role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

October 16, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L049 - Thu 16 Oct 1986 / Jeu 16 oct 1986

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT

AFTERNOON SITTING

VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HUMANE SOCIETIES LEGISLATION

PERSONS DAY

DRUG BENEFIT FORMULARY

SUNDAY RACING

WORLD FOOD DAY

COURT FACILITIES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CROP INSURANCE

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

ORAL QUESTIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

RETIREMENT OF CLERK

EXTRA BILLING

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

SUNDAY RACING

RETIREMENT SAVINGS

SALE OF PATENTED LAND

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

NURSING HOME DEATHS

USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

CROP INSURANCE

USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

MEMBERS' ANNIVERSARIES

PETITIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

CONGÉ FÉRIÉ OBLIGATOIRE

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TORONTO SKI CLUB ACT

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH ACT

MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTIONS INC. ACT

LONDON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Callahan: I rise at this early hour of the morning to indicate that my privileges as a member of the assembly are being infringed upon in the light of the fact that there are -- I was going to say there are no Conservatives present in the House, but there is now one. Thank you very much. I do not believe my privileges are now infringed.

The Deputy Speaker: I do not think that was a proper point of privilege.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breaugh moved second reading of Bill 16,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and he may reserve any portion of this for the wind-down.

Mr. Breaugh: The bill before us this morning is a rather straightforward bill. Some may question the need for it, actually, because it is virtually the practice in most of our major municipalities, for example, to keep accurate records of the proceedings of the municipal council, to provide to the public copies of documents that the council uses, to provide the public with a reasonable amount of information and to meet and conduct public business in public, which is of course what I think all of us would expect.

The problem occurs around the rather unusual fact that nowhere in the Municipal Act does it lay out a legal requirement for a municipal council to meet in public, nor does it clarify what in the way of documentation is available to the public.

So we have on a regular basis now, each and every calendar year, people writing to all members, I am sure, from various parts of Ontario, saying things that seem to us to be a little ridiculous. For example: "I went to my local municipality and asked them for a copy of a bylaw. The municipal clerk said: `We do not provide the public with copies of our bylaws.'" In some places, albeit relatively few, the clerks say: "We do not have copies available. We keep them written down in a ledger book."

That is how the bylaws are kept. I had a woman come to me last year from a small town in eastern Ontario, who had gone to her municipal clerk and asked to see a bylaw that would affect her business. The clerk's response was: "We have never made copies of our bylaws. We have them handwritten in a ledger book. I will tell you what the bylaw says, but I will not provide you with a copy of it." In this day and age, that is an unacceptable way for municipalities to do their business.

As it is now stated in the Municipal Act, I understand there is no requirement to provide the public with this information, but I think practice has made it an acceptable criterion to say that any reasonable document a council may use in its deliberations, certainly any document that may have passed through the council and is a bylaw of the municipality, is something that should be readily available to the public.

It would be akin to Ontario passing laws and then saying to our residents, "You do not have any right to see the law that governs you." That would be a ridiculous, untenable situation. Unfortunately, in some municipalities that is the current practice. I think that is wrong and should be changed, and that is precisely what this bill does.

Second, the bill addresses the problem of the right of council to meet in private when it is dealing with the public's business. The bill says it has that right in very limited circumstances. I am not making an argument that every time a municipality deals with a personnel problem, for example, it has to do so in public. It seems to me that is not appropriate and there should be an exemption for that; or when a municipality attempts to acquire property for a park, an arena, an overpass, a road widening or whatever.

There will be occasions when that is better done privately, because to negotiate publicly would simply drive up the price of the property. There are reasonable exemptions in the bill that say where reason prevails, a council may from time to time do its business in private. However, the general rule is that when it conducts public business it must do so publicly.

For those of us who come from larger urban municipalities, that is the practice. Ever since I can remember, the practice in my home municipality has been that, except for those few occasions when the council is dealing with a personnel matter or acquiring property, it meets publicly. Even its committees meet publicly. There will be some exceptions where it receives briefings from staff or some confidential information is exchanged, but by and large, the business is transacted in public.

Unfortunately, that is not the case across Ontario. In too many of our municipalities, the council gathers in the reeve's or mayor's office and decides what to do. It will often then go into the council chamber and pass the required bylaw, and only then will it tell the public what the new bylaw is all about. This is an unconscionable practice in this day and age. I do not think it is acceptable any longer in Ontario to make that practice legal. In that regard, the bill essentially says, with certain specific exemptions, the public business of Ontario will be conducted in public.

Those of us who have sat on municipal councils and been in this chamber for a while know that the times one gets into hot water politically are the times when one has made a private deal. That is almost an axiom. When one closes the doors and conducts the public business of Ontario privately, one gets oneself in hot water and it is only a matter of time until it hits.

There is case after case in municipalities in Ontario where people have gone to a conference somewhere and met a business owner who wanted to operate an incinerator. It sounded very good at the time in the Royal York Hotel suite. They went back home to wherever it was and discussed it in private. It sounded very good to each and every member of the council. Then they said, "Let us do this," and passed a bylaw that would allow that business to practise in their municipality. The citizens were outraged that this could happen in their community. They were given no notice and no opportunity to voice their concerns.

What started out as a very reasonable way to proceed to everybody who had been involved until that date got everybody in hot water.

This bill would alleviate that problem in some sense. It requires simple things such as notifying the public when the council is going to do something by providing a public hearing process when it is going to do that or by providing an occasion when the public can voice its opinion. After that input has been received by the council, then it is free to make its decision, but it makes it in public. That establishes the process we want.

We can all think of comparisons when this chamber has got itself in hot water by meeting behind closed doors privately, by precluding the public from knowing what the Legislature was up to. There is an old axiom in this business that the proper way to proceed is to follow the old and simple rules: provide notice to people of what you intend to do; make your decision in public; and, finally, let everyone know what the decision was. Those rules are the basis for this bill. It is basically that kind of commonsense stuff.

10:10

Let me go to the downside of the bill, because I have had two letters from municipalities that have said this bill will cause them to spend some money. That is true. Let us not deny that. If they are going to notify the public, they are going to have to put ads in newspapers. That is going to cost a few dollars, depending on how expensive advertising is in their area. If they are going to hold public hearings, that too will cost money; no question about that. If they are going to provide to the public written copies of bylaws or planning documents, for example, that is going to cause some expense.

Some municipalities have said this is a nice idea and they would like to do it but it costs money and seems unnecessary. Let me simply try to address that question in this way. To me, it is a simple choice of whether the public's money should be spent in notifying the public of the council's activities, in notifying them that a bylaw is about to be presented; a little bit of money would be spent in providing for a public hearing and in providing written documentation of what was the business of the council.

That is true and undeniable, but I ask that to be weighed against the current practice, where those things are not done. It is becoming more and more common that people out there are going through the courts. To defend themselves, sometimes against some rather unconscionable transactions, municipal councils are having to get their lawyers and go to court to respond.

That is the price to pay for not providing proper notice. In the litigation I have followed, it is virtually true all the time that if a council made its decision in private and did not notify the public, that is generally held to be reasonable grounds to throw out the decision of the council in most of our court decisions now. The courts are now saying to councils, "You must conduct your public business in public, you must provide proper notice, and you must provide the public out there with proper documentation of what you have done."

The choice is either to spend the money initially -- in this case, minimal amounts of money -- to provide proper notice and proper documentation to the public at large or to spend much larger amounts of money in litigation in the courts afterwards to try to defend the actions of the council. Almost inevitably now the result is going to be that if that has been done privately, the actions will be overturned by the courts.

There is a slight cost factor involved for most of our municipalities in adopting this bill. For some of them -- for example, in rural Ontario -- the costs will be very minimal, simply because the cost of putting an ad in a weekly newspaper in most of rural Ontario is not great. The cost for providing information will be not particularly great. Most of our municipalities have adopted this practice, but there is nothing in the Municipal Act that requires them to do so, and unfortunately a few of them take advantage of that.

That is the gist of the bill. It is a rather straightforward, commonsense approach to providing an answer to a problem that already exists. The courts are getting clogged up with citizens taking municipalities to court over the way they made decisions, and more and more decisions by municipalities are being overturned.

If we give it a couple more decades, history will show we are going to have to do this anyway. Whether or not members like this approach, whether or not they want to put this into law today, sooner or later the courts are going to make us. Just by virtue of the demand of the legal system, the courts will demand that municipalities do all these things: that they do it publicly, provide proper notice and write the proper documentation for their actions.

That is the straightforward proposal in Bill 16. I believe it is supportable. I do not think it is going to cause a major problem for anyone, but it does address a recurring and vexing situation in many of our municipalities.

Let me close this part of my remarks with one simple comparison. I know of a municipality that had a proposal from the private sector to provide a disposal system for hospital waste. One municipality took that proposal through a public process. It identified the proposal to the public, it held a series of public hearings and it made its decision in public. Now that decision is one with which one can argue about the merits of the particular case, but one cannot get off on a technicality that they did not say what they were going to do.

I know of another municipality in Ontario that took the same proposal virtually from the same company and made its decision in private. It did not notify the public that this kind of proposal was before the council, but simply passed the bylaw allowing that proposal to be implemented. That municipality now is going to be faced without question with a long and expensive litigation process by citizens who demanded the right to know what their municipality was doing. Whether it was a good decision or a bad decision, the practical reality is that the decision will not be made until the courts deal with the matter.

In my view, it would be far better for the municipalities to take the first option, namely, notify the public, provide the documentation, provide the place for public hearings and then make its public decision. Then if one wants to argue with whether it is a good idea or a bad idea, one is not off on a side street arguing about whether they did this as a private deal or not.

Basically, that is what Bill 16 would do. It would say to every municipality in Ontario that it now has a legal obligation under the Municipal Act to conduct the public's business in public and to provide the public with enough notice and enough information about its decision-making process that they can be participants.

I hope members find that an acceptable proposition and will support this bill. I will await with great interest their comments on it. I believe I have about six minutes and 44 seconds left.

Mr. Callahan: It gives me great pleasure to speak with reference to this bill. I understand the intent and purpose of my colleague in putting it forward. One of the difficulties I have is that the bill itself, in my humble opinion, could result in a massive amount of additional work for the people involved in the infrastructure of the various councils and local boards, as defined by the Municipal Affairs Act. The Municipal Affairs Act defines a large number of bodies; each one of these, if this bill were passed, would be governed by that code.

