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

April 28, 1977

30th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L024 - Thu 28 Apr 1977 / Jeu 28 avr 1977

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PHYSICAL FITNESS

TOWNSHIP OF MALDEN INQUIRY

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AMENDMENT BILL

JUNIOR RANGERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL

SOUTH CAYUGA LAND ASSEMBLY

BARRIE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL

GROUP HOME PLACEMENTS

CAPITAL WORKS PROJECTS

ENVIRONMENTAL TAX

LAP-SEAM BOILERS

BECKER’S MILK DISPUTE

AID FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

RICHMOND HILL NURSING HOMES

MEDICAL SERVICES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

RICHMOND HILL NURSING HOMES

MEDICAL SERVICES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

KAYSON PLASTICS

CURRICULUM CONNECTIONS

MEDICAL SERVICES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

DRG GLOBE ENVELOPES LIMITED

GROUP HOME PLACEMENTS

WINTARIO FUNDS

INSTANT LOTTERY

LICENCE FEES

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

POINTS OF ORDER

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF SAULT STE. MARIE ACT

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC UTILITIES AMENDMENT ACT

CITY OF TIMMINS-PORCUPINE AMENDMENT ACT

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

GASOLINE AND HEATING OIL UNIFORM PRICING ACT

TOWNSHIP OF DOVER ACT

VILLAGE OF PORT MCNICOLL ACT

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

JOHN A. SCHMALTZ AGENCIES LIMITED ACT

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

PROFESSIONAL FUND-RAISING CORPORATIONS CONTROL ACT

LEGISLATIVE

SCHEDULE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS PATIENTS’ RIGHTS ACT

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PHYSICAL FITNESS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yesterday, in the regional municipality of Waterloo, I announced the establishment of a physical fitness policy for the province and the implementation of 11 new component programmes of that policy.

Because every member of the House has been sent an information package on the fitness policy that gives details of each programme, I would simply like to summarize, for the benefit of the House, the objectives of our initiatives.

As the various programmes commence operation I hope that you will encourage your constituents to take advantage of any financial assistance, counselling or practical information that will be available.

In the first place, Mr. Speaker, we are seeking to motivate the people of Ontario toward increased physical activity. Second, we are attempting to broaden the range of opportunities for people to become involved in activities which contribute toward improved fitness. Third, we are hoping to upgrade the competence of community fitness leaders and enhance an understanding of the concept and the benefits of fitness.

Mr. Reid: Is Lorne the before picture?

Hon. Mr. Welch: And fourth, we are seeking to improve the co-ordination of fitness programmes at the community level among various levels of government and volunteer agencies.

Fundamentally, we are offering assistance in such a way that groups at the community level will be encouraged, as much as possible, to initiate and develop their own programmes.

In order to meet these objectives, we have earmarked approximately $1.5 million in the current fiscal year, to be supplemented by Wintario funds for activities consistent with Wintario principles.

I am sure every member of this House will want to support the goals of the fitness policy and the objectives of the programme elements. I would encourage everyone to make his or her constituents aware of the need for increased physical fitness and its benefits.

Mr. B. Newman: Seventeen years it has taken you.

TOWNSHIP OF MALDEN INQUIRY

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, I had delivered to me Judge Macdonald’s report of his inquiry in respect to the affairs of the township of Malden. I am today tabling the report. Judge Macdonald’s recommendations are as follows:

(

a) That the council of the township of Malden dismiss Stanley Jack Langlois from all his municipal appointments on the ground of misconduct.

(

b) That the council of the township of Malden forthwith write off against the general-account reserve fund the undebentured capital cost of the Amherstburg, Anderdon and Malden sewage treatment system in a sum recommended by the township auditor, and that the current sewage surcharges on water bills be adjusted downward to an amount sufficient, and sufficient only, to pay the current C1 and operating charges after taking into account any surplus in the operating account from the year 1976, all as advised by the township’s auditor.

(

c) Members of township councils are required to disclose personal interests in matters beyond that of other ratepayers before council, and to refrain from voting thereon (sections 235 and 236 of The Municipal Act). It is of equal or greater importance, it seems to me, that the clerk of the municipality and other municipal officials acting in an advisory capacity to council, should also be required to make a similar disclosure for the record of such interest so that it can be taken into account by council in acting upon advice received from them. An appropriate penalty should be provided for a failure to do so.

They are by inference so prohibited by their oaths of office (form 21) at the time of taking office.

(

d) Councils of rural municipalities ordinarily consist of persons familiar with rural and agricultural problems, and the members of the staffs of such municipalities generally tend to be more knowledgeable in rural matters. What has occurred in the township of Malden from 1970 to the present day illustrates the conflict and disruption created by the spilling over of an urban area across the boundaries of a rural municipality.

Interests and problems of the urban inhabitants are more identified with those of the adjoining urban municipality than with those of the rural municipality in which they find themselves residents. Obviously, the rural municipal councils and officials lack experience in coping with urban problems.

I respectfully recommend that consideration be given by the responsible minister or ministers, by legislative amendment if necessary, to the formulation and enforcement of a policy of requiring annexation by an urban municipality of that part of its suburbs which it proposes to extend into a rural municipality as a condition to approval for registration of a new residential plan of subdivision in the area of contemplated extension.

The first two recommendations are matters for the Malden township council to decide, and at this point in time I am content to leave action on these two recommendations to that council.

With regard to recommendation (c), I have asked my staff to review the disclosure and conflict-of-interest provisions relating to municipal officials and to recommend to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), who is responsible for the municipal conflict-of-interest legislation, what action is necessary to eliminate the weakness in the present legislation.

I am particularly intrigued by recommendation (d). The problem of urban overspill into rural townships, and the subsequent costly and divisive annexation hearings, is rapidly becoming one of the most vexatious issues in municipal affairs in this province. I see considerable merit in Judge Macdonald’s recommendation, and I and the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) will be considering it very carefully.

In view of the judge’s findings, I am sending a copy of the report to the Attorney General in order that he may, in association with the Crown attorney, determine if there are grounds for further action under The Criminal Code. I am also sending copies to the Ministers of Housing and Revenue (Mrs. Scrivener) for their consideration.

Copies are also going to the auditor and the solicitor of the township so that they may consider what recommendations they ought to make to ensure the administrative and procedural practices of the municipality are satisfactory. Judge Macdonald questioned his right to award costs, and I am having my legal advisers research the legislation to determine if, in fact, there is any authority for the judge to make an order as to costs.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon I shall be introducing The Ministry of Labour Amendment Act, 1977, to serve three purposes.

First, Mr. Speaker, it will abolish the Industry and Labour Board by repealing

section 8 of The Ministry of Labour Act, an agency which has in fact been inoperative since the outset of 1969. This agency played an important

part in administering both The Minimum Wage Act and The Hours of Work and Vacations with Pay Act, but the enactment of The Employment Standards Act in 1968 repealed those statutes and vested the functions that hitherto had been carried out by the Industry and Labour Board in the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the director of employment standards. Accordingly,

section 2 of this bill formally abolishes the Industry and Labour Board, the reference to which has become somewhat anachronistic.

Secondly,

section 2 introduces a new

section 8 into The Ministry of Labour Act. This provision will allow the Minister of Labour to appoint committees or individuals to act as mediators, fact-finders, consultants, or advisers in respect of any industrial relations matter or other problems which come under the jurisdiction of the ministry. There is a complementary power to remunerate and defray the expenses of any persons appointed pursuant to this section.

This power, Mr. Speaker, will fill a gap which presently exists in the legislation administered by the Ministry of Labour. At present, only The Labour Relations Act gives the minister any authority to appoint an impartial individual to assist the parties to a collective bargaining dispute, and that authority is basically restricted to the appointment of a conciliation officer.

A mediator who becomes involved at the terminal stage of negotiations, can only be appointed on the joint agreement of the parties; thus the ministry cannot now act on its own initiative in providing this type of service, nor can it direct mediation or fact finding at times other than during the negotiation of a collective agreement.

Given the importance of industrial relations conflicts and our shared commitment to avoid them, this oversight demands a remedy. However, problems which may be amenable to resolution through mediation or fact finding are not confined only to the purview of The Labour Relations Act. They do arise in respect of other statutes which the ministry administers.

Finally in this regard, I want to note that this new provision will allow the ministry to use and to pay non-civil servants as mediators and fact-finders. There have been, and will continue to be, disputes or problems in which an experienced neutral or neutrals, from outside government, can play a valuable role in achieving a resolution of the matter. Thus, our capability to assist the industrial relations community in Ontario will be strengthened by this amendment. For this reason, the amendment is being made to the broadest statute relevant to this purpose.

Thirdly and finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill creates a new Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety. This is a continuation of the process that began with the enactment of The Employees’ Health and Safety Act, Bill 139 in December of 1976. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, Bill 139 gave the Ministry of Labour primary responsibility for regulating occupational health and safety in the province, in that prior to its passage jurisdiction had been divided amongst four ministries. Two of those ministries, Mr. Speaker, Labour and Health, had been assisted by separate advisory councils composed of persons from outside government.

The Ministry of Labour has been ably served by the Labour Safety Council since 1961, and its mandate has been to advise the minister on matters relating to occupational safety. Since 1975, the Ministry of Health has had the benefit of receiving assistance in respect of matters on occupational and environmental health from the Advisory Council of Occupational and Environmental Health. However, now that the responsibility for both occupational safety and occupational health reside within the Ministry of Labour, it would appear advisable to merge these two councils and to give them a mandate to advise the Ministry of Labour regarding both occupational health and safety.

There are several reasons for taking this action now, Mr. Speaker, for not waiting for the introduction of the omnibus health and safety statute. There is substantial support for the idea of merging the two councils. In conducting consultation meetings throughout the province with respect to the proposed omnibus Act, the message has been loud and clear that the two councils should be merged. The members of the two councils have also been consulted and have given strong support to the idea of merger.

Further, the two councils have provided important advice, and it is desirable that they continue to perform this function in the most effective form as soon as possible. Therefore, our immediate concern is to launch the new merged council, for which there is broad support, so that the Ministry of Labour can have the benefit of its expert advice as soon as it is realistically possible.

[2:15]

JUNIOR RANGERS

Hon. F. S. Miller: As was announced in the Speech from the Throne and subsequently in the budget just brought down, more job opportunities are being provided by the government for young people this summer.

I am happy to inform the hon. members that, as part of this programme, the Ministry of Natural Resources is expanding its junior ranger programme to accommodate 300 more high school students in our annual junior ranger programme this year.

Prior to the government’s announcement of increased opportunities for summer employment, my ministry had selected 1,038 boys and 588 girls to participate this year in this unique outdoor experience at 62 camps throughout Ontario.

