Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

FUNDING OF HOMES FOR RETARDED CHILDREN

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am pleased to announce that, effective immediately, the Ministry of Community and Social Services is prepared to assume a larger share of the costs of group homes for severely retarded children in the province.

My ministry is committed to assisting in the development of a broad range of services to meet the varying needs of persons who are mentally retarded and the needs of their families. The development of group homes for retarded children who require this type of service has lagged behind those for adults. There are today only 212 residential places in community settings for retarded children, compared with 2,400 for adults. This situation is largely the result of the existing funding regulations.

My ministry has been providing 80 per cent of the cost of establishing and operating these residential services up to this point. The remaining 20 per cent has had to be raised from private sources such as parents, clients, municipalities, charitable donations or fund-raising campaigns.

In recent years the local associations for the mentally retarded and the other voluntary service agencies which run these homes for retarded children have had great difficulty in meeting the 20 per cent requirement on an ongoing basis. In the case of group homes for adults, these agencies have been able to raise the 20 per cent share from the residents themselves, since retarded adults are eligible for income support through my ministry’s family benefits program.

In order to provide for more group homes for retarded children who require this service, we’re changing the regulations under the Developmental Services Act to allow these agencies to choose between the existing funding arrangement and a new one. Under the new funding option, the ministry will require the sponsoring agency to raise three per cent of the cost privately and to obtain a further contribution from the child’s parents, when the parents have the ability to pay. The required parental contribution will range from $40 to $90 a month and a new, straightforward income test will be used to determine the amount in each case.

The $90 maximum is based on what is considered to be a very moderate view of the normal cost of care of a child. The $40 minimum parallels the total of the family allowance or baby bonus and the child tax credit provided by the federal government. The sponsoring agency will be permitted to reduce the minimum parental contribution in exceptional circumstances, such as when parents are in receipt of social assistance and could not afford to visit their child otherwise.

This sliding scale of parental contribution means that the provincial share of the costs of these group homes will be increased from the present 80 per cent to a range of from 88 per cent to 95 per cent, according to current projections.

This funding approach is designed to do two things: First, to help us more than double the number of group home spaces for retarded children by the end of the 1980-81 fiscal year and, second, to reinforce the principles of parental responsibility for their children and community responsibility for its residents.

This increased subsidy from the Ontario government is intended to help provide at least an additional 350 spaces by the end of the next fiscal year. We estimate the costs of this increased subsidy for the new and existing spaces will be $3.4 million in the 1980-81 fiscal year.

In order to achieve our goal, we will need the continued co-operation of our district working groups that do community planning for improved services for retarded persons as well as the voluntary agencies that act as sponsors. To be successful, we will need -- and deserve, in my opinion -- the understanding, support and co-operation of municipalities and their residents, who have a clear responsibility not to allow unreasonable zoning restrictions or unfounded fears to interfere with the ability of our fellow citizens who are retarded to live in the community.

Mr. McClellan: You’re going to have to do better than that.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It’s my personal belief that children who are retarded should, wherever possible, be raised by their parents within a family setting. My ministry, in partnership with concerned community organizations, is continuing to develop the network of support services to ensure that this is a real choice for those parents. The additional financing commitment of the provincial government to community-based services to retarded children is one of our priority initiatives to expand and improve services to children.

We’re providing a total of $16 million from this year’s budget to pay for these community services to mentally retarded children. These include 38 additional support services to help parents care for their handicapped children at home, including such things as infant stimulation, behaviour management, parent relief and family services.

We recognize, however, that raising a retarded child at home, particularly if the child is severely retarded and/or multiply-handicapped, is not always possible. That is why the ministry is providing additional money for group homes for these severely handicapped children, to ensure that there is an alternative to an institutional setting for those severely retarded children who cannot be maintained at home. In keeping with our existing policy, one half of the spaces added in group homes for retarded children will be reserved for children now residing in facilities for the mentally retarded.

It is my intention in the relatively near future to announce significant initiatives to assist in the further development of enhanced foster care as an alternative for retarded children who cannot be raised in their own home setting.

BARRIE JAIL

Mr. G. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege.

In the Hansard of October 29 the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) stated, “Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about the Barrie Jail. I have had a few complaints that I want to put on the record, because the member for the area doesn’t seem to want to talk about it.”

I would like to set the record straight. I have talked about the Barrie Jail; I brought it to the attention of the then Minister of Correctional Services, the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea), who put in the portable units. The present minister, the member for London South (Mr. Walker), then went to inspect that jail as his first program. I also spoke at a hearing of the committee that was set up to study ways to relieve the overcrowding in the present jail.

I don’t have the same insight into this jail as I was only a guest there, unlike the member for High Park-Swansea, but I have spoken on this matter and intend to continue speaking out.

The member is not accurate in what he said, Mr. Speaker.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DRYDEN PULP AND PAPER OPERATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to address a question to the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the announcement on the Reed Limited deal and specifically with regard to the government’s commitment to accept liability for pollution damage in excess of $15 million.

Since the government was obviously a party to the deal between the Reed paper company and Great Lakes Forest Products Limited -- and I might say we are very pleased to see that particular deal go through -- can the Treasurer explain why the government would have limited Reed’s liability in this way to a mere $7.5 million? Why has the government let Reed off so lightly, when the Treasurer must surely have been aware that the $80 million Reed is receiving from Great Lakes, representing so-called book value, is totally unrealistic? In fact, most of the $80 million is now going to be paid to Reed’s preferred shareholders, namely, the Reed International Limited conglomerate with its headquarters in London, England.

Why would the Treasurer not have kept Reed on the hook for more than $7.5 million and let that company transfer perhaps a little less to its shareholders in England?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the sum total of the commitments was what I was concerned about -- $15 million. The companies themselves made the decision as to who should pay what. My understanding is that the actions are against Reed; they are not against Great Lakes.

A good many months have elapsed during which a community has been very concerned about its future. The idea that somehow we should enter that marketplace and decide what the two companies should eventually do between themselves I think is wrong. I had one primary objective in those negotiations, one I hope the member shares; that is, to maintain the employment of almost 1,700 people in a community that has no other employer of note.

After a great deal of consideration and thought, this government decided it had to share in the risk to ensure a future for that community.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Is it an unwritten part of that deal that Great Lakes might in fact gain access to the very large tract of timber about which Reed and the government of Ontario have had a memorandum of understanding and which served as the beginning of the royal commission on the northern environment? Can the Treasurer assure us that is not an unwritten -- or written -- part of the deal?

Also, can he tell us what is the status of that memorandum of understanding made between the government of Ontario and the Reed paper company? Does Great Lakes now in some way take over that memorandum of understanding? What is the status of that? Can we be assured there will be no move to give up that acreage to Great Lakes without the royal commission on the northern environment first of all examining the matter in great detail?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the honourable leader wasn’t here when the statement was made the other day. That question was asked.

There was no commitment between me, as a negotiator for this province on the indemnification, and any other minister involved on those grounds, spoken or unspoken, nor was any condition attached, although I am sure they would have dearly loved to have that kind of condition attached.

The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) has answered this --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Have you read the letter?

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- in response to a previous question in this House. He said he had entered into no agreement and that any agreement would have to be entered into by him.

[2:15]

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the Treasurer can clear up a point of confusion, and if he cannot, if he would redirect it to the Minister of Natural Resources. Is the memorandum of understanding alive or dead? If it is dead, has he entered into negotiations with Great Lakes Forest Products Limited about any of the portions of the so-called retracted 17,000 square miles in order to find lumber for the proposed saw mill?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the memorandum of understanding is it exists between the Reed paper company and the province. It is just that -- a memorandum of understanding. It is not a commitment, although there are obligations on both sides; if one thing is done, something else would have to flow from it. It is, I assume, an asset of the Reed paper company, as I mentioned on Tuesday, and I assume it is one of the assets -- I don’t know how you put a value on it -- Great Lakes will be acquiring, although I don’t have that information.

For the information of the Leader of the Opposition I read the germane parts of a letter which I wrote to the chairman and president of Great Lakes on Monday -- it was delivered to him on Monday -- indicating the steps that had to be taken before there would be any additional wood supplied for new mills, or in fact, the rebuilt mill, for Great Lakes. I’ll be happy to table the whole letter.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If I could go back to the Treasurer: Did the Treasurer extract any kind of agreement, preferably written, from Great Lakes that they would maintain the present work force there? In his statement the other day, he indicated there would be X number of jobs and now some of the press reports seem to indicate that maybe Great Lakes isn’t quite as optimistic as he might be, particularly if they don’t go ahead with the high-speed newsprint machine.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, there was really no inconsistency between the statements in the paper, as reported by Great Lakes employees, and mine, if one analyses them. We said the fine paper operations were “likely to be phased out.” The total number of employees involved in that I’m told is somewhere in the range of 400.

We also said the present plans to divert that pulp to kraft would require approximately 200 more employees in the woodlands. That would give a net deficit of 200 jobs, if no other changes took place. I have to say the company did qualify their original comments about phasing out the paper by saying they really couldn’t get cost data by observation; they would have better cost data on site. I understood a period of at least three months will elapse while that kind of information is collected. That has been referred to.

At the same time, the next part of my statement said they would be increasing the production through a paper machine as a possibility, and that would take about 125 more men in the plant and between 275 and 300 more people in the woodlands. That would be far more conditional upon the kind of negotiations that would have to be entered into with the Minister of Natural Resources for furnish.

Mr. Foulds: At the present state of negotiations and with the present firm agreement he has arrived at and that has been arrived at between the two companies, he is telling us, is he not, there is more of a probability of there being a deficit of 200 jobs than a net gain of 200 jobs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I don’t think it’s a probability at all. There’s a three-month status quo at least, during which time, I am told, the decisions will be taken by Great Lakes, following which the changes will be made. I would suspect negotiations will be going on, not necessarily about the woodlands referred to in the northern commissioner’s study area, but in general -- rationalizations, the kinds of things every company comes in and discusses with the Ministry of Natural Resources of the day. I’ve gone through a few of those.

I can only say I am reasonably satisfied that the chance of an extra 200 jobs is excellent at this time, if wood is available.

Mr. S. Smith: The original question, Mr. Speaker, had to do with the $7.5 million liability which is now the limit to which Reed Limited might find itself in some jeopardy. Why would the minister say he was willing to let Ontario go on the hook for every dollar past $15 million on the basis that he was only interested in preserving the jobs there? If there was some need to preserve the jobs, presumably it means the company was considering walking away from the operation. Far from having to walk away from it, they’re getting $80 million for it.

This is quite a lot of money ending up in the hands of Lord whoever he is over in England. Why would Ontario be going on the hook for every cent above $15 million? Why didn’t he hold out for a much better deal for Ontario and not leave Reed Limited to a mere $7.5 million after their corporate pollution record?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can understand, after listening to the Leader of the Opposition speak, he has a great understanding of how the business world works. I had hoped that, perhaps, some of the discussions he may have had would have indicated there was some real risk of losing those jobs. I cannot take the risks with 1,700 jobs that he would take.