There is no question that government behind closed doors is really no government at all. Open government is the aim of every fair-minded person, and it has certainly been the step that has been taken with reference to the introduction of this government. I think we should emulate that throughout the entire province.

It has been my understanding, and I think the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) acknowledges this, that for the main most municipalities do conduct their affairs out in the open. There are times when they go in camera; that is usually done on the basis of a flexible arrangement when they feel they are dealing with a sensitive issue, be it personnel or real property or something that might be damaging to the city in terms of prior information getting out so that someone could take advantage of it financially.

In my council in Brampton, I have found that we have been very sensitive to that issue. In fact, I cannot recall any occasion where one of the council members did not actually challenge the validity on certain occasions when we did go in camera. Then we would have a great discussion in camera about whether we should be in camera.

I have to disagree with the member for Oshawa in this respect, that although the Municipal Act -- I have not checked this out and I take his word for it, as he is a thorough gentleman -- does not provide for meetings being held in the open or out in the public eye. It is a principle of the law which has been with us since time immemorial that natural justice requires that proceedings be conducted in a fair, open and impartial way. I would suggest that if it were not so, or if proceedings were carried out in an inappropriate fashion, they would certainly be subject to judicial review.

I would like to go to the bill itself. As I say, I understand the principle the member is trying to bring forward. It is somewhat in line with his previous requests and wishes that we revise a lot of the proceedings in the House, and it is not out of context with the way he has acted and thought before.

10:20

If we look at the bill itself, subsection 55(1) says that all meetings "shall be open to the public and no person shall be excluded therefrom except for improper conduct." A whole host of problems arise. What is improper conduct and who makes the decision as to what is improper?

It may well be that on a particular evening, when the head of a local body or council may have got up on the wrong side of the bed, he may very well make a decision based on the way he felt, or perhaps the way he felt about the people appearing before him. With respect, I suggest that without there being some very clear definition of improper conduct, I, as a citizen and a ratepayer of the community, would be very concerned about being hauled out of a meeting or disallowed from attending a meeting without knowing what the yardstick is.

In addition, subsection 55(2) says, "The head or other presiding officer may expel or exclude...." I am not sure what the difference is between expelling and excluding. Is expelling when the Sergeant at Arms throws someone out of the chamber or is exclusion when one is named and told to leave the chamber? I know I am nitpicking and I do not mean to be, but this is a very significant piece of legislation. If it does go through, a lot of these issues could create very many more problems for us in terms of litigation than we have at present.

I go on to subsection 55(3), which is mandatory. It says, "Notice of a meeting mentioned in subsection (1) shall be published not less than three days before the date of the meeting." Mr. Speaker, you will note that there are a number of items that have to be published. Clause (

c) is "a list of the items to be discussed." This is analogous to a company meeting being called for specific reasons.

What if the notice that goes out does not contain certain items of importance that are to be discussed? Does that mean the council cannot discuss them? In some respects, it might shorten council meetings if one knew definitively beforehand what was going to be discussed. It might preclude a common practice among all councils that additions come in at the last minute and nobody understands what they are. In that respect, I agree it would be a good idea, but I can see a host of problems that would arise.

Subsection 55(4) says if a report is prepared in connection with the matter, copies of the report must be available for inspection by the public at least three days before the date of the meeting. What happens if a report is available on the night of the meeting? Does that mean it cannot be considered? Because it has not been made available to the public, does that mean it cannot be considered?

I note there is a caveat that it does not apply to special meetings, but there are also requirements under the Municipal Act for the calling of special meetings, time limits and so on, that may be governed either by that legislation or by the specific rules of the council.

In my area, we have had television coverage for a considerable time. Television is probably by far the best watchdog on the actions of elected representatives. I suggest with some trepidation it is even better than the press, because very often the press send to the meetings the least experienced reporters, who may not be quite as zeroed in on reporting of the municipal proceedings. In addition, because of the lack of space in newspapers, it becomes difficult for the full text, or perhaps the most pertinent text, to be put in the papers.

Television is the modern way of ensuring that everybody is playing properly. We have all seen what an excellent tool it is in deciding whether it was a ball or a strike, whether there was a tie in favour of the runner or whether the umpire called the right play. The same thing exists, and probably more significantly, in the question of conduct of proceedings by local boards, municipalities and so on.

There are other concerns I have with the bill. Subsection 55(6) says, "On the authority of a majority of the members present, expressed by resolution in writing, a meeting mentioned in subsection (1) may be closed if and for so long as it relates to a matter mentioned in subsection 78(1b)."

Subsection 78(1b) of the Municipal Act is far broader than the provisions set out in subsection 2(1b) of the bill. It means that one would have difficulty understanding the rules and how a meeting might be closed. For that reason I have some grave concern.

As I said, I appreciate what my friend is trying to do. Certainly, it is the endeavour and the goal of every one of us as legislators and also as free citizens in a free society to be assured that the conduct of proceedings is fair and in accordance with natural justice.

I suppose the final, ultimate tool of the public, if they are not satisfied that we are conducting ourselves in a safe, fair fashion, is their vote. That is particularly true in municipal matters. If the electorate were more involved and more devoted to getting out to vote on election day so that there were turnouts at municipal elections in excess of what is normally the number, some 12 or 13 per cent, the public would be best protected by their vote. It is important that we, as legislators, the press and all other types of media bring to their attention the importance of that very significant right.

Mr. Partington: I wish to indicate my support for the spirit of the bill as brought by the member for Oshawa.

The thrust of the bill is to ensure that the public has access not only to council meetings, as is currently provided under the Municipal Act, but also committee meetings of councils and local boards. Furthermore, the legislation is designed to provide the public with access to reports and records which are usually prepared by municipal staff in connection with items to be discussed at council or committee meetings.

There is no denying that these measures, along with the requirement that there be proper notice of the meeting, are capable of fostering two key components upon which the democratic systems of government rely. Clearly, these two democratic principles -- open decision-making and full and complete public debate -- would be assured on a province-wide basis under the thrust of the proposed bill. Another benefit that this bill seems to be addressing is the establishment on a province-wide basis of a code of conduct.

Although such uniformity across the province will provide our mobile citizenry with a measure of consistency in municipal rules and regulations, this bill might limit -- and this may be the criticism of it -- the flexibility required to meet the local needs and circumstances of our municipalities.

In this regard, my colleague the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) will be speaking about the specific problems based on smaller rural communities in Ontario and the inability of this legislation to address their particular needs.

It is also important to mention that ensuring openness and access to government decisions at any level requires an attitudinal change, not merely a legislative one. Even with these amendments in place, a municipal council through creative resolutions could call for special meetings or deem an item under discussion to fall within the exceptions outlined in the act.

This in turn raises the question of how these provisions would be enforced. This is not to suggest that freedom of information or procedures rules are not required at the municipal level. There is clear evidence that they are needed.

One must only look at the activities in the town of Vaughan recently to see just how desperately these type of rules are required. In Vaughan, the town council had a series of in camera meetings that culminated in council's decision by a slim three to two majority, against recommendations of town staff, to sell 15 acres of town-owned land to two companies at a price which was considered below market value.

It was only through the public outcry that arose that council agreed to reconsider the decision and insert a clause in the agreement of sale requiring the price to reflect the results of an independent appraisal. This matter remains up in the air as local ratepayers have requested the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) to initiate an inquiry into this matter. I urge the minister to accede to this request.

10:30

To ensure that events such as this do not occur in other municipalities, rather than this legislation, which establishes province-wide rules which may or may not be suitable for all of the municipalities, consideration should be given to legislation that will require all municipalities to pass procedural bylaws which at best meet certain minimum standards in the areas of freedom of information and open meetings. Such a step would still allow some degree of flexibility, so that each bylaw could meet local needs and circumstances.

Furthermore, it would appear that the majority of our municipalities, and almost all of our larger municipalities, as the member for Oshawa has indicated, already have bylaws of this nature in place, making inflexible province-wide legislation redundant.

Our elected municipal officials must be allowed to be masters in their own house. After all, they are ultimately responsible to their electorate through the ballot box. Accordingly, it should be the municipalities themselves which determine what would be appropriate rules and regulations governing their decision-making process. Thus, although I support the spirit and the thrust of the bill and the manner in which it was presented by the member for Oshawa, I cannot support the methods being taken to address the issue.

Mr. Warner: I do appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on this bill. Following what has transpired the past two days in this House with respect to a community in the north, it is not a surprise that the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) appears very negative on the bill presented by my colleague. Apparently, the new Liberal government does not have quite as much interest in expanding the democratic process as we have in this party. A little community in northern Ontario wanted to follow the democratic process and have an election. This government does not think elections are such a terrific idea and it would rather appoint people than hold an election.

Mr. Martel: Except in Cochrane North.

Mr. Warner: Other than Cochrane North where they have elections quite regularly.

I do not know how anyone could deny that it is a good democratic principle to have open meetings of people who are elected locally to represent the people in the area. Why should the meetings not be public? Why should they not be open? Why should there not be minutes kept of those meetings?

All of us are well aware of the history of some of the municipal councils. If we go back a way to reflect on my area, it was known that in Scarborough at one time meetings were held in secret and some very important decisions and, in particular, some really interesting land deals were consummated behind closed doors. No minutes were kept, and one could never really trace the culprits. Fortunately, as far as council meetings are concerned, those days are gone. Minutes are kept of all actual council meetings, but not for the committee meetings. I think that is a flaw. There is a weakness there.

Surely it does not make any difference whether it is at the municipal, provincial or federal level; the idea is that if one has elected people to represent them, then those who are elected have a certain responsibility to the public. They have a responsibility to stand up for their actions, to be accountable for their actions and to be accountable for their words. In municipal councils, they do not have Hansard the way we have here. When we speak, everything we say is recorded and we are responsible for what we have said. Anyone can throw those words back at us. That is proper and that is the way it should be. If I make intemperate remarks, I may pay a price for it. All remarks are recorded.

Until relatively recently, municipal councils had the luxury of being able not only to say what they liked without anyone knowing, but also to make decisions without anyone knowing. Municipal councils handle important issues and a lot of money. It seems to me that along with the province's provision of more and more responsibilities to the municipalities comes an onus to hold meetings in public and to keep records. Procedures are needed.

To answer some of the questions of my colleague the member for Brock (Mr. Partington), it may be a good idea to obligate the municipalities to set up a certain set of rules, rather than spell them out here.