The 300 additional students will be selected from among approximately 3,000 applications which have already been received by the ministry. No additional applications, of course, will be needed.

Under the junior ranger programme, these 17-year-olds from across the province will work in a natural resources environment and will be provided with opportunities to learn firsthand about our management programmes from such professionals as foresters, biologists and geologists.

The students will report to their assigned areas on July 5 and will remain there until August 27. During that period they will each be paid $10 a day, which will total a clear $480 for the eight weeks they are at work. Accommodation, meals and supervision are also provided.

The hon. members may also be interested to know that 30,969 students have participated in the junior ranger programme since its inception 33 years ago. Because of increasing interest by young women, the programme was expanded in 1973 to include girls and since that time 1,200 have benefited from that experience.

This programme has been successful and it has been a beneficial one to Ontario’s young people. Hundreds of those who have been junior rangers have gone on into resource-related careers, many of them with my ministry. I am pleased that additional funds have been provided with which to expand the programme by another 300 opportunities this year.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of the Environment if he can clear up a matter? What is the policy of the province of Ontario in accepting, at any time, on any terms, highly toxic industrial wastes from other jurisdictions for disposal in this province, apparently at the one particular plant in Mississauga?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The hon. member is referring to an

article in this morning’s paper. At the St. Lawrence Cement plant in Mississauga we have started an experimental programme there of burning certain types of waste -- crankcase oil and certain types of organics, which would include PCBs -- and involving Environment Canada, our Ministry and the company. This is being done strictly, as I say, on an experimental basis with the proper monitoring of air emissions as well as the results of the actual treatment.

There is no policy as far as importing these contaminants are concerned. The facility is there, the company does have a certificate of approval but that certificate of approval is conditional upon the company asking the Ministry of the Environment for any specific approval to accept any particular shipment. So that as far as taking a quantity of oil from the United States the company would have to clear that with my ministry; we would have to have the details of that before it would be permitted.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Apparently the head of the petroleum and chemical unit of the Ministry of the Environment in Iowa -- my office was speaking to him this morning -- says that Chem-Trol Pollution Services in Lewiston, New York, told them that they had sent toxic industrial wastes with high PCB content to Ontario for disposal on other occasions.

Is that in fact true? It seems odd it would happen without the Legislature or the province being informed.

And why would the minister want the import, why would he permit it, since there is so much difficulty with toxic waste disposal right here from our own province?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, it is quite possible that during this experimental stage, that took place really last year, a small quantity of PCBs may have been shipped to the St. Lawrence plant. Quantities of materials containing PCBs are being shipped continually to Chem-Trol, to their facility in New York, for landfill disposal from Ontario. That’s going on regularly, under supervision between the two governments. In order to utilize a new method of destruction, involving St.

Lawrence Cement, there are times, in order to get the quantity, the necessary quantity of the particular type of material, it is quite possible that in some instances, during this experimental stage, material came from New York to that particular plant.

But hopefully this experiment will be a success. Certainly the disposal of PCBs in this way, this type of incineration and destruction, is much better than disposal in landfill.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Minister, are there great quantities of polychlorinated biphenyls going the other way, into the United States for high temperature incineration at this time?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: What does the member mean by the other way, from Ontario to New York?

Mr Kerrio: Travelling into the United States for incineration in New York.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, they are. As a matter of fact, more is going from Ontario into the United States than is coming back for destruction here. As I say, this is only an experiment. The last experiment took place some time last year. I suppose that because we are involved with St. Lawrence Cement and Environment Canada, Iowa felt that maybe they could get rid of their shipment in Ontario. But there’s been no acceptance or approval as far as that shipment is concerned.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if this in fact does refer to St. Lawrence Cement or to Tricil. I wasn’t here when the initial question was asked.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: St. Lawrence Cement.

Mr. Lewis: Has the minister thought of solving the problem in Lambton county by an effort to deal with some of the toxic industrial wastes there in this fashion, rather than causing so much local concern by the dumping in the wells? I gather there is now some eight -- I am not just sure what the quantity is, eight million of something already in the wells.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the plant in Mississauga that the hon. member from Mississauga referred to, Tricil, is capable of handling some of the waste that is now going to Lambton, and we are redirecting some of that because of the closure of a Detroit formation well in that area; and because of course we haven’t issued certificates in Lambton recently. But there’s no reason why St. Lawrence Cement could also not be used as a facility for destruction of that type of waste material.

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be fair to allow one more supplementary. The member for Sarnia, since it’s your area that is involved.

Mr. Bullbrook: Isn’t it a fact, relative --

Mr. Speaker: This is a final final.

Mr. Bullbrook: A final final. Isn’t it a fact that the new Petrosar complex going on stream will initiate a tremendous new burden upon those wells in Lambton county? What arrangement is the minister making with respect to the Petrosar complex?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We are suggesting to Petrosar that they accept the responsibility of looking after the disposal of that material.

Mr. Lewis: Incineration, a special process?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: They will have to do it under the approval of my ministry; but there’s no reason why that company, with all its wherewithal, can’t look after that problem.

SOUTH CAYUGA LAND ASSEMBLY

Mr. Lewis: A question to the Premier, if I may: Has the Premier replied to the letter from the Ombudsman, sent on March 27 last, dealing with the South Cayuga land assembly, with whatever recommendations he made? I think the Premier replied at the time that he would be gathering information and giving him an answer. Has he given him that answer yet?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, so there’s no misunderstanding, when the Ombudsman drops me a line I try to reply as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Reid: Yes, otherwise you read about it in the Globe and Mail before you get the letter.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think I told the Ombudsman that I would have this matter looked into and get a report. I can’t tell the hon. member whether, in fact, the office has received the report. I can tell the member that if it has I haven’t yet seen it, and as soon as I do, of course, I will be communicating with the Ombudsman.

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps the Premier might let us know when that occurs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition will be the second to know; the Ombudsman will be the first.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you so much. If not inside, then perhaps outside the chamber you could let us know. Thank you.

BARRIE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to question the Treasurer, if I might, Mr. Speaker. The Treasurer has indicated in his letter to the Ontario Municipal Board that the Simcoe-Georgian area task force report had been accepted as government policy. I wonder if he could clarify for the House which of the two boundaries indicated in that report has been accepted by the government for the city of Barrie’s annexation purposes? Has he accepted as government policy the interim urban study area or the much larger urban study area which the city of Barrie has more or less adopted to accommodate the 125,000 people it foresees there?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t, of course, got that letter in front of me, but we haven’t accepted either of those lines. I believe my letter indicates an acceptance of the population of 125,000 and leaves the matter of boundaries with the Ontario Municipal Board. I think, as I recall, we say that explicitly.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since in the letter the Treasurer does indicate that the Simcoe-Georgian area task force report has been adopted as government policy, and makes that statement rather broadly, I wonder if the Treasurer would agree with the recommendation of that task force to plan at this time only to the year 1991, which would indicate planning for about 75,000 people or a little more, as opposed to the government’s population projection of 125,000 by the year 2011? The task force does recommend planning for the nearer term, rather than for the longer term.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s incorrect, Mr. Speaker. The task force recommended there be a number of growth centres, four in all, of which Barrie was one, and indicated an optimum population at a point in time of about 125,000 people. We accepted that in principle, and have indicated to Barrie, and indeed have indicated to the other three municipalities and to the county, we’re prepared to support that kind of accelerated growth and do what we can to assist it.

The determination of what boundaries are necessary to accommodate that kind of growth, which hopefully would have been worked out between the parties, was not worked out between the parties, and therefore is before the Ontario Municipal Board. I should also say I have made it clear that if we are to be supportive of that kind of growth, or any kind of growth, our job is greatly facilitated if we are dealing with one municipality rather than with several municipalities and a county.

I have not indicated which boundary is the boundary that is needed, and I think we explicitly left that to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: If I understood the Treasurer it seems to me he said that he did not understand the task force to suggest a near-term plan as opposed to a long-term plan. May I read the paragraph in question and ask his opinion of it? In the task force report, on page 117, it says: “Although the context of the strategy is long term the management focus must be on nearer term horizons. We recommend establishing a time-frame of 15 years, to 1991.” It goes on to say: “Forecasting for a period of more than 15 years leaves open too many uncertainties.”

[2:30]

In view of the fact that it is rather important how much of this agricultural land needs to be annexed and ultimately urbanized, could the Treasurer make clear at some point whether the government accepts the idea of near-term planning as opposed to the idea of annexing for the longer term?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It should be very clear, even to the hon. member, whether agricultural land is located within an urban boundary or outside an urban boundary, it can go on being agricultural land.

Mr. Kerrio: Not likely.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Hundreds of acres in Brampton.

Mr. Breithaupt: Right downtown.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am sure the people of Barrie are as interested as anyone else in preserving agricultural land for as long as that is possible. I have answered the question now three times. We accepted that report in principle. We have not indicated what our preference is -- indeed we have none -- as to whether the boundaries should be drawn at one concession or another concession. That is something which, as I said, I had hoped would be worked out between the parties involved. It has not been, therefore it is a matter for determination by the Ontario Municipal Board.

GROUP HOME PLACEMENTS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services at this time. What specific action is he planning to correct the very difficult and almost absurd situation which is faced by Youth Sphere, a group home in Toronto, which is being forced to provide services for a 16-year-old girl without receiving any funds from Metro social services, either for services rendered over the last two months or for services they are now expected to provide under a court order?

Hon. Mr. Norton: As a result of the decision in the Supreme Court of Ontario last week, I had as recently as this morning a meeting with representatives of the municipalities most directly affected by that decision, the representatives of each of the Children’s Aid Societies from the jurisdictions affected, area representatives of the family court system of the province of Ontario, and other interested persons from agencies engaged in delivering these services to children. I am pleased to say the meeting was one of great co-operation.

I think that at this point I can at least inform the House that the spirit of co-operation from all parties was clearly expressed. Unfortunately, although the meeting lasted through most of the morning, I had to leave before the end of it because of other commitments and other meetings in other parts of the Queen’s Park complex. I have not yet had an opportunity to be briefed by my staff on the final half hour of that meeting. All I can say at this point is that I am optimistic that those matters are well in hand.

I will advise the House as soon as I have had an opportunity to be brought up to date on the latter part of that meeting.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since this particular case is one where Metro will not pay for a placement made prior to the decision of Judge Holland, doesn’t he feel that a great many people who presently are in group homes are in jeopardy of having their care interrupted by exactly the same process. if other municipalities decide to challenge the payment arrangements? Surely the time has come for the province to issue a guarantee that whatever happens there will be a special fund of some kind to make sure that the care of these children and the financial stability of these homes is not jeopardized by this legal problem?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. May I remind the hon. member that this is a question period and not really a debating period.

