30th Parliament, 4th Session

L024 - Thu 28 Apr 1977 / Jeu 28 avr 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.




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.


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.


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.



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.



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.


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.


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.”


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.


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.


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.


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 --


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 --


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.


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 --


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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?


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.


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.



Mr. Morrow moved first reading of Bill Pr 28, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.


Hon. B. Stephenson moved first reading of Bill 62, An Act to amend The Ministry of Labour Act.

Motion agreed to.


Mr. Lane moved first reading of Bill Pr 18, An Act respecting The City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Motion agreed to.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.



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.


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.


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.


Mr. Spence moved first reading of Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the Township of Dover.

Motion agreed to.


Mr. G. E. Smith moved first reading of Bill Pr12, An Act respecting the Village of Port McNicoll.

Motion agreed to.


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.


Mr. Breithaupt moved first reading of Bill Pr14, An Act respecting John A. Schmaltz Agencies Limited.

Motion agreed to.


Mr. Eaton, on behalf of Mr. Grossman, moved first reading of Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.


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.


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.



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.


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.


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.


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 represent a riding in which most of my constituents, I think it’s fair to say, do not speak English. The majority do not speak English. The majority are unable to converse adequately with doctors in medical terms. For most of my constituents, medical treatment is something that is conducted in a foreign language, in English. It’s mysterious, it’s obscure, it’s often terrifying, and it’s mainly unintelligible.

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 could be emotionally very damaging. The rights to knowledge guaranteed under section 7 must, it seems to me, be established; but so, too, must the right to waive medical information be accorded to patients if that should be their wish. Should the bill pass, as I hope it does, and reach committee, I would move an amendment which would permit a patient to waive this right without prejudice to the safeguard that no external pressure in the form of denial of service would be permitted. But the rights in part I and part II would be confirmed under this bill, as amended, for those who wish to assume that right and for those who wish to assume a new kind of responsibility for their own health care.

With respect to part III, anyone who has worked in the mental health services field knows that this reform is long overdue. I had a case brought to my constituency office about two weeks ago of a young man who was a psychiatric social worker whose brother was an out-patient of the Clarke Institute here in Toronto. The brother who was the out-patient was unhappy with the degree of medication that he was being subjected to as part of his treatment and began to miss his out-patient clinic days. He went to the Clarke Institute to complain about the regimen of drug therapy that he was on; and he was involuntarily admitted, against his will and against the will of his family, including the brother who was a psychiatric social worker.

Whether or not that young man should have been involuntarily admitted was not the issue. The issue in dispute was the opportunity for an independent and speedy review, and under the present legislation that simply is not available. There was no recourse for him but to wait out the period of his involuntary incarceration. His member of the Legislature was powerless. The Ombudsman for the province of Ontario was powerless. Legal counsel was powerless. There was no avenue to determine whether an injustice had been committed in that situation or not.

This bill remedies that situation, because what we are talking about with respect to the powers of involuntary admission under The Mental Health Act is a kind of preventive detention, about locking people up, about a kind of imprisonment. We shouldn’t be under any illusions with respect to that; we’re talking about the ultimate denial of freedom on the suspicion of a potentiality to be harmful to oneself or to others.


Society demands the right by tradition, based on experience, to protect itself. But this kind of terrible power that society demands has got to be hedged in, in law, by safeguards that seek to protect the rights of the individual at every single step of the way in the process -- protect him from what is the ultimate injustice and this is exactly what this bill does. It strikes a proper balance between society’s need for protection and the individual’s civil liberties by guaranteeing the right to counsel, by requiring an immediate outside review by the Attorney General, by limiting the right of involuntary detention without review to four days, by establishing a new stringency in the process of obtaining a certificate of renewal, a process which would now require frequent reassessment at specified intervals to maintain involuntary detention.

Finally, it provides the opportunity for independent outside review by an independent outside psychiatrist. All in all, Mr. Speaker, this is a measure of reform which is long overdue in this province. I think that despite some concerns about details, we in this House can all support it in principle and when we get into committee, move to develop the kind of bill that each of us knows is utterly essential in Ontario at this time. Thank you very much.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate briefly in this interesting private member’s bill, the aims and objectives of which are, I think, entirely laudable.

I do have some very real concern, not about the principle per se but about the methodology of achieving that principle through this enactment. The bill, in the first place I think, is too large and too comprehensive. I think it would be better separated into three specific enactments in order to provide the proper approach to each of these problems.

My concern with part I is specifically that there has been no definition of record in terms of the right of the patient to achieve information. The record for an individual patient may be in many places and I believe that this bill addresses specifically the hospital record. The hospital record is an important part of a patient record; it is not always the most important part and frequently is much less important than the record which is kept in the offices of specific physicians or consultants whom the patient has seen. Those pieces of information are not necessarily a part of the hospital patient record.

I agree, and I think all physicians agree, that the patient has the right to full information regarding his or her specific health problem or state of health. It is, I think, the responsibility of the conscientious physician to ensure that the patient is fully informed. But simply to give the patient documents is not the way to inform the individual fully of the purport of many of those documents. Laboratory records are not necessarily entirely understandable, sometimes even to physicians let alone to patients who have not had the benefit of several years of medical education.