SEATON DEVELOPMENT

Mr. S. Smith: I saw the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) here a moment ago. Has he walked out again? I’m not trying to be sarcastic but I thought he was here a second ago.

I’ll ask the question of the Premier then. Would he explain why it is that after the experience of his government with the problems in South Cayuga, Townsend, Edwardsburgh and North Pickering now, he would be going ahead with the development of the so-called Seaton community? Oshawa, Whitby and Pickering have plenty of land for development, and services such as schools and churches would not have to be built there from scratch. Why is he having this new experience all over again of starting a new community rather than expanding the existing communities?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m not as familiar with all the terminology. Seaton, as I recall it, really is North Pickering. We’re talking about the same thing. When the member recites all the other names he is really saying North Pickering, which is now called Seaton.

Mr. Nixon: It was called Cedarwood too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s had a variety of names. We might even have called it Nixonville if it had been further to the west, but the latest name is Seaton.

What the ministry and the government are doing is very simple. They are moving ahead in discussions with the regional municipality and with the town of Pickering itself with respect to the potential development of this portion of those lands.

The member will recall -- I’m sure he does -- that the province has a modest investment in the York Centre sewer. I forget the name of the line. There is a member smiling over there. What’s the name of it?

Mr. Stong: The York-Durham sewer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, the York-Durham sewer. For the edification of the member for Hamilton West, the York-Durham sewer runs across and to the south of the potential development at Seaton.

I recall very vividly how the members opposite, over the years, were encouraging the province to get into land banking and to some area of modest development for housing. The ministry feels very simply that the taxpayers have a reasonably substantial investment in this part. We’re anxious to continue to see some encouragement given to development towards eastern Ontario, an area the member sometimes visits, and this is one way we can give incentive to that type of growth.

I’m surprised the member for Hamilton West hasn’t asked us why we haven’t moved ahead with it sooner. I’m a little surprised he’s now saying, by implication, that the province shouldn’t move ahead to help stimulate development in that part -- put lots on the marketplace to provide additional potential housing accommodation. I can only assume from the question he doesn’t feel this should be the appropriate policy, which is fine. I just have to tell him I think he is in error.

Mr. S. Smith: I assume the Premier believes I am in error since he is adopting a policy the opposite of the one I am recommending.

By way of supplementary, since the original plans for that area were linked to the famous airport, I would ask the Premier why is it that his government would allow the existence of the York-Durham sewer to become the main planning instrument in the province of Ontario, which is basically what it has become, and why it would have communities built which will end up using mostly good agricultural land in that area when the airport hasn’t gone ahead and is unlikely to go ahead?

Why does the government allow that sewer line to become the main planning instrument in Ontario when there are existing communities which have facilities and could use reasonable expansion? We have been through this before in the South Cayuga experiment and so on. Why are we going ahead with this community simply because it has been on the drawing board since 1972, I guess?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I guess in some respects it has been on the drawing board prior to that time. While there may be a little confusion in the mind of the member, the fact is that the province had made -- and we had debated the TCR here in the House -- the policy decision to encourage growth east of Metropolitan Toronto, instead of having the bulk of the urban development taking place to the west.

That particular sewer is not the main planning instrument. I say with great respect that I really didn’t think the member for Hamilton West would seize upon that as having such great significance. I would just point out that it happens to be close to that particular site. I know the member’s interest in sewers. Perhaps that is why he has a problem in his riding, as a matter of fact.

I would go on to say, in terms of development and in terms of being able to put land on the market at relatively reasonable prices, the government has determined that it is going to continue the process of approval through the local municipalities.

As I say, I have been out to the site. There may be some modest amount of agricultural land, but it is not the best agricultural land. The ministry is being very careful in determining the acreage that is to become part of this urban community. We think there is great merit in utilizing the investment made by the taxpayer to get a reasonable return. We think it is relatively good business.

Mr. S. Smith: We disagree.

Mr. Breaugh: I don’t want to get caught in that kind of a fight again. As a supplementary, I would like to ask the Premier if it is now his intention, having had the public purse absorb the cost and strain of land acquisition, servicing of the site and developmental costs, to turn the properties over to the private sector so that they might reap the profits from there?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand the minister is here who knows far more about this than I do. The Ministry of Housing estimates are there. I think members should all go down and become enlightened on this particular situation.

It is not the intent of the government to turn this over to the private sector. I would hope it would be the ultimate objective of the ministry, once the approvals through the appropriate channels of the local municipality and the region are confirmed and all of the necessary subdivision agreements, et cetera, have been executed, that the policy would be then to have a private sector involvement in terms of the individual builders building the actual housing accommodation.

I see no rationale for the Ministry of Housing becoming the prime contractor in actual individual housing construction, but I do see the ministry becoming involved in getting the plan of subdivision in place; that is, with lots that are registered. We have no intent of selling off, say, 200 acres to developer A and another 200 to developer C. That would really be in contradiction to some of the things we have been attempting to do, which the New Democratic Party, incidentally, used to support and perhaps still does.

DRYDEN PULP AND PAPER OPERATIONS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Treasurer for a moment for some clarification on the agreement between Reed Limited and Great Lakes Forest Products Limited.

As the government has now become, in effect, a third party in accepting liability for any damages awarded to claimants above $15 million that may arise because of pollution in the English-Wabigoon River system, why is it the government did not consult with Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt, the Indian commissioner of Ontario, who has mercury pollution as one of his specific mandates?

[2:30]

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I don’t quite follow the implications of that question. We were simply dealing with the contingent liability, the unknown liabilities being assumed by a purchaser, which may result from potential cases and awards that gave to the potential purchaser a totally unknown quantity. We knew the courts would deal with these matters fairly.

We knew, based upon the Dow cases, the courts would have a difficult time necessarily attaching responsibility, but because there was an element of risk which a prudent purchaser really wasn’t willing to take, and because there were other, let us say, social benefits to the province of Ontario to be gained by becoming a party to that risk, we simply assessed our own risks and felt it was far better for the province to enter into that agreement to eliminate the concerns and fears of a community that was really, in effect, held in jeopardy while those unassessable risks existed.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: While we can sympathize and agree with the move that has been made to solidify an agreement and to solidify the economy of the Dryden area, it puzzles me that in this question of liability the government did not consult with the commissioner, Patrick Hartt, as part of the tripartite process this government established, in view of the fact one of the treaties, I think it is Treaty No. 3, has filed, although it is not yet processed, a potential liability of $25 million, which would be above the $15 million figure.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again, the courts will have to assess each case and I think that is the best place to leave it. The simple fact is, with that kind of potential problem, I think the member, as a purchaser or owner of some of the shares of that company, would have had a concern. I don’t mean to imply he was a shareholder. I hope he was. It would be in keeping with his philosophy. But surely, then, we had the responsibility to take that action to make the deal possible.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: Did it ever occur to the minister, or was it ever discussed, that the purchase could have been made of the assets of the company and Reed could have been left with the purchase price and the responsibility as it relates to the polluting? It is within the realm of possibility that in the best interests of everyone concerned, the buyer would have the assets and continue with the jobs and the plant, and the people who polluted in the first place would have the money and they would have to sustain all the lawsuits? Did that never enter your mind?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Of course that entered my mind, vacant though it may be. The Leader of the Opposition must be an expert on vacant minds. That is perhaps why he turned to politics.

Mr. S. Smith: It is a fact that the Treasurer and I the other day exchanged ideas and, as a consequence, my mind is vacant.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you mean you had only one idea to give?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Never mind. It’s cheaper to have him here than on OHIP.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And better for your patients.

Mr. S. Smith: Don’t rub it in.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Of course that occurred to me. I happened to have thought of it myself. Whether the member knows it or not, the law on this kind of liability appears to be in a very formative or perhaps fluid stage. There were lawyers who argued that even the purchase of assets could have attached to it responsibility. Since they could not get a legal opinion to say that would not happen, then we were required as a guarantor.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question, since the law is in such a fluid state, would the Treasurer consult with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) about introducing legislation which will ensure the protection of the rights of all persons, other than the two companies that are involved in this transaction, particularly the rights of the communities of native peoples at Grassy Narrows and Whitedog?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Hopefully, one of the reasons why I can count on the honourable member’s support is that he would trust the province of Ontario as a guarantor in this case, perhaps more than the others. Again, I have observed the wisdom of the honourable member’s comments many times -- I’m not being facetious at all in this case -- and when he suggests I should talk to my colleague the Attorney General on a legal point, I am quite quick to do so, just as I was the other day when he offered some other advice.

ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. in view of the unprecedented success of the King Tut exhibition at the Art Gallery of Ontario and the revenues accruing thereto; and in view of the outstanding amount of funding provided to that institution by the taxpayers of this province through the Ministry of Culture and Recreation; will the Minister of Labour instruct that institution, its board and its officers, to bargain in good faith with the Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union local, now that the Art Gallery of Ontario has been found guilty of five charges of unfair labour practices by the Ontario Labour Relations Board?

Mr. Renwick: Instruct them to adhere to the law of the province.

Mr. Kerrio: Did they find a union contract in the tomb?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Speaking of the tomb, as one who hasn’t seen the tomb contents, the member well knows that the Labour Relations Board did indeed deal with this matter and kept unto itself the issue of good bargaining and so forth and intends to deal with that after further representation.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Will the minister not show some affirmative action now by providing for immediate certification of employees in cases such as the art gallery, given the clear example of gross interference of the rights of workers to organize and bargain? Does this further example of a flouting of the labour laws in the province of Ontario not convince the minister of the need to bring before this House legislation dealing with first agreements and union security to return some respect and trust to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, given the number of incidents such as this one in the province today?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think we have a very good Labour Relations Act in this province and that has been verified by the fact that the board has clearly stated its view about the activities that took place during the organizing stages.

It is also reaffirmed by the fact that the board has said it is still seized of that subject and will deal with it after representations have been obtained.

With regard to the second part of the honourable member’s question, I have answered that before, I have indicated that the matters he raised are matters that are being discussed, and the results of those deliberations will be known.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Does the minister not agree that since a union has to go through the process of applying to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and have X number of cards and a percentage more than 50 per cent already signed up, that indicates that the majority of the workers there want the union? Should that not be sufficient to indicate to the government that those people have the right, and want to form a union and should be allowed to do so, and that we should at least have minimum legislation in the province to guarantee that union’s existence?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: With regard to that particular issue, I would hope the member would agree that the act does indeed say that if 55 per cent of the employees have signed cards, then there is a certified bargaining unit. However, it does also give the right to challenge any of the individuals who claim they have not signed those cards in good faith. Surely the Labour Relations Act can’t go beyond that.

INSIDER TRADING

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) asked me to comment on what he called insider trading in the shares of Reed Limited. His question tied into the statement by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) in respect of Reed’s sale of its Dryden mill to Great Lakes Forest Products.