Mr. S. Smith: It is also a question-and-answer period. Thank you very much. I hope you remind someone to answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I appreciate the opportunity the hon. member has given me now to answer. Although I must say I am not familiar in detail with the specific case to which the member refers, I can assure him on the basis of my discussions with the parties involved, including Toronto, that I am confident those problems will be ironed out very shortly, within the next few days, and that no child in the province of Ontario need have his welfare jeopardized, nor will there be any serious interruption in terms of the programmes in which they presently find themselves.

Mr. Nixon: You sound like your predecessor.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary, how can the minister say he is not familiar with the details of the Youth Sphere case when it was brought to the attention of the minister’s office on Friday of last week; and was raised again by the minister to his staff, with his office, on Tuesday of last week; and was raised by myself in the social development estimates on -- Tuesday of this week rather -- Friday of last week, Tuesday of this week, Tuesday of this week, and again yesterday?

An hon. member: It’s getting late.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can say it, Mr. Speaker, because I happen to be very honest with this House and I am not familiar with the details of that case. I shall make an effort to make myself better acquainted with it.

Mr. McClellan: Well, the minister is responsible.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: The minister in his reply has stated that he believes that none of these placements will be jeopardized; is he aware of the fact that in this particular case, there has already been an effort made, not by Youth Sphere but I understand by probation services, to have this child placed in a woman’s hostel? Is that what he believes to be an adequate placement for a child in these circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that. If the hon. member wishes to provide me with whatever information she has, I can assure you that I will pursue it. I will pursue it with my staff and find out what information they may have received recently that I am not yet aware of.

Mrs. Campbell: I tried.

Mr. Lewis: Is the member aggravated?

Mr. McClellan: May I ask the minister, does he not agree that if his ministry would pay 100 per cent of the costs of maintenance, instead of 50 per cent, and eliminate thereby the incentives for this kind of destructive litigation, then the court would be able to continue to place children -- older, more difficult children -- under

section 21(

d) of The Juvenile Delinquents Act; regardless of Judge Holland’s decision with respect to

section 21(g)? Would he not agree?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as I have already advised this hon. member, I am very reluctant to agree with him when he invites me to agree to simplistic solutions. I suggest to him that the whole matter of the question of the funding problems attendant upon this were a very important part of the discussion this morning, and are something that will be pursued in the next few days.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add, to the hon. member for St. George who interjected that she had attempted to reach me this morning, that I was aware of that. At the time I was tied up in a meeting with the parties involved, including the chief judge of the family court. As soon as possible I returned her call and her line was busy.

Mr. Lewis: You’ve got a great voice, but you are no Jim Taylor.

CAPITAL WORKS PROJECTS

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Treasurer. In view of his budget, which withholds $103 million from the municipalities, moneys to which they are entitled under the Edmonton commitment of his own government; and in view of the serious unemployment in many municipalities in this province; doesn’t he think he should release some of those millions for special funding of local government capital and other work incentive projects, particularly in those municipalities which are hard hit with unemployment?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no. We indicated last September, September 10 as I recall --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- to the municipalities what our best estimate was of the amount of money which would be payable in 1977 under the commitment on a cumulative basis. As it has turned out, slightly less than was anticipated was paid out during 1976, and there is a small variation in the amounts, as they have finally been calculated and estimated at this point by the various ministries for 1977.

I would not at this point, and I think I have to make this quite clear, go back and suggest changes to a whole host of regulations and legislation, and in effect say to the municipalities I am going to catch up on the errors which we made last September, any more than I would if the commitment now showed that they were $108 million ahead. Members asked, and the municipalities have asked, for long-term planning. That’s what we have given them. Sometimes that is going to work in their favour, other times it will work not in their favour; but on a cumulative basis the amount under the commitment is being paid.

Mr. Swart: The Treasurer took that action last fall unilaterally, without consulting the municipalities, and there was no indication to the municipalities at that time that there probably would be this $108 million involved --

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Swart: I am coming to it, Mr. Speaker, immediately.

Mr. Speaker: A little faster.

Mr. Swart: Because of the serious unemployment, and because the Premier (Mr. Davis) now has a letter from the Metropolitan school board which was sent to him and other MPPs -- and I’m sure, because of the Treasurer’s concern about unemployment, that he has a copy of it -- wouldn’t he agree that that letter which makes specific proposals for work programmes, is worthy of consideration for approval and, in fact, a far better method of creating employment than the fast write-offs he has given to corporations, when they are willing to fund a large part of it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The philosophy of this government is quite clear, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s the private sector which is ultimately going to put people back to work in a meaningful way.

Mr. Wildman: Ultimately?

An hon. member: Which millennium?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If we want to go on, recognizing that school board expenditures are going to be paid either by Metropolitan Toronto taxpayers or by us, then inevitably we must have either borrowing or higher taxes. That’s the NDP’s philosophy; it’s not ours.

Mr. Warner: You should resign.

Mr. S. Smith: You don’t do much borrowing do you, Darcy?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: Believing as he does that the free enterprise system should work and the private sector should look after unemployment, in view of the fact that 600 men are going to lose their jobs with Canadian Pittsburgh in Owen Sound and I need $10 million to prevent them leaving Owen Sound, what is the Treasurer going to do about that?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That has nothing to do with this particular question. It is a good question but not related to this one.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is a dandy question.

Mr. Sargent: Does he have an answer for me, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No, the hon. member’s question was not a supplementary.

Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Deans: I hope so; I’m going to try anyway. Since the Treasurer seems to indicate that the taxpayers would have to carry at least part of the burden of the programme suggested by the member for Welland-Thorold, who does the Treasurer suspect will carry the burden of cost to provide the incomes for the people who will be maintained unemployed by this government’s 5.3 per cent policy?

Mr. Lewis: Hear, hear. Who pays that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There is no question that the burden of unemployment insurance, the burden of assistance under a variety of Act, falls on the taxpayers.

Mr. Deans: Why wouldn’t you put it to the other side?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: Don’t be so silly about this.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: You just don’t understand.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: What I do understand is that the NDP thinks government spending is a panacea for everything. And it isn’t.

Mr. Deans: We think it is better to work than to be on welfare.

Mr. Lewis: You want people to be on welfare.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh, get off it! The NDP purely and simply wants more government spending and more bureaucracy.

Mr. Peterson: How could one possibly have more than we’ve got now?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You don’t want jobs.

Mr. S. Smith: The two proponents of big government against each other.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’ve had a very good question period up to now; let’s continue. I’d like to hear the question --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will across-the-chamber discussions please cease?

Mr. Bullbrook: I didn’t think the question period was that good.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for Sarnia.

[Applause.]

Mr. Breithaupt: You don’t even know what he is going to ask.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s really all I wanted.

Mr. Speaker: In view of that, we’ll let you ask a question.

Mr. Bullbrook: They said this is my last supper.

Mr. Yakabuski: The wisest of them all is leaving the ship.

Mr. Bullbrook: There’s only one fellow who can tell me it’s my last supper.

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. Bullbrook: And he hasn’t told me yet.

ENVIRONMENTAL TAX

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to direct a question to the Attorney General if I may. It has to do with the Treasurer’s Bill 53, now loosely known as the can tax Act. I’m wondering whether the Attorney General was asked his opinion of the sections that purport to put a tax on the importation of cans in view of the difference of wording of this legislation and the farm marketing legislation?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: Could I be permitted an aside? That’s the finest answer the Attorney General has given or the best opinion rendered to this government since I came here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: From either side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Bullbrook: No interjections, unless the Premier is going to tell us the date.

I want to ask a supplementary. Would the Attorney General give us his opinion as to the constitutional ability of the Treasurer to put in effect a tariff under this wording on the importation of cans before we debate this bill or, say, within the next two weeks?

Mr. Nixon: Same answer.

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Well, yes. I assume the hon. member is requesting that we give the Legislature a constitutional opinion with respect to this particular section, and I will endeavour to do so.

An hon. member: We might not rely on it.

Mr. Sweeney: You mean you didn’t check before you introduced the bill?

Mr. S. Smith: We value your constitutional opinions tremendously in this party.

LAP-SEAM BOILERS

Mr. G. E. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Is the minister aware of the situation created by the pressure-vessel inspection branch of his ministry that will phase out the operation of many steam traction engines equipped with lap-seam boilers used for show purposes at numerous steam and agricultural shows throughout the province? What can he do to assure their continued operation?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, I am aware of it. The problem has been brought to my attention by a number of members.

Mr. Breithaupt: Most of them with old boilers.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I have met with the organization representing the people who run the shows for non-profit purposes and for demonstration only and we have worked out an accommodation which will permit them to continue under the former testing procedures for this season only. We will, of course, be working out a more permanent testing procedure to provide the ultimate in public safety.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Supplementary: Will the minister assure me that his inspection staff will work closely with the various clubs involved to assure that --

An hon. member: What a dumb question.

Mr. G. E. Smith: -- the new inspection regulations will not necessarily provide a hardship but will ensure public safety?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The process of consultation, of working together, has already begun. We hope within the next two days to develop an agreement between our ministry and the clubs as to the procedure which will be used. Our primary concern, of course, is public safety, at the same time recognizing that the very strict requirements of the ministry may place a financial burden on the owners of the boilers, and we’re trying to work out a system whereby we can assist them in that respect.

Mr. Moffatt: Supplementary: I’d like to ask the minister if he’ll show the same amount of consideration with regard to the stationary engineers who are going to be further unemployed as a result of the inspection of coiled-tube boilers?

Mr. Warner: Right on.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe that’s a supplementary. We were talking about lap-seam boilers.

Mr. Speaker: Sorry. I didn’t hear it.

Mr. Cassidy: It is very relevant. You guys never care about jobs.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary? The member for Halton-Burlington with a final supplementary.

Mr. Reed: Is the thing proceeding within the next couple of days; will this matter be finally settled within that time so that these men will know exactly where they stand?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I thought that was my answer. The hon. member says “finally settled.” I want to assure him that what we are trying to determine now is an interim solution which will permit the clubs to operate for this season, which ends, I understand, sometime in September. But during that time we want to work out a permanent testing procedure, because we do have to be concerned about public safety. If there’s any danger at all, it’s going to be far too late after an explosion. We want to try to prevent that.