I have some very real concern about the apparent lack of protection of the individual who is perhaps incompetent or is unmarried and under the age of 18. It would seem to me much more appropriate to be a little more stringent about the person to whom such records could be delivered. I would have real concern that siblings or others within the family might, for somewhat nefarious purposes, attempt to gain control of these records or information from them.

Part II of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is the area which really provides concern for me. There is no doubt in my mind that every individual patient who is required to have any kind of treatment should be fully informed of the reason for the treatment, the kind of treatment which is to be provided, the possible consequences of that treatment and the hopeful objectives of that treatment. This is precisely, I think, what most responsible physicians have been attempting to provide verbally to their patients for many centuries. There is, however, a problem -- and I will agree with many of the speakers who have arisen before me -- that the mystique of medicine has inhibited the development of an acknowledgement within the individual patient of the right to information of this sort. Many individual citizens who are patients do not know or do not feel that they have the right to ask for a second opinion, to ask for a careful scrutiny of a consultation note, to ask for a personal examination of the x-ray record or something of that sort. There is nothing in law, nor is there really anything in practice that inhibits the exercise of that freedom on the part of the individual patient.

But the method set out in part II to provide information, particularly for an individual who is presenting himself or herself for a surgical procedure, I think is totally unworkable and does not, in fact, take into account the individual variations of human beings, which must be accommodated when one is attempting to provide meaningful information.

I have seen one copy of one form used by a patient information service in the United States that attempts to provide this kind of informed consent. It is for a fairly routine surgical procedure. The length of the document is more than 40 pages. It is written in reasonably sensible English so that most people could understand it, but it has one very grave omission -- one thing that I think would have to be added to every single printed form. This document would have to contain a printed form for each and every surgical procedure. If you were going in to take out a gall bladder and found some other complication and had not informed the patient or given the patient the document about that other potential complication, then perhaps you might be in difficulties with the patient and his lawyer after the surgical procedure. But one of the things that is omitted from all of these is the eventuality that accompanies every surgical procedure and many medical procedures. That is the eventuality that the patient might die as a result of it.

I think it would be entirely inappropriate in most instances to say to a patient facing, usually with some degree of tremulousness, a surgical procedure, that there is a real risk that he is going to die and to have it down in black and white. I just don’t think that’s a fair way to deal with human beings.

I think it is much faker to leave it to the personal physician of that individual, knowing that individual very well, to select very carefully the words to be used in terms of providing the information verbally, fit those terms of that information in a way that the personal physician very well knows would be appropriate for that individual, and provide all the information apparently necessary in any of these instances. I really think we can do this without having it written down on pieces of paper which, I think, will probably simply complicate and disturb the lives of more patients who are likely to be candidates for both surgical and medical treatment.

I am fully in support of the concept of complete information to patients before they undertake or undergo any kind of medical or surgical procedure, but I think it has to be done properly, attempting to fit the information and the presentation of that information to the individual patient as one does in all instances in attempting to treat human beings.

My concerns about part III have already been mentioned specifically by the Minister of Health. This section of The Mental Health Act is under review; it is due for review. But I would point out one thing, that with the sequence of events set out in the Act as proposed by the hon. member for Parkdale, I would think we would have to direct all the graduates of medical schools to the specialty of psychiatry for at least 10 or 12 years to produce the kinds of numbers that would be necessary to have these certificates renewed at the interval suggested.

I think it is much more appropriate to leave this to the review committee that is at present actively pursuing this Act. I’m sure the hon. Minister of Health will refer this section of the hon. member’s proposed Act to that committee where I think it can be very usefully employed.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the principle of Bill 33 presented by the member for Parkdale, but I have approached it with the same reservations as expressed by my colleague from Renfrew North. With respect to parts I and II, I express and reiterate the same type of reservations expressed by my colleague from Renfrew North. I would like to devote pay series of observations to part III of the bill with respect to the due process for involuntary patients.

There is no mistake about it that an involuntary patient is a person who is subjected to loss of freedom at the will of another individual. We must concern ourselves with the concerns of the doctor, the patient and the complainant in many respects -- the complainant perhaps being the wife of an alcoholic, whose life is intolerable at home so she seeks some remedy for her situation and goes to her doctor and, with concern, gets her husband compulsory help.

In this respect, I draw the attention of the House to a study by two independent lawyers of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association who, after their study of this situation, found that at least 70 per cent of 200 certificates of commitment to Ontario mental hospitals were unlawful. Under The Mental Health Act as it stands now, a person can be confined against his will in a mental hospital for up to 30 days on the authority of such a certificate signed by only one duly-qualified medical practitioner. They found that of the 200 cases they studied, 70 per cent were unlawful. They approached the Ministry of Health with respect to the situation.

Despite the fact that The Mental Health Act is now under review, it is with that concern and with the knowledge of how slowly government moves that I support this particular section of this Act. I turned to some of the pages of our Criminal Code for guidance in this area with respect to this Act and what it’s recommending. It recommends that there be a hearing in the adversary arena. It seems to me that in so far as a person is deprived of his freedom under this Act for the periods as set out in Bill 33, we must take it out of the realm of one individual person and take it into an adversary situation so that a patient who will lose his freedom pursuant to the sections of this Act can be properly represented and have his side considered as well.