Trading in Reed has been fairly steady over the last few months. In August, the trading range was roughly $7.5 to $11; in September, $10.5 to $10.7. In October, along with all other industrials, the market in Reed declined and its shares traded down to $9. On October 30, the Globe and Mail carried the company’s announcement of a significant turnaround in its profit picture for the nine months ended September 30, 1979. Compared with a net loss of $3.4 million a year earlier, the company showed a profit of $27.9 million for the nine-month period. The market reacted predictably and on November 5 the stock set a three-year high of $11 3/8.

As to matters covered in the Treasurer’s statement on Tuesday, the company made confidential disclosure to the Ontario Securities Commission late the previous afternoon. Beginning Tuesday morning, the commission and the Toronto Stock Exchange closely monitored trading in both Reed and Great Lakes. The commission made advance arrangements with the Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges to halt trading in both Reed and Great Lakes to give the market an opportunity to digest the investment impact of the transaction.

As I mentioned on Tuesday, trading was halted within moments of the Treasurer’s statement. The possibility of insider trading on a basis of undisclosed information is always present, although Reed’s nine-month profit figures are themselves a probable explanation of the recent price increase. The commission and the Toronto Stock Exchange are reviewing all recent trades in Reed and Great Lakes, both in Toronto and Montreal.

The member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) asked me on Tuesday about front-running trading and exchange-listed options. That problem is totally separate and distinct from Reed and Great Lakes. Options are not available on shares of either company. The front-running trading problem has been around for some while and is being addressed by the authorities in the self-regulatory bodies both in Canada and in the United States.

ACID RAIN

Mr. Conway: I would like to return to the Minister of Natural Resources on the question of the acid rain threat to Algonquin Provincial Park. Having the benefit of the minister’s preliminary response to my question on Tuesday, I am concerned in that in his response there is no clear indication whatsoever that his ministry, in its responsibilities for that principal provincial park, has undertaken any specific analysis or study to ascertain the exact nature and extent of the impact of this insidious environmental threat upon that specific Algonquin Provincial Park. Is that a proper assumption? Is it the case that this ministry and this government have at this late date done nothing with specific regard to ascertaining the nature of the threat to Algonquin Provincial Park?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to get the complete report on the work that has been done, that is contemplated and the results we have had to date. I think perhaps those things will be tabled in the House.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Recognizing what we are now being told by a number of experts in the scientific community that this environmental hazard threatens not only the water systems -- and I pointed out the other day that Algonquin is the headwaters for most of our eastern Ontario river systems -- and recognizing as well the tourism and forests impact related to the question, does the minister not agree that he has a leadership responsibility to discharge in this connection? The time has long since passed when the minister can simply suggest tabling of information is an adequate response from this government to such an important resource in this province in the late 1970s.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think it must be very clear to the honourable member that a great many lakes, in fact all of the lakes in Ontario, are important to the province, some perhaps more economically or socially important because of their convenience to centres of population. While I am particularly concerned about the lakes in or adjacent to our provincial parks, I am also aware of the hundreds or thousands of others which are still used by the public.

GAS AND OIL SUPPLIES

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. I would like to ask him, now the National Energy Board has released a section of its monthly survey of petroleum products that relates to total Canadian supplies, why doesn’t the minister instruct his ministry to release that section of the survey that relates to the Ontario region and the associated forecast of demand for that region?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will recall she raised this issue some time ago in the House. During the exchange in answering that question, I indicated I had certain information from the National Energy Board to which conditions were attached with respect to its general circulation.

When I had the opportunity to review it a little more carefully, I saw no reason why it shouldn’t be available, in order that the honourable member could make some further objective judgements herself on the basis of this. So last October 18 I wrote to my federal colleague to indicate to him I would hope they would make some of this information available, knowing there was some need to have some explanation of the figures. If they were taken without some type of explanation, they might lead to misinterpretation.

It was my understanding that the honourable member did talk to an official of the National Energy Board yesterday, and I instructed one of my officials to speak with the honourable member today, to share with her whatever information we had and to be helpful with respect to some explanations. Hopefully, now she has some of this information upon which she can make her own judgement with respect to the assessment of the present situation.

Ms. Gigantes: The minister knows that the commitment by the energy board is a very limited one, and it doesn’t meet my request.

Is the minister aware of a statement quoted in the Toronto Star, attributed to Donald Macdonald, the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at the federal level, that he always felt uneasy about the information being provided by (the oil companies -- that he wonders to this day if he was getting the right information? Can he tell us whether he has received an assessment, either formally or informally, from ministry staff, concerning the usefulness of the National Energy Board survey figures and whether they are a good tool for government planning or merely a way of the oil companies softening us up for price increases?

Hon. Mr. Welch: If I can divide the question up, number one, I am not aware of the comments of the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Certainly on the basis of the information I have, we rely very much on the information collected by the National Energy Board.

In addition to the overall national figures, we have some regional data upon which we can make certain judgements. But suffice it to say at this stage, in addition to our reliance on that source, and confirmed by statements by the Prime Minster of Canada and by the present incumbent of the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources office, the board’s assessment quite simply is that sufficient oil for the winter of 1979-80 will be available from Canadian crude oil supplies, foreign oil imports and some draw-down of inventory.

They go on to say that periodic meetings between officials of the National Energy Board and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and provincial representatives will continue to be held to review the short-term outlook for oil products. The most recent of these, as the honourable member knows, was November 1. The consensus at that meeting was again that the prospect for the winter remained tight, but manageable.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: In view of the fact the Socreds in Ottawa didn’t trust Mr. Clark regarding this, so they made a deal with him on the side, and in view of the fact in the eastern states all of them have emergency plans already in place, why is the minister dragging his feet here?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It would come as no surprise to the honourable member that I wouldn’t be privy to any arrangements that may or may not have been made in connection with certain votes in the House of Commons. But as well, I don’t think this minister has been dragging his feet. He has been very open, and indeed has attempted to be very helpful with respect to any questions directed to him on the subject.

MCDONALD LAWRENCE SEALES

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on November 6 the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) posed questions to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) with regard to a report carried out by psychiatrists from the University of Western Ontario on the release of a patient from London Psychiatric Hospital.

The honourable member asked whether the report would be released and, if the details of the report could not be released, he asked whether I would indicate whether or not any of the recommendations in it would be followed. Finally, he asked whether, in view of the report, there would be any need to amend Bill 19, An Act to amend the Mental Health Act.

Due to the confidential nature of the subject about the patient, I do not believe it is appropriate to release the report. However, I will speak to the recommendations.

There were only two recommendations. The first states: “That further research be encouraged to find better ways of predicting dangerousness than are presently available. This would be of use, not only in predicting dangerousness in persons suffering from mental illness, but also could be invaluable in the areas of crime and correction, for example, in weighing the need for incarceration and in deciding suitability for parole.”

As you are aware, sir, the predicting of dangerousness by psychiatrists is extremely difficult. We are willing to consider any proposal for research that would address this particular issue. In fact, it is a subject of considerable study throughout the world.

The second recommendation suggests that consideration be given to a record being kept centrally of all admissions and discharges to mental health facilities and of all patients who are absent without leave from such facilities. My ministry advisers have expressed serious reservations to me regarding the establishment of a central registry which would single out specifically those who are suffering, or who have suffered from a psychiatric illness, since this could be considered to be discriminatory.

Further, my staff inform me that from the standpoint of confidentiality of patient records, there may be significant disadvantages to a centralized registration system. However, as the member is aware we are awaiting the report of the Honourable Mr. Justice Krever on the subject of the confidentiality of medical records. Once we have Mr. Justice Krever’s report we will give this particular matter further consideration at that time.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the report states that amendments to the Mental Health Act -- which were passed in this House last year -- have no bearing whatsoever on this particular incident, therefore, no amendments would be required in light of what has transpired.

Mr. Van Horne: Do I understand then that the minister is not going to take any action specifically related to those recommendations about people recognizing danger signals exhibited by mentally ill patients until the Krever commission report comes down? Is he not going to do anything until that report comes down in spite of comments made by the psychiatric team or by people such as Professor Greenland, the associate professor of psychiatry from McMaster who, at the same time, made similar suggestions?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think, with respect, the member perhaps is mixing up the two recommendations and the responses to them.

The first had to do with the question of research and we are certainly prepared -- either through the money which we flow to the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, to the Mental Health Foundation or through research proposals which come directly to the ministry -- to consider the funding of any proposal into the question of the predicting of dangerousness because it is inevitably going to be helpful, not only to the psychiatric care of the population, but in other areas, as is mentioned in the excerpt I quoted. We are prepared to do that any time.

On the second point of a central registry, a great deal of reservation has been expressed with respect to confidentiality of records and the problems to do with the names and addresses of patients. Many of our patients of course don’t have permanent addresses. For example -- and no disrespect intended -- Smith, S., may be admitted to North Bay Psychiatric Hospital. They might have 27 of them and that could lead to particular problems.

Mr. S. Smith: But it could be fantasy, fantasy.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I didn’t give the middle initial. What is it -- “L”? The member will understand that we will hold that in abeyance until we do have the report of Mr. Justice Krever. But we will take it into consideration again at that time.

LOTTERIES

Mr. G. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Some two months ago I wrote to him concerning what would be taking place with the present Loto Canada distributors after the Ontario government takes over the operation of Loto Canada. Will he be taking the money and running or be looking for jobs for these people who would be displaced by the taking over of Loto Canada?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The Ontario Lottery Corporation has for several weeks now been looking at the arrangement to take place after the cessation of Loto Canada operations at the end of December. In all likelihood, the vast majority of the distributors and dealers, who are now engaged in Loto Canada, will be terminating their work, and the volume of work will be brought over to the distributors and retailers now engaged in Wintario, the Provincial and Lottario.

There is in all of this a very real saving. Whereas the volume of sales will obviously be going up as they assume the sale of Loto Canada tickets, the per unit commission will be reduced substantially, thereby maintaining their profit at about the present level, but having the very desirable effect of vastly increasing the revenue flowing into the provincial treasuries across the country.

We think this happens to be an excellent and efficient arrangement. As a matter of fact, this was one of the reasons we wished to streamline the four lotteries in this country.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister mean the savings that will be incurred as a result of this will permit him to unfreeze the freeze on the capital grants? Or is the minister saving this for the election campaign?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I hadn’t really thought about saving it for the election campaign; but that might be a good idea.

As I reported to this House some weeks ago, we are still engaged in the examination of the capital program, the new priorities. In the fullness of time --

Mr. O’Neil: You sound like the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- we will reinstitute the capital program.

Mr. Eakins: In the fullness of time, 1980 or 1981?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I would like to remind the members of this House that I think they are very much aware individually that when we announced the freeze, effective January 1, 1979, we made it very clear that on any of those applications that were under way, and for which the fund-raising had already taken place, with the planning of the project well advanced, we were not going to ring down the curtain in the midst of all of that. We have allowed these applications to be processed, and to be paid.