BECKER’S MILK DISPUTE

Mr. Warner: In view of the Minister of Labour’s statement this afternoon, indicating her concern about the well-being of workers and about bargaining in good faith, will she direct the Becker’s Milk Company to the bargaining table, and further direct the company to restore the coverage of OHIP, the dental plan, Blue Cross and life insurance, both to the workers and their families, as soon as possible?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I understand that the union involved in this dispute has, in fact, lodged a charge against the employer before the Labour Relations Board. It’s my understanding that the hearings are to be held some time next week. It would be inappropriate for me to do anything at this point until the Labour Relations Board has made its ruling on that dispute.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: While awaiting the decision from the Labour Relations Board, could the minister direct the company to restore the full benefits to a Mr. William Weddowson, who broke his back prior to the strike, is presently on workmen’s compensation, and is enrolled in a manpower retraining programme at a community college? He has had all of his benefits cut off by the company. Would the minister restore those benefits to Mr. Weddowson, please?

Hon. B. Stephenson: With the details of that case, I would most certainly intervene on behalf of that individual employee. He is still receiving his workmen’s compensation benefits, I trust?

Mr. Warner: Yes.

AID FOR SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Reid: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In view of the fact that his predecessor announced a programme for alternative assistance for senior citizens in institutions sometime last fall and nothing has been heard of the programme since, can the minister tell us when these programmes that were requested from the municipalities will go into effect?

Hon. Mr. Norton: My predecessor, in the fall of last year, did announce such a programme and called for proposals from municipalities across the province. The response was very positive and very successful.

Mr. Reid: Overwhelming.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Almost overwhelming, yes. There was also a request, in late November I believe, from a number of municipalities for an extension of the time. They indicated their intent but at that point had not been able to make their submissions. The last of the proposals were received in early January of this year. They have been under review by the staff of the ministry. I have reviewed them on a preliminary basis with my senior management. The final review is scheduled for this coming Monday morning at a senior management meeting and I would hope that we will be able to announce the decisions of those which have been selected very shortly after that.

Some of them, unfortunately, did not come within the established guidelines that were announced by my predecessor and will, therefore, not qualify for the assistance. However, I might say at this point I am very impressed by some of the imaginative proposals that have been made and I look forward to seeing them implemented.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: I trust that the programme will be announced by the time of Senior Citizens Week in June. Can the minister give us an indication of how much money has been put into the programme? How much, on a global basis, will be available?

Hon. Mr. Norton: As I trust the member is aware, the intention of the project was to establish pilot projects in various locations across the province. For this fiscal year, my recollection is -- and I don’t have these figures in front of me; I hope you won’t hold me to them if I come back to correct them at some later date -- it is something in excess of $900,000 that will he devoted to these programmes this year.

RICHMOND HILL NURSING HOMES

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have answers to three or four questions asked in the last few days. To start with, on April 25, the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Stong) asked me about nursing homes in Richmond Hill. His question related to the Elmwood Manor Nursing Home and to the Country Place Nursing Home in Richmond Hill. The member, I hope, is aware that all nursing homes in the province are, in fact, privately owned. My ministry does not involve itself in the funding of capital costs for nursing homes, as was suggested by the member.

The only involvement in payments to nursing homes relates to coverage for residents eligible for extended health care benefits under The Health Insurance Act.

MEDICAL SERVICES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I was asked by the hon. member for Rainy River on April 21 to investigate the position applicable to circumstances in which senior citizens of Ontario entitled to receive free prescription drugs from an Ontario pharmacist under our drug benefit legislation had a prescription filled by a pharmacist outside the province. I must now inform the House that legislation states this ministry will pay for, on behalf of an eligible Ontario resident, drugs purchased from a dispensary which, by definition, is, and I am quoting, “A person or facility in Ontario approved by the minister to dispense drugs.”

At this time there is no legislation to allow the drug benefit plan to reimburse patients for drugs purchased outside of the province. The drug benefit programme pays for only those drugs that are listed in the formulary. If we routinely reimbursed eligible persons for drugs purchased outside of Ontario, we would be paying for non-benefit drugs. A person who has to get medical treatment outside of Ontario will be well advised to have his prescription filled by an eligible pharmacy in Ontario if this is at all possible.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I ask the hon. minister how many more answers he has there?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Two.

Mr. Speaker: I think we will stop at those two now and have any supplementaries that flow from them, then we will get back to you next time around. The hon. member for Rainy River I believe, has a supplementary to his original question.

Mr. Reid: Would the minister consider that some of the people, particularly in northwestern Ontario, are sent by their doctors to hospitals in Manitoba or Minnesota, where they require those drugs and do not have time to send to an Ontario pharmacist for them before being institutionalized in that province or that state? Relatively speaking, it would involve very few prescriptions under the Parcost prescribed drugs. Could the minister not make an amendment to allow that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I could consider that, Mr. Speaker. I think the member realizes, of course, that in cases where people are sent outside of the province, we would cover their hospitalization and medical costs according to our “B”

schedule if that service was not available in Ontario. Certainly, if the use of drugs, or the prescription of drugs is combined with having to leave the province for a service not available here -- let’s say some of the services of the Mayo Clinic -- yes, perhaps I’ll take that under consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre has a supplementary to his original question, I believe.

RICHMOND HILL NURSING HOMES

Mr. Stong: The question I asked the other day did not relate to capital funding, as you have correctly indicated. However, because I indicated that the facilities were available as well as a waiting list, the question became the extendicare funding -- so that the beds that are available, the facilities that are available, would be opened up. Is the ministry prepared to assist both nursing homes to allow the people who are waiting to get in a chance to take over the facilities that are already available and the beds that are already available?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I remind the member that in his question on the 25th he said: “I have a question of the Minister of Health. Would the minister consider giving assistance, in terms of licence and funding -- ” and so on.

There’s a rather interesting history to these two homes. First of all, in the case of Elmwood Manor, the building was built in 1972. There were two partners at the time who proceeded to build even though the ministry had informed them that the building would not be licensed as a nursing home. Financial problems apparently occurred between the partners and the ownership of the property was assumed by one of the partners. The building was completed. The owner applied for a nursing home licence which was refused, as he had been told it would be before he had even put a shovel in the ground.

There were many subsequent meetings and discussions with senior officials of the Ministry of Health. Two years ago, in 1975, the home was licensed for 16 nursing home beds and for 16 special care beds. The owner has since applied for additional beds and has been refused. I might add that this matter was reviewed by the Ombudsman in October 1976 and the decision of the ministry was upheld.

In the case of Country Place Nursing Home where they have 100 beds, I hope that the member is aware that there is a second building owned by the owner of this home. This building was erected in 1974 to be replacement for the existing nursing home, which is a much older building. The owner then changed his plans and advised the minister that he would not be moving the residents out of the older building. Now he is asking the minister to licence both homes. As the member knows, there has been a freeze on new nursing home beds since October 1975.

While I’m reviewing that matter, I think, given the rather interesting background of these two cases and given the rather large number of nursing home beds in the region of York as compared to any other region of the province, I could not consider that at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for High Park-Swansea have a further supplementary to this? One final supplementary under this question.

MEDICAL SERVICES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Ziemba: Yes, it’s a supplementary to the previous question, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Health answered with regard to the people in the north who might have difficulty refilling their Ontario drug benefit prescriptions every 30 days. Would the minister, as the present regulation requires, consider extending that 30-day limit, thereby saving this province many millions of dollars in dispensing fees?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s not a supplementary but it’s also not surprising. There are cases where, through the office of the director of that branch, permission is extended for that sort of thing if people are leaving the country for three months or six months. Permission is granted to fill more than the 30-day allotment. I think that is looked after now. There is discretion there.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a new question? The hon. member for Cambridge.

KAYSON PLASTICS

Mr. Davidson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Labour relating to the Kayson Plastics division of Polysar Limited in Cambridge. Can the minister advise me how many employees of that plant have had medical examinations carried out to see whether there were any effects caused by the use of Mirex in that plant?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It was my original understanding that they had all been examined -- all those who had been in contact with it. But I shall check on that and I’ll get the accurate information and report back to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a supplementary?

Mr. Davidson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that the occupational health branch first visited that plant on December 15, 1976 and given the fact that as of yesterday afternoon not one employee had had a medical examination, will the minister now, through her ministry, order those examinations carried out under The Industrial Safety Act?

[3:00]

Hon. B. Stephenson: It was my original understanding as well that the relationship between the inspection division of the industrial safety part of the ministry and that plant had been such that the company had been responsible for this. But, as I said, I shall check this and be absolutely positive about it and report back to the House.

CURRICULUM CONNECTIONS

Mr. Singer: A question for the Minister of Education: Does the minister believe it appropriate that his department should share in the funding of a document called Curriculum Connections, which in its spring issue of 1977 contains two letters expressing critical comment about an opinion put forward in this House by the leader of our party -- or of any party? Or is it the same kind of thing that the Leader of the Opposition was complaining about wherein the government uses public money and civil servants to embark upon political-type criticisms?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Could I ask the member what the name of the publication is?

Mr. Singer: It is called Curriculum Connections. It is published by the Ontario Association for Curriculum Development in co-operation with the Ministry of Education, the Ontario Educational Communications Authority and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Interjections.

An hon. member: All government bodies.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let me say to my friend that I think we probably give a contribution to help the publication of that particular document. We do not control in any way what is published in that document.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If I rose in this House and complained every time a publication like that complained of the policies of the Minister of Education, I would be up here about every day.

Mr. Reid: You would be up daily.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, would the minister not agree that it is time that public money should not be spent in the political field engaged in political criticism or opinion?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Read the letter. Let’s hear what it said.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think that is an absurd question.

MEDICAL SERVICES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On April 21 the member for Rainy River asked me a question concerning my ministry’s underserviced area programme. The purpose of the underserviced area programme for physicians is to provide and to attract doctors to isolated communities.

A physician who has been approved by our medical selection committee for support under our programme and who establishes practice in northern Ontario in an area designated as underserviced may receive, (a), an incentive grant in the amount of $20,000 payable over a four-year period in quarterly instalments or, (

b) a contract with a guaranteed annual net professional income in the amount of $33,000. He may receive an advance of $5,000 payable in equal amounts of $1,000 over the first five months in which he has established practice. This is for the first year only. Said contracts and incentive grants are renewable annually.

If a physician has been accepted by our medical selection committee to establish practice in northern Ontario, the Ministry of Health will request a work visa to allow this physician to practice in an area of northern Ontario designated as underserviced. The ministry will request renewal of the work visa each year if the doctor remains in practice in the designated underserviced area. The purpose of the programme is to provide services in the areas and communities where they are needed.

With the large number of doctors now practising in Ontario, it has become less necessary to recruit physicians from other countries. Those who have been working in the underserviced area programme and who require renewal of work visas to continue are assured of this ministry’s support for such renewal as long as they continue working in the communities where they are needed.

Where such physicians ask for landed immigrant status, which would permit them to leave the area of need, we have not to date supported the granting of such status by Canada Manpower and Immigration. Federal regulations would require that such persons return to their countries of origin to apply for such status. However this has not occurred, to our knowledge. Supporting landed status would be inconsistent with the objectives of the underserviced area programme as well as with our plans to limit numbers of physicians and costs.