Although this Bill 33 provides for referral of an application under section 8 within four days to the Attorney General, it is my respectful submission to this House that that should be tightened up even more so. The existing offices of a justice of the peace should be used within four days so that the legal sanction of that office as an officer of the court can be used.

So in this sense I support this bill in principle and will support it in principle, hoping that it can be revised in committee to make it stronger, with more use of the adversary system to protect the interests of the individual who is subject to this bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have about a minute and a half if the hon. member for Peterborough would like to avail herself of the opportunity to speak.

Ms. Sandeman: Yes, I would, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped to have slightly more than a minute and a half.

I would like to speak very briefly to the section of the bill that I think is particularly important for women patients in this province. That is the section that suggests that information on both sides should be, as it were, equalized; that doctors and patients should go into a procedure on equal terms.

I think women have particularly suffered from the patriarchal nature of psychiatric treatment all around the world. I would say it is not just confined to Ontario. Women make up a larger percentage of psychiatric patients than men. It is strange that we have more men in jails and more women in psychiatric hospitals, which I think says something about socialization.

It seems to me that it’s extremely important that women are aware of the grounds on which they are being given shock therapy, tranquilizers, anti-depressants and drug therapy, and that they are not just being drugged and shocked into an acceptance of the problems that have brought them to the psychiatrist.


A paper dealing recently with the adult sex roles and mental illness, which suggested that there are so many more women than men in psychiatric hospitals, summarized that there are ample grounds for assuming that women find their position in society to be more frustrating and less rewarding than do men, and that this may be a relatively recent development. Let us then, at this point, postulate that because of the difficulties associated with the feminine role in modern western society, more women than men become mentally ill.

It seems to me that if those facts are correct -- and the many studies suggest they are -- that it is not enough for women to accept the explanation, “We are doing this because it’s best for you, dear.” Most know, for instance, that if they are given shock therapy for their depression they may, when they get home, find that temporary amnesia has set it; they cannot remember where their children’s diapers are kept. This happened to a friend of mine who was given shock therapy with no information about possible side effects. Informed consent must be equal on both sides.

I’m sorry I don’t have more time to speak to the other sections of the bill, Mr. Speaker. I just wish to go on record as being in favour of the principle of it. I’d like to say, in closing, I hope that when this bill comes to committee, as I hope we’ll allow, we would take care to deal with the member for Parry Sound’s bill at the same time. It seems to me that the groups who would wish to speak to that bill would be the same as those who’d wish to speak to this bill. We could usefully have both discussions going on together.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no remaining time for item five.


Mrs. Campbell moved second reading of Bill 16, An Act to amend The Ontario Human Rights Code.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is my understanding that the only speaker for the Liberal Party is the hon. member for St. George. Normally, she has 20 minutes to lead off. If there is unanimous consent from the House to allow her more than 20 minutes, I’d like to hear that from the House. I would like some guidance so that we won’t get into a problem later on.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, how much time would that allow the other speakers if her time is extended?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Normally the sponsor gets 20 minutes, each subsequent speaker gets 10 minutes, until the time has expired, which would be at 5:50, I believe. Each speaker will have the floor for no more than 10 minutes, after Mrs. Campbell has had her 20 minutes.

Mr. Williams: And no less than 10 minutes, I presume?

Mr. Cunningham: We would agree that you have less.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ten minutes.

Mr. Williams: Then I have no objection, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Normally, one member can’t speak any more than once on a bill. If there is time remaining at the end, do we have unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for St. George to speak again?


Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for St. George, up to 20 minutes.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I proceed I, too, would like to state that I feel that this private members’ hour has definitely given to members of this Legislature the opportunity to place before the House, with the possibility of a vote, those matters which are of deep concern. However, I must say, Mr. Speaker, that great as our House leaders are, I really do think that the matter flows from the Morrow committee and not really at the initiation of the House leaders.

However, in speaking to this bill I would like to say something of my political passions over the years -- of my participation in the democratic process. In order, I would say first, my passion for my country, one and indivisible; and two, my passion for the form of parliamentary democracy which we have in this country. It may not work perfectly and I suppose we could all concede that, but nevertheless it is one of the great forms of government available to mankind. I feel very strongly that unless those of us who care very greatly for it are prepared to concede the demos of the democracy, we will see it disappearing even more rapidly than it appears to be at this point in time.

Once we get to belief in the form of parliamentary democracy, then we must surely have a very strong belief in the rights and the dignities of the individual within our democracy. I can recall some years ago, as a member of the now-defunct board of control of the city of Toronto, when we had before us a group of young people who were designated -- inaccurately, I believe, even in those days -- as hippies and diggers. I can recall that they used every method open to them to seek audience with the board of control. They followed every legal procedure, but there were those on that board of control who felt that there should be some special provisions before they would be enabled to address that august body.

I can remember stating at that time my very firm belief that democracy is a plant of very tender flower, and that if we can take a position that people don’t have full dignity and full rights, because we don’t like the way they function in society, then we have no democracy.

In approaching this particular bill, if I may I would like to read the proposed preamble to set the tone for what I am saying: “And whereas it is the public policy in Ontario that every person is free and equal in dignity and rights without regard to race, creed, colour, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, nationality, ancestry, or place of origin.”