I think that was an excellent move. I have not really heard any screams from any of the projects, and I am sure this can be confirmed by any member of this House. I have not had any complaints that anybody was caught halfway across the river, as it were, and had a Wintario program suddenly dropped.

Having done that, obviously the volume has continued to flow. This is one reason we may take a few months longer to reopen the capital program, but we frankly feel we have acted in the best interests of the many projects across the province.

PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING

Mr. Sweeney: I have a question for the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. What is the usual procedure followed by the Ministry of Education when a parent reports what he believes to be a violation of section 12(2) of the regulations, with respect to written parental consent being required, prior to administering a psychological test?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It was my understanding that when a parent asks that that be investigated, I proceed to investigate it. The individual in question, I think, asked for that kind of investigation, and that is what I have initiated. Does that answer the member’s question?

[3:00]

Mr. Sweeney: Given that the minister obviously recognized the incident in question, which has been defined by a member of the ministry’s legal staff and, I understand, also by the deputy minister, as having in fact violated that section; and given that the testing material is produced by the Psychological Corporation, and is administered by a psychologist, then surely the kinds of response the parent is getting are not adequate. Would she not agree with saying to parents, “If you don’t want the test, write,” as opposed to what your legislation clearly says, which is, “Permission must be given in writing prior to the administration of the test”?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If indeed there is lack of clarity in that legislation, I will be very willing to investigate that and to try to modify it.

BED UTILIZATION STUDY

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health concerning the bed utilization study conducted by the Essex County District Health Council.

Is the minister aware that the study indicated 26 per cent of the residents in nursing homes did not belong there and should be in rest homes, and 58 per cent of the residents in chronic-care beds should be in nursing homes? Does this not clearly indicate the system is backed up, and the reason it is backing up is because the minister did not put alternatives in place before he closed the active-treatment beds? Does it not also indicate that what is needed is standards and inspection of rest homes in Ontario in order for that alternative to be brought up to a proper standard?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be bridging beyond belief to go from what the member just said and arrive at that conclusion, but that is because he started with the conclusion and looked for something to substantiate it.

Regarding the bed utilization study, I have not seen it yet, although I am aware it is under review either by a committee of the district health council or is it at the health council now.

Mr. McClellan: Explain it away, Dennis. It needs to be explained away.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Either way, it will get to the ministry, I would expect, within the next couple of months. We will have their recommendations as to what additional chronic-care and/or extended-care beds are needed in the county to meet actual needs now and for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: While the minister might think I’ve come to the wrong conclusions, maybe I’ll read recommendation four from this report, which comes to the same conclusion I did. Does the minister agree with recommendation four, which states: “It is recommended that consideration be given to regulation of rest homes in order to provide reimbursement, monitoring arrangements for the care provided and standardized alternatives to homes for the aged and nursing-home care”?

Does the minister agree with that, or is he going to continue to say residents who are in rest homes don’t need care, as he did in the debate on the resolution of the member for Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta)?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’ve said consistently that we in the provincial government, in the Ministry of Health and in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, have specific responsibilities for those people who are in a continuing-care situation. We have responsibility for the establishment of standards and the inspection with regard to those standards. We do not have responsibility -- the municipalities do -- for standards to do with property standards bylaws and with residential standards for people who are not in a continuing care situation.

I’m not sure, from what the member is reporting -- since I have not seen it -- but the member knows once the health council has completed its review of whatever report is prepared for it -- and it has the right to add to or delete any recommendation that comes from a task force or a subcommittee -- and once I’ve got its report, that will be public, as will the response to it.

Mr. Mancini: Why does the minister feel he has to wait for the district health council report to state chronic-care patients should not be in active-care beds? Why does he just not make a policy statement that chronic-care patients will not take up active-care beds and then go about setting policy and making moneys available so these people may be placed in proper facilities -- therefore, giving them the best care and allowing the ministry to get the most for its money?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would invite the honourable member to dig into his files and find his copy of the statement I made on February 7, 1978. If he hasn’t got a copy, I’ll get him one. That was the statement dealing with the changes in the various bed ratios. It pointed out that where, in fact, there is a need, an ongoing need for additional chronic-care and/or extended-care facilities over and above the active-treatment bed facilities -- the 3.5 or four beds per thousand, depending upon whether we are talking about south or north -- the need will be met. The question is, how do you identify what needs to be met?

We are committed to involving local people, through the district health councils, in analysing what needs there are. As an example of an area that has already been addressed, I would point to the Ottawa-Carleton region, where the health council identified the needs immediately--”immediately” being over the next two or three years -- for 150 more chronic-care beds over and above those which are there now and over and above the active-treatment bed complement.

Based on their report, some time ago I approved the conversion of the Ottawa General Hospital once the new Ottawa General Hospital opens, probably next summer or fall. That’s an example of how the process works. Where the need is identified, I’m quite prepared to find ways to meet those needs.

VISIT OF U.S. PRESIDENT

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) asked me some questions concerning the forthcoming visit to Ottawa of the President of the United States. I notice the member is not here, but perhaps since the visit begins tomorrow I could indicate to him and to you, sir, having reviewed the itinerary, the visit is much as was reported in the paper this morning. A large part of it is ceremonial and formal functions. There are, however, three to four hours of discussions.

The government of Ontario was consulted about the topics that will be discussed at the meetings that are held. Basically, they are in the energy and environmental fields. We feel the position of this government on the various matters that will be discussed is well known to the federal ministers who will be sitting down at those discussions.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: Since the Prime Minister said yesterday that apart from his meetings with the President there would be several meetings with other ministers and their counterparts, has the government of Ontario made any presentation vis-à-vis the auto pact and the increasing deficit in the auto parts which will approach $4 billion and result in a substantial loss of jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It’s my understanding that the auto pact and discussions on it were not on the list of items that I saw which were going to be discussed.

Mr. di Santo: That’s not what the Prime Minister said yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I want to make it very clear to the member that this is a meeting between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister and the cabinet of Canada. There is a very short period of time for official discussions. It’s not intended to be a formal period of discussion of all the problems and grievances between the two countries, but I think it will serve as a starting point for a lot of discussion to continue between both the federal and federal-provincial representatives and our American friends in a variety of areas.

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. McKessock: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Has there been any small business development corporation set up under the Small Business Development Corporations Act, and if so, how many?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The last figure I had is that 11 have been incorporated.

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary: Can small business now apply for money under the Small Business Development Corporations Act, and at what interest rate?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: My field staff have recently been given enough information so that they may now act as marriage brokers, as it were, between the private sector and the SBDCs; that is, the people looking for venture capital and the SBDCs. There are now 11 of them which have funds available. Of course, whatever the arrangement for the interest rate is will be negotiated between the two of them.

The important thing is we’re not just letting it lie out there and see if they happen to marry. I have implemented all of my field staff to try and pull these people together. One of the main things we’re trying to accomplish is to ensure that because the majority of the SBDCs have been incorporated in the large urban centres such as Toronto that doesn’t lock out people in some of the other centres throughout the province who need access to those funds.

So my field staff in all areas of the province are aware of the existence of the SBDCs in Toronto and are pulling together from those other areas to Toronto.

Mr. McKessock: The main thing is the interest rate.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Ms. Bryden: I have question of the Minister of Labour. This morning I visited the Radio Shack plant in Barrie and met with employees of that company, and of Blue Cross in Don Mills. I would like to ask the minister if he is not aware that a stalemate has been reached in these distressing strikes because of the refusal of these companies to consider any kind of union security. Does he not agree he could probably bring these strikes to an end if he would follow the example of Quebec and Manitoba and make it mandatory for companies to grant this basic democratic right to unions?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of some of the problems that separate the parties in those two and in other issues. I have clearly stated on other occasions, and the Premier (Mr. Davis) stated earlier this week, that it is a matter he is aware of and that we are aware of and it is under consideration. As the Premier said, there will be no commitments with regard to any action at the present time, but it is certainly under review.

BARRIE JAIL

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I understand the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. G. Taylor) took issue with some comments I made about the Barrie jail. Since he has no firsthand knowledge of the Barrie jail, I think we can conclude that his observations were only hearsay.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege and the honourable member knows it. That is an abuse.

REPORTS

STANDING STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE

Mr. Williams from the standing statutory instruments committee presented the committee’s second report and moved its adoption.

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

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. McCaffrey from the standing general government committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the City of Cornwall.

Report adopted.

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Kerrio from the standing social development committee reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expanses of the Ministry of Community and Social Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980:

Ministry administration program, $19,391,300; adult services, $971,610,000; children’s services program, $327,078,000.

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that on Thursday, November 15, the standing administration of justice committee be authorized to meet in the evening instead of the afternoon and that the standing resources development committee be authorized to meet in the afternoon instead of the evening.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REMEMBRANCE DAY ACT

Mr. Sterling moved first reading of Bill 167, An Act to declare Remembrance Day as a Holiday for Veterans.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide a holiday for Ontario veterans who served in the Canadian or allied armed forces in combat capacity. The underlying principle of the bill is not just to provide another holiday. Rather, its intention is to reflect the original spirit of Remembrance Day. The bill honours only the comrades of those who lost their lives fighting for our country.

[3:15]

In keeping with that principle, a paid holiday will be given only on November 11 and only if Remembrance Day falls on a regular working day for that veteran. This bill will also alleviate the inconsistent and unfortunate situation which now allows some employees in our province who may or may not have served in the armed forces a paid holiday, but does not allow a holiday for a veteran who has served his country in combat.

In presenting this bill, I realize it is unlikely the House will be able to discuss it before prorogation.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a speech or a brief explanation of the principle of the bill?

Mr. Sterling: It is just a brief explanation of the principle.

Mr. Speaker: It is a little bit more than brief.

Mr. Sterling: I hope the introduction of this bill will serve the purpose of focusing attention on this issue, creating public discussion and eventually legislative action in this forum.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Lawlor moved first reading of Bill 168, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Amendment Act, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lawlor: A brief statement or explanatory note: The purpose of the bill is to limit the amount a physician or practitioner who bills the patient directly may charge for performing insured services under the act. The amount charged by a physician or a practitioner in these circumstances shall not exceed the amount payable by the plan for the insured services.

The bill prohibits the physician or practitioner from requiring payment of an account before the patient has had an opportunity to submit the account to the general manager for assessment.

Where the patient does pay the account early and the general manager subsequently determines that the amount payable by the plan is less than the amount paid by the patient, the physician or practitioner is under a duty to reimburse the patient for the overpayment.

The bill also sets out grounds for professional misconduct on the part of the physician or practitioner who contravenes the provisions of the bill.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breaugh moved first reading of Bill 169, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Amendment Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breaugh: The purpose of this bill is to implement an intention announced last spring to provide services at approved rates and situations where care is provided in a publicly funded building using publicly funded equipment and supported by publicly funded technical and nursing staff.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: I wish to table the answers to questions 321, 324 and 329, and the interim answer to question 327 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

CHILDREN’S RIGHTS ACT

Mr. McClellan moved second reading of Bill 102, An Act to declare the Rights of Children in Ontario.