My colleague the member for Oshawa has presented us with legislation that is needed. When it goes to committee, we can hear the representations from various municipalities about what changes, if any, they would like to see and what changes other members in the House would like to see. Perhaps it will be the collective wisdom that we should simply obligate the municipalities to set up certain rules of conduct, or however one wants to describe that, or it may be our wisdom that we should prescribe the rules.

To a certain extent, it may not make a whole lot of difference. I suggest we pass this bill, so it can go to committee and receive further input and debate. I hope no one in this chamber would deny that the principle espoused in this bill is a good, sound democratic one. It is one that should be supported.

If anything, I do not think the bill goes far enough in describing some of the changes that are required in the way the municipalities function. Perhaps it was not possible to include them all in this bill. When I think of some of the things that to me are still wrong with the municipal system, I think of things such as people being able to collect money to run for public office and not having to disclose where the money came from or how it was spent.

We know that with municipalities, especially the ones with which I am familiar in the outlying districts of Metropolitan Toronto, the number one item seems to be the allocation and development of land. The municipalities are very close to that. There is a lot of high-powered economic interest involved. As a citizen, I want to know where the money came from for the person who was elected in my area. We in the Legislature have to disclose our sources of election funds and we have to account for the money that is spent; municipal people do not have to do that. To me, this is a flaw, a weakness. In my book, everything we can do to help democratize the municipal system is a good move.

I urge members to pass this bill today and allow it to be worked on in committee to strengthen it and make sure it is something all the municipalities will adhere to and something we can be very proud of. We will have taken another step in strengthening the democratic system in which all of us believe so strongly.

10:40

Mr. Reycraft: I congratulate the member for Oshawa for bringing Bill 16 before the Legislature. Regardless of the outcome of this morning's debate and vote, I am sure there will be a certain amount of media attention that will result from it. I am sure the member will make sure this attention is received. That attention by the media will be helpful because it will result in two things. The first is a broadening of the public's knowledge of its right of access, the maximum access possible to municipal council meetings and to the various pieces of information that are in the possession of a municipal council.

It will also, I am sure, broaden the awareness of municipal councils of their responsibility to provide the maximum access possible.

Like the member for Oshawa, I too have spent a number of years in municipal government. Because of that, I have a very keen interest in the municipalities across this province, their councils, governments and the legislation and regulations that govern them. Therefore, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill 16 today.

Bill 16 addresses a very important issue. As the member for Oshawa has stated, or at least implied, whenever a political issue at any level of government is withheld, whenever a government, whether it be provincial, federal or municipal, tries to shroud an issue in secrecy, it tends to stimulate a lot of things that are not helpful and a lot of things that are undesirable. It stimulates distrust, hostility, confrontation and suspicion, a lot of things which that particular government would do better to avoid. When a government, at whatever level, does that repeatedly, it finds itself in a situation of facing repeated, even continuous, confrontation with its electorate.

When it tries to shield itself from that electorate, it deprives citizens of their right to view the decision-making process. When it does not allow them to see documents or correspondence, not only are the citizens deprived of their democratic rights, but the council deprives itself of an opportunity to enjoy a positive, harmonious, co-operative working relationship with the people who put it in office. When that happens at the municipal level, the level of government that is closest to its electorate is unable to function as it should, and the system breaks down.

Bill 16, in my view, is a commendable attempt to prevent that from happening. It tries to achieve a greater degree of openness in the way in which municipal councils, committees, boards, commissions and authorities go about their business. There is a need in many municipalities to reduce the number of closed meetings and to reduce the amount of business that goes on behind closed doors. There is a need to make it easier for people to see documents and correspondence. We all know of examples -- we have heard of some this morning -- where the public's right of reasonable access to meetings and information has been and still is unduly restricted.

However, while the bill's objective, to provide more open municipal government, is a good one, and while there is a need to reduce that degree of secrecy in some municipal jurisdictions, the bill as it is drafted will not achieve that. Instead, I suggest, it will only increase the cost of municipal government in all jurisdictions, and it will fail to provide more openness in those where it is needed. I suggest -- I am sure it is inadvertent -- the bill will result in an increase in the number of closed meetings in almost every municipality in this province.

The bill would require councils, committees, boards, etc., to publish at least three days before every meeting, not only notice of the meeting but the agenda as well. It also provides, except in certain specified matters on which the council or the committee may vote to go in camera, that those meetings shall be open to the public.

Subsection 55(5) of the bill exempts special meetings called under subsection 78(1) of the existing Municipal Act from both the publication and the open meeting requirements. The bill does not define "published," but I assume it holds the same meaning as it does in other sections of the Municipal Act. If that is the case, then municipal councils that are served by weekly newspapers are going to have to set their agendas for council and committee meetings several days before the meetings.

To illustrate that problem, let me use the example of Glencoe, where I was a member of the municipal council for 15 years, including five as reeve. The Glencoe council is a very fine group of people. I say that in complete objectivity, even though one of the members of that council happens to be my father.

The council meets on the first and third Mondays of every month. The standing committees of the council meet on the second and fourth Mondays. The weekly newspaper, the Glencoe-Alvinston Transcript and Free Press, is published every Wednesday. To meet the newspaper's deadline, the agenda is going to have to be submitted on the Monday before the meeting, one week prior. Recommendations from the committee meeting that take place on the evening of that deadline date, the submission date, will have to wait until the following council meeting, which could be as long as four weeks away.

The three-day publication notice is simply not a practical requirement for municipalities. It is also not in the best interests of the public. Matters that require attention in municipalities often do not arise until just prior to a meeting. In fact, sometimes they do not occur until the meeting itself, when delegations make council aware of particular concerns. In those cases, the matter would have to be tabled until the next meeting or until a special meeting could be held. According to subsection 55(5) of Bill 16, the public would not be guaranteed access until that kind of meeting could be called.

It has always been my view that one of the greatest attributes of municipal government is the ability of a municipal council to respond quickly to the interests and concerns of its citizens. In attempting to correct one problem, Bill 16 will create a larger one by diminishing that ability.

The alternative to delaying a decision would be to use subsection 57(2) of the existing act and deal at a special meeting of council with the matters a council deemed urgent. I have already mentioned that subsection 55(5) of the bill allows those meetings to be held in camera, to be closed to the public. I suggest that municipal councils, instead of deferring action, because they are people who want to respond to the needs of their electorate, will take the latter alternative and will end up with a proliferation of special meetings, many of which the public will be unaware of.

Another problem with the published notices is the cost. The publishing of a notice of meeting for every meeting of council, every board meeting and every committee meeting is going to be very expensive for municipalities served by a large number of newspapers. In Middlesex county, for example, there are six weekly newspapers. The county council has nine standing committees, plus five other committees that are joint with the city of London. The council and all those committees meet at least monthly and sometimes more often. The bill would require the council to publish at least 84 notices every month.

The city of Thunder Bay has written to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) to express its concern about the cost of Bill 16. Perhaps the member for Oshawa has received a copy of that correspondence. They have suggested that the cost of advertising as a result of the bill might be as high as $88,000 a year.

There are other aspects of Bill 16 with which I am concerned, but in conclusion I want to state again that I support the objective of providing maximum public access to municipal meetings and to the documents in possession of those councils. We will not achieve that through legislation. We are going to achieve that only through continued interaction and co-operation between democratically elected councils and the electorate that put them in office.

10:50

Mr. J. M. Johnson: How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Five minutes.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. While I do support the thrust of the bill, I have a great many reservations about it. The member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft) mentioned many of the concerns that I too want to express, and the member for Brock (Mr. Partington) as well.

To start with, I have to take exception to the explanatory note presented by the member for Oshawa, which reads, "Under the present law, the public is not permitted to attend committee meetings of municipal councils or local boards." I have checked with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and I find this to be inaccurate. They may attend if council so wishes, but they are not denied the right to attend.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the member has given some wrong advice here. The public do not have a legal right to attend a committee meeting of a council. They may attend at the council's pleasure, but they have no legal right to be there, and that should be clear.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: This highlights one of the concerns I have with the legislation that is drafted. It is not totally clear. It is going to be hard to determine how one is going to solve the problems related to the different

interpretations that can be drawn from it.

For example, there is a clause which states that notice has to be given three days prior to a meeting. If a council inadvertently does not give three days' notice -- if it gives only two days' notice -- what is the penalty it pays if it has proceeded with a project, such as building an arena? Can a citizen come along at some point and say he was denied the proper three days' notice, and the project is not legal? Who is going to place it? How are we going to set penalties, and what will the penalties be? These are all implications that will arise out of this.

One is highlighted by the fact that my understanding of the explanatory notes is not the same as that of the member for Oshawa. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs does not think the same way. These are all problems that relate to this type of legislation.

I have the honour to represent 21 local municipalities; each has its own local council. In the 11 years I have been at Queen's Park, I cannot recall more than two or three complaints regarding the issue we have in front of us today. My councils operate in a very open and acceptable fashion; they provide all the information the voters request. I have always felt we should leave local autonomy with the local municipalities. If they do not serve the public well, they will answer for it at the next election. That is what the democratic process is all about.

To me, Bill 16 is just another layer of bureaucratic red tape to smother further the local autonomy of our municipal councils. While the intention of the member for Oshawa is good, the same results could be achieved by encouraging municipalities to accept a procedural bylaw that would bring about some type of similar information process without the heavy-handed, bureaucratic red tape that goes with this legislation.

I have had the opportunity to serve on municipal councils, as have several other members, and in my experience of 10 years on council I do not recall an occasion on which the press or the public were upset because they did not have the opportunity to receive all the information that was necessary. The way most councils operate in committee is that when they report out of committee, they go to council, it becomes public information and all the citizens are made aware of the activities carried on in committee, with the exception of some matters that are of a personal nature, such as police or maybe an industrial expansion project.

I urge the members of this House not to support this legislation, for the reason that it will create more problems for the municipal councils, not fewer. Of the three levels of government -- federal, provincial and municipal -- the municipal government is far more open than the other two levels. If the member wishes to address some problems, he can take a look at Queen's Park and cut out some of the red tape here. That would be much more effective.

Mr. Breaugh: I must say I am somewhat surprised and a little taken aback by the rather classic positions put by the parties. I had hoped we would have a discussion of the bill in principle, which is theoretically what we do on second reading, but we have not had that. I had hoped we would send the bill to committee, provide the public with notice, receive deputations from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and individual municipalities, work out

definitions and regulations, do a clause-by-clause analysis and address some of the problems. Apparently, that is not going to happen.