The government of this country has taken the position that it has no concern as a government with how people conduct their private lives. And while there may be those who disagree with what anyone does in their private lives, we are for the most part protected by the philosophy, and indeed by the law, of this country.

We have seen cases recently where those who are not heterosexual have been released from their employment by reason of the fact that they are homosexuals. There has to be a right to a person to employment. There has to be a right of some job security for those who do not follow the pursuits of what one deems to be the majority in either this province or this country.

One has to meet with some of those young people coming out of the adolescent period of their lives who are disturbed or bothered by their emotions and by what they see as their own differences. I had the occasion once to talk to a young boy who was over the age of 18 and who at least once had attempted suicide because of what he discovered in himself and because of what he saw society looking at in him. It was a very sad and a very painful interview but, as a result of that, I learned so much of human concerns and human problems.

I have a very strong feeling that liberalism must stand four-square for the rights of people to conduct their lives as they see fit so long, of course, as they do not contravene any legislation, and that, of course, applies to every single one of us.

It seems sad to me that it is necessary to debate this bill at this point in our history. I am aware that The Human Rights Code is undergoing a careful reconsideration. Having attended various commission hearings held in Toronto, I am aware too that there are those who have difficulty with the terminology of this bill. But I would hope that in discussing its principle no one would be concerned to the point of opposing the bill on the basis of the fact that perhaps they feel that the legal definition should be somewhat different.


I used the term “sexual orientation” because it has a wide acceptance throughout this continent. We have seen those members of the Parliament of this country seeking to introduce similar legislation. Of course, I did not use the term “homosexual” because I felt that it might preclude those who were not male in origin. This is the reason for this terminology. I would certainly ask those who find difficulty with that particular expression to be prepared to accept the bill in principle, subject of course if necessary to further discussion as to what the appropriate language ought to be.

But I am not, Mr. Speaker, debating this on the basis of technicality. I am debating it on the basis of the right of human beings to full dignity and to full equality in this great democracy. If we turn our backs then I know that we have, to at least some extent, not only denigrated one group, but by some proportion denigrated the whole of our society. It is for this very reason that throughout my career I have fought for equal rights and equal opportunities for women, because their denigration is a denigration of the whole of our society. It is for this reason that I have fought against racial prejudice wherever I found it, because again that is a denigration of our society.

It was interesting that last night at a tenants’ meeting in my area, a meeting to which I was invited, I was led into a discussion of this bill. A lady was there who had been a lawyer in Germany and she was speaking to the problems of a democratic society and her problems of being accepted here because of her origin. What I am proposing today is simply a symbol, and anyone involved understands that because there are still no teeth in The Human Rights Code.

You know and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are not supposed to discriminate by reasons of race -- yet there certainly is lots of evidence that that is still existing -- or creed, or colour, or certainly sex or marital status. Yet we find it prevalent in our society. It is just that it is so difficult of proof. And in this case it will be no different. What it does, it seems to me, is to raise the level of our perception in our society and to express the very real meaning of our acceptance of parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this bill, entitled An Act to amend The Ontario Human Rights Code, is ill-timed, ill-conceived and illogical.

Mr. Dukszta: Of course.

Mr. Williams: I take this position for the following reasons: Firstly, presentation of the bill has to be ill-timed. As all members of this House are aware, The Ontario Human Rights Commission, as acknowledged by the member for St. George, has been engaged in a major public review of The Ontario Human Rights Code for more than a year. The past experiences of the commission are being assessed. The results of this research are being combined with a careful examination of the existing and proposed human rights legislation of other Canadian provinces and of the government of Canada, as well as the laws of other countries.

Whether we, as legislators, will agree with the recommendations of the commission in total or in part is at this time beside the point. The fact of the matter is that the commission will be publishing its findings and recommendations this spring. Accordingly, it is obviously inappropriate for the Legislature today to be dealing prematurely in a piecemeal fashion with proposals for changing the existing Human Rights Code on the eve of the commission handing down its report.

Mr. Conway: And on the eve of other things.

Mr. Williams: One could say that this precipitous action by the member for St. George unfairly usurps the review process being engaged in by the commission. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, this bill has to be ill-conceived if one is being asked to identify and accept “sexual preference” as a further basic cornerstone of The Ontario Human Rights Code. The code proclaims that as a matter of public policy every person is free and equal in dignity and rights without regard to race, creed, colour, sex, marital status, nationality, ancestry or place of origin. These eight basic tenets upon which the Act is founded have one thing in common. They describe the basic condition of man without which man cannot exist as an entity.

On the other hand, sexual preference is a term that does not fall into this fundamentalist definition. Sexual preference does not pertain to a basic condition of man but rather, I suggest, relates to the human activity or social behaviour of man.

In the event that the commission were to recommend that the codification of The Ontario Human Rights Code should be so broadened such as to not only protect the basic condition of man from discriminatory practices but as well to prevent discrimination against every form and act of social behaviour, then the present strengths of the Act might well he discredited by the total presumptuousness it would assume in purporting to become a state-imposed version of religious and moral philosophy.

I suggest that we cannot legislate morality or social behaviour, nor was this the intent or purpose of The Ontario Human Rights Code. The Act was designed to protect from discrimination the fundamental condition of man over which he basically has no control.

