the simple refusal of an out-of-province company would stymie the activity of determining the best available price of the drug product that company manufactures and sells in this province. The minister would not have to delist it. All he would have to do is go to the other sources that are available to him.

This does not ensure that there is any rationale in terms of the study that is carried out. It does not ensure that the same kind of examination which is required for the determination of the best available price is a part of the role. It does provide for a somewhat unilateral activity on the part of the minister from time to time. It would be better to maintain the pattern which has been established for all circumstances in these ones as well.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I appreciate the member's comments. However, again on this occasion, I will have to disagree with her analysis. This provides us with something that is rationally to be perceived as helping the whole system work and function much better. For all of us here in the House, for all parties, the key to this legislation is that it must function, it must be workable, and this is one item which will make it much more feasible and much more workable.

Miss Stephenson: It does not add anything to the workability of the bill. It does ensure that, as a result of this act, the minister will have the authority to set prices unilaterally without examination for those products he thinks he does not have enough time or energy to explore in Ontario.

I do not believe that was intended by the actions prescribed in this bill and I, therefore, ask the minister to withdraw his amendment or join us in defeating it to ensure that the program we laboured long and hard to produce in all the discussions we had in committee will be maintained in this circumstance as well.

Mr. Leluk: I support my colleague's arguments with respect to the amendment moved by the minister. I would like to introduce a further amendment.

5:30 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Leluk moves that clause 17(2)(a) be amended by adding the word "reasonably" after the word "minister" in line 2, and that clause 17(2)(b) be amended by adding the word "reasonably" before "estimated" in line 1 and striking out the word "reasonably" before the word "available" in line 3.

Mr. Leluk: This would more accurately reflect the intent of this proposed amendment. The same applies to clause 17(2)(b).

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not believe the suggestions made in this case add anything to make the subsection more functional than it already is.

The Deputy 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 nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Elston's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Under the circumstances, it is necessary to move what was intended as an amendment to subsection 17(3), which is really a deletion in the following situation.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Elston moves that section 17 be amended by deleting subsection 17(3).

Hon. Mr. Elston: I ask that we vote on subsection 17(3). As I understand it, the motion forwarded to you indicates a deletion. It just says "strike out the section," so we must vote on subsection 17(3).

Mr. Leluk: May we comment?

The Deputy Chairman: Certainly. Go ahead.

Mr. Leluk: We have no objection to the removal of this subsection as long as Bills 54 and 55 are enacted and proclaimed simultaneously. If they are not, the proposed amendment will violate the spirit and the intent of the legislative package being recommended by the standing committee on social development.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I want to get a better understanding from the minister of the reason for this amendment. It was not clear.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The reason we are requesting subsection 17(3) be deleted is that it results in redundancy with respect to the operation of the sections. We already have the Lieutenant Governor in Council prescribing best available prices. We have gone through setting up the regime under subsection 17(2) and clause 17(2)(a) by having the Lieutenant Governor in Council prescribe the amounts.

Let me look at the subsection we just passed. It states that "the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall prescribe from time to time the best available price of the drug," and so on, with a percentage in addition.

Subsection 17(3) states, "where the Lieutenant Governor in Council is prescribing the best available price," and so on. It has some other sections that are affected by the amendments proposed under the new subsection 17(2). That is where the redundancy results.

Miss Stephenson: Our concern is that it removes any reference to interchangeable products within this piece of legislation. If there is not a reasonable definition of "interchangeable products" in Bill 55, this deletion also removes the reference to Bill 55. That is also of concern because within the act now there is obviously no relationship defined between the two listings of drugs.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Other concerns expressed by ministry staff also surround the fact that this subsection is badly worded from the standpoint that it indicates we have to deal with finding the best available price of a drug by determining the best available price of a product that is interchangeable with it, and there are certain drafting errors that cause us real concerns.

In conjunction with subsections 17(2), which has already been dealt with, and 17(5), which is the one I was trying to couple with this amendment earlier, we then set out a more complete and much better worded series of subsections so that we end up with a best available price that applies to all of the products listed under the Ontario drug benefit plan rather than having some excluded by the poor wording in subsection 17(3).

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If this amendment were carried, what effect would it have on the formulary? With single-source drugs, for example, would it mean we would not have a listing for all of the drugs in the formulary? Is that the implication of this amendment?

Hon. Mr. Elston: This would not exclude the listing of prices for single-source drugs.

Miss Stephenson: That does not come in subsection 17(5).