I had hoped that in this process today we would have learned some lessons. My friends from the 14th century over there to the right maintain the position that the public does not have a right to know what is going on in its municipalities. They maintain the position that while people in urban areas have legal rights to attend council meetings because the council gives it to them, in rural areas people should not have these rights.

What a ludicrous notion that they would extend that double standard into this century. It is absolutely nonsensical to say that because a council must tell us what it is going to do, this is some attack by the Red Menace. From the people who brought us bureaucracy in Ontario, we continue to get lectures about bureaucracy. No party in the western world knows more about establishing red tape, bureaucracy and stupidity in government than the Tories in Ontario. They continue to lecture the rest of the world about their own sins. I would have thought they might have learned a lesson.

I want to address my friends across the aisle, because I thought there would be fertile ground there; it is a group in the Legislature that might have learned some lessons about improper behaviour this summer. I would have thought there would have been no questions from the Liberal side about improper behaviour after the summer we have had. I would have thought the classic Liberal position put by the member for Brampton, that one cannot define "improper behaviour" and that a Liberal does not know what is proper and what is improper, would have been resolved by the deliberations around here through the course of the summer. Apparently, it has not been.

Furthermore, I had thought that this week of all weeks, they as a government would have learned that it is a smart idea to announce their intentions around such things as the retirement package for the retired Clerk, that they would have learned the lesson that if they had notified somebody about what they intended to do in that matter and had allowed the members of the assembly to discuss that matter before they made the decision and that if they had done it in public, they might not be boiling in oil this morning.

I would have thought the Liberals, of all the 125 people here, would have said: "Boy, we learned some lessons over the course of the summer. We learned some lessons about proper behaviour, about proper notice and about striking deals in secret. We will not be vulnerable to this kind of attack any more." I would have thought they would have learned that governments, big, small, municipal, provincial and federal, finally should learn that the public has a right to know what they are doing.

Never mind the stupid arguments about whether it will cost $88,000 to notify the public. The notification provision is that the clerk of the council post a public notice; it costs a thumbtack and a piece of paper. If it wants to spend $88,000, it can; and if it wants to spend $2 million, it can. They have demonstrated that. However, the publication provision is that the public has a right to inspect the records. It does not call for what my friends to the right did for years. Every time they wanted to bless themselves, they announced a $4-million public relations program to ensure that everybody saw it. That is not the requirement.

The requirement is simply that the right is there for the public to see what is being done. They have an obligation to give some notice of that. They do not have to put it in the newspaper, put it on radio or television or hire an advertising firm; that is not the requirement. Tell what is being done. Write it down on a piece of paper and stick it up in a town hall. That is the requirement. That is not a major expense.

Sadly, what I had hoped for appears unlikely to happen. The public across Ontario in big cities and small towns will not have the right to know what its councils are doing. It is not going to be a major problem every day, but it is going to continue to be a problem. By turning their backs on this kind of legislation, they invite litigation to continue. Lawyers will get richer and richer. More citizens and citizens' groups will sue their councils for the decisions they made in private, for withholding information from them.

11:00

That is what this group over here from the 14th century wants. They seem quite content with that, even though they got into hot water with it from time to time; and the new group over there has learned nothing from this summer. They have learned nothing from the beginning of this fall. They have not learned yet that in this day and age, no government at any level can cut deals in secret. It will not get away from it; that will not happen any more. This is not of that age at all and they cannot hide behind silly arguments about bureaucracy and costs for advertising.

The public knows better than that. It knows what it wants is not an ad campaign. It wants the right to see these documents and it will get that right one way or the other. They are forcing people to go to court and I am warning them, they will go to courts and it will cost a good deal more than $88,000.

The agony and the irritants that will exist between the councils and the citizens' groups will get more and more serious, because the problems the councils are facing are more and more serious. They have to do with major problems such as dump sites, hospital waste and things of that nature and the public is not going to let them ride any more.

This morning, they may deny the public the legal right to know what its council is doing, to find out what the documents say and on what basis a council made a decision. They will not be able to take away people's legal right to go to court and tie up those decisions. I say this morning, that is precisely what people are going to do. If they choose not to give people that right in law, people will go to the courts and tie up those decisions anyway, and it will not be cheap.

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Poirier moved second reading of Bill 91,

An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act.

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

Mr. Poirier: In the past 20 years, major medical advances have occurred in the field of organ transplantation. With the use of advanced surgical techniques and immunosuppressive drugs, it has become possible to transplant all major organs, excluding the brain.

Current success rates for cornea transplants, kidney transplants and liver and heart transplants average approximately 90 per cent, 80 per cent and 70 per cent respectively. These successes have brought new hope to thousands of people. In Ontario alone, 229 transplants were performed in 1985.

However, medical advances have outpaced the supply of organs and the lists of patients waiting for transplants are growing. In Ontario, there are currently an estimated 320 persons waiting for kidney transplants, 100 waiting for cornea transplants, 10 waiting for hearts and lungs and nine waiting for liver transplants.

The waiting period varies with organ size and blood-type requirements, of course. The average wait for a kidney transplant in Ontario is one and a half to two years. For some persons, time runs out before a suitable organ is donated. An estimated 50 to 60 per cent of people waiting for organs die before a suitable organ becomes available. A recent tragic example is 17-month-old Melissa Mendoza, who died on October 6 while waiting in vain for a liver transplant.

In desperation, some parents and medical staff have launched public appeals through the media in search of suitable donors. For some individuals, such as Gabriel Bruce, the appeals are successful, while for others, such as Melissa, they are not.

The willingness of people to donate organs in the event of death has been identified in numerous opinion polls across Canada and in the United States. In 1984, a poll conducted for the Ontario Task Force on Kidney Donations found that 88 per cent of the respondents would donate the kidneys of a deceased relative, while 63 per cent would donate their own. A recent Gallup poll in the US found that 70 per cent of the respondents were very likely to donate the organs of their next of kin.

One means of encouraging donations is the organ donor card attached to the Ontario driver's licence. However, a recent survey in the province found that only 28 per cent of those who had heard of the donor card had signed it, despite the fact that many more indicated a willingness to become potential donors.

It has also been found that licence declaration is rarely a factor in donations, as emergency personnel are preoccupied with duties other than looking for a donor card. Drivers' licences and the attached donor cards are also generally in the possession of persons other than a hospital patient's nurse and doctor.

Finally, persons without a driver's licence have no opportunity to sign the attached donor card or to indicate their wishes. This is particularly significant for children whose post-mortem organs are in great demand.

Studies in the United States and Canada have found that a major obstacle to procuring organs is the difficulty encountered by medical personnel to identify potential donors and to discuss organ donation with the affected family. The difficulty of broaching the subject is a major contributing factor. Increased attention has been given to encouraging hospital personnel to approach families of potential donors and to establish in-hospital organ donation support systems. However, the stress and pressure placed on the next of kin to make a prompt decision on behalf of another person in a time of intense grief is significant.

In 1985, the donation process subcommittee of the Ontario Ministry of Health's Task Force on Kidney Donations proposed that a system be developed to record an individual's intention to donate organs at the time of death. It stated that this could be accomplished by forming a central registry. The aforementioned Task Force on Kidney Donations recommended that research be conducted into the best means of recording post-mortem donations and wishes of individuals, including the establishment of a central registry.

The Human Tissue Gift Amendment Act provides for the establishment of such a registry with the Ministry of Health in which confidential records of consent and objections to voluntary post-mortem organ donations of a person insured under the Health Insurance Act are maintained. In addition, the act provides that where an objection to a donation has been recorded, this wish is paramount over the opinions of the next of kin.

It is apparent that the public of Ontario supports the concept of a central registry. A survey conducted in 1984 for the Ontario Task Force on Kidney Donations found that both donors and nondonors felt strongly that a central donor identification system should be in place. Approximately 68 per cent supported the establishment of a registry where those who have signed a donor card would be listed.

There are many advantages to a central registry. A central registry would provide medical personnel with full knowledge of an individual's wishes. This supports hospital policies of routine requests by identifying potential donors before they are in a critical state or are deceased. A central recorded consent or objection would facilitate the physician's task of approaching next of kin by being able to inform them of the patient's wishes. If next of kin are approached regarding possible donations, the stress of this immediate decision would be reduced by previous indications of the patient's wishes regarding organ donation.

In the absence of a central registry, it is unlikely that appropriate information would be available to assist the next of kin in making the decision. If the next of kin could not be reached in time, a record of consent would provide legal authority for organ donation. A central registry would provide a more co-ordinated and systematic approach to increasing organ donations than relying on ad hoc media publicity for specific individuals. A central registry would uniformly present persons with the options of organ donation and would encourage individuals to resolve the issue for themselves and their children.

I would like to talk about a specific example in Texas. The Living Bank is a nonprofit organization in Houston, Texas, which operates a national registry and referral service. The purpose of the registry is to help those persons who, upon death, wish to donate organs for transplantation, therapy, medical research or anatomical study. The primary objective of the organization, which was founded in 1968, is to educate the general public to donate organs. Registration forms and donor cards are sent out to interested persons. When returned, the information is placed in a central registry of potential donors for instant retrieval of data when needed.

At present, the Living Bank has more than 180,000 people registered and is growing by approximately 3,200 people per month. In 1985, the Living Bank handled approximately 400 calls that resulted in actual donations of one or more organs.

11:10

The cost of haemodialysis for kidney failure is $40,000 per patient per year in Ontario in 1984 dollars. In 1984, the Ministry of Health spent $61 million treating kidney failure patients. If the number of kidney donors doubled, it has been estimated that a cost saving of $800 million could be achieved over a 20-year period. If the number of donors tripled, which it is estimated will be required to meet the ever-increasing need, the cost saving over the same 20-year period has been estimated at $1.7 billion.

The quality of life is immeasurable. The lives of persons on dialysis are permanently disrupted by the requirements for frequent treatments on a dialysis machine. With the transplant, a return to normal life is made possible. I strongly believe the establishment of a central registry could help facilitate that. If you and I had a person dear to us who was requiring an organ transplant, Mr. Speaker, we would not look as closely at the cost as at the benefits to that person. With the quality-of-life issue in Ontario, we would support very strongly such a creation.

Évidemment, la création d'un registre central pourrait grandement aider à améliorer la condition de la vie en Ontario. Comme je le mentionnais tantôt en anglais, dans mon texte, le nombre de personnes qui attendent, justement pour avoir le droit de continuer à vivre, est très grand. On estime, à l'échelle du Canada, qu'il y a plus de 4,000 personnes qui sont en attente, au moment où je vous parle.