The basic conditions of race, creed, colour, sex, marital status, nationality, ancestry or place of origin are not related in any way to his daily activities or personal preferences whether they be sexual or otherwise.

Thirdly, the whole tenor of the proposal has to be illogical in that such a law would not only condone homosexual activity, it would be dictating that any form of sexual preference, whether it be heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise, must be equally accepted by society as a legitimate and normal behaviour.

Mr. Samis: You and Brian deserve each other.

Mr. Williams: The interesting aspect of the movement by the homosexual community to gain such social acceptance is its shift of emphasis on its plight, from being a minority group of people with abnormal sexual beliefs and behaviour to being a normal but misunderstood and discriminated-against minority group being denied its civil rights.

Their persistence in this regard has had some limited success in quieting those who would challenge their right to assume a mantle of sexual normalcy. The fact that society as a whole recognizes abnormality in homosexual behaviour does not mean that the homosexual is deprived of his civil rights, as suggested by the homosexual community. That argument evaporated with the amendments to the Canadian Criminal Code in 1969, which removed prohibitions against homosexual acts between consenting adults in private.

However, without either malice or pity for the homosexual, one must ultimately reflect upon the medical and moral aspects of this type of sexual preference or behaviour. In order to assess the validity of their argument and the appropriateness of this bill, the issue is put in clear perspective from a medical point of view in an editorial printed in the April 1973 edition of the highly-respected American Journal of Psychotherapy. The editorial states in part as follows:

“It would appear to be a distortion of reality to deny that homosexual behaviour, when there are heterosexual partners readily available, constitutes a gross distortion of basic drives that are applicable to all animals in whom there is a differentiation between males and females for reproductive purposes.

“The basic purpose of sexual differentiation, even limiting the phenomenon to mammals, is for the propagation of a species. This does not mean that humans must reproduce to be normal, since reproduction can lead to overproduction which would be harmful to the species” --

Mr. Wildman: I think that argument is specious.

Mr. Williams: -- “a problem we are experiencing during the current period of demographic over-concentration.

“However, distortions of basic instinctive animal drives upon which the survival of the species could theoretically depend, cannot be considered in the same light as psychodynamic and psychophysiological disruptions such as frigidity, premature or retarded ejaculation and the like. Overt, compulsively repeated homosexual acts, when heterosexual partners are freely available, constitute a distortion or deviation from basic instinctual drives. These acts in themselves are documentations of the label of illness, even if the individual functions well vocationally and socially in other ways.

“We cannot agree, then, with the ideas expressed by some that many homosexuals function in a way that cannot be considered an illness, nor do we countenance that almost frivolously expressed view that homosexuality in itself merely represents a variant sexual preference, with the implication that it is abnormal only because society has traditionally disapproved of it.

“The so-called scientific banking accumulated by the spokesmen for the various Gay Liberation groups that implies homosexuality is a variation of normalcy is, for the most part, poorly conceived both conceptually and methodologically.”

With regard to the moral issue, I am not aware any of the great religions of the world give credence to the belief that homosexual behaviour is a newly emerging, acceptable and normal social behaviour designed for our “modern times.” Nor can the argument for normalcy be made on the broad grounds of natural law and social function.

Suffice to say at this time that I am opposed to this bill, which if enacted would in essence be an accommodation by the state for those in our community who seek a new morality for our society.

Mr. Conway: That’s Herbert Spencer upside down.

Mr. Williams: The common good would not be served by this type of legislative action.


Ms. Sandeman: I think, Mr. Speaker, the remarks we’ve just heard demonstrate better than anything any of us could say the extraordinarily complex nature of prejudice, bigotry, discrimination and fear which makes the private member’s bill of my colleague from St. George necessary at this time.

Mr. Mancini: That’s an unfair statement.

Ms. Sandeman: I don’t intend to answer the remarks of the member for Oriole. I believe he made very much the same speech the last time that the member for St. George introduced her private member’s bill on the same subject. But I do feel that in some sense further debate on this subject is unnecessary, because it should be self-evident that we must protect people’s civil rights. The previous speaker has made it clear to me that it is not yet self-evident and that we must do, symbolically and by token, what we can to protect the rights of everyone.

The question as to the prematurity of this discussion, which the member for Oriole touched on, I think is a red herring. It is never premature to try to protect the civil rights of any group in our society. We don’t have to wait for commissions to complete their work, for legislative procedures to grind on their slow way. In fact, I think in a sense we have to call the bluff of another legislative assembly -- the Canadian Parliament -- which, I understand, through the minister responsible for human rights at the federal level, is reluctant to include sexual orientation or sexual preference as part of the federal human rights legislation because the minister said:

“I have seen no sign from any provinces that they wish to include this in their legislation. We’d like to see this being done across the country and this would give us some sense that the people of Canada wish to include this extra clause in the legislation.”

I would like to say that we have a chance today to call the bluff of the federal Liberals, to give them a lead, to say to them clearly that the people of Ontario wish to include --

Mr. Conway: Give the federal Liberals a good kick.