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not see how we could have a formulary that does not list single-source drugs. That just is not going to happen. I do not follow that question. I am sorry.

The Deputy Chairman: Would you care to consult further?

Hon. Mr. Elston: No, I do not think I have to consult further, because we would have the best available price determined for single-source products and all products listed in the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary. There is no desire to exclude best available price on single-source drugs. The thing we agreed upon in committee, as I understand it, was to have the best available price for all the products in our formulary.

5:40 p.m.

Miss Stephenson: That is why I was concerned about the preceding section. It permits the minister to use his own discretion in determining the prices of any one of a number of drugs. It would be difficult for him to use the mechanism he has laid out in subsection 17(2), which unhappily has been carried, for interchangeable drugs. He would have to carry out the survey to find out which is the lowest cost drug. Obviously, he is not now required to do that as a result of subsection 17(2). Unilaterally, and at his own discretion, he can determine, as he wishes, what the price will be for any drug that is not an interchangeable drug. That is what subsection 17(2) permits him to do. I am not sure whether there is any point in locking the barn door now. The horse has gone.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It will come back.

Miss Stephenson: Part of its anatomy is already here.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The veterinary school is down the road a little way from here; however, if the member for York Mills and others wish to get into animal husbandry and anatomy, they might want to adjourn there.

I want to turn the minds of committee members to the last part of subsection 17(3) and read what it says. Talking about best available price, it says "the amount prescribed shall be the best available price of the least expensive product that is interchangeable with it." This means that if you have a product that is more expensive than its interchangeable partner, we will call it, you have to prescribe that as the best available price for the product, and that in itself would cause us considerable problems.

If it is the will of the committee that this remain as part of the bill, I am prepared to go along with it. After all, the product in front of us is largely the will of the majority of the committee members at the committee stage. I am prepared to live with that.

Miss Stephenson: Where will the reference to Bill 55 be in this bill? How is the unity between the two to be maintained; the fact that there is a relationship between the two bills? The drugs we are talking about will be used under both pieces of legislation and the listing and designation is the same in both circumstances. However, the minister is not suggesting there is anything in this bill except the regulations he may want to make from time to time. "He may" is exactly what it says.

The difficulty is that what is going to be done is being prescribed in this bill. The protection necessary for both the public and the dispenser is not being spelled out as a result of the action the minister has taken in amending subsection 17(2).

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am having a difficult time trying to follow this. I went for a little assistance to try to figure out exactly what the member was trying to say. If she is saying that by not referring to Bill 55 here we are not going to be listing interchangeable products, that is not going to happen. We will have interchangeable products and they will be listed. From that standpoint, when we have interchangeable products, we will use them as part of the benefit under the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary. That is the whole idea and the essence behind the operation of the legislation and the program itself.

I cannot give any more information about our wanting to maintain the interchangeability nature of our listing. From a practical standpoint, there will be that continued unity that they never wish us to describe in such a manner.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Elston has moved that subsection 17(3) of the bill be struck out.

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.

Miss Stephenson: Let us try it again; I did not hear anything from down there.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Elston moves that subsection 17(5) of the bill be amended,

(a) by inserting after "millilitre" in the third line "tablet"; and

(b) by striking out "that drug" in the fourth line and inserting in lieu thereof "a listed product of that drug."

Hon. Mr. Elston: These two amendments are merely to include one of the most commonly used measurements in dispensing a product, a tablet, which should be in there to determine price. Then that drug is "a listed product of that drug," which complies with the manner in which the legislation has been set up by definitions.

Miss Stephenson: Can I ask for a definition of "a listed product of that drug?"

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have defined "a listed drug product" in the bill, and this is just a variation on that. It can be more clearly understood than when it says "that drug," which does not refer to any part of the definition at all. We have always looked at listing as part of the determination of the availability of the product as a benefit.

Miss Stephenson: Does the minister mean "that listed drug product"?

Hon. Mr. Elston: There are differences. There are "listed products of that drug," which are much more clearly defined.

Miss Stephenson: They are "listed drug products." That is what is in the definition.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have those defined, and I can tell the member that if she wishes to change that to something else, it would prevent us from dispensing the medication which is prescribed by her colleagues in the medical profession. What we need is this flexibility of wording. "That drug" is much too specific for us in the circumstances of this subsection. We have the "listed product" because there are a number of products under each drug item, as I understand the way this thing has always been set up. This will allow us to issue the listed product under the category of drug. Maybe it is a little confusing, but it is needed, and I ask that the member support us.