Donc, j'espère que les gens vont bien appuyer le projet de loi 91 parce que c'est très important pour tous les Canadiens, surtout pour les Ontariens, d'avoir en place un registre central pour faciliter et trouver les gens qui sont prêts à donner et les gens qui sont prêts à recevoir.

There may some objections to the registry. Some people in the medical profession suggest it is not necessary to register persons. They say it forces physicians to go through another step rather than dealing directly with the family of the deceased. What is one more step to save a life?

Very little, I think. The ability to keep a central registry up to date concerning the scope of potential donations, changes in decisions and family status, and to keep it operational 24 hours a day has been questioned. Of course it is a complex system. With close to 10 million Ontarians, it is quite a task to keep it up to date. However, if it is going to save one life in Ontario, it will be well worth it.

Doubt has been expressed that a central registry would increase supply. It has been suggested that most people do not want to have to make this decision. Failure to record consent may influence next of kin against donating a deceased relative's organs. The surveys we have talked about and the polls we have seen show the opposite. People are willing to make that decision and are willing to have a system where it will be easy and accessible and known.

Another point brought up was the cost of maintaining a central registry and it has been raised as an inhibiting factor. I do not think this argument is very valid today. If we are going to save peoples' lives, if we are going to permit them to live ordinary and normal lives, then in the long term we would save money. Even if we did not, even if it cost the same, a human life is a human life and there is no cost to that.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member wish to save the remainder of his time -- eight minutes, 40 seconds?

Mr. Poirier: Thank you.

Mrs. Marland: In rising to speak this morning on Bill 91, may I say at the outset that I am aware the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Poirier) has nothing but the most sincere intent in bringing this bill to the Legislature. However, the wording of the bill as presented will not at this time be able to accomplish the intent he would wish.

If I am correct in presuming that the member has brought this subject to the Legislature because he personally supports the concept of the donation of human tissue when possible, which is obvious from his comments a few moments ago, then may I say I wholly support the donation concept. There is no question of the need for this program. There is no question of the need for the donation of tissues and organs, but I feel the bill at the moment will not improve the current situation.

I do not want to be too negative. Bill 91 is important, not because it is the right solution but because it brings into focus a very important issue. The general public is not even aware of the endorsement on the driver's licence. That program of the endorsement on our driver's licences in Ontario was introduced by the Progressive Conservative government and was a far-reaching plan to resolve the problems this bill is trying to address.

When one looks at the three boxes that are available on the driver's licence, those of us who have signed that portion of our licence recognize that we can choose to have all or any tissues or organs donated in the event of our death. We can also specify organs and list them and we can also donate our entire bodies for medical education and research at a school of anatomy, but as we know from reports, very few people take

part in that program.

The press coverage for those people awaiting transplants and in search of compatible organs has heightened the general public's awareness for the need of organ donation and, as a member from the city of Mississauga, we have evidence of both a successful story in the case of Lindsay Eberhardt and the example of the tragic loss of Melissa Mendoza who was not able to be given the transplant procedure.

The unnecessary loss of life could be avoided if we all understood the issue better and if we, collectively, could overcome the barriers that keep us from consenting to save a life if we could and if we are ever in the position to make a decision for a member of our family.

At this point, I would like to tell members that when our own daughter died from a disease that would have left most of her organs in a condition where transplant would have been a very viable program, at that time, which is 26 years ago, we had some of these programs but, obviously, we did not have medical science to the degree that transplant surgery is at today.

Having gone through the emotion of the death of a child -- and the emotional aspects are referred to in the report of the Task Force on Kidney Donation which was presented in December 1985 -- that emotional aspect is one which can be helped by a bereaved family. I am speaking as a bereaved parent but I am sure as a bereaved member of any relationship within a family, if it was possible to do something at the end of that life that could help someone else, that gesture is one most of us would want to make.

There are other issues that come into focus at that time. A lot of people do not even know if it is right, even for religious reasons, to make a donation of an organ or a body tissue. Those questions could be answered through an elevated public awareness program so that people will not have to stop in that stress period to try to decide whether it would be a right thing. They would know it was a right thing and would be happy in making that decision.

11:20

The statistics on the number of patients waiting for organ transplants are staggering, as has been noted. There are several organizations that deal with the subject. We have one here in Ontario that has been in existence for 10 years. It is known as MORE, the Metro organ retrieval and exchange program. We also have Transplant International, which produces a newsletter that it sends to doctors, the media, schools, boards of education, community groups and health care professionals. It works at raising the consciousness of the public to make it an acceptable idea and to promote understanding of the need.

This is the avenue I feel we need to proceed along. Newsletters containing articles with family stories, medical stories, comments from transplant retrieval teams and letters from the members of the public are all avenues that could be pursued very successfully.

Unfortunately, I do not see Bill 91 as making any of those ideas a reality. I recognize that Bill 91 is not saying it is compulsory to make the donation commitment, but it is compulsory to make the decision -- you are going to make the decision whether you will donate or whether you reject the donation. There are only two instances when an organ may be donated in any case: after all life has ceased, with the consent of the family or of the people responsible for that deceased person; or after the donor is declared brain dead, again with the consent of the family or of the people responsible.

Unfortunately, most accident victims are not donor candidates, as the donor must arrive at the hospital alive.

That brings me to the other problem that Bill 91 does not address at the moment. It does not address the fact that many of our hospitals are just not geared to this program, particularly small hospitals in outlying areas of the province. Transplant International says it has found through its polling, which has been very extensive -- and it is referred to in the report of the Task Force on Kidney Donations -- that as soon as you make it compulsory for people to make a decision, they will make a negative decision against donation, and they make it at this point out of fear, out of ignorance, and are very apprehensive about the implications of making that decision ahead of time.

Dealing simply with kidney donations, the task force report says that 88 per cent of respondents will donate the organ of a loved one and 65 per cent will agree to donate their own organ, but only 23 per cent will sign their driver's licence, and that gets back to the advance commitment. By signing our driver's licence -- and I hope every member of this Legislature has become actively involved in the program -- we are making the commitment ahead of time.

I wholly support the concept of organ and tissue donations, but before we legislate to make it a compulsory decision ahead of time, either in the affirmative or in the negative, we have to grant the public a more major education program and involve the hospitals with the equipment to service and implement such a program.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, you have better eyesight than the previous Speaker who was occupying the chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. The member is to be congratulated for bringing in a very important piece of legislation, one that I will support.

I must tell members, however, that I am a little bit disappointed in the approach taken, because it is a rather timid step. Since the member obviously has an interest in pursuing this issue, he is probably aware of the organ donor program that operates in many of the western European countries. He will know it is very successful because they use a process that is the reverse of what we have. The organ donation is automatic unless one has signed an objection form. It seems to me that is the only sensible way to proceed.

We all recognize the importance of organ donation and organ transplant. We know it saves lives and we know it helps in a lot of very difficult and trying situations. I do not think anyone questions the value of the program. The question is how we make the program successful, how we make it work.

I suggest, based on the experience in many of the western European countries, the way to make it work is to make sure that the donation happens automatically, unless the individual has signed a card saying he objects to the program. I cannot recall the figures, but it seems to me they are in the neighbourhood of 85 per cent successful there, while we are in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent or 20 per cent successful. They have a much higher success rate in obtaining the organs that are required.

I have some concerns with respect to the bill itself. Obviously, in this era of modem technology and computers, it is advisable to have a central registry, but that registry will be brought into a system that is not yet ready to handle organ transplants on a universal basis. In other words, there are hospitals that lack the computer equipment at this stage to hook into a central registry. They are unable to share the information, especially in smaller communities. We are dealing with a system that has not developed to that stage.

I am not sure where the government intends to locate the central registry, but as a side note, not every good piece of equipment needs to be located in Metropolitan Toronto. There are many other centres around the province where the registry could be located. It might be very helpful to have it located in one of the northern communities, such as Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Thunder Bay or others. Wherever the central registry is located, there are many smaller communities that will be unable to hook into it. That is a project that needs to be looked at.

I am a little disturbed to see the three aspects -- therapeutic purpose, medical education and scientific research -- put together. I would like to see them separated. There may be many individuals in Ontario who are quite pleased to participate in the therapeutic purpose but who may not be as inclined to be receptive to a request for scientific research. In order to cover those individual concerns, perhaps it makes sense to separate each of those three distinct purposes and deal with them individually.

The other major flaw I see is that even when we pass this bill, we will still be relying on the present system for donors. I understand the major number of donors come via the driver's licence. Because that is so, we automatically exclude people who are not drivers, particularly those under the age of 16 and those who are adults and who are nondrivers.

11:30

We do not have a good enough system for securing donors and we are going to continue that system. Unfortunately, the bill does not address how one improves the system. With respect, I suggest that in the long run the only way we are going to improve the system is by reversing the process. That is something with which the member has not come to grips. If he is prepared to look at that, then it is going to require major revisions to the bill.

As I stated with the previous bill that was before the House this morning, I am urging members to pass this bill and get it off to committee where we can take a look at not only the concerns I have raised but also some of the others.

First and foremost, the principal issue to address is whether we can get past the timidity that some members have and deal with the issue of reversing the onus so that the donation will be automatic unless an individual registers an objection.

If we are prepared as members to deal with that question, then we will make a giant step forward in promoting what I am sure all of us -- at least in this chamber -- recognize as being an extremely important program and one which does genuinely save lives. It is an advance for us as a society.

In closing, I wish to commend the member on his efforts, because he has brought a very important issue to the attention of the House. If members are inclined to support this bill then perhaps when it gets off to committee, we can make it an even stronger and better bill than it is now.

Mr. Offer: I am pleased to rise in support of this amendment and to commend the member for Prescott-Russell on bringing this matter to this House.

The amendment being proposed provides a register containing the names and health insurance numbers of all insured persons as defined in the Health Insurance Act. In addition, this register shall record the consent or objection of persons to the use after death of their body or of a part or parts of their body for therapeutic purposes, medical education or scientific research.

This amendment before us indicates that these consents or objections shall be stored electronically or on a magnetic medium so as to be capable of expeditious retrieval by name or health insurance number.

Finally, the amendment indicates that the register shall be confidential to all but the person giving consent or objection, or a physician who bona fide requires this information for transplant purposes, or an employee of the Minister of Health whose duties require access to the record.