Mr. McClellan: I would like to reserve five minutes for rebuttal, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak in favour of Bill 102, An Act to declare the Rights of Children in Ontario. I would say at the outset that my colleagues and I regard this, hopefully, as a major, significant and meaningful contribution by our party, and I hope by the whole Legislature, to the International Year of the Child.

The original idea for a bill of rights for children comes from the British Columbia Royal Commission on Family and Children’s Law in its fifth report on children’s rights. The House will recall that that royal commission was chaired by Mr. Justice Thomas Berger. My bill is based almost in total on the recommendations of that royal commission headed by Mr. Justice Berger.

I do want to point out, however, that the first call for a bill of rights for children in Ontario was not made by myself, but in fact was made by the Associate Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Judge George Thomson. I quote from the Toronto Daily Star report of his comments: “Ontario should draw up a bill of rights to protect its children, according to the man now overhauling the province’s child welfare system.”

Judge Thomson was right on, I say to the minister; he ought to listen to the very sage advice of his associate deputy minister.

Turning back for a moment to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Family and Children’s Law, upon which my bill is based, I want to go through the recommendations of that royal commission very briefly.

First, the recommendation by the Berger commission was that new legislation should contain a statement of 12 rights of children which are universally applicable, practicable and enforceable. The declaration of rights in Bill 102 is taken almost verbatim from the suggested formulation for a bill of rights in that royal commission’s first report, part III.

The second recommendation of the Berger commission is as follows: “The primary responsibility to meet children’s rights should rest with the parents or guardians. A secondary responsibility should fall to the government which should offer supportive services for children and respond to the request of parents. If the government is the legal guardian of the child it should have the full responsibility to fulfil the rights of the child.”

Again, that is precisely the set of relationships set out in Bill 102. I say to members of this House that the bill before them is as much a bill of rights for families as it is for children. It is both implicit in the bill that the proper place for children is in families and that the primary responsibility to fulfil the rights of children rests with the family, with the child’s own parents. The bill places an onus of legal responsibility, or legal obligation, upon the government to provide services to support families in fulfilling their primary responsibilities towards children.

The onus of obligation in the bill, as I say, is on the government. I want to make one thing very precise and clear. There is no burden on any family under this bill to accept services from government. Section 4 of Bill 102 specifically states: “A parent may refuse to participate in or accept services provided by the government of Ontario for a child under section 3, unless a court determines that a child is in need of protection under the Child Welfare Act.”

This is not protection legislation, this is not a substitute for the Child Welfare Act, and therefore there is no possibility of compulsory or non-voluntary intervention by the community into the affairs of the family. No such right can be granted to government under this kind of legislation. Under a bill of rights it is totally inappropriate, and of course I haven’t done it.

As I said, the onus is upon the government to provide services to families solely and exclusively at the request of families in order to assist families to care properly for their children. When the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) says that a bill of rights would tear families apart, that is a complete red herring. That is not contemplated under the bill, and it is not something that could happen if and when the bill was passed and enacted into law.

The bill provides a remedy for the enforcement of the 12 rights set out in section 2, and that means of enforcement is by judicial declaration on application to the court. I want to make it clear what we mean by enforcement. The best thing I can do is read briefly from a statement by Mr. Justice Berger, as part of an article that appeared in Perceptions and was reprinted in the Toronto Star in August:

“The law can offer a substantial measure of protection to the family and to children by the guarantees of due process which are being developed for the child and his parents in child welfare cases, in custody cases and in juvenile cases, but the law cannot guarantee the delivery of services to a whole category of children. Where the provision of such services is dependent on the availability of funds, it must in the final analysis be the responsibility of those elected to govern to determine what the priorities ought to be.

“Although it is true that such rights cannot always be enforced, they are rights the family itself and those institutions established by the state to defend the interest of the child ought to be in a position to assert. If modern notions of the rights of all children are established by statute and suitably elaborated so as to apply to special children, then such a statute can stand as a yardstick against which the provision of services to children can be measured.”

In recommending the remedy of judicial declaration, I am adopting the third recommendation of the Berger commission that the primary legal remedy for the enforcement of children’s rights be the judicial declaration. But it is important to understand that what we are talking about is not establishing some third party with the power of compulsion over elected officials. We are talking about an independent community standard; an independent yardstick for measuring the adequacy of the community’s behaviour and performance with respect to individual children; that is what we mean by judicial declaration.

There will be a moral obligation upon all of us, as legislators and as government when a court makes its judicial declaration that a particular child has rights which are not being met by virtue of the failure of the government to provide support services.

Certainly the court will not be able to compel governments to spend money to provide services. The accountability will be, if I may, a political accountability rather than a direct legal mandate from the court to government; that’s not how our parliamentary system works and I am not attempting to do anything that violates the traditions of parliamentary government, but I think it is essential that there be an independent means of establishing community standards with respect to children’s rights. That is what this bill tries to do.

I have had the unusual benefit of having read the minister’s speech before he delivers it. Those are the hazards of reading speeches in the Legislature in the first place. The minister intends to say that the declaration of rights is very vague and unspecific. I can understand why this government would be apprehensive about a bill of rights, although I don’t understand how any of the 12 rights enumerated could for a moment be described as vague. What is vague about the statement that it is hereby recognized and declared that every child resident in Ontario is entitled to the right to an education which will ensure every child the opportunity to reach and exercise his or her full potential?

Is that vague, Mr. Speaker, to one of the 180 retarded children who live in homes for special care -- children who have been assessed as being able to benefit from education, as having the potential to benefit from education, yet despite the fact those 180 children have been assessed as being able to benefit from education only 36 of them are actually in special education programs?

[3:30]

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is the right conveyed in that section vague to one of those children? Is the section on educational rights vague to one of the 200 blind, deaf or deaf-blind children who live in schedule two institutions for the mentally retarded in this province; one of those 200 blind, deaf or deaf-blind children for whom there are no special programs whatsoever, for whom this ministry has failed, after five years of so-called normal community living programs for the mentally retarded, even to do an individual assessment on one of those children?

The minister will argue that these rights are vague, or the minister will argue that we don’t need these kinds of rights promulgated in statute in this province. Yet there are 200 children who haven’t had their basic rights to an education even acknowledged through an assessment by the ministry, let alone through the development of adequate programs.

What about the 36 visually-impaired residents who were identified in 1975 -- these were children, I believe; 36 children who were identified in 1975 by Professor Cyril Greenland, living in the old Ontario Hospital schools for the mentally retarded -- the so- called schedule one facilities; who were found by Professor Greenland in 1975 to be suitable for care in the community, ready to leave institutional incarceration and return back to their communities, where they could live in adequate community accommodation, supported by adequate programs? We learned that only 12 of those 36 children have been released from custodial incarceration by this ministry in the intervening four years. I expect that the minister will rise in his place and say, “These rights are vague and these rights are not necessary. We are looking after everything, and everything is all right.” But there are too many children in this province who are not all right; who shouldn’t have to simply depend totally and exclusively on the vagaries, if I may say so respectfully, of government; who shouldn’t just have to depend on the accomplishment, or to suffer for the failure of government, without some kind of redress.

So I ask the members of the assembly, through the chair, to allow this to come to a vote and to pass this bill. Let us send it out to committee, where we can have full public hearings and public discussion and see if we can’t come up with something significant for our children in this International Year of the Child.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I want to rise to speak to this bill. First of all, I would like to commend the honourable member for what I know to be a sincere commitment and motivation that has given rise to the introduction of this bill at this time. If it were simply a matter of endorsing the concept of the protection of the rights of children I am sure there would be no problem with a unanimous vote on this bill in the House this afternoon.

However, I think it is important to bear in mind a number of things. In the discussion of children’s rights over the last several years there has been a good deal of confusion over the precise meaning of the rights of children and the best way of protecting those rights. The discussion has made it very clear that children’s rights is a difficult and complex area for legislative reform.

The staff of my ministry have been engaged in exploring this area as part of their work in the development of the omnibus legislation, which the honourable members know we have embarked upon and which will be a single and a comprehensive children’s services statute for this province. After a very careful review of Bill 102, it appears that although the goal the honourable member has in mind is a laudable one, the bill itself does not reflect an adequate consideration of many difficult issues; therefore it will be very difficult for us to support it on that basis. I would like to address some of those issues as briefly as I can in the time allotted.

First of all, I think we must ask what form children’s rights legislation should take. Bill 102 is a separate bill of rights for children, a bill which stands on its own. Another approach which might be considered is to incorporate the rights into broad comprehensive children’s legislation. Both of these approaches are being considered at the present time by my ministry in the development of the omnibus legislation which will subsequently be going forward for public discussion by the members of the legislative committees.

It’s noteworthy, I think, that Bill 102, as the honourable member has indicated, is quite clearly based on the fifth report of the Berger commission in British Columbia. Although the member has selected some very significant quotations, there is one quotation from page five of that report which he has failed to quote.

Mr. McClellan: I wanted to leave you something for your speech.

Hon. Mr. Norton: He has failed to quote this quotation from the Berger commission: “We suggest that the rights of children must he practicable. They must be acceptable within our framework of justice. They must also be capable of being implemented through the services of parents or the government. Following these guidelines we believe that children’s rights should not be enacted as a separate bill of rights. The rights should form an integral part of new legislation which covers a broad range of services to children.”

That is precisely one of the avenues being explored by my ministry at the present time.

Mr. McClellan: You haven’t done it yet.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member knows the time frame within which we are working in terms of the omnibus legislation; he’s known that ever since we embarked upon this.

As noted earlier, this integrated approach is being considered by the ministry. Here are three different ways of integrating children’s rights into omnibus legislation.

First, as a preamble to the legislation that would be a statement of underlying legislative purpose and philosophy. It would assist in the development and the interpretation of more specific provisions throughout the legislation and it would thus help to ensure that the goal of protecting children’s rights is actually achieved.

Second, a statement of children’s rights as separate part of the legislation is a possibility. That approach is the approach that has already been taken in Quebec’s Youth Protection Act.

Third, these might be integrated as specific rights throughout the new legislation. That approach is basically an extension of the ministry’s recent work on children’s rights. Many specific children’s rights are included or reflected in recent changes to children’s services legislation in this province.

Examples of this are the child’s right to legal representation under section 20 of the Child Welfare Act; the child’s right to consent or refuse consent to care by agreement with the children’s aid society; the child’s right to be present at child protection hearings; the child’s right to initiate court reviews and to have status under the Child Welfare Act; the list of children’s rights which formed the basis of the standards for residential care of children; the strict limits and the residential standards restricting the use of force and lockable facilities or units; the rest of the residential program standards which ensure all children in care receive high quality service; and the best interests test in the Child Welfare Act which requires the court to consider many factors such as the child’s need for continuity before making an order.

In addition, the major project on advocacy for children is nearing completion. The various advocacy mechanisms being developed will protect children’s rights throughout the children’s services system of this province.