Miss Stephenson: I gather what you mean is a listed drug product of that pharmaceutical, because given your definitions and given the act up to now, there is no such thing as the listed product of that drug.

5:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am quite prepared to have it read "a listed drug product of that drug" instead of just "a listed product." I have no problem with that at all. To speed things up and assist in this, can I change clause (b) of the amendment to "by striking out `that drug' in the fourth line and inserting in lieu thereof `a listed drug product of that drug'"?

The Deputy Chairman: Clause (b) of the amendment to subsection 17(5) of the bill would read "by striking out `that drug' in the fourth line and inserting in lieu thereof `a listed drug product of that drug.'"`

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Leluk moves that subsection 17(5) be amended by adding after the word "Canada" in line 5 the following, "from a wholesaler or direct as the regulations prescribe," and striking out in line 5 the words "for wholesale or."

Mr. Leluk: The intent of this amendment is to preserve the present indirect and direct listing of drug products so that all pharmacies can continue to utilize the necessary services provided by drug wholesalers. We believe the ministry shares the pharmacists' views that the drug wholesaling function is necessary and vital to the drug distribution system. Without our proposed amendment, as has been drawn to our attention by drug wholesalers, the present wording could render the entire wholesale function noncompetitive. In the short run, this might mean marginal savings on some drug costs to some purchasers, but in the long run we believe it will mean the demise of the community pharmacy as a viable entity.

Hon. Mr. Elston: One of the difficulties with the suggested amendment is that it enshrines the main reason we are here today; that is, the whole question of drug price spreading. This in effect does not get at what is intended by the best available price that is available to the purchaser, but moves it to a secondary level after which there has already been some percentage markup to deal with some of the overhead items. We cannot support the amendment proposed by the member for York West.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Leluk's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

On section 18:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Leluk moves that section 18 of Bill 54 be amended by adding at the end:

"but if no such date is proclaimed to bring this act into force before the 31st day of December, 1986, this bill shall come into force on the 31st day of December, 1986."

The Deputy Chairman: Do any other members wish to speak to the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think it is the intention of all of us to make sure this is in effect as soon as practically possible after putting the regulations together, but I do not think there is any real need to restrict the discretion of the Lieutenant Governor at this stage.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We will not be supporting the amendment. If we were not going to be proceeding with these bills in the province, obviously we would not be dealing with them today in the committee of the whole. They just would not have been called by the government to be dealt with today. There is obviously some intention that the government is going to proceed with these bills or we would not be dealing with them clause by clause today.

Miss Stephenson: I would hope that the feeling of support for this action would be unanimous. However, after nine and a half weeks of waiting for these bills to be introduced in this House after they came out of committee, one has just a little bit of concern about whether, in fact, there will be the kind of urgency that seems to be necessary, particularly when, for at least nine weeks, there has been a real capability on the part of the minister to introduce the new formulary and the new drug price listing, and that has not been done.

There has been no legal impediment. The minister could have done that without even introducing these bills, as a matter of fact, and he has left the pharmacists in Ontario to suffer for that period. We are a little concerned that maybe even passing the bills is not going to encourage the minister to move with the kind of alacrity that we would hope he might demonstrate.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I always appreciate the interventions of the member for York Mills. I appreciated them for several days in committee on this bill. I appreciated, during the nine and a half weeks about which she so eloquently speaks, her interventions on another piece of legislation that was before this House when she was, if not singlehandedly, almost singlehandedly in charge of dispensing pearls of wisdom in this great and august chamber.

I appreciate more than anyone else in this province the fact that the honourable member has a great deal to say about matters of particular concern to her. I appreciate the fact that she wishes us to move quickly and I ask her assistance in moving these bills quickly through the rest of the stages of the House.

It is of interest that we spent so much time listening to your pearls of wisdom on another particular piece of legislation, Bill 94, which your leader now says he will repeal as soon as he has a chance to get on the election trail. I really suspect that the honourable member would want to be assured -- and I will assure her here -- that when these bills are passed, and I know they will be very shortly, it is not my intention either to ignore them by refusing to implement them, or to withdraw or repeal the legislation once the majority of the House has spoken.

Miss Stephenson: I am tremendously reassured, having listened to those pearls of wisdom, that there will be movement on the part of the minister in terms of this bill. The minister has not always demonstrated this kind of commitment to that course of action. It was simply to try to ensure that there would be action taken in this area within a reasonable time.

6 p.m.