The passage of this amendment shall promote access to potential donors in a quick, efficient and effective manner. We know how important that information is. To explain properly how important it is, I think it necessary to devote a few moments to the history and evolution of transplantation.

Over 36 years ago, doctors achieved a drug therapy breakthrough that gave kidney transplant recipients a 50-50 chance of survival for at least one year. Among many doctors, hopes ran high that the body's natural tendency to reject foreign tissue would soon be brought under control, but what worked for kidney transplant patients never worked well for those receiving other organs.

Indeed, the problem of tissue rejection presented a barrier to the physician's dream of routine organ transplants.

However, with the dedication and commitment of many people to untold days, hours and years of work, the problem of tissue rejection has diminished. The advent of new drugs, new surgical procedures and better and more precise technology enables greater success for a greater number of people requiring transplants.

However, as transplants of kidneys progressed to heart, pancreas, corneas and lungs and as the success of each transplant increased, so there grew an ever-increasing shortage of organs for transplant purposes. The grim reality of this shortage is that people of all ages die each year awaiting life-giving organs.

When discussing or debating the matter at hand, I believe it is impossible to divorce oneself from that which we see on television, read in the newspaper or hear on the radio. Who among us has never heard the grief-stricken pleas of a father and mother publicly asking for a liver or kidney for their infant child? Who can say he has not been moved? Who of us with children of whatever age have not silently thought of what he would do, how he would cope to give his child a chance at life?

It is incumbent upon all of us to realize that it is not only children who require transplants. By and large, we never hear of the plight of those of middle or senior years. In this age category, they are never given the chance that transplantation holds and their circumstances go largely publicly unnoticed.

Deaths of this nature are more than tragic, because we have the technological wherewithal, the medical expertise and scientific knowledge to prevent them by transplantation, but we do not have the donors of the life-giving organs. As I have previously mentioned, this amendment will go far in meeting that shortage.

I imagine the question is how. How will a register for transplant donors help alleviate the problem of shortage? I suggest it will in two ways.

First, it will provide a central repository for information about potential donors. Quickly and sensitively, one will be able to determine whether a potential donor has given his or her consent. Once known, this information will permit immediate categorization as to whether this is a donor and, if so, what organs are available and, last but certainly not least, who the recipient may be. Statistical evidence shows there is potential for significantly increasing the supply of donors with the implementation of a central registry system. The passage of this amendment will initiate a new effort to improve organ availability.

Second, it will command the attention of the people of Ontario to re-evaluate the whole question of transplantation. It will ask our citizens to consider the question of whether one should or should not be a donor. It will bring to the fore the fact that transplantation has advanced from an endeavour that was largely experimental and in which the number of donor organs frequently exceeded the number of recipients on a waiting list, to one in which major clinical departments and hospital endeavours are dependent upon transplantation as a pivotal program.

I understand and accept that ethical, moral or religious reasons exist for not permitting oneself to be a donor. These reasons must be understood, accepted and respected. They are not to be taken as anything more or less than an individual's deepest and sincerest thoughts. Having said that, I believe this amendment to the Human Tissue Gift Act will make the best possible use of the donor gift, that the most appropriate recipient will receive the donated organ and that, last but certainly not least, usable organs will never be wasted.

11:40

In closing, I have an article, but unfortunately, I do not have the name of its author. I would like to read from it.

"It is a miracle of our time that the sudden, sad death of a 12-year-old girl in a small northern Ontario community could give new life to four strangers hundreds of miles away, waiting anxiously for a desperately needed organ transplant.

"The recent transplants of the heart, kidneys and liver of an accident victim raise anew the issue of the shortage of organ donors for all patients in need. For a bereaved family, it is a difficult question. Facing the death of a loved one, few families want to get into the additional trauma of deciding whether to authorize doctors to remove organs. A central registry would allow a doctor to see if the patient had authorized use of his or her organs. The relatives would be consulted and advised of the person's wishes. If the family objected, the organs would not be removed. This plan of a central registry system is both humane and workable."

I speak in favour of this amendment and once more commend the member for Prescott-Russell for bringing this matter to the Legislature. We are not talking about just this amendment; we are talking about saving lives, and this amendment will do that.

Mr. Bernier: I rise in support of this bill. I want to compliment the member for Prescott-Russell for bringing it forward. It is truly a very human issue. There is no question about it. I rise in support of the principle of the bill. I do not want to get into details. Other members have talked about going to committee and making changes. The principle of the bill is correct.

I want to put on record a personal family experience in connection with a transplant and the difficulties associated with this problem in life. About a year ago, a nephew of mine in his early 40s, affectionately known as Rick Hunt of Kenora working for Alcan in Montreal, was asked to take a regular company medical checkup. This medical checkup revealed he had a spot on his lung. Immediately he was encouraged to take further examinations, which necessitated his being admitted to the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal.

Last November, he was treated with a number of antibiotics to correct the situation in his lung -- six different types of antibiotics in total. By December 1985, it was evident these antibiotics had not helped the situation at all and his situation had been diagnosed as fibrosis.

The condition of my nephew prior to admittance to the Royal Victoria Hospital was one of perfect health. He did not smoke. He was a health addict. He jogged five miles a day or rode his bicycle at least 10 miles. He was what we would call in perfect health. But in that short, two-month period he was stricken with a disease that was spreading rapidly and could not be stopped.

In January 1986, it was decided that because of his deteriorating condition his heart and lung had to be transplanted. It was at this time that a call went out from the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal in search of these two specific organs.

I am told that in a heart and lung transplant, these two organs must be taken from one body and transplanted into another. In other words, the organs cannot be removed and moved separately to where the operation would take place; that is another serious difficulty. On five separate occasions, donors were located in the general area of Montreal. Three to five hours of preparation were required to put my nephew in the proper condition for the major operation that was to follow. In every case but one, the organs were incompatible, the size was incorrect, the match was not suitable or the donor's organs were not totally healthy.

January went by; the call was still out there for a heart and lung. February went by; the call was still out there. March went by; the call was still out there. Finally, in early April a donor was located, a victim of a motor accident just outside Montreal. Again, there was a four-hour preparation. In fact, in each one of these preparations they went so far as to give the donor the last rites of the church.

The operation began with some very excellent medical professionals from the Montreal area. The operation lasted about eight hours, and I regret to say my nephew passed away 24 hours later.

My point is to alert the members of the Legislature and put on record that we in our family are convinced that had a transplant or organs been found in early January, my nephew would be alive today.

For this reason, which may be a selfish one on my part, I think the passing of this bill will certainly speed up the location of donors, improving this entire process and of course maintaining the life which we dearly love. l think it is fair to say that the public is slowly coming around to recognizing the urgency of this call.

We are seeing on a regular basis comments in the media. In October 1986, the Globe and Mail had a story with the headline, "Children Dying for Lack of Organs." Another

article in October was headed, "Organs Are Needed." Another

article in the Globe and Mail was headed, "Shortage of Organs for Transplants to Continue Until Attitudes Change." In the London Free Press, a story headlined "Listing of Potential Donors' Organs is Urged" appeared in support of this bill. "Organ Gifts Prized by 13 Per Cent Across Canada" was a headline in a January edition of the Globe and Mail. "Transplant Recipients Hail a New Program" appeared in the Toronto Star. From northern Ontario, "More Human Organs Donated at McKellar Hospital" appeared in the Thunder Bay press.

I think it is fair to say that with the success they are having in transplants today -- and we know children's liver transplants are successful in 80 per cent of the cases -- there is a changing attitude out there in the public. We are in a new era. We are past the experimental area. It is definitely a breakthrough in medical research, and it is accepted in society today.

It is incumbent upon all of us as we compliment the medical profession for what it has done in the advancement and research of transplants during the past several years, if we truly believe in that complimentary attitude to the medical profession, then it is important that we support it. I think it is more important that we encourage the profession to move forward in research, and of course supporting this bill is an indication of our support to the medical profession and the urgency of this issue.

Mr. Charlton: I too rise in support of Bill 91 and congratulate the member for bringing the bill forward. Like my colleague from Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner), I think the bill is a first step in the right direction, although I think the problem is much bigger than the bill will address.

The kinds of situations that the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) mentioned in his comments, when he was referring to his nephew and to the newspaper stories, are perfect examples of why, as has been suggested, the onus ultimately has to be moved back down to individuals.

A registry will certainly help to improve some of the problems we have at present, but eventually we have to get to a stage where individuals, on the basis of their own consciences and their own beliefs, are prepared to take the responsibility of making the decision and making the decision known.

What we are going to have here is a registry where those who do take that opportunity either to consent or to object will probably provide better access to organs for transplant purposes than we have had in the past, but it does not address the question of those individuals who will not take the responsibility to make that decision and to make the decision known. Ultimately, we have to discuss some way of accomplishing that part of the problem.

11:50

As the previous member suggested, it is clear that organ transplants in medicine can provide a fairly high rate of success and life for people who are healthy, other than for the affected organ, and who are able, with a transplant, to live a long and fruitful life. We have to pursue that in a global social sense. This is a start. I will support the bill, but we have to be prepared to talk in much broader terms about the problem and how we get at the solutions.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prescott-Russell has approximately nine minutes.

Mr. Poirier: I appreciate the comments honourable members have made pertaining to the second reading of Bill 91. I have listened very carefully and I have taken notes on some of the recommendations, their fears and how they feel towards Bill 91.

If I may start with the comments of the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), she said, "This bill as written would not improve the current situation." One must remember that what is brought forward by Bill 91 is but a tool to help relieve the current situation, which is in a state of chaos right now even though we do have a group called the Metro Organ Retrieval Exchange working in Ontario to make sure the organ donor and recipient match is as good as possible. There is quite a bit of education to be done with the general public, with the medical forces, with politicians and with the government in general.

The current system, the drivers' licences, is shown not to work, with only 28 per cent of the people filling them out. Even if one does fill it out, when you get to the hospital, usually you are not in possession of your driver's licence. Having worked as a tow-truck operator and seeing the ambulances take the people to hospital, I can say that they do not look for the driver's licence; personal effects, maybe medication, even contact lenses come before the driver's licence.

The current situation needs a lot of improvement. What Bill 91 offers is but one tool to do it in conjunction with many other steps to be taken by government. As for the current media appeals, which are getting to be more frequent, yes, they are making people more aware of the need for organ donations right now, but I am afraid that if we continue to do this on a frequent, regular basis, it will lose its effect to sensitize the people of Canada and Ontario to the need for organs. I am very afraid of that.