The second issue I would like to address briefly is this: regardless of the legislative form used to protect children’s rights, what rights should be included? Many of the rights included in Bill 102 are basically of the nature of moral or social goals.

Mr. McClellan: No, they are not.

Hon. Mr. Norton: There is no question they are important goals which are essential to the wellbeing of both children and adults. For example, the access to adequate food, clothing, housing, health care and education can greatly affect a person’s development. However, because these matters are basically social goals, some children’s rights experts -- and I would cite Michael Wald, professor of law at Stanford University, as one -- have concluded they should be addressed by a legislature, not by a court. In enacting broad social goals as rights, the Legislature would be turning over these important questions of policy to courts to determine, or potentially so.

As the honourable member has indicated, many of the rights in Bill 102 are general and vague, and in fact their meaning is unclear. Even if they could be clearly defined it may be impossible to enforce them. For example, what is “adequate play and recreation”? What facilities are required to provide adequate play and recreation? How is it determined what a child’s full potential is?

Mr. McClellan: What does “All men are created equal” mean?

Hon. Mr. Norton: There are thousands of decisions affecting a child’s life. Many of them are small decisions, but how can we possibly create, “A meaningful and enforceable right for the child to have his or her opinions heard and to be included to the greatest extent possible, when any decisions are being made affecting his or her life,” to quote from the bill?

For example, if parents decide to move from one city to another and fail to ask their child for his opinion, has a right been denied in that failure? If so, how can such a right be enforced?

When has the right to parental guidance been denied? If the denial has not resulted in the child being in need of protection, why should the matter go to a court?

These broad and vague rights in Bill 102 would require the court to make very broad, discretionary and highly subjective judgements about the quality of the child’s life. Many of the rights in Bill 102 are covered by existing law and therefore do not require new legislation. They might, as I suggest, be included in subsequent omnibus legislation.

For example, “The right to an environment free from physical abuse, exploitation and degrading treatment,” is adequately covered by the Child Welfare Act and the Criminal Code at the present time. “The right to reside with parents and siblings, except where it is in the best interests of the child for the child to reside elsewhere,” is the legal principle which is at present applied in both child protection and custody proceedings.

“The right to legal assistance in relation to all decisions affecting guardianship, custody or determination of status where it is desirable to protect the interests of the child,” also seems unnecessary. Although the meaning of “determination of status” is unclear, it appears this right to legal representation is covered by the Child Welfare Act already, and the law governing custody disputes.

“The right to necessary health care”; if a person or agency responsible for a child does not allow the necessary health care to be provided, the child is in need of protection and the court may order that the health care be provided under present provisions.

In short, sir, the broad issues of social policy involved in children’s rights legislation should be addressed by the Legislatures and not the courts. The rights themselves should be clear and precise in their meaning, and the rights should add to, not duplicate, existing children’s legal rights.

Mr. McClellan: They do, precisely --

Hon. Mr. Norton: The third issue: how should children’s rights he enforced? Mr. Speaker, it must be questioned whether it is desirable to allow application by a child against his or her parents to proceed in the court, in basically an adversarial forum. The general role, as reflected in the Child Welfare Act, is that n court should not intervene in the parent-child relationship unless there are grounds to find the child is in need of protection.

There may be exceptions to this general rule, but we should be very cautious about expanding the possibilities for parents being exposed to judicial scrutiny in the inherently threatening atmosphere of a courtroom. Given the vague definition of rights in Bill 102, the potential for threatening scrutiny is there, and it would be an enormous one, I suggest, to families in this province.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister’s time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I shall wind up very briefly then, and suggest, on the basis of some of these considerations and further ones I wish I had been able to get on the record this afternoon, that it is going to be very difficult for us to support this bill; not in terms of the intent that I know motivated the honourable member to introduce it but in terms of the very basic weaknesses in the bill as it is structured; and the fact that I would suggest to the honourable member that, even though it was recommended as a model in the Berger commission report, the Berger commission report recommended that it not be proceeded with in this way.

[3:45]

Mr. Blundy: I rise to speak on Bill 102 and express support for the principles within the hill, and the principles which prompted the bill.

I think the member has thought very carefully about this and is most concerned with the rights of children. People may ask: are not these principles governing children’s rights now in force, already affecting the rights of children in Ontario? The answer to that question might be twofold. They certainly are to a very great extent laid down through other pieces of legislation passed by this House, as has been pointed out in the remarks of the honourable minister; but I believe it is important now to lay down clearly and unequivocally, in a bill of this nature, the rights of children.

In the past the family unit has been and was known as a strong institution. When I was a child it certainly was that. It was a home in which the children were raised with both a mother and a father, often with a grandmother or some other relative as well. Times have changed, of course, and social situations have changed. We see now that this unit of the family which we knew in days gone by is not now so clearly defined. It does not have nearly the same assistance in raising and protecting children.

I believe the rights of the family and the rights of all children are all known to most of us, but it is important now, at this time, that we lay them out and clearly define them, as the bill does.

I know there are probably parts of the bill or phrases in the bill that might not be quite appropriate in the eyes of the government, but I believe it is a bill that can be supported. I would like to see the bill supported in this first reading and go to committee. There it could be studied, and refined if necessary, to bring forth a bill of rights we could live with for years to come.

There are now many children whose rights are in question. In these situations it is important to define the part to be played by government in the protection of children’s rights, as well as clearly define the rights of parents and the rights of the child.

I support the laudable principles of this bill. I would ask that the bill be given consideration and sent to committee. I know many people will say it isn’t necessary, but I say the problems we face today, and the rather vague situations behind the problems, suggest that a bill of rights in this year of the child, to clearly define children’s rights in Ontario, is a step in the right direction, and one to which I would like to have some input. I certainly support this bill.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is my pleasure to be a seconder of this motion by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan). I obviously welcome this bill.

This is the International Year of the Child, and in my view the government has been inactive during this year of the child and has been spurred to action in the last few days because this bill was coming up. It has been derelict in its duties.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Oh, come on now.

Mr. Martel: What have you done?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Thomas Berger did some work on this; the United Nations has come up with a similar list of basic rights. These are not just platitudes; they are essential rights.

I’m not going to pick out a number of very obviously handicapped children, as the member for Bellwoods did, to show that this government is not looking after the rights of children. I’m going to talk about its basic inability to deal with the socio-economic causes of deprivation in this province.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Why doesn’t the member address the principle of the bill? That’s what this section deals with.

Mr. Martel: That is the principle of the bill.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The principle of the bill I would like to talk about is the right to an education which will ensure every child the opportunity to reach and exercise his or her full potential.

In my view, at this time there are thousands of children in this province who are being deprived of the same potential a person such as I had coming from the middle class. They are deprived of the ability to succeed, as much as being a member of parliament is a success,

Hon. Mr. Norton: And this bill, as it is structured, would not remedy one single incident of the kinds of abuses the member may be referring to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Thank you for the interjection.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It doesn’t do a thing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough West has the floor.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It would state a principle which I think this government has obviously forgotten and which needs to be restated. The government shouldn’t back away from stating it again.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I’m not backing away from stating it at all. We’ve been doing it more effectively than this bill is.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: If this is effective, then I want the minister to go to Regent Park with me, and see the children down there who know they’re not going to get any better than a grade nine or grade 10 education. They know they’re going to end up in dishwashing kinds of jobs and are not going to make it to this honourable chamber.

Hon. Mr. Norton: This bill is not going to change that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would ask the minister to let me speak. He had his shot at this; let me have a go at it.

I’m saying, the government has not succeeded. The minister should take this opportunity to accept this bill as a restatement of his government’s conviction that all children, no matter what economic level they might be in, should have the same rights as others. This is his opportunity to jump in and agree with this.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Of course that’s our conviction, but this bill doesn’t do anything to correct it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: If it’s the minister’s conviction there are other things the government can do as well.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Sixty per cent of the children who go to Park Public School in Regent Park know they are not going to get past grade 10. We know that; that’s been the case for three decades.

Hon. Mr. Norton; A declaration from the court is not going to change that. What they need is something more substantial.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. F. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I appreciate your interjection.

I just have to draw the comparison between Park collegiate, where 50 per cent of the kids don’t go past grade 10, and Forest Hill Collegiate Institute, in which only one child has been streamed into those lower one, two or three vocational levels in secondary school. That student only lasted three to four weeks before his parents were able to get him a better opportunity. The children in Regent Park, in the Jane-Finch corridor and in parts of my riding are being deprived of that ability because of the lack of action. The government could be taking that action if its members believed in the principle of equal access to education.

There is another group that also agrees with that; it’s not just the statement of the member for Bellwoods, I quote from the Ontario Welfare Council’s statement: “Children have the right to learn and to receive an education commensurate with their learning ability and the needs of society. All children should have the right to develop adequate skills to allow them to become productive members of the community. The community, therefore, must develop educational policies and programs which ensure that all children receive an appropriate education.”

That’s an obvious extrapolation from the member’s bill which is before us.

One of the areas members opposite miss out on as a government, in my view, is not recognizing that children come from environments which leave them with certain kinds of handicaps as far as stimulative learning abilities go. It is important to get the children very early. I condemn the minister and his government for their lack of commitment to infant day care.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We’re doing a better job than anybody else in this country.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That’s not good enough, sir.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We’re still doing a better job. We’re doing better than Saskatchewan.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member address his comments to the chair?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That’s much better; thank you. The Speaker is so much more reasonable.

Mr. McClellan: The minister is frothing at the mouth. He’s raving like some crazed lunatic.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I’m fascinated, Mr. Speaker, by the defensiveness of the minister as I, a junior member, raise my attack.

The Ontario Welfare Council raises this point in terms of stimulation: “Children who do not receive proper stimulation from infancy are less likely to achieve their full potential.” There are many studies throughout the western world which have proved that. If you have infant day care, if you have infant stimulation, you can find child abuse earlier, you can help a child overcome learning disabilities earlier.

There wasn’t one teacher I met at Park school the other day who didn’t tell me that once they get these kids they play catch-up. They do it all the time. They may be able to bring in special learning classes, they may be able to bring in English-as-a-second-language classes; but they try to catch up. In the five- or six-year period they have these kids in a public school setting they do not have time to bring them to the level they need to get into the high school system; the same level someone like myself from a middle class background gets. They’re saying they need to get that intervention earlier.

It is my view that this government has not taken that seriously. It has not taken the need for day care seriously either. Yesterday, during estimates, I asked the Minister of Community and Social Services what was his commitment to day care, what would he see us doing as a social function. He wasn’t able to give me an answer. He hasn’t made up his mind, he told me.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Oh, come on, now. Read it back from Hansard if you can’t remember what I said.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Read it to me now.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Just be honest.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: He told me that he wasn’t convinced and he quoted some quack although he didn’t mention his name, as saying that in fact day care was more harmful than supportive, which is just ridiculous. In view of that I would like to read a portion of a letter from one of my constituents who is using day care and who wrote to ask me to pressure the minister for increased day-care facilities.