The second question that day from the same member concerned dental services in the north and the number of dental vans we plan to put on the road. We have presently four vans and one dental railroad coach in operation in northern Ontario and we plan to add five more vans this year. Does the member want to know where?

Mr. Reid: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We are going to add them in the following areas; At Vermilion Bay in the Kenora district; in the Thunder Bay area at Beardmore and Macdiarmid; and in the Algoma area at White River or Dubreuiville -- that is yet to be decided. In the Timiskaming area, it will be either Charlton or Elk Lake and in eastern Ontario at Wilberforce.

DRG GLOBE ENVELOPES LIMITED

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me a little

preamble.

Mr. Speaker: Very brief. If it’s necessary to place the question, it’s in order.

Mr. Grande: Definitely necessary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Then just proceed with it, please.

Mr. Grande: On April 21 the Minister of Labour -- and my question will be to the Minister of Labour -- read in the House a letter which she had sent to me earlier regarding the intolerable working conditions at DRG Globe Envelopes. I thought that by giving the minister the opportunity to make public the answer to my earlier question, she would be careful in giving the correct information. No such luck.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have a question?

Mr. Grande: Let me ask the question.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, please do.

Mr. Grande: Is the minister aware that the workers in that plant don’t know anything about the alleged petition that was supposedly signed by 100 per cent of them? Further, is she aware that the workers are not allowed to leave their night shift 15 minutes earlier, even when they have only 15 minutes for lunch, as she stated in her answer? And is the aware that as of December last year, when the initial suggestion was put in the House on December 6, the director of the employment standards branch had given no permission for a lunch break shorter than the half hour required by law?

In view of these unintentional inaccuracies, I’m sure --

Mr. Sargent: I’ll take you out to lunch sometime.

An hon. member: What are you doing for lunch, Bette?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a final question?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have acute indigestion after that one.

Mr. Grande: Will the minister table in this House the alleged petition? And, secondly, will the minister conduct an investigation of the audit by talking to workers this time, and not to management, since management views are clear in the first audit?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Indeed, an audit was carried out. The audit was carried out by the employment standards branch of my ministry. To my knowledge, it was carried out accurately and honestly and reported accurately and honestly.

I am not aware of the allegations, again made by the member for Oakwood. I shall investigate them and I shall most certainly report to this House. But I reported to this House the factual information which I had.

GROUP HOME PLACEMENTS

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services:

Mr. Samis: Wake up, Keith.

Mrs. Campbell: In view of the minister’s indication that members of the family court were present at a meeting today, has he taken any steps to discuss the matter of the Holland decision with the Attorney General, in view of the fact that it would appear that orders of the family courts will be honoured in their abuse at this time?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not sure what the hon. members means by “honoured in their abuse.” Is she referring to existing orders?

Mrs. Campbell: I am referring to any orders, such as the one we referred to today.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have discussed the matter, both with representatives of the Attorney General and with the Attorney General himself. My information at this time is that where payments have begun, existing orders are fine; there is no disagreement over the effect of those. With respect to all of those orders. I am pleased to say that the municipalities have indicated that they will maintain those payments, in order to avoid any disturbance of those placements and those programmes the children are involved in.

I am also pleased with the degree of cooperation indicated with regard to future orders that might be made. I will not have a final response on that until I have had a chance to carry out certain undertakings I have given to those people at the meeting this morning, undertakings which involve further discussion on my part with my colleague. I have to communicate with them again.

I am optimistic that the whole area of concern which the member and I share at this point with regard to the welfare of these children will be resolved within a mailer of a few days.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: Has the minister discussed with the Attorney General the order itself, the Holland judgement?

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the member means personally with the Attorney General, I have only very briefly, but with some of the members of his staff, yes. I can advise her that at this point it is the intention that that decision will be appealed.

Mrs. Campbell: If this decision is to be appealed, what is the effect on those orders pending that appeal decision? Will the minister make some effort to effect a stay until that is accomplished?

An hon. member: You’re whispering again.

Some hon. members: Turn the mike on!

Mrs. Campbell: Say yes.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I’m glad that they finally awakened up up there. I can assure the member also that that was one of the purposes of the meeting this morning, to ensure that there would be no disruption during any period that might ensue with respect to the appeal.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for London North.

Mr. Shore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: Which side are you on today?

An hon. member: Are you coming back now?

Mr. Reid: Which party are you running for this time?

Mr. Conway: In this corner, Jack Horner.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Could we hear the question?

Mr. Shore: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Recreation and the minister responsible for the Wintario programme.

Mr. S. Smith: Are you going to send the losing letters too now?

Mr. Speaker: We are wasting time. The hon. member will place his question.

WINTARIO FUNDS

Mr. Shore: Since the Wintario programme at present is based on the principle of sharing, which ordinarily means a dollar-for-a-dollar partnership with a sponsoring organization, in view of the bias and often the inequity that this introduces to groups or communities with fewer financial resources -- that is to say, since the criteria are the same for all, those with more will be able to receive more -- is it not possible or does it not make sense that a proportion of the funds could be set aside to be used as equalization resources to be applied in situations where potential applicants are ineligible because of lack of resources?

Mr. Singer: That’s a very good question.

Why don’t you put it on the order paper?

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s already done.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s a very good question and quite in keeping with the policy of this caucus.

Mr. Speaker: And now for the answer.

Mr. Reid: He is sitting too close to the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea).

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s hear the answer.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I know that the member would understand that there is a degree of equalization built into the criteria already.

With respect to the north and to the east, we have a different sharing principle for those parts of the province, recognizing the need for that, as it affects Indian bands and the whole question of the introduction of labour and materials in lieu of actual cash. As all government programmes are always being reviewed to make sure they are relevant and in keeping with special considerations, I would be glad to take the member’s question under further consideration.

[3:15]

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: I’d like to ask the minister, when is he going to give the Legislature an opportunity to debate the criteria on which the Wintario grants are being handed out and to give the public some opportunity to have some public hearings on this, so that recommendations can be considered?

An hon. member: Tuesday afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s not really supplementary to the question, and it’s been asked before. Is there a very brief answer?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a very brief answer. The estimates of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation come annually before the House or before a committee. They’ve been before the House twice, which is ample opportunity, and I’d be very happy to have the advice of the member and any other members with respect to this criteria when my estimates are before the House.

Ms. Bryden: That is not before the public.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Did you represent the public?

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary from the member for Grey-Bruce? If it’s not, we want to get on here.

Mr. Sargent: All right, all right.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary?

INSTANT LOTTERY

Mr. Sargent: Regarding the lottery, is the minister going to bring in the instant lottery before the election?

Mr. Speaker: That’s a new question -- a good question, but a new one.

Mr. Sargent: Then answer it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We have no intention of having an instant lottery in Ontario. Absolutely none.

LICENCE FEES

Mr. Bain: I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The question pertains to the $10 licence fee for automobiles in northern Ontario. Is the minister aware that for many families in northern Ontario the only family vehicle is a half-ton truck, and is he willing to extend the $10 licence fee to half-ton trucks if those vehicles are the only family vehicle or if they’re used for farm purposes?

An hon. member: Say yes.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Of course, a half-ton truck, it’s my understanding -- and I think I’m right -- can be registered as a passenger vehicle, If it is registered as a passenger vehicle, I would think it would qualify for the $10 licence. If it is registered as a commercial vehicle, it would not. And, of course, for the farm community there’s a special provision for the registering of any size of truck as a farm truck, which qualifies for a reduced licence as well.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Order, please. There are two people on their feet. The hon. member for Hamilton West.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to rise somewhat briefly on a point of personal privilege, if I might, Mr. Speaker.

On April 15, the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague) read into the record a letter, dated May 11, to the Treasurer from the Minister of Agriculture and Food regarding the Barrie annexation matter, suggesting that this was the communication which I had requested on April 1.

In actual fact, the document which I have referred to in the House, and the one which has been withheld from us by instruction of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, was a staff report of the food land development branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, dated August 1975, as he well knows.

Not only have we requested the staff report in the House, Mr. Speaker, we’ve also written to the minister to request it and hope that this document will be tabled for the use and scrutiny of the House.

Hon. W. Newman: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I think it’s more aptly called a point of order. Is there an answer to this? All right.

Mr. Bain: Point of order.

Mr. McClellan: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: One moment, please.

Hon. W. Newman: On a point of privilege. I’d just like to point out that the leader of the third party is wrong in saying that I gave instructions to withhold any document at all. It was understood the letter that I, as the minister, wrote to the Treasurer on the matter was the letter that was to be tabled, and that’s what was tabled in the House by his parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Good: Cover-up. Cover-up.

Mr. Kerrio: You should be embarrassed. That wasn’t the letter at all, and you know it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We can’t hear. The minister has corrected and his word must be taken. Is there a further point of privilege?

Mr. S. Smith: This is a point of privilege, because in fact I have made the statement in this House just a few minutes ago that there is a document, namely a staff report of the food land development branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. That report is what I want, and that report is being withheld from us by instruction of the minister; and I say it again. If he wants to table it, let him do so.

An hon. member: Table it.

Hon. W. Newman: I have made my point very clearly that I did not give any instructions, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member wants to make allegations like that, then let him prove them outside of this House and be a man to do it. Let him stand up and be a man about it.

Mr. Reid: Will you table it?

Mr. Breithaupt: Will you table it?

Mr. S. Smith: Table it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Any hon. member’s word must be accepted --

Mr. S. Smith: Why don’t you table it?

Will you table it or not?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister stated he didn’t; therefore his word must be accepted. Do you have a further point of order?

Mr. MacDonald: On a point of order: I’m not disputing his word, but will the minister table that document from the food land development branch? Is he in effect saying no, he won’t table it?

An hon. member: Yes or no?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is a question which could have been asked more appropriately during the question period. It can be asked again.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order --

An hon. member: What are you hiding? Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, we are all out of order who are talking, except the Speaker.

Mr. S. Smith: You have a copy of it, Darcy, will you table it? Your department has it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

POINTS OF ORDER

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice under standing order 27(

g) that I am dissatisfied with the response to my question by the Minister of Community and Social Services and wish to debate with him at the adjournment today.

Mr. Bain: Mr. Speaker, I too rise on a similar point of order. I wish to give notice that I am dissatisfied with the Minister of Transportation and Communications’ answer and I also wish to debate the matter with him this evening.

An hon. member: Obstructionism.