I hope the minister is aware that these bills are terribly imperfect. They suffer awful warts and dreadful blemishes and they will provide a good deal of meat for legislative amendment for many years to come; unless the minister decides the people of Ontario do not deserve the best kind of pharmaceutical and pharmacists' services.

If the minister wishes to give us that commitment, having had it on record in Hansard, I am sure we will be pleased to accept his word this time.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I only wish to share with the members of this august chamber the fact that this product is very much different to the one which was initially introduced. The warts which are here assembled under the auspices of Bills 54 and 55 as they now appear are actually the collective warts of the members of the Legislature. The member for York Mills would want to indicate that she had a large part to play in not only fashioning the warts but ensuring that they arrive.

Miss Stephenson: Oh, no, not in devising the warts.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Leluk's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: This appears to be the last section on which there is an amendment or questions or comments. Is that correct?

Section 18 agreed to.

Section 19 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

PRESCRIPTION DRUG COST REGULATION ACT

Consideration of Bill 55, An Act to provide for the Protection of the Public in respect of the Cost of Certain Prescription Drugs.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions, comments or amendments?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have amendments to propose to subsections 7(1) and 7(2), clause 7(3)(c) and subsection 14(1).

Mr. Leluk: I have some amendments to subsection 4(1), subsection 7(1), clauses 7(1)(a) and 7(2)(a) and subsection 7(3) and a new subsection 7(4). We also have clause 14(1)(d), a new clause 14(1)(e), an amendment to subsection 14(2) and an amendment to section 16.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other amendments?

Hon. Mr. Elston: May I request copies of all of the amendments proposed by the member for York West (Mr. Leluk)? I have a couple of them.

Mr. Leluk: Do you not have them?

Hon. Mr. Elston: No. The only ones I have are the member's suggested amendments to subsection 4(1) and section 16 of Bill 55.

Miss Stephenson: You have section 1.

Hon. Mr. Elston: No, I do not have anything.

Mr. Leluk: I have to apologize; I do not have a second set to give to the minister.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I do not have a copy of them either.

Mr. Chairman: The table does not have copies either.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) have an amendment?

Miss Stephenson: Yes, I have one.

Mr. Chairman: It is very short?

Miss Stephenson: It is relatively short. I believe you have a copy of it.

Mr. Chairman: No, I do not.

Miss Stephenson: I shall be glad to give you one. I was informed that the table had a copy.

Mr. Chairman: Miss Stephenson moves that section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out in line 10 the words "and designated as interchangeable with one or more other such products" and substituting therefor,

"(a) for which there is bioequivalence with one or more other such products;

" (b) equivalent therapeutic effectiveness with one or more other such products, as determined by clinical trials; and

"(c) designated as interchangeable with one or more other such products."

Miss Stephenson: During the hearings on Bill 55, we heard from time to time of the matters that had been raised by the adverse drug reaction committee and the means that had been utilized by the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee to determine interchangeability of drugs. During that period, I attempted to explain to the committee, which wondered why the concern about interchangeability was suddenly rearing its head at that point, that the increased production of generic drugs, the increased utilization of drugs, the increased utilization of interchangeable drugs as mandated by regulation or by legislation and the fact that there were now mechanisms for reporting adverse drug reactions, which are of relatively recent age, were beginning to provide information.

The members of the committee will be aware that most of the publication in this very important area occurred in 1985 and 1986. When we legislate in either Bill 54, which we have just passed, or Bill 55, which we are about to consider, that there will be interchangeable drugs listed within our formulary, it is essential that there must be some reasonable protection of the public in terms of the validity of that word "interchangeable."

We were made aware in committee that interchangeability is not a matter of concern to the drug division of the federal Department of National Health and Welfare. When the representatives of that division were before us in committee, they were concerned with the purity of drugs and whether they are therapeutic or effective, but they were not concerned at all about interchangeability. They said very clearly during the hearings that interchangeability is not in their lexicon. Interchangeability is the responsibility of the provincial governments, which are printing formularies to ensure their drug benefit programs function effectively.

As a result of fairly close questioning, not only of representatives of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee but also the manufacturers, we learned that, although extensive clinical testing is required of new and innovative drugs, it is not required of drugs which are manufactured in copy of the innovative drugs which have been introduced.

6:10 p.m.

There has been a good deal of work carried out by a number of people, not all of whom are physicians, I am happy to tell the minister, who believes this is a matter of concern only to physicians. He should be aware it is a matter of great concern to pharmacologists, pharmacists and patients themselves. A great deal has been published within the last year and a half related to the inappropriateness of determining interchangeability on the basis of purely in vitro testing.