“Children, especially since this is the International Year of the Child, need access to stimulating, culturally-enriching and educational environments. The day-care centres deserve to be supported and improved. They don’t need to be decided upon by budgetary constraints only.” The latter is what the minister told us yesterday during consideration of his estimates; that was how he decided we needed 700 rather than several thousand new places.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is, again, an absolutely incorrect statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Another area in which this province has fallen down is the need for all-day kindergartens. The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) is not here, regrettably. She has continually said she is not committed to this kind of a process. Again, all the teachers at Park school, and all the people who are involved in inner-city administration, say that kind of program is absolutely essential if these kids are going to get the same kind of shot at life as people such as myself have had.

I would like to conclude by saying that the government can be as defensive as it wants to be on this bill, but there are 12 basic rights that have been outlined here. They all deserve to be discussed in committee. They all deserve to be looked at in great detail by every member of this House, because the rights of children in this province are not, as we might presume because we’re so wealthy, being well handled.

It’s not just a matter of a few odd cases of people who are being left out. There are thousands and thousands of children, and because of that I think it’s worth further discussion.

If the minister would pay attention perhaps -- now that he has stopped heckling me he is debating with the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) -- I’d appreciate it.

My last statement is that this bill deserves our full attention. If nothing else it should go to committee for us to show, as a House, that we are concerned about this. I believe there are people in this province who don’t believe this government, in fact this House, is concerned about the poor and the underprivileged kids in this province. I think the least we can do is send this bill to committee.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I would like to eater this debate by first of all congratulating the member for Bellwoods for bringing forth this topic which has been of interest for some period of time. It’s also of interest to note that most of us are first, by our hearts, guided to support the bill; but I’m afraid that when one thinks about the principles and the structure of this bill we have to look at it in another light.

I think there is no doubt about the commitment of our government and our members to the needs and the rights of children. I consider it a privilege to be in a position to advance these rights as an MPP and as parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). Children’s rights, however, will not be resolved by this debate, nor in my view by this bill of rights for children. I will explain my reasons for saying this.

First of all, in examining what is a bill of rights, it is really a declaration of fundamental elements of justice in our society. The demand for a bill of rights is really a demand for justice and fair treatment. What is not clear to me is how this children’s bill of rights can achieve that which is essentially an ethical standard. In fact, no other jurisdiction has been able to meet the issues of what should be in the contents of a bill of rights and how it should operate. Regardless of its good intentions, this children’s bill of rights will not effect the transformation of personal and social values.

[4:00]

What is of importance to children’s rights is specific laws and procedures which are themselves fair and just. When there is general commitment to observe and respect them, then will substantial progress be made in recognizing the rights of children.

Many of the rights enumerated in this bill, and most of the rights enumerated in this bill, are in fact protected by current legislation or provided through many government programs. Let me name some. First of all, parents have a legal duty to provide the necessities of life to a child under 16 years of age. It is a crime to fail to provide these necessities. Children have many civil remedies for support under many statutes, most of which have been incorporated in the Family Law Reform Act.

Although there are some specific prohibitions, there is no general prohibition against children working, so long as they maintain their school attendance. Students are protected by minimum wage laws. In Ontario, a child has a right to retain his own earnings.

Mr. Mattel: What? Say that again?

Mr. McClellan: Say that again with a smile on your face.

Mr. Martel: They are excluded.

Mr. Sterling: Children can make binding contracts for necessities. Children are protected from criminal assaults by their parents, except that a parent may use reasonable force in correcting a child. Children are protected against incest and other sexual acts by adults. Children have a right to be compensated under the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act if they are victims of their parents’ violence.

Children have a right not to be neglected by their parents, according to the grounds set out in the Child Welfare Act. Children cannot be committed to training schools by their parents for being uncontrollable. Children have the right to bring civil proceedings against their parents. Children over the age of seven have the right to be heard at adoption proceedings. As a result of the Children’s Law Reform Act, children have the right to equal status, irrespective of whether they were born in or outside the marriage.

Children can receive separate legal representation. Last year, the Ministry of the Attorney General expended close to $1 million to provide representation for children in child abuse and child welfare cases. The ministry is presently considering the possibility of supplying legal representation for children in custody cases.

Having outlined some of the rights which children are entitled to, indicating the obvious support of the Ontario government of children’s rights, then one must ask: why object to this bill? One of the major problems relates to the structure of the bill. It basically gives the family courts the power to issue a declaration on the government’s responsibility to children.

Mr. McClellan: You really hate that independent judgement on your performance.

Mr. Sterling: In my view that runs against the fundamental principles of a parliamentary democracy in this province.

Mr. McClellan: Yeah, sure. You are just afraid of anybody casting judgement on you.

Mr. Sterling: No court has, nor should it have, the right to take away the policy-making function of the government of Ontario. On the other hand, if we accept the fact that the court declaration is not binding, or is not intended to be binding on the government, the bill does little more than turn the courts into a vehicle for publicity against parents and the government.

Mr. McClellan: Oh, what rubbish.

Mr. Sterling: Enforceability is a fundamental problem in this bill of rights. That a child should be able to take his parents to court to obtain a judicial declaration of his entitlement to one or more of 12 enumerated rights is of dubious value, even though the judicial declaration itself would not be enforceable.

No solutions will be found in establishing new grounds for legal proceedings between children and their parents. When we have just reached the stage of enlightenment where we realize the immense social costs involved in the adversarial resolution of interspousal disputes, we must not take the retrograde step of setting child against parent and parent against child in the courtroom.

Mr. McClellan: Here we have the McMurtryism.

Mr. Sterling: Furthermore, this bill would directly involve the government in many aspects of the relationship between the parent and the child. I have to say that I am more than uneasy about such a significant state intervention into the family.

Mr. McClellan: Voluntary, voluntary, voluntary, voluntary.

Mr. Sterling: That is not so. That is not so, if you read the bill.

Mr. McClellan: I wrote the bill, brother.

Mr. Sterling: You didn’t read the bill.

Mr. McClellan: I wrote it.

Mr. Sterling: The Berger commission wrote the bill, which the NDP government never adopted in British Columbia, although they were in power.

Mr. McClellan: I wrote it in longhand.

Mr. Sterling: The unforeseen implications of this intervention could be very unfortunate, and in my view they could be ultimately disastrous.

One of the more convincing arguments against the creation of a children’s bill of rights was presented by the Canadian Council on Children and Youth, an independent study group. After three years of study it issued its report in 1978. Its conclusion realistically pointed out:

“We want to move to a more practical perspective. A future goal may well be the formal codification of children’s rights. For now we are faced with the complex prior task of coming to a realistic understanding of the social context within which such a code could exist. Thus we would instead advocate the revision of existing social policy and legislation to state positive minimum standards of care.”

Its summary was that a children’s bill of rights was premature at this time. I wish to emphasize that under the concerned guidance of the Ministry of Community and Social Services that is exactly what the Ontario government is presently doing.

I also think it is important that there are different methods of approach to this problem. Other options that may be considered would be a children’s ombudsman or an administrative tribunal. Other administrative mechanisms may be more effective --

Mr. McClellan: Let’s discuss this in committee.

Mr. Sterling: -- than courts in achieving the goal of protecting children’s rights.

All of these options are being considered by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and will be discussed in the omnibus children’s legislation.

In summary, I wish to say that I do support the sentiment of the bill’s preface, that children are Ontario’s greatest resource; but I feel this bill has significant negative impact. It has more negative impact than positive. The bill could intrude into the family situation unnecessarily. It also establishes the court as a social making body. That is totally inconsistent with our system of parliamentary democracy and I question whether in practical terms --

Mr. McClellan: What is a social making body?

Mr. Sterling: -- that procedure would ever work.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Sterling: For those reasons, along with the open-ended expenditures this legislation could create, I cannot support it.

Mr. Stong: I rise in support of Bill 102. In so far as the bill is, as entitled and introduced by the member for Bellwoods, an act to declare the rights of children in Ontario, it warrants the support, in my respectful submission, of this House.

The items set out in Bill 102 are not by any means comprehensive. In fact I would like to address my few remarks to what is contained in the bill, but perhaps also to what ought to be contained in the bill.

Section 2 is probably the operative section of the bill. As section 2 is a codification of existing statute declarations and common law court decisions which interpret those sections, we can refer to and see familiar phrases in the Criminal Code, sections 197 and 201, and in section 33 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act. In section 16 of the Family Law Reform Act as well there is certain terminology used in this bill that is already in existence in that legislation.

I might also refer to section 2(f), which refers to the right to an education. This member now has before this House a private member’s bill, Bill 70, that is awaiting debate in this hour, which would guarantee the right of an education to every child. As we know, a child has a right to attend school but certainly not a right to obtain an education in Ontario.

This bill, in so far as it goes, is worthy of support, but the bill does not address itself to the very basic rights of children. For instance, every child in this province has a right to the emotional security of a home environment. Every child has a right to benefit by, grow with and mature under the influence of loving and caring parents. Every child has the right to be happy and every child has a right to live. But those rights could never be incorporated in legislation because it is impossible to legislate common sense into people. It is impossible to legislate disease out of existence; likewise it is impossible to legislate those very basic and inalienable rights of children into legislation.

The rights of children are inextricably bound with the concept of the family unit. There can be no rights without corresponding obligations. The rights of children must necessarily be founded in duties and obligations of parents towards their offspring. Perhaps it is with some significance that maybe 1980 will be termed the year of the family, following closely upon the heels of the year of the child.

It is impossible, as I have indicated to this House in my respectful submission, to provide that legislation which would guarantee a loving and caring family atmosphere, which is probably the most basic and inalienable right of every child. I respect the frustration of the member for Bellwoods in bringing forward this legislation as he perceived the situation out in our communities. It is based, as he has indicated, upon the Berger royal commission; and the Berger royal commission recognized, as he indicated, the primary responsibility of the family towards the child. Where the primary responsibility of the family breaks down, it then becomes a secondary responsibility of the government to provide the support to which a child has a right.

The year before I got into politics, as a lawyer practising in private practice I was involved with family, juvenile and criminal practice. In that year of 1974 I kept statistics. These statistics prove nothing, I quote them for proof of nothing other than an experience I would share with the House in speaking to the principle of this bill.

In that year I represented 184 young people before the courts charged with various offences, and 182 of those young people came into my office and subsequently went through the court system without the benefit of any dominant male figure. There was no father or male figure in sight in 182 of the 184 cases. Only two of those children came through our court system with a father or a dominant male figure present to influence and to guide.

It is probably that fact alone that urged me to recognize that our laws fail. Although we pretend as legislators to pass laws that affect morality, as I have heard it expressed in this House, and affect customs and mores, that type of legislation is weak; that type of legislation has no teeth.

It is rather incumbent upon us as legislators, in my respectful submission, to be visible in the community, to recognize dedication and to commend commitment where we see it; commitment to the family concept and commitment to the dedication of one person to another. The abrogation of the inherent rights of children results directly from the breakdown of the family unit. It seems to me that where couples, for instance, have lived together and tried together for 60 years, they ought to be commended with more than a simple plaque from the government. Perhaps they could have some kind of a recognition by a personal attendance at such functions by members of the government.