Ms. Sandeman: Yes -- wish to include the term “sexual orientation” in our human rights legislation because we are aware that contrary to the previous remarks, sexuality is part of a person’s make-up. Just as our intellectual nature and our emotional nature are grounds on which I hope we would not discriminate, so should sexuality not be grounds for discrimination.

It seems to me there have been movements across the country to favour the inclusion of sexual orientation in human rights codes. The New Democratic Party in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan has come out strongly in favour of including sexual orientation in both federal and provincial rights codes. The Windsor, Toronto and Ottawa city councils have already prohibited discrimination against city employees in hiring practices on the grounds of sexual orientation. The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour has addressed itself to the question of discrimination by labour bodies. It seems to me it’s high time this Legislature gave a legislative lead in this area.

There has already been one landmark case in British Columbia, which, although it doesn’t include sexual orientation as such in its human rights code, did rule in favour of -- I can’t find the gentleman’s name -- an action against the Vancouver Sun, which was discriminating against a homosexual group in that province. The ruling, I think, of the BC rights commission is something that perhaps we should take into account as some kind of counter-argument to the remarks of the member for Oriole. I won’t read all of it, but I think it is an important ruling. It comes from a Human Rights Commission, and it reads in part this way:

“By recognizing that homosexuals exist, society is simply acknowledging that there are, in fact, people who do have what is, for them at least, a quite natural ability to relate sexually and emotionally to others of the same sex. By accepting this fact, society is having regard to the preponderance of evidence and professional opinion that exists to the effect that homosexuality is not an illness and not a mental disorder and that it is a predominant and permanent characteristic of a significant portion of our population, perhaps as much as 10 per cent thereof.”

The ruling concludes by saying:

“So it is that we can safely conclude that the acceptable standard of decency which we wish our society to maintain is in no way threatened or challenged by our taking, as a society, a tolerant and mature approach to those homosexuals who are not breaking the law and who seek only the right to live normally in society without fear of persecution or discrimination.”

It seems to me that although we know that human rights codes -- and The Ontario Human Rights Code is no exception -- traditionally have no teeth in them, we must make this symbolic gesture. We might then be able to prevent the kind of discrimination which we saw at York University last year, when York University refused to rent double rooms to unmarried persons of the same sex, although they accepted that a young man and woman could rent a double room with a double bed. There seemed to be some discrimination shown because they wouldn’t rent the same room to two young women.

As an aside, I would like to say that social mores have certainly changed since I was at university 25 years or so ago. In those days my university would cheerfully have rented the room to myself and a female friend, but they would never ever have rented the room to myself and a young male friend. It seems to me that we should have reached the stage in 1977 where we say to people, “If you and friend of whatever sex wish to rent this double room, you may.”

Mr. Bullbrook: You were born too soon.

Ms. Sandeman: I know. That’s our tragedy.

Mr. Conway: Who says the Attorney General doesn’t have influence!

Ms. Sandeman: If we find that people at universities or whatever are discriminating against the renting of accommodation on grounds such as these, then we certainly need the amendment that has been introduced today.

It seems to me we still might find that the CBC ban no public service announcements for gay groups would have a possibility of continuing, although I assume that --

Mr. Bullbrook: Does that really exist?

Ms. Sandeman: Yes, it does. The CBC refused to accept public service announcements from homosexual groups. That was in Halifax, I believe; not necessarily right across the country. I hope the section of the code that addresses itself to denying services or facilities in any place to which the public is customarily admitted would cover that kind of discrimination.

Discrimination is so often happening in small ways -- important to the victims of it; not obvious to the rest of us -- but in very insidious ways based on prejudice and ignorance, which the symbolic action of including this in The Human Rights Code would go some long way to correcting.

Mr. Sweeney: Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker, despite the statement you made at the beginning.

My feelings are very similar to those of my colleague from St. George when she referred to the anguish -- I guess that is the only word I can think of -- of listening to, speaking to, trying to understand and trying to be of assistance to young persons who find themselves to be homosexuals. This is something that in my experience, as a teacher of many years, having worked in many different ways, that people deliberately come to; they simply find it’s there.

I agree with my colleague from St. George that such people are very vulnerable in our society today. For that reason, I applaud her courage in introducing this bill. And it does take courage to introduce a bill like this in our society today.

But -- and, unfortunately, there’s always a “but” -- there is another group of people in our society which is equally, if not more, vulnerable. That is our children and adolescents. While I can completely agree with the member for St. George that among adults such legislation is needed in our society, I have one grave reservation. I would not be prepared to support this, or any similar legislation, if it gives equal access to homosexuals dealing with children.

For example, I would be one of those who, as a parent and as a teacher, would have to feel that equal access should not be given to those teaching in our schools. My reason is that my experience, both as a parent and as a teacher, shows me that young people, particularly adolescents, are going through the emotional stress of trying to find out who they really are and what their own orientation is. They do not need to be put into the additional stressful situation of coming into contact with an adult model that presents to them a form of behaviour quite inconsistent with the norm. I believe we have to appreciate that homosexuals in our society face many problems. If there is any way we can prevent some of our young people from becoming homosexuals, we should do so.