Mr. Deans: I too rise on the same matter to give notice that I am dissatisfied with the answer of the Treasurer to the question I asked and wish to debate it at 10:30 this evening.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here with 4,500 names. I checked, and under the rules of the House I am afraid I can’t do it. The petition is directed to the government instead of the Legislature, so if I may I will present it to the House leader to convey it to the Premier. It is with regard to the French-language school in Essex county.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports. Motions.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Mr. Morrow moved first reading of Bill Pr 28,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. B. Stephenson moved first reading of Bill 62,

An Act to amend The Ministry of Labour Act.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF SAULT STE. MARIE ACT

Mr. Lane moved first reading of Bill Pr 18,

An Act respecting The City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Motion agreed to.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of Bill 63, The Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, 1977.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of amendments to the regional municipalities Acts to present to the House. Primarily they are measures to streamline the temporary borrowing provisions. We also propose that a simple majority vote be sufficient to authorize the removal of an auditor with cause, and that the 10 regional municipalities be permitted to pay rewards to persons who supply information leading to the conviction of offenders.

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of Bill 64,

An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The amendments to this bill duplicate those I have just outlined for the regional municipalities Acts.

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of Bill 65,

An Act to amend The County of Oxford Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Again the amendments are the same as for the previous Acts.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of Bill 66,

An Act to amend The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: All the amendments to The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act are similar to those in the proposed regional municipalities amendment bill. There is, however, an additional amendment concerning vote requirements, that a simple majority vote suffice to authorize travelling expenses of Metro councillors and officials and expenses incurred for entertainment.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of Bill 67,

An Act to amend The Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Amendments to this Act give the municipalities two further kinds of money bylaws which do not require the assent of the electorate; namely, for acquiring land for housing purposes and for providing money for highways and bridges. We also propose that when partial payment is received for tax arrears, payments shall first be applied to interest or percentage charges, the remaining amount then being applied to the oldest taxes due.

At the request of the municipalities we are broadening the per diem of remuneration for members of council to allow for payment for attending meetings other than council meetings.

PUBLIC UTILITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of Bill 68,

An Act to amend The Public Utilities Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We propose here that before any public utilities be shut off for non-payment, 48 hours’ notice be given to the occupant and the owner, if he or she is a different person.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville has a special interest in that piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

[3:30]

CITY OF TIMMINS-PORCUPINE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of Bill 69,

An Act to amend The City of Timmins-Porcupine Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This amendment vests in the city of Timmins the right to collect tax arrears in respect of unorganized territory which became part of the city when it was created in 1973.

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Bain moved first reading of Bill 70,

An Act to amend The Pension Benefits Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bain: This bill requires that an employer disclose all current actuarial details -- that is, the investment of a pension fund, how much money is being earned and so on -- of a registered pension plan and that this information be disclosed to actual and potential employees of the company in question, that may be now or may be in the future participating in the plan.

GASOLINE AND HEATING OIL UNIFORM PRICING ACT

Mr. Lane moved first reading of Bill 71,

An Act to Require a Single Price for Gasoline and Heating Oil sold in Ontario by a Wholesaler.

Motion agreed to.

TOWNSHIP OF DOVER ACT

Mr. Spence moved first reading of Bill Pr3,

An Act respecting the Township of Dover.

Motion agreed to.

VILLAGE OF PORT MCNICOLL ACT

Mr. G. E. Smith moved first reading of Bill Pr12,

An Act respecting the Village of Port McNicoll.

Motion agreed to.

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved first reading of Bill 72,

An Act to amend The Condominium Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, this bill would give mobile-home owners the opportunity to own and operate their parks by amending The Condominium Act to enable mobile-home parks to be registered as condominium projects. The bill also clarifies the existing law by stating that a designated unit can consist of vacant land. This bill therefore provides for flexibility in the development of mobile-home condominium projects by enabling a developer to choose between designating a mobile home as a unit in itself, or alternatively, designating a vacant lot as a unit upon which a mobile home may be placed.

JOHN A. SCHMALTZ AGENCIES LIMITED ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved first reading of Bill Pr14,

An Act respecting John A. Schmaltz Agencies Limited.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Eaton, on behalf of Mr. Grossman, moved first reading of Bill Pr31,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

PROFESSIONAL FUND-RAISING CORPORATIONS CONTROL ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved first reading of Bill 73,

An Act to control Professional Fund-Raising Corporations.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, to be very brief, the bill will license professional fund-raising companies.

LEGISLATIVE

SCHEDULE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before going on with the orders of the day it’s usual on Thursdays to indicate the order of business for the following week.

Before doing that, perhaps we should indicate that this afternoon we’ll be doing the private members’ ballot business that is orders 52 and 43, and in that order. This evening we have the unanimous consent of the House to go to Bill 28 at 8 o’clock, The Residential Premises Rent Review Act, and to carry on with that bill until third reading stage. Following that we will resume what we had planned for this evening, the budget debate, for the remainder of the evening.

I just wanted to indicate that we have unanimous consent to go to Bill 28 this evening at 8 o’clock, following which we will have budget debate, and then budget debate tomorrow morning.

Next week, on Monday --

Mr. Conway: Dispense.

Mr. Sweeney: Unnecessary.

Hon. Mr. Welch: This is very important. This is the public’s business.

Mr. Eaton: Is that what you fellows want?

Hon. Mr. Welch: On Monday afternoon the House will be in committee of supply and we will start the estimates of the Solicitor General. There is no House on Monday evening. Tuesday is legislation day.

Mr. Wildman: What about the rest of the week?

Hon. Mr. Welch: We will continue with the Essex school bill, followed by the Northern Affairs Ministry, followed by the successor rights legislation and perhaps if we have time we will do the Hartt amendment.

There is no House Wednesday but of course we are in committee.

Thursday afternoon is private members’ ballot business. There would be no House next Thursday evening, Mr. Speaker, because that is the occasion of your dinner. Then on Friday morning we’ll do the budget debate.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS PATIENTS’ RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Dukszta moved second reading of Bill 33,

An Act respecting Certain Rights of Patients receiving Health Care Services in Ontario.

Mr. Dukszta: I want to say before I go into details of my bill how pleasant, how instructive and how exciting it has been to participate in introducing a private member’s bill in the Legislative Assembly. As everyone knows, this is a new approach to us in this Parliament. It has followed on a great parliamentary tradition in England where it has led to major changes in legislation.

I remember one case specifically of Mr. Leo Abse, who through a succession of three Parliaments after three elections persisted in introducing a bill to defeat the Labouchere amendment to The Sexual Offences Act and finally succeeded in having it passed. I notice in our own Parliament there has been a leitmotif to all the private members’ bills which dealt largely with the right of the individuals in Ontario. I refer to the member for Lakeshore’s (Mr. Lawlor) bill, to that of the member for St. George (Mrs.

Campbell) Which is going to be discussed after mine, and especially to the pioneer in the rights bill, the member for Parry Sound’s (Mr. Maeck) bill. I found some connection between what I am introducing, what I am now debating and what I hope will be passed between the rights bill of patients and the member for Parry Sound’s bill which preceded mine, which also dealt, maybe in a more limited fashion, with some rights of the patients in hospitals.

There is the whole concept of lobbying. It was the first time really I have ever done a private member’s bill and I lobbied intensively through all the ranks. I found to my great amazement and delight how delightful, instructive, intelligent and warmhearted most members are in giving, I hope, their wholehearted support to my bill.

What I would like to establish here is that my bill be accepted in principle. There are a number of points where it needs to have further consideration and work. I hope when it has passed it will go to the committee on social development for an input from outside and from everyone concerned. I should tell members immediately that there are a couple of things about which I am concerned already and I should mention them.

One of them is a mistake made by me when I said that the age of consent should be 18. It is now a common practice in hospitals that the age of consent is 16. I do not want to change that in essence but I would introduce an amendment during third reading to that effect.

The second one is a little more important. The records pertaining to the patient have to be private, except for a number of exceptions. I missed one exception, which is that the physician is obliged, once he examines a patient and discovers that the patient is incapable of driving or could be dangerous when driving, then he has to report this, according to The Highway Traffic Act. That particular provision I fully approve of and I would introduce an amendment to make sure that this is not abolished.

There is one other point on which I am not clear; that is whether this bill would interfere with open discussion with a number of legal advisers. I am told that it does not interfere with The Public Health Act which requires a physician to report cases of infectious syphilis. So I am not going to introduce that amendment unless I hear to the contrary.

[3:45]

The purpose of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is to declare and protect certain rights of medical patients in Ontario. There are three parts to the bill. One is the right of access to the patient’s own record and the right to privacy of the record. The second

part is the right to adequate information about the proposed form of treatment before giving a written consent to the treatment. Third is the right to due process of law for the people with mental disorders as enjoyed in our society by other people.

Part I: First, we’ll consider the right to have ones medical records kept confidential. An example often given is that in a hospital, as much as we pay attention to make sure that the records are confidential, quite often the records actually travel through the system and can be used quite easily by others. That access to confidential records in hospitals is quite general.

I would like, in this bill, to provide for making sure that only when the patient gives particular release that access to the records will be given to someone -- except for the obvious administrative procedures which is the counting of heads, sex and the age of the patient, and so on.

The second

part is more important. It’s the right to one’s own chart. At the moment, one can get a chart if one has a friendly physician who will get it for him or if he goes through a lawyer or through a court. For most people, in fact, it has not been possible to get their own charts.

Interestingly enough, one of the things that people have told me is that they have been afraid of what would happen if the charts are open to everyone. In other jurisdictions some of the charts have been open now for some time. In France, I’m not sure whether it applies to hospitals but I know a patient who has had lab tests or x-rays done in that country is given two copies, one for himself or herself and one to take to their doctor, without any undue problems or bother.

One of the more interesting objections has been regarding what will happen to people with a terminal illness and people who have something really unpleasant written about them in the chart. In cases of terminal illness, this bill dovetails with the bill of the member for Parry Sound, because it allows the patient both the access to the information and the decision making about his own future. I’m not sure how to answer this except that you don’t have to go and ask for your own chart if you don’t want to. But if you do want to, you should be able to have the right to obtain your chart.

Let me give you a practical experience. When I worked in the Queen Street Mental Health Centre I was in charge, during the last year of the benevolent ministry of the member for Brock (Mr. Welch), of an admissions unit in which we were then introducing considerable social psychiatry to the therapeutic community. One of the things which occurred, ultimately, was that patients were discussing and making decisions on their own problems -- I should mention that this was a general unit which had just as many people who were acutely disturbed as others.

We decided to open the charts to the patients. At first, there were a lot of objections from the staff who said: “What will happen? We have written such and such, it will complicate our lives.” People would say: “It will complicate our lives” meaning the staff’s life.