I have read over the act and I have read Bill 91, and nowhere is it mentioned that this is compulsory. It is offered to people who want to consent or who want to object so that they should have a mechanism to say so. In no circumstances has it been mentioned in the current act or in the proposed Bill 91 to force people to decide or choose.

It was also mentioned that the hospitals will not be geared and ready for Bill 91. Of course, if we are going to put a tool in place to do something, we will have to do some work around this tool to make sure it is accepted, with all due education to be done in the local hospitals in the small communities. One is quite correct in saying that some hospital teams in the small communities are not used to organ transplants and organ transfers and even donations. As for the methodology and the ethics of it all, some people are still disturbed by that.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere said it was a very timid step. His idea was to make donations automatic unless a person specifically objects to it. Respectfully, I say the people of Ontario are far from that stage right now. It would be nice to see polls showing that Ontariens were willing to do that, ready to save the life of a fellow Ontarian, just like that, automatically. I wish it were true, but the polls indicate otherwise. If it comes to a point where Ontarians are ready for that, I will be very glad to have a second look at it.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere is correct in saying that the system is not ready to handle transplants on the scale of Ontario; hence, the need for a tool as proposed in Bill 91 with the central registry. It is but a step. In itself it would not resolve the entire problem. If one put a tool in place and if people were not sensitized -- whether potential donors, recipients, medical staff, governments or politicians -- quite correct: it would fail. There is an immense campaign to be done on this.

The member is also afraid that people might not have a choice to specify whether they wanted to donate organs for therapeutic purposes, medical education or scientific research. If one looks carefully at Bill 91, it uses the word "or": "therapeutic purposes, medical education or scientific research." People must be able to choose one or all of the above according to their own wishes, and this has to be respected.

As the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) mentioned, the problem is bigger than what the bill addresses. The bill proposes a tool to help resolve a very large problem. Regarding the creation of a central registry in conjunction with campaigns to educate the people -- potential donors across all Ontario and Canada and around the world -- we should not look twice at where and from whom come a heart and lungs to help save the life, for example, of the nephew of the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier). I am sure his nephew would have been very glad to receive immediately the lungs and a heart from whoever had been willing to donate them to save his life.

We have to integrate that into a worldwide system to make sure Ontario, with its 10 million people, has at least a tool to start to address that system. I sincerely hope that all members, no matter what they personally may find in this bill, will support the passage of this bill and help this government to make sure, together, that all Ontarians are educated about why organ donation is such an important part of one's life and one's afterlife, to help our fellow people continue to have a productive life in Ontario.

J'apprécierais que tous les honorables députés viennent m'aider en accordant leur appui au projet de loi 91, afin que la qualité de vie en Ontario puisse continuer bien au-delà de la vie actuelle des Ontariens et des Ontariennes, en aidant à créer un mécanisme pour que ceux et celles qui désirent aider leurs collègues à l'échelle de l'Ontario, du Canada et même à l'échelle internationale, puissent donner accès à une

partie de leur corps, une fois qu'ils auront quitté ce monde, pour aider à continuer cette qualité de vie en Ontario.

I thank all the honourable members for their constructive comments. I look forward to the support of all of them in making Bill 91 a reality.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: I know the standing order says the vote must be taken at noon. I think we are close enough.

Mr. Breaugh has moved second reading of Bill 16. Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr. Breaugh's motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, I stated what I heard. I actually waited a moment to give any members the opportunity to rise. Therefore, I announced that the vote had carried.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, is there any chance of a rerun on that one?

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the member's suggestion. However, I feel I gave ample time for members to rise. I did not see any members rise until after I had announced the vote. Therefore, I declared the motion carried.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I would like to challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I called the vote. I do not know of any precedent when there has been a challenge simply to not seeing anybody stand when they had ample opportunity to do so.

Mr. Cousens: I have challenged your ruling. I believe the vote was in the negative. The nays carried it. It was moving along so quickly I did not feel you would go that far; so I challenge your ruling.

Mr. McClellan: The member had his chance and he blew it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I still stand by my original decision. I called it as I saw it. Therefore, I did not make a ruling; l just called it as I saw it.

Mr. Gregory: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I think my privileges have been abused. I find it rather strange that this is a New Democratic Party calling for open council meetings and yet that party's members are terribly afraid of an open, public vote. I regret that.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege; it is a point of view.

I will call the next item.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, if five members stand, would your ruling be challenged?

Mr. Speaker: No. The standing order is very clear what the procedure is. I carried out the standing orders. I will now place the second item that is before the House.

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Poirier has moved second reading of Bill 91,

An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:04 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of the members and ask them to join with me in recognizing the guests in the Speaker's gallery: the Minister of Municipal Affairs of Newfoundland, the Honourable Norman Doyle, and the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, Clarence Randell. Please join me in welcoming them.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Jackson: The mayors of Halton's four municipalities have identified the need for local affordable housing as having reached a crisis. They remember stories of a family living in a gas station and of another family living in a car this past winter. In Burlington, we do not want to see those stories repeated and we do not want to risk the tragedies that have occurred elsewhere.

We have tried. In fact, 16 groups have applied to the province for assistance in providing nonprofit housing over the past year and a half, and 16 groups have been rejected. Halton Adolescent Support Services wanted to provide housing for homeless young people but was rejected. St. Luke's Anglican Church wanted to provide housing for seniors. They received 250 applications for a 37-unit proposal and were rejected. A week ago the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) made another announcement, this time for the funding of 3,000 additional units.

We are optimistic in Halton; we believe we will get our share of those units. We are also realists in Halton. It is now mid-October and there are still weeks of discussions with the mayors left. There are proposals to review, plans to approve and construction to begin. These units will not be ready soon. The minister has had more than a year and a half to prepare for this winter and he has not done it. All we get from him are statements on paper. We are tired of his paper houses and we have had enough of his paper promises. We need affordable housing, not paper housing, and we need it now.

HUMANE SOCIETIES LEGISLATION

Mr. Foulds: A David-and-Goliath battle has been going on for the past eight months between the Thunder Bay branch of the Ontario Humane Society and the central executive of the Ontario Humane Society, led by its president, T. I. Hughes.

The Ontario government should amend the act governing the humane society so that not only the affiliates but also the branches, such as Thunder Bay, have more authority over their own affairs. The government must take legislative steps so that more branches can become affiliates, as recommended by the Price Waterhouse study, without giving up all their assets, accounts, legacies, etc.

Mr. Hughes has threatened to withdraw the warrants under which the Thunder Bay branch operates. People in Thunder Bay believe Mr. Hughes has badgered and bullied the Thunder Bay branch executive ever since it received a legacy of $100,000 expressly donated to the Thunder Bay branch. Mr. Hughes has been trying to get that money under the control of the central executive and remove decision-making from the local people. The Ministry of the Solicitor General has, I believe, been apprised of this conflict.

Legislative action must ensure that the Ontario Humane Society's provincial executive is more accountable to the public and to its branches so that the bullying of the Thunder Bay executive which has taken place during the past eight months does not take place in the future. Perhaps it is about time the Ontario government lifted the virtual monopoly for animal control and welfare that the Ontario Humane Society currently exerts.

PERSONS DAY

Ms. Hart: I am pleased to announce to the House that Saturday, October 18, commemorates Persons Day, the day in 1929 when Canada's highest court of appeal, which was at the time the Privy Council in Britain, ruled that women were persons. That decision resulted from a challenge by four Alberta women of our federal government's policy of refusing to appoint women senators. The government argued that only men could be appointed, because the British North America Act did not say whether persons qualified to be senators included both sexes or only men.

In 1928, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld that argument and decided that women were not persons under the law of Canada. Fortunately for me and for all women in this country, the Privy Council overturned that ridiculous conclusion, and now all persons, women and men, are eligible to hold office. I think such a momentous decision in our history deserves recognition and celebration. It is in that spirit that I bring it to the attention of this House today.

DRUG BENEFIT FORMULARY

Mr. Andrewes: I will try to compete with the anvil chorus outside.

On September 3, 1985, the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) wrote to pharmacists across the province and said, "Hopefully, you will have a new drug formulary in a matter of days." On September 17, 1985, legal action prevented him from meeting this commitment, a legal action that was resolved by the spring of 1986.

On August 18, 1986, the minister again wrote to pharmacists after the passage of Bills 54 and 55 and said, "I am pleased to confirm that an updated Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary under the existing legislation will be published in August 1986."

It is now October, and the ministry continues to present ultimatums to the Ontario Pharmacists' Association and fails to address the minister's commitment and public promise.

This inaction is a cause to ask several questions. Was the minister's promise in his letter of August 18 only rhetoric to appease a group of angry pharmacists, who now seriously doubt his credibility? Are the consumers of Ontario being well served by a system that denies them access to new, improved drugs? Are consumers who are taxpayers of Ontario getting a fair deal from the Liberal government that promised them lower drug costs, when this same government refuses to publish a revised drug formulary that would include a number of new, lower-priced generic drugs? These are questions the Minister of Health must answer.

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: I rise to draw to the attention of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the government the recent experience of many residents in my riding when requesting an opportunity to be heard during the public hearings of one of the commissions appointed by his government. These hearings were considering an application for allowing Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track commencing November 2, 1986. The Ontario Racing Commission is empowered under the Racing Commission Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980,

chapter 429, "to govern, direct, control and regulate horse racing in Ontario in any or all of its forms."

The commission's treatment of residents concerned with the impact of this decision on their neighbourhood, their livelihood and their peace and quiet on Sunday does not appear to be observing your avowed objective of providing the citizens of Ontario with open government. Even though the residents had notified the commission that they wished to be heard, the commission did not change the venue of the hearing, which accommodated only 40 people, nor did it make any alternative arrangements.

WORLD FOOD DAY

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Today about one billion people in the world either are undernourished or are actually starving, and 150 million people in Africa alone are actually starving. Today, October 16, has been designated as World Food Day by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

In keeping with this international humanitarian spirit, communities across our province have planned a series of events during the month of October. Practically every country in the world could become agriculturally self-sustaining if, with the encouragement of the first world, the Third World countries gave preference to feeding themselves over exports to the rest of us.

I am happy to report that in my community this is an active day. The Global Community Centre has fostered discussion in all the schools. St. Jerome's High School has a full-day workshop in place and Oxfam sponsored a successful public meeting last night in the Kitchener Public Library.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Pollock: On September 26, I wrote to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) about the rumour that Madoc provincial court was closing and requested a meeting with him and Madoc council. I received no response to my letter, and my office called on October 8, October 9 and October 14. They said they would get back to me, but as yet, I have heard nothing. One finds it hard to believe it is cost that is causing the court to close when the interest on Roderick Lewis's severance pay would not only provide some renovations but also bear the cost of keeping the Madoc court open.