We also have to recognize that homosexuals, because of the very nature of their concern, do not usually have children of their own. Therefore, it is only the children of others that they are able to influence. For that reason, and because there is nothing in this bill -- and I haven’t heard anyone speak to the point that would put that particular limitation in -- I must say I will have to disagree with the bill, although I very clearly understand the impetus behind it. I say that our children and our adolescents have to take precedence in this matter.

Mr. Grossman: I rise to speak on this matter, as I did on a previous occasion. I think it’s only appropriate to begin as I did on that earlier occasion -- with part of the preamble to The Human Rights Code, which has been read earlier. It is public policy in Ontario that every person is “free and equal in dignity and rights, without regard to race, creed, colour, sex, marital status, nationality, ancestry or place of origin.” That is the appropriate place to begin, it seems to me, because that’s really what the debate today should be all about; that is -- free and equal in dignity and rights. I think it is wrong, improper and irrelevant for any portion of the debate today, or any portion of any member’s consideration with regard to this debate today, to be centred upon his or her personal feelings with regard to the subject matter at hand or those who would be directly affected by the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Conway: Thanks for telling us the member for Oriole is irrelevant.


Mr. Grossman: The point at hand is whether each person in this province is entitled to some certain basic rights, regardless of what his personal situation might be. It no more requires one to put a stamp of approval on the subject matter at hand than to say that one by voting for any piece of legislation is putting an equivalent type of stamp of approval on a particular piece of protection that’s being provided by The Human Rights Code.

What this bill is doing is saying, “Look, not only don’t we care what you do privately, but we are willing to ensure that you will not be discriminated against because of what you happen to do privately.” That’s far from approving it for those who seem to feel that supporting this legislation indicates approval or for those who want to mix this into their consideration of this legislation. It’s not a stamp of approval. To those who want to continue to deal with this in terms of whether it is a sickness or a problem or however their minds want to deal with it, I say that’s academic. Let them call it what they want but let them not permit people to discriminate against persons because of that sickness, infirmity, proclivity, or whatever it is they want to call it.

I don’t want to get into a debate, nor do I think it’s relevant to get into a debate, with regard to how one ought to define that certain pattern of behaviour. The question is should one be denied housing? Should one be denied employment because of that personal satiation? That’s the simple test. Is one not entitled to simple human rights in the very words of the title of the code? Isn’t one entitled to that very basic protection?

I haven’t heard anything today that says one should be denied the right to be employed like anyone else, or to be housed like anyone else. Unless one is prepared to say that, then one ought to be supporting this legislation.

I was shocked this afternoon when I wanted to look back at my earlier remarks on this subject, which were made on May 6, 1976, and I took out the index of debates and proceedings of the second and third sessions of the 30th Legislature. I looked up the index and where do you think this debate is indexed. Unbelievably, it is indexed under “Deviant Persons.” “Deviant Persons” that’s where one will find what everyone said in this debate last year.

Mr. Conway: Beware of the index.

Mr. Grossman: I think it is highly improper. I think it indicates, however inadvertently this may have occurred, the subconscious way in which certain persons are quite liable to treat persons about whom we are talking today, and indicates the very need for this legislation. That’s precisely why they have to have their rights protected under The Human Rights Code.

Imagine this documents, this book -- an official book, the debates and proceedings -- in which this debate last year was categorized under “Deviant Persons.” I can’t understand it, but I say that in itself speaks volumes, speaks directly to the subject and says exactly and more precisely than any of us could that certain persons in our society need protection in order to be able to walk around with dignity.

Let me say that the problem of this legislation inviting or appearing to invite persons to enter educational institutions in particular or allow it or whatever, in order to kind of propagate, sell or whatever, homosexuality gives me a lot of trouble. I am able and willing to support this legislation on the presumption and the hope that if it is passed, and it is with this presumption that the member for St. George will refer this matter to committee so that the committee may deal with that problem at that time.

It is important in the face of the snide remarks one hears in the halls of Queen’s Park and in the halls of schools and in the halls of any place of assembly and on the streets and in schoolyards -- everywhere from law courts to I don’t know where, but you hear them everywhere -- to realize it should be the case that dignity and self-respect are what a democracy is all about. Regardless of what type of private behaviour one is protecting, one must provide that protection. Let us have no more overt, never mind covert -- we can only control overt activities -- let us not have any more overt activities such as a description of deviant persons in books and annals of this assembly.

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I rise in favour of Bill 16, An Act to amend The Ontario Human Rights Code if for no other reason than the reasons given by the member for Oriole. He is not irrelevant as the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick said, but it is his expression of prejudice and expression of a discriminating mentality that is dangerous in our society and that we should eliminate.

In discussing the actual content of the bill, we must not lose sight of the fact that we are not giving any special right to homosexuals. Rather, we are giving them the same fundamental right heterosexuals have, not to be harassed or dismissed on the basis of their sexual preference. Most heterosexuals could not even conceive of such a reason being based against them, yet it is a fact of life for many homosexuals. Discrimination in this respect, denying homosexuals the opportunities available to others, is as destructive and threatening to a free society as any other form of discrimination.

On discrimination itself there are those in this House and elsewhere who might try to justify discrimination against homosexuals, and the member for Oriole gave us an example before. One of the most frequent arguments used against homosexuals is that they are harmful to society. Not knowing much about the subject before Bill 16 was introduced, I spent some time reading material on homosexuality, and I found also the concept of deviance mentioned before by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick. I might suggest to those members speaking against the restoration of this basic right to non-discrimination in employment to do the same -- to read a little.