When we did open the charts the effect was that the patient at first did, indeed, get annoyed, because what was written on the chart -- which may be more typical of psychiatric charts than of general hospitals -- is often tendentious and full of ad hominem remarks -- things which are not factual and have nothing to really do with the problem that a patient has. They are

interpretations and explorations of the patient’s personality in the name of science, but basically just fanciful ideas written by the staff about the patient.

To those points the patient did object, and rightly so, because some of them were really ad hominem arguments. But we did find, when we started working on it, that the staff were not only putting actual information down but had begun to put it in a much more orderly factual fashion. It was no longer a general statement but it said precisely what happened -- why the patient was admitted.

For example, if the patient was violent on the street and attacked someone, you wouldn’t say that he was a nasty paranoid schizophrenic, you would say that this patient, age such and such, attacked an individual on the street and no one could control him so he had to be brought to the hospital. No one objects, and I am certain they would not object, to a factual statement of this sort. Anyway, this is part of good medical practice. This is part of the problem and you have to deal with it at some stage in the therapeutic process. The patient himself would have to deal with it. I am using this as an example because it’s my own experience, but in the same way it applies in general hospitals.

Part II is a more contentious part for many members of the medical profession. This states very specifically that written, informed consent must be obtained before a surgical procedure or before a major medical procedure can take place, for which a consent has been required so far. This

section is directly linked to The Public Hospitals Act which requires that before certain procedures can take place, written consent must be obtained.

I do not want, nor does the bill provide for, the extension of the informed consent form to cover ordinary visits to the family doctor to ask about a cold. It only applies to those circumstances in which a written consent has been required before and will be required now.

What the bill proposes and what I feel very strongly about is that quite often not enough information is given to an individual who is facing a major illness, a major surgical procedure. I want to make sure that it is there.

The bill provides for five points. On the written consent form which, as I mentioned to you, is signed by both physician and patient, you have to specify the nature of the patient’s medical problem. You must also specify the advisability of treatment of the medical problem; the objective sought by the treatment; the nature of the risks inherent in any treatment; and the alternative forms of treatment.

It has to be done in colloquial language so that people can understand what the physician is saying. Once given this information, I think the patient can reasonably come to an informed decision on the problem -- whether he wants to participate in this thing, whether he wants the operation. He enters a significant relationship with the physician on the basis of some equal information, not as before when, in effect, only the physician had the information. It equalizes the relation between patient and physician. For me, that is probably the most important part.

One objection is, will the patient, in possession of this information, not want to take the required or necessary treatment. If that happens, and I don’t believe it will, then it’s the patient’s decision. The physician then has to decide whether that patient is competent to make that type of decision. But, basically, it is the decision of the individual as to whether he will go ahead and have the operation or the treatment. It is not my responsibility as a physician to act like a parent; the patient must decide for himself.

I repeat, it is for the patient to make this decision; it is for the patient to start dealing with the physician on a peer basis, for the patient to be treated in fact as a reasonable human being. It is his body, after all, which is being repaired or helped.

Another point is that when two people sign the documents and the kind of treatment is specified, it is, in effect, a contractual relationship which binds both parties but it also protects both patient and physician. There will be less litigation because of the clarity of what is proposed.

One of the concerns expressed has been what happens to an unconscious patient. An unconscious patient obviously can’t sign a consent. I should tell the House that now, in practice, an unconscious patient does not sign a consent. It is assumed an unconscious patient wants treatment and the treatment proceeds, if no parent or relative objects, so that would not be changed.

As to the other objection, I’ve been doing so much lobbying that I’ve collected a number of statements of what people said. They said it will take so much of doctors’ time there won’t be any time left for actually treating patients. My answer to this is that it is an essential part of good clinical practice that a relationship occurs between a patient and a physician in which an exchange of information is essential, and that part of the possible recovery and treatment is already in that exchange of information and it is time extremely well spent. It’s part of good clinical practice. It shouldn’t cost any more.

If it does involve a little more time, then I say, if it’s for the sake of better clinical practice, let’s do it.

Another objection was that he would say, well, the patient can always ask -- Mr. Speaker, how much have I got?

Mr. Acting Speaker: You have approximately five minutes.

Mr. Dukszta: Five minutes? Thank you.

The last point I would make on that

section is that of the physicians whom I’ve talked to -- and some of them have been quite sympathetic to the bill -- those who are less sympathetic have said that the practice is already going on and the doctors can be trusted to do this. Under no condition would I ever say that most of our physicians are incompetent; far from it. We have a very good group of people who are providing excellent service. If they are already doing some of this practice, there should be no objection from organized medicine to codifying that particular practice and putting it in the law.

I actually refer specifically to the president of the OMA, who has said something like this and implied that this is already good medical practice. If it is, then good, let’s codify it, let’s make sure, let’s extend it. There should be no objection from him about doing it.

Part III provides for due process of law in the case of psychiatric patients. What happens now is that if an individual is diagnosed as being dangerous to himself or to others because of a mental disorder, a physician or a psychiatrist is obligated to fill out a Form 1 of The Mental Health Act to admit him to a psychiatric facility, and the form is in force today.

Let me tell you how the process works, Mr. Speaker. Let me speak from personal experience. As a psychiatrist I have dealt often with individuals whom I considered dangerous to themselves or to others. Let me tell the House, it’s an entirely subjective judgement. There really is no science about this. It’s me and my conscience that says that I can’t let that man out because he’s dangerous to himself or to others. I have done that and I have written the forms and I have always been bothered by the fact that it’s only on my say -- on the discretionary power of one individual.

One physician or one psychiatrist can put away an individual for 30 days, deprive him or her of their liberties, with only one recourse -- two, really, but one is never used, which is The Habeas Corpus Act. The second recourse is an appeal board, which usually takes some time to convene and by that time the patient often is already out of hospital.

I believe this type of approach to a patient does not extend the full privileges of our law that we extend to people who are accused of a crime. The patient with a mental disorder is treated differently, has no recourse to law. If I committed a crime it would be different. I would get a lawyer and all the due process of law comes into effect I would be fully protected; the mental patient is not.

My bill would provide for protection for that patient. The protection would be two-fold:

1. A certificate filled out by a physician or a psychiatrist will last four days, in sequence. It doesn’t mean that after four days the patient will be automatically discharged. It means that after four days the patient will have to be re-assessed as to whether he is still dangerous to himself or to others. The sequence of the Form 1s would last no more than one month, while at the moment it lasts up to two years. At the end of one month a physician from outside would have to be brought in.

2. A copy -- that’s the most important part, I think, of this

section -- of the Form 1 would have to be sent to the Attorney General’s office so that the Attorney General in turn appoints an advocate on behalf of a patient if the patient is unable to find one himself or herself. The advocate looks into the situation and checks.

[4:00]

Recent studies have shown that up to 70 per cent of all Form 1s filled in when admitting the patients to the hospital actually have been incorrectly filled in. It has been much easier to do it this way; it’s just a clinical thing. I remember that in hospital, if you had a patient for 30 days, you took your time. I think the psychiatrist in charge of a patient’s treatment and helping the patient to recover should be always on his toes, both as regards civil liberties and the treatment. And part of the Act will introduce what I call the due process of law into it.

In

summary, there are three points to this bill. One is the patient’s right to his own chart and to privacy. The second point is informed consent. I want a patient -- and the Act would provide this -- to be a full partner in the therapeutic process on the basis of equality. The third point is the one that will introduce the due process of law for psychiatrical patients.

Let me just add a few more sentences: It is only a proposal, a principle which I would like to have accepted, to move the civil rights part of Ontario towards -- do I have 15 more seconds?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Your time has expired. Would you conclude briefly?

Mr. Dukszta: Let me say this is only the principle; I would like to refer it to the social development committee. I hope it’s approved in principle; we can then work on the details. I would ask everyone to support it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In the 10 minutes available to me, Mr. Speaker, I will try to outline a couple of concerns I have about the proposal from my hon. friend. May I say, having come into the House at the same time, at the same election, as the member for Parkdale, that I too am most appreciative of the changes in recent months negotiated by our colleagues, the House leaders, in enhancing the position of the private member in this House. I think it is a significant improvement in the rules of order and in the traditions of this assembly.

I want to put forward a couple of concerns and, if I may, I will deal with the sections of the bill exactly as printed and as spoken to by the member for Parkdale. I am pleased to see that the member has recognized, in

section 3(4), that there is a problem in what he proposes in the bill as drafted with regard to the age of consent. It was in February 1974 that the age of consent for surgical procedures was changed from 18 years to 16 years, the reasons for which are very familiar to the member and to the rest of us who were here at that time. That does cause us a problem.

So far as the first

section of the bill is concerned, that

section dealing with the right to a confidential record, there are two parts that give me a great deal of concern. They are

section 3(2)(

d) and

section 3(3), which have to do with the availability of the records to the family, in the case of the first part, where he is deceased, and in

section 3(3), where he or she is mentally or physically disabled.

The reason they concern me is that they are so open to abuse, I suggest to the hon. member. His proposal really does not provide for a review mechanism to inquire of the nature of the reasons for wanting those records. One can imagine any number of potential horror stories in insurance cases, in providing supervision of income annuities and so forth; and I would be concerned about how those sections might be applied.

Time is short and it doesn’t really allow me to talk about everything I would want to, except to say that one other thing concerns me -- and, having been a teacher, in looking at this, I try to analogize medical records to school records. I know that not everything in a school record, to start with, is confidential. In fact, everything that could probably be referred to as confidential, in the traditional sense of the doctor-patient relationship, might not even be in the clinical record. So that concerns me, in that it perhaps wouldn’t achieve what the hon. member -- and all of us, I think -- are after.

The third thing is, and the member touched on this, the question of concern about how the physicians would react to it. I was very interested in his remarks about what happened at Queen Street Mental Health Centre when he was there and they started this. I must express a concern that with this kind of a legal mechanism, some practitioners would be too cryptic, would not fill in the records as completely as possible for fear of the repercussions. I just leave that concern with you.

On the question of concern to treatment, I am informed by staff whom I questioned about this that at the present time a written consent is not required in all cases. What concerns me again in this instance is the effect of the word “comprehensible” -- although the member didn’t use the word “comprehensible” during his remarks -- he used the word “colloquial.” There again I’m concerned about the subjectivity of those terms. What do they mean? Does it leave both physician and patient wondering as to what are their legal obligations? What are the expectations that are made on them?

Are we encouraging the development of the kind of patient-physician relationship that exists in the United States where so many cases are now ending up in the courts.

I must tell you of an experience, just as an aside to that. When I visited relatives in Los Angeles in September, my cousin showed me a bill from her son’s physician. It was for about $180 for one examination and tests, and I then proceeded to tell her that under OHIP, the great plan brought in by this government, my total annual premiums are $192 as a single person, but that’s another aside.