14:11

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CROP INSURANCE

Hon. Mr. Riddell: In rural Ontario, there has probably been more attention devoted to crop insurance this year than there has been for some time because of the extreme weather conditions that farmers have been experiencing this summer and this fall. Crop insurance is a cornerstone of the efforts of the federal and provincial governments to bring farmers financial stability in the face of adverse weather. This is well known to all of us. The program has been in existence for 20 years and has served farmers and the governments well. It has become clear, however, that current economic conditions and shifting farmer demands have placed strains upon it.

Two reviews have been under way internally. The Federal-Provincial Working Group on Disaster Relief, set up by the agricultural ministers of Canada, recommended a number of issues for further study and follow-up.

In Ontario, I established a subcommittee, made up of Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario officials and Ontario Federation of Agriculture and federal government representatives, to review the program and identify issues for further study. Their report, which was submitted on Tuesday, has recommended some items that can be acted upon right away and others that require more input and discussion with commodity groups and other farm organizations.

I have discussed this with federal Minister of Agriculture John Wise and outlined my wishes for a major public review of the program to handle these larger matters. I am pleased to report that Mr. Wise is in agreement with this. The purpose of the program review would be to make recommendations for changes or improvements to the crop insurance program, if required or deemed advisable and desirable. It is our intention to assure the maximum benefit to the largest number of farmers possible through an equitable and actuarially sound insurance program.

Details of the terms of reference, who will be on the review committee and where public meetings will take place will be jointly announced by Mr. Wise and me once they have been worked out.

Mr. Stevenson: Once again today we have a great ministerial statement on crop insurance. I guess it all boils down to three lines on page 2, which say: "The purpose of the program review would be to make recommendations for changes or improvements to the crop insurance program if required or deemed desirable."

We had an announcement in this House in April. We had a reannouncement of the same thing in August, when the minister came under heat and had not done anything. Most of the farm organizations had not even heard of the April announcement, and there had been little input. Here today again, it is mostly nothing.

We are happy, of course, that people will now have a public presentation to make to some review committee. Grower organizations have been making presentations to the minister and the ministry staff ever since he took office, and no changes have been made. Changes he said he was going to make prior to the last election have not been made yet. Anyway, I guess we should be slightly happy that changes will be made if required or deemed desirable.

Mr. Hayes: I am pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture and Food is taking steps to improve the crop insurance program. That is well overdue, and the program does need improvements.

I have to say, though, I am disappointed that at present the minister has indicated he is not prepared to help some of the farmers who have crop damage because of the rain and previous damage caused by the frost and has told farmers they should get crop insurance. According to the farmers I have been speaking to, crop insurance is not doing the job and it has to be improved. Farmers are not getting crop insurance, because it does not work; it does not do the job. I hope the improvements that are necessary will be made very shortly.

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to announce that later today I will be introducing a bill that will allow the sale of beer and wine in independent food stores.

Honourable members will recall that during the last election campaign --

Mr. Runciman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We have not received copies of the statement at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister intend to have copies sent?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Mr. Speaker, they were supposed to have been distributed.

Mr. Speaker: Have the members received copies? If they have not received copies, I believe the standing orders say they must.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Have the members received copies? Are they on their way? Minister, continue with your statement.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The honourable members will recall that during the last election campaign our party said it would undertake such a measure. As a government, we now are keeping that promise. We believe our action today, as on other occasions, firmly signals our view that Ontario has come of age. We are a mature, vibrant and responsible community and the paternalism of the past must give way. The people of Ontario want to make choices for themselves. The duty of good government is to provide, in a sensible fashion, the opportunity to choose.

Since taking office, this government has advanced step by step towards updating the way Ontario regulates liquor. Still, in moving deliberately yet cautiously forward, we are not taking unnecessary risks. In respect to this legislation, we have only to look around us. Most of our sister provinces have already provided alternative choices in liquor distribution systems.

In the United States, 46 states permit the sale of beer, or beer and wine, in grocery stores. Four of the five states bordering on Ontario -- New York, Ohio, Michigan and Minnesota -- allow the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores.

This proposal comes after broad consultation over the past 12 months with consumer groups, the hospitality industry, producers and many other interested organizations and individuals.

With today's introduction of this bill, we are seeking to develop new ways of distributing alcoholic products in Ontario. Our resulting proposal seeks to maintain responsible control over alcohol and to minimize social concerns, while achieving four major goals: (1) to maximize convenience for consumers; (2) to help independent grocers remain competitive; (3) to provide assistance to the domestic wine industry; and (4) to increase the level of competition in liquor distribution and sales.

We have examined the concerns of those opposed to beer and wine in independent grocery stores. We can broaden the scope of liquor distribution without detrimental social consequences. We know it can work because we have seen it working elsewhere.

Before I turn to the details and rationale behind our proposal, I would like to outline the four basic changes we will be advancing.

First, we have decided that beer and wine sales should be extended to independent retail food stores. For this purpose, a retail food store will be considered to be a store where food makes up 51 per cent or more of all sales.

Second, this is a province-wide initiative, but it does accommodate the dry and partially dry municipalities. Further, to accommodate wet municipalities that do not wish to have beer and wine sales in independent food stores, a right-to-refuse clause has been included in our proposal. This will allow individual municipalities, by means of a local council resolution or by a public referendum, to opt out of this initiative.

Third, the products that can be sold will be a selection of Canadian wine, beer, wine coolers and ciders that have an alcohol content of 14.5 per cent or less by volume. Wine must contain at least 70 per cent Canadian grapes.

Fourth, retailers will be required to charge prices that are at least the same as those offered in Liquor Control Board of Ontario and Brewers' Retail outlets. There will be no retail price ceiling.

The people of Ontario live in an era of convenience: convenience stores, convenience foods, convenience banking. Convenience for the consumer was a major objective when we framed this legislation; that and a desire to let a competitive breeze into the process, something that liquor distribution has needed for a long time in this province. After extensive consultation, we have developed legislation that strikes a fair balance between consumer convenience, business interests and social concerns.

Let me address some social issues that have been raised. During our examination of other jurisdictions, we found there is no evidence that an increase in the number of outlets automatically leads to increased consumption and social problems. There is no evidence to suggest that Ontario would be any different.

Direct comparisons between jurisdictions are often difficult to make but none the less, let me state the following. In Quebec, wines were introduced into grocery stores in 1978. There was no dramatic increase in wine consumption. Since 1978, wine consumption in Quebec has actually grown at a slower rate than that in Ontario. In Washington state, wines became widely available in grocery stores in 1969, and yet increases in consumption in the years following the change were comparable to increases in wine consumption in Ontario over the same period.

Officials in Quebec and Washington state have not reported increased incidences of public drunkenness, robberies or break and entries as a result of policy changes. The overall pattern of impaired driving cases in Quebec, where there is the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores, remains similar to that in Ontario.

At the point of sale, the salesperson will be at least 19 years old.

Even for those who argue that an increased number of outlets means increased consumption, let me point out that experts say there are other factors that can affect consumption; these include price, selection and previous levels of availability. Our proposal deals directly with the first two. By not allowing discounts, prices in most food stores will be higher than in LCBO and Brewers' Retail outlets, and our proposal provides for limited selection of brands and sizes.

As far as the third factor, availability, is concerned, the United States National Research Council argued in 1981 that the density of outlets in terms of number and locations in North America likely had little effect on alcohol sales.

I would like to share with the members the way our new policy on wine and beer sales was developed.

Returning to our first concern, the choice of outlets, we agreed that sales should be permitted in independent food stores so they could compete more effectively in the marketplace. We looked to Statistics Canada, which defines independent stores as those with three or fewer outlets under one ownership.

Our second decision reflected our understanding of the diverse communities that make up this province. What is acceptable in one region may simply not be in tune with the values of another. That is why we included a right-to-refuse clause. Municipalities shall have a say in determining whether this liquor policy is implemented in their community. This approach continues the longstanding tradition of maintaining the principle of local option. At the same time, the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario will license, regulate and inspect the independent retail food stores which will sell beer and wine.

In addressing our third concern, selection of products, we had to consider a broad range of interests, from the Canadian wine industry to social and health groups. By including specific Canadian content requirements for wines, we can ensure that all products are truly Canadian in origin.

To facilitate the introduction of a new distribution system and to maintain the current policy of encouraging the return of beer containers, we intend to limit sales to domestic beer in six-packs. Wine, ciders and coolers will be sold in the most popular sizes.

As for our pricing policy, by requiring a minimum price equal to that charged by the LCBO and Brewers' Retail, we have met the market demand for convenience while countering any undesirable promotional practices, such as loss-leader pricing, which might increase alcohol consumption.

We will also be consulting with the beer and wine industries, food wholesalers and other industry groups to develop proposals for the distribution system. The consultation process will also include discussion of the many issues that will be dealt with by regulation, including store licensing requirements, security and hours of sale.

In developing this legislation, we were guided by the belief that a reasoned and responsible approach is possible and that we can enhance consumer convenience while remaining sensitive to the concerns of social and health interests, small business, municipalities and the beer and wine industries.

I hope I have been able to demonstrate how this new legislation will strike a fair balance between convenience for consumers and the interests of other groups that make up our province. We have nothing to fear from progressive and responsible change to a system that has remained unchanged for too long.

I ask for the support of this House in bringing liquor distribution in Ontario into the 1980s.

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Runciman: In response to the statement of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations dealing with the introduction of beer and wine legislation, I would like to make a few comments with respect to the political gamesmanship we are witnessing today.

The government is introducing the bill in the face of overwhelming municipal opposition to its local option provision. It is doing it during a time of significant public concern over drunk driving and under-age drinking. It is doing it in the full knowledge that our partners in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will never accept an Ontario-wine-only policy. It is doing it when potentially thousands of jobs could be lost as a result of this initiative and when the government stands to lose millions of dollars in revenue. Finally, it is doing it in the full knowledge that the legislation faces certain defeat in this House.

Is this political bravery, foolhardiness or another Liberal ruse? I opt for the latter.

If we were facing a majority government, this legislation would not be here. The government could make this change today through regulation if it truly wanted it. The fact is, it does not want it. It knows