With respect to deviance in general I found that the term, though used in a pejorative way, is in fact neutral. The authors I read suggested that deviance merely characterized a difference in direction between one group or individual and the majority. There is no question, therefore, that homosexuals are, in one sense, deviant.

They are estimated to form no more than 10 per cent of the population. Bill 16, if passed, will strengthen the social fabric in Ontario and put this Legislature on record as saying that the rights of all minorities are protected -- not only those who are more visible, due to colour or religion, but those in the less visible minorities.

Professor Baz, a professor of sociology, suggests in his book a means by which we should judge deviance, and I quote: “Both deviance and conformity must be examined and judged according to the social cost that they exact and the contribution that they make to society.” Let us in this Legislature strike that balance by recognizing that the real problem of discrimination in employment is not the orientation of the homosexual employee, but rather intolerance and prejudice. Let us put the case of John Damien and other wrongfully dismissed homosexuals in a proper perspective. Let’s guarantee the right of gay people to follow the opportunities and protections everyone else has and expects.

On the topic of the homosexuals themselves, there are some who would argue that there are not quite as bad as they say. Some would also argue that homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else; but that is not the case. In 1974, the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University compiled the results of an 11-page survey sent out to over 3,000 homosexuals in the United States. All of the results were statistically significant. To demonstrate the great feeling of repression and alienation in the homosexual community, let us look at a few of the questions asked and the responses.

One of the questions was, “Would there be problems at work if people found out that you were a homosexual?” Seventy-six per cent of the respondents said there would be problems; almost half of these said the problems would be quite serious.

Another question was, “How do you think most people feel about homosexuals?” Sixty-seven per cent of those answering said they felt most people were disgusted by, repelled by, or simply disliked homosexuals.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what it must be like to live with constant fear, the fear of losing one’s job, of being exposed or of losing one’s self-respect? I would submit this is not a fair burden for the homosexual to bear.

As for the actual extent of the problem, the respondents were asked, in the same survey if they had ever lost a job because of their sexual orientation. Sixteen per cent of those answering said yes. If these figures are the same for Ontario -- and I doubt they are substantially different -- this is a disgrace. Even one tenth of one per cent would be too many losing their jobs for being homosexual.

Thus far, I have dealt with two questions: those of the homosexual’s problems and of deviance in general. The third thing I would like to turn to is our role as legislators in this whole debate. Researchers for the Institute for Sex Research in Indiana concluded their study by noting that, “Research on racial minorities has shown that one of the more effective ways to make society’s reaction less negative is to change the institution that sustains discrimination. When this is done, a change in industrial attitudes often follows.”

Bill 16 addresses one of the primary targets for change: discrimination in employment. Until we, as legislators, make a firm commitment to the right to employment, this discrimination will continue.

Once again, summing up, I would urge all members present to support Bill 16 and end discrimination against homosexuals in employment.


Mr. Speaker: I understand the member for St. George had four or five minutes left which she might wish to use.

Mrs. Campbell: Some things have been said in the course of this debate that bother me somewhat, Mr. Speaker. The member for St Andrew-St. Patrick spoke of whether or not this bill provided for the proselytizing in the schools. If the Attorney General were in this House, I think he would recall a period in 1973, when three candidates for the riding of St. George were asked by the gay community whether we would permit the proselytizing of homosexuality in the schools. As I recall it, the Attorney General at that point said he wasn’t very much aware of the situation and therefore had no opinion. The present member for St. George said no, as indeed did the member of the triumvirate on that occasion representing the NDP.

There is nothing in this bill that talks about proselytizing and there certainly is no such intent. As far as I am concerned the whole matter of sex education in the schools has to be very much improved before anyone should go into proselytize at all. I understand the concerns, and they are honest concerns, of those who feel that the young in our community possibly could become influenced by homosexuals. But there is simply no evidence at all that this exists in our society, that children are any more influenced by homosexuals than they are by heterosexuals who indicate behaviour that probably no one in this House would accept.

I find it difficult, having regard to my career of concern for children, that anyone would suggest or think I would be promoting something that could harm children. We have rapists at large in our community and we don’t worry about whether or not they are in the schools. But I suppose there is a very good reason for that. We have never felt rapists should have anything other than the full protection of the law of evidence and of everything else. I become somewhat angered when I find we so placidly accept that situation and then find all sorts of ways to defeat the very simple purpose, which is to give equality and dignity to a group in the community.

Sufficient members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 33.

Mr. Cassidy: Shame. It is a shame, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. So are the interjections.

Mr. Renwick: It is parliamentary, though.

Sufficient members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 16.

Mr. MacDonald: What are you people doing? Destroying the private members’ hour?

Mr. Cassidy: You are making a mockery of it.

Mr. MacDonald: You won’t even allow a free vote. It’s disgraceful.

Mr. Wildman: We are back to where we were under the old rules.

Mr. Lawlor: Still the old superiority complex.


House in committee on Bill 28, An Act to amend the Residential Premises Rent Review Act, 1975 (2nd session).

The House recessed at 5:58 p.m.