In Ontario, most in vivo testing of drugs, 90 per cent of all drugs that are to be listed in the formulary in this province, is carried out on healthy males and is a result of a single dose of the active ingredient of a drug and the subsequent measurement, on an hourly, bi-hourly or multiple hourly basis for a period of time, of the excretion or the level of the drug found in blood and other body fluids. It is on the basis of some norm, some approach to the pattern of absorption that is seen in the innovative drug in most patients that the variation is measured for those levels of absorption in the individuals tested.

We were informed that in many circumstances the total amount of bioavailable testing that is carried out is carried out in a motel that I think is in the riding of the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) on Yonge Street called the Emerald Isle Motel, in which 12 or 18 and sometimes 24 healthy firemen, all males I remind the minister, are brought in on a regular basis and given a dose of the drug that is to be tested. They are then brought back on a regular basis every hour, every two hours or something of that sort, depending on the level that is needed for therapeutic effectiveness in regard to those body fluids, to ensure that the absorption has been within the range, 20 per cent above or 20 per cent below, that is prescribed as the reasonable range of absorption of the innovative drug.

This does not take into account any disease mechanism, any age factor or any other of the physiological or anatomical factors that might have some effect on the absorption. The numbers of people involved are very small. Those are not clinical trials; they are biochemical trials and are carried out in vivo.

The percentage of drugs required to proceed through clinical trials, carried out on the drugs that are to be listed in Ontario in the formulary through actual examination, dispensing, prescribing and giving to patients suffering from the disease for which the drug is supposed to be effective, is slightly less than 10 per cent of all the drugs listed.

It probably was a reasonable direction to take in the beginning when there was no law that said interchangeability and substitution of interchangeable drugs was mandatory under certain circumstances. It was probably reasonable to anticipate that there would not need to be any grave concern about this when the number of interchangeable drugs was very much smaller than it is now.

However, it has been discovered that even the same compounds produced by innovative drug manufacturers do not necessarily, in all circumstances, have exactly the same effect. Therefore, it is essential that there be some clinical trial of all drugs that are going to be listed for dispensing to patients in Ontario.

The members of the third party have felt that my concern about this is related to some kind of attack on generic drugs. I am not attacking generic drugs. Generic drugs have been extremely useful and most of those listed in the formulary to the present time have been used effectively and have not provided problems.

I am talking about all drugs. There has to be a mechanism to ensure that when patients take drugs for the purposes for which the drugs are prescribed, there is a reasonable range, not only of effectiveness but also of lack of side-effects, lack of uncomfortable problems that may arise and lack of lethal problems that may arise in all those circumstances, and all the drugs that are to be considered to be interchangeable should fall within a range of normal, no matter who manufactures them.

This is what I have been asking for. As a result of the concern expressed by the members of the third party regarding patient safety, regarding the need to ensure that when we legislate that drugs must be substituted we are sure there is safe substitution of drugs, I anticipated there would be reasonable support within that party of the kind of amendments we had provided at that time.

It was suggested by the minister that the amendment introduced at the time of the committee hearings would ensure that every single, currently listed drug of any sort within the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary would be clinically tested again. That is not what one had in mind.

One had in mind that the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee -- made up, as it is supposed to be, of knowledgeable pharmacologists, pharmacists and clinical physicians -- would determine that all those drugs which have been used with a degree of impunity, which have not been noted in the publications of adverse drug reactions and which have appeared to be clinically effective would not be required to be subjected to clinical trials and that those drugs which had been subjected to clinical trials previously would not, unless there were a change in their formulation.

One anticipated that those concerned about the liability of pharmacists, physicians, drug manufacturers, ministers and everyone else would want to ensure this kind of patient protection would be an inherent part of any legislation which required substitution of interchangeable drugs. Unhappily, the amendment that was introduced in committee was not accepted.

Therefore, I rise at this point to support the amendment I have put before the House today. It says very clearly that from this date forward any drug which is going to be listed in a new formulary and which has not been previously listed must be required to pass the tests that I have suggested.

If there are members who believe that this is unnecessary, that it will be entirely too costly, they are probably quite wrong. The cost of this is not necessarily a heavy cost. Clinical trials that are not necessarily of horrendously extensive scope can be prescribed. They will provide for the administration of the drug to be tested to those individuals who have the disease for which the drug is said to be effective and who are within a range of ages.