One of the reasons leading to these high bills which my cousin’s son had been incurring was the fact that that particular physician practising in the state of California in the city of Los Angeles pays $47,000 a year insurance premiums for malpractice insurance. So I must express some concern with the vagueness of this term, that it could be part of an unnecessary move towards more of that kind of thing in Canada.

I recognize that one of the reasons we don’t have it in Canada is that we don’t have -- what do the lawyers call it in the United States, contingency fees? -- where they take a certain percentage if they win, and if they lose they don’t charge you anything. I recognize that that’s a factor as well. But I think certainly there are others.

Now we come to

part III and it is because of my concerns about

part III that I oppose the bill. I think the member and I share the concern that no person should be spending any more time in any of our psychiatric facilities than is necessary for that person’s condition.

He pointed out -- and if he hadn’t, I was going to -- that in every instance it’s a judgement call. He, of course, has an advantage on me in that he is a professional in this area. I’m nothing but a layman. But even as a layman, I understand that this is one of those cases where I have to rely on the judgement of a professional person whose science is one that can never be codified, can never be carved in stone under a certain number of headings or points and left at that as being the final say on that.

The member knows, I hope, that shortly after I came into the Ministry of Health, because of interests I’ve had for many years, one of the very first things I did was to visit Whitby. I want to emphasize too, it was a surprise visit. The only person who knew I was coming was the administrator and he was under strict orders that he was not to tell the staff, he was not to tell the patients, he was not to let the local press know -- this was not a visit to attract attention. I wanted to learn.

Because of what I saw at Whitby, what I heard from the administrator, the staff, the patients, because of some experience I’ve had in my own family and with some constituents over the years, one of the very first things I did in this ministry was to order a complete review of The Mental Health Act, which is presently getting under way through the Council of Health.

One of the more important aspects of that review, in addition to getting their advice as to how mental health service should be delivered in this province, will be to get some indication from them after they have talked to such groups as the Civil Liberties Association, the Association of Psychiatrists, the Ontario Medical Association, the nurses’ association, and so forth, would be their advice on administration procedures.

The member used the 70 per cent figure before to indicate that 70 per cent of the Form 1s were being filled out incorrectly. I think where he got that figure was from a statement I made where I indicated that 70 per cent of the people who are at present being admitted on Form 1s are either being released within the 30-day period or are becoming voluntary patients within the 30-day period. I don’t have the figures with me but I would be glad to provide a breakdown by day.

Mr. Dukszta: May I raise a point of order here? I was referring to a study by Mr. Perrin, not to the figures of the minister.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let me come to that study. That study, of course, is now two and a half or three years old, I believe, and is not current.

Mr. Dukszta: Excuse me, it was released only two months ago.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I know it was released only a couple of months ago but it is not current. The figures were obtained, I think, in 1974 or early 1975. So it really isn’t current. It is not up to date at all.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member can find an appropriate time to end his remarks.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am in sympathy with the general intent of parts I and II and will undertake to do more on that within the ministry. Because of the fact that

part II really deals with a subject already committed to the public forum through the Council of Health, I will oppose the bill.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I, like my predecessors, want to open by saying how very much a pleasure it is for a lowly backbencher like myself to participate in this unique new business that the House leaders have arrived at, if for no other reason than that it provides but one small opportunity for some of us to get out from underneath the wretched oppression of party politics, which some members across the floor, lately of this side, have found increasingly difficult to contend with.

The precedent was well set not so very long ago by my very good and hon. friend from Parry Sound in, quite seriously, an extremely interesting and I think historic debate in which I was very pleased to take a silent part.

Mr. Bullbrook: He has never taken a silent

part in any session of this Legislature yet.

Hon. B. Stephenson: In anything. Not in anything.

Mr. Conway: I must say, Mr. Speaker, I find today some small measure of irony because I wonder if the Premier is not going to apply that right-to-die legislation to this 30th Parliament.

Mr. Sweeney: It won’t be natural, though.

Mr. Conway: The member for Parkdale made reference to the lobbying that he has proceeded with, and I think to very considerable effect. I must say he is very adept in that. The only thing I was disappointed about was that we didn’t get a dinner at the Harbour Castle, but perhaps lobbying procedures and private members’ hours will proceed apace.

As to the bill, I think it is a timely and laudable initiative not only for the patient, but I think -- and I know the member for York Mills (B. Stephenson) will agree with me in this -- most assuredly for the physician as well. As recent litigation is beginning to indicate in this jurisdiction, we are heading into a series of difficulties that I think must be addressed by the legislative bodies throughout the land.

The fact is that the patient and the physician must be put I think on a more equal status -- not essentially or absolutely an equal status, because I do not believe from my own point of view that is possible, but I certainly believe we must move in the direction of equalizing the position of patient and physician in this particular area. I think it is extremely timely because as we all know this business of the health care delivery system in Ontario, as elsewhere, is of growing cost, complexity and controversy.

Part I, to speak very briefly to that, is something that I can support in principle. Not unlike the previous speaker from Don Mills, I have a certain reservation about the access and availability of records. I think that to be sure there is a prospect there for abuse, and I would be very concerned about what might happen under certain conditions. But surely that is a prospect and that is a condition that we face in our society at all levels.

[4:15]

Unlike members opposite, I for one believe firmly in the concept and the principle of freedom of information. I think to the extent possible, we can begin in this particular regard by implementing something of that approach in an area that is very essential to all our citizens in Ontario. I like the member for Parkdale’s notion again of at least attempting to equalize the information as available to and between a physician and a patient.

Again unlike the member for Don Mills, who had some problems with

part III, my difficulty comes very seriously in

part II. I must say before getting specific in

part II that as one member I certainly applaud the initiative. I think it is extremely important. I think it is something very worthy of a debate at a very early time and I am glad to have this opportunity this afternoon to participate in this. The general direction, the general drift and certainly I think the general intention of the member for Parkdale’s Bill 33 is something with which I have a very strong community of interest and support.

That being said, I want to go on record as opposing very strongly the suggested implementation in

part II. I think that while it is an avenue of approach, its imperfections certainly make it undesirable. For example, sections 7(1)(b), (

c) and (

d) talk about the advisability of the treatment of the medical problem, the objective sought to be achieved by treatment relating to the consent that is offered, and the nature of the risks inherent in the chosen treatment. It seems to me, again like the member for Don Mills as a lay per- son, that those are matters of very great complexity that could only be made aware and available to the patient involved in such volume and complexity as to make the sought-for informed consent quite impossible, quite impractical and quite unattainable.

It seems to me if, in what I understand to be some of the obvious complexities, one is going to explain the nature of all the risks involved in some very complex disc problem that one might have in his or her back, the consequences of certain drugs and a variety of other such things, I can’t imagine anything less than a 50-page document being involved -- or at least a 25-page document. I think the member for Parkdale has been made aware of some of these concerns, but it seems to me that anything of that order will simply make impossible the whole business of the informed consent that is sought after. That at least is the determination that I would make.

In my area, I might say, this whole business is a matter of ongoing concern and significance. I stand here today partly as a spokesman for that concern, because we have had a great debate in my particular area, as I know the member for York Mills realizes, on this whole question of patient rights. But I just cannot see, with all deference to the hon. member for Parkdale, how

section 7 and

part II in general are at all practical or at all possible. I think they will eliminate, by virtue of the volume and complexity of those outlines that are expressed, the very informed consent that is deemed so essential.

It seems to me that a solution, and it is probably not as specific or heroic as the various aspects of

section 7,

part II, would be a greater emphasis on the basic education of our consuming public in this regard. It seems to me that the emphasis, if really placed there, might be more practical and might be more possible.

To a lesser degree I suppose,

part III presents at least some further problems for me in the suggestions contained in

section 10. I can certainly share what the member for Parkdale has said about the difficulties as they exist at present -- the fact that there is an undue delay, that there is a judgement that no one person may like to take responsibility for. But I suppose it’s going to be the judgement, if not of one, of a certain and reasonably limited group of people, and I’m not so sure that that will be any better in that particular regard.

My feeling on the suggestions held in

section 10 really turns on the fact that again it would be bureaucratically difficult, perhaps impossible to secure the kind of counsel and to process the sort of applications in the manner suggested that the hon. member might see as a solution. My only comment with respect to an alternative would be to make very clear to the present review committee that they simply must be more speedy in their deliberations and they must be more efficient in sorting out the problems that really we all can admit reside at present in the situation today.

In

summary then, as a member of this assembly I want to commend very strongly the member for Parkdale for his laudable and timely initiative in this regard. While I cannot support some of the administrative procedures that he outlines, I share with him entirely the fact that we should take this to a committee where we could discuss and we could amend and we could perhaps evolve a series of other recommendations.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Conway: I do think it is a number one priority in the health field today. I want again to say that as a member I support the general principle, and will be happy to do so when the vote arrives.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to be able to have the opportunity to take

part in this debate, which I think is still somewhat historic. I guess we’re dealing with the fourth of what might be called the private members’ freedom bills that have been introduced, and I think it is more than a coincidence that all of the private members’ bills to date have dealt with some matter to do with the rights of the individual.

I want to speak in support of the principle of Bill 33. To me, this bill establishes some fundamental reforms that are long overdue. With respect to

part I of the bill, the right to one’s own record, I think myself that virtually everybody in this House agrees with the wisdom of those provisions and I don’t intend to dwell on them.

With respect to

part II, the right to know, the right to information with respect to the patient’s medical condition, it seems to me that this bill in

part II establishes the principle of the patient’s responsibility for his own health care. It establishes the principle that good health is not something that is done to you by somebody else, but is something that oath and everyone has his own responsibility for ensuring, is something that cannot happen in an authoritarian relationship and is something that cannot happen in the condition of ignorance.

The kind of mystery and mystique that unfortunately surrounds the provision of medical care is, as the member for Parkdale suggested, clinically harmful. We need to demystify and demythologize medical treatment, not for iconoclastic reasons but for clinical reasons, for reasons of good and adequate health care.

The kind of aura of priesthood that surrounds the medical profession and tends to dominate the doctor-patient relationship is a major barrier to the development of a rational, responsible, health care system and rational, responsible, intelligent health care attitudes. Ordinary people have the intelligence and the capacity and the right and the responsibility to understand the details of their own medical treatment and can assume responsibility for their own health care.

I would hope, expressing a particular concern as the representative for the riding of Bellwoods, that this legislation would serve to force some changes in that situation -- at the very least to force the provision of adequate translation services 50 that my constituents and the constituents of other new Canadian communities are able to receive medical service in a language, as the bill says, which is understandable.

Before I deal with

part III, I want to make a qualification with respect to one detail of

part II. I do recognize that there are circumstances where detailed knowledge of one’s medical condition and of treatment realities