This will ensure that there was some kind of examination of the effect of the physiological changes of age, the differences in physical structure and anatomy and the differences in physiology. There will be some indication of whether this drug is going to be effective for all people or whether in some circumstances it is not going to be. If it is not, then clinical trials of a more extensive nature can be prescribed. I suggest that the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee would be the appropriate body to make that kind of determination.

I do not believe, however, that we should permit a formulary to be published in Ontario listing so-called interchangeable drugs in which there is absolutely no security, for either the pharmacist who is dispensing them, the physician who is prescribing them or the patient who is taking them, that the drugs are interchangeable in terms of their lack of side-effects and lack of inappropriate responses on the part of patients.

6:20 p.m.

If the minister thinks I am suggesting that I am alone in this concern, I must tell him that publications have appeared within the past year, not only in Canada but also in the United States, where, I have been informed frequently by the officers of the Ministry of Health, clinical testing is not required. Some members of the bureaucracy in the United States have suggested clinical testing is unnecessary and a duplication of effort. There are a number of professors of pharmacology, deans of pharmacy and individuals with real expertise in pharmaco-therapeutics, who are not necessarily physicians, who have stated clearly that they believe they are treading on very dangerous ground in the United States at present in not insisting on clinical trials.

A number of those who have written have suggested strongly that clinical trials are the only way in which one can determine any degree of bioequivalence. Equivalency in terms of absorption does not necessarily mean the drug is a bioequivalent drug; that is, that it will have the same kind of general effectiveness and lack of general discomfort that another drug will have. It has been discovered by many people that substances that are not necessarily the active principal in a drug are equally guilty, sometimes much more guilty, of the poor and destructive side-effects patients have noticed and that have been reported in the adverse drug reaction program.

There are people, such as John Somberg of the American Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, who suggest that the lower cost of generic drugs is an advantage and that in this era of spiralling health care costs this is an important consideration. However, the health of patients cannot permit a less-than-thorough evaluation of these new additions to the therapeutic armamentarium. He says:

"The challenge to the clinical pharmacologist is to ensure that generic and proprietary drugs are truly therapeutically equivalent. We have to develop adequate clinical information as a base so that scientifically reasonable assessment can be carried out. That is what is required in this province at this time if we are going to ask the legislators of the province to enshrine in legislation mandatory substitution of drugs as listed within our formulary."

In the American Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Harold R. Dettlebach, president of the American College of Clinical Pharmacology, stated very clearly, "With all the known sources of variability, it is simply not logical and not good science and certainly not in accordance with the principles of clinical pharmacology to continue to operate under the present system of approvals for drugs, especially generic drugs."

"This is not," Dr. Dettlebach reminds us, "a condemnation of all generic drugs by any means." It is a condemnation of our present system for the testing and the designation of such drugs. It certainly seems that at the very minimum an analysis of the clinical pharmacology for a given drug should have to carry with it an explanation of all of the tests conducted including the methodology used and the clinical trials carried out, a description of the subjects or patients in which the parameters were measured and a good deal more information in order to evaluate differing data and conflicts arising from the testing of supposedly similar compounds made by different manufacturers.

"If one carries this line of thinking further," Dr. Dettlebach suggests, "the question arises as to why such information should not be a part of the required labelling for each multisource drug. That is the kind of thing that we are concerned about."

Dr. Peter Lamy, who is a PhD, a pharmacologist, suggests very strongly that in spite of the fact that in the United States at present about one half of all prescriptions are written for generic drugs, primarily for chronic care drugs which are interchanged, there is very real concern that there is no security and no knowledge that these drugs are truly interchangeable.

Dr. Lamy suggests that not only should the provider of the drugs have a choice in the treatment of illness, but also the patient should have a choice in the selection of the drug he or she is to be given from the roster of interchangeables.

"There is no doubt," Dr. Lamy has suggested, "that the listing in the FDA publications is inadequate," that those acceptances without question of the various classifications used in the Food and Drug Administration book are inappropriate. "In some instances," he says, "even if a generic becomes available and appears in the listing as therapeutically equivalent, it is accepted in the United States when it is not known whether it truly is therapeutically equivalent."

Hon. Mr. Nixon: May I ask the member whether this is a convenient time to break her flow so we might have the committee rise? We have a small bit of additional business before adjournment.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments and progress on another.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for unanimous consent of the House to revert to committee reports for a report from the standing committee on resources development?

Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement of the House?

Agreed to.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 11, An Act respecting the Protection of Rental Housing.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

The House adjourned at 6:28 p.m.

9 juillet 1986