[4:15]

It seems to me that in speaking to the principle of this bill we must take into account that we do owe a responsibility, as members of this House, to the community at large; a responsibility that transcends simple debate; a responsibility that transcends legislating, the drafting of legislation, because no legislation can be so comprehensive to cover all of the aspects of life, and particularly in the area of children’s rights and children’s human rights.

Perhaps I can end up my brief remarks by alluding to the conclusions arrived at by a doctor whose thesis I had the privilege to read, and who answered his critics by saying in reference to his own family life, when he was asked what he would change if he had a chance to do it again he said: “In retrospect, if I had my life to live over again, the best I could have done for my children would have been to love their mother more.”

I think that speaks loads, and we could never legislate that type of attitude into existence, in no way.

I commend the member for Bellwoods and what he has done by bringing forth a bill that declares the rights of children, but I say to him that the bill doesn’t go far enough. It ought to go to committee so that it can be added to and improved upon. In principle I do support his effort and I support Bill 102 on second reading.

Mr. Renwick: I believe I have about 10 minutes, on my calculation. I do hope I have that length of time, because there are three or four matters to which I would like to address my remarks.

I am sorry the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) and the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) are not here -- undoubtedly they will read this debate and ponder on it at some point in the future -- but I am pleased that the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) is in the chamber.

I want to just step back a little bit and try to say something about one or two of the many threads that are involved in the bill which is presented by my colleague, the member for Bellwoods. I think there is a very real problem in trying to put into perspective what my colleague is trying to say, and I heard the member for Carleton-Grenville comment about this question, perhaps an ombudsman and perhaps some other method of dealing with it.

Mr. Speaker, you have been in this House long enough to know that we have wrestled with this problem of the rights of people, let alone the rights of children, for a very long time, and the solutions which have been adopted in this chamber have been, first of all, elaborate provisions in all sorts of statutes with respect to due process, fair hearings, natural justice, all of those tenets, and we have adopted those procedures on many occasions now throughout many, many bills.

Then, after considerable public and internal pressure in the House, we adopted the second way in which people conceived that their rights as against the state can be dealt with, and that is by the appointment of an ombudsman.

This assembly, and this government particularly, have always shied away from the third area in which people can be seen to have their positions publicly protected in their relations with their fellow citizens and in their relations with the state, and that is the conception of the rights of people. We stayed away from a bill of rights. I happen to believe that it is a necessary part of completing the tripod that some day we must move to a bill of rights for citizens to companion the Bill of Rights which was passed by the federal Parliament.

But to say all of those things speaks very much to the vacuum surrounding children, and I suppose the reason we are concerned about children is because they are considered to be persons who are not capable on their own of formulating the kind of judgements which are required to make decisions respecting themselves as persons in varying degrees, depending upon their age; and secondly, that there is an element of helplessness with respect to a child in its confrontations with the various institutions of society, including its own family, that there is that element of helplessness about it.

The fact of the matter is that there’s no due process in this province with respect to children’s rights. It is quite true there was a narrow step forward made with respect to part II of the Child Welfare Act, which I understand may very well be proclaimed at the end of this year, which will provide for a method for the court to determine representation. Leaving that question aside, there was very little protection about the law of the person relating to the child; that’s how far back we are.

We don’t have any ombudsman. We don’t have any bill of rights. One can search the statutes of the province and the procedures in the courts and there is little due process about individual protection of the child in respect of his person. There has always been ample protection with respect to an infant’s property. There has always been ample protection for a child with respect to his liability for torts. There are separate and distinct procedures with respect to the relationship of the child to the standards of society set out in the Criminal Code and in the Juvenile Delinquents Act, but when one is actually talking about the law of persons, that is the integrity and dignity of the individual, there is nothing of any great significance, other than something called an inbred moral sense related to the family.

My colleague’s bill, in fact, is part of a very long progression from the time when the power of the father in the family was immense; in Roman times, for example, even under the ameliorations of that system, and pervasive throughout Western Europe from which many of our traditions come and therefore pervasive in North America. In fact the legislative assemblies and the courts dealt only with the father of the family, the male head of the family. All of the other relationships were dealt with in the remnants of the family situation, the patria potestas of Roman law in the same sense which we have here.

My colleague’s bill is a step in that very long progression. What it has meant, of course, is that we have moved over time from questions of imprinting upon people the category that they have a status which is a disabling status in our society, be it the woman, child or slave in the society. All of those various persons who somehow or other are disabled in the eyes of the law had very little protection.

My colleague has been very anxious to do two things. He has been anxious to provide some statement of rights in two or three fields; that is, the right to the services of the state to the child in substitution for or through the mediation of his parents to be able to get the kind of services from the state to which we in our mesh of social legislation tried to say he was entitled. But we have been niggardly in saying to him: “Not only are we providing these services, but you, the recipient, have a right to get them.” He has been saying that and he has been speaking also about this vexed question of due process and how it is to be done.

What I say to the member for Carleton-Grenville -- and I admire my colleague for the way in which the bill has been drafted -- is that the bill is not ordering the government to do anything. My colleague is providing that the courts of this province can make a declaration respecting the correlative duty which the bill would impose upon the government of this province to respond to the right of the child. It is a declaration. It would be up to the government to determine whether it was going to comply with that declaration by the courts. It would be up to this assembly, in the light of whatever public pressure was required, to determine whether or not it would see to it that the government of the day, through the democratic process if necessary, was going to adhere to that declaration of duty and responsibility.

I do not, and I call upon the member for Carleton-Grenville not to, introduce this division of separation of the powers of society the way that Montesquieu did. If ever there was a false theory, it’s that conception that one can divide the judiciary from the legislative process.

I agree that our theory of government does not permit the courts to order the government to do a particular act in the field of policy. I disagree with the proposition that an independent court protecting the rights of individual people should not have the power to make the declaration that the government should be required to perform its duty and its responsibility.

I simply have this rather strange sensation that somehow or other the member for Carleton-Grenville was, in fact, saying in his remarks to this House, “No, I want to leave it still to the family. Somehow this is an intrusion on the family.” My colleague has accomplished that dual purpose. He has left it to be the responsibility of the family, and the right of the family to intervene with the state to get the performance by the government of its duty to provide the services to which the child at this present time has no right.

But he is saying more than that. He is saying that the child, in the absence of the parent, will have a right to get the delivery of those services to him, and a process by which those rights will be delivered.

II thought a fascinating statement was made by my colleague the member for York Centre (Mr. Stong) that in the interface between children in the society and the criminal law he was able to state an well-contradicted figure from his own experience, that 182 out of 184 children came to him without the intervention of a parent.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Renwick: It may very well be that would mirror very clearly the large and disparate nature of the area of services which are not being provided, because there is no one to be the intermediary between the child and the state to see that the state performs its obligation.

Let’s not be stiff-necked about it. Let’s accept this step which my colleague has recommended in this long progression to provide children, finally, with respect to their own dignity, with respect to themselves as individuals, the right to get the services we in this Legislature have already legislated into force, but will not permit the beneficiary to assert the right to obtain.

Mr. McGuigan: I rise with a great deal of pleasure to support the bill introduced by the member for Bellwoods. I do so particularly because of my role as critic for human rights in our party.

I want to speak briefly, in the time allotted to me, on the subject raised by members opposite as to how we protect children -- whether we do it with piecemeal legislation or whether we do it with an omnibus bill such as the one presented by the honourable member. Perhaps it isn’t perfect and omnibus in every way, but it is a good start in that direction.

In my short time in the Legislature we have done this in the matter of occupational health and safety. We have done it with bills regarding residential tenancies. While these may not be perfect bills, they have gone a long way towards correcting inequities in their respective fields.

The greatest field for legislation today, in Canada and in the world, is the lack of an overall protection for children. This has been recognized by the United Nations in declaring this to be the International Year of the Child. As other speakers have pointed out, our problem is really a matter of attitude. We fail to realize that today the old idea of a farm family, with the children all working on the farm and staying in the community, has passed. We are into a city state. I think something like 70 per cent of the people in Canada now live in cities, So we have to broaden our horizon in our view of the family.

A family today is more than the mothers and fathers; it is the school, the church and the government, with the back-up and supporting facilities that all of our society can offer to children.

[4:30]

I would ask members opposite to broaden their horizons and think of children and the family in those terms, rather than simply conferring the concept to a mother and a father; in so many cases today the reality of this concept is a single parent.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for participating in the debate, and particularly for the support expressed by my colleagues in the Liberal Party.

I want to deal in the few minutes remaining, by way of rebuttal, with a couple of particularly spurious points put forward by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton). He quoted, rightly, from the Berger report, that a preferable way of implementing children’s rights was to proceed statute by statute.

Fine; where are the statutes from the government? Where are the pieces of legislation from this government enshrining children’s rights, statute by statute? They don’t exist; this government hasn’t brought them in. This government has no intention of bringing in these kinds of enunciated rights with any means of redress through individual legislation.

We go to the alternative, which is to bring in a single statute, a bill of rights which has a primacy clause. The primacy clause in this bill is section 11.

We are very mindful of what Mr. Justice Berger said, and in the best of all possible worlds we would have a government with the commitment to children’s rights to bring in all of the statutes to provide services to children in families, to enshrine the provisions in the statutes one by one. They don’t intend to do this, so we will do it for them through a single bill.

Secondly, the minister doesn’t seem to have the foggiest notion of what a bill of rights is. He says the rights enunciated are vague and unspecific. Surely he realizes it is the function of a bill of rights to be subject to judicial review, for the courts to establish the community standard, the yardstick for measuring what the particular right means within a given period of time.

Who would have thought in the 18th century that the American Bill of Rights would have become in 200 years a vehicle for eliminating segregation in the school system? The interpretation of what an enunciated right means in any bill of rights is something that grows and develops and evolves over a period of time. It is precisely because of its developmental and evolutionary nature as a community standard that a bill of rights is so important and so essential.

I accept the suggestions made by the member for York Centre that the bill is not a Mosaic tablet; it is not intended to be authoritative or the final word. It is an attempt to address the problem in the hope the Legislature will pass the bill and we can send it to committee for public hearings and full discussions. I would accept contributions and I would expect the members from all sides of the House would have contributions to make to a children’s bill of rights to make it the best we can humanly devise.

I want to make a special plea. We have two months left in the International Year of the Child. At this point in time the accomplishment in this province is very slim. We have passed some legislation -- the minister smiles -- we have passed a new Child Welfare Act. That’s a kind of a melancholy record, isn’t it?

The Child Welfare Act deals with broken bodies and broken lives. It is the kind of legislation that picks up the pieces after the damage is done. It is not the kind of legislation that anticipates problems or provides services to families to prevent the problems from developing in the first place. The best we can do for the children of this province is to give them a new piece of child welfare legislation to try to pick up what’s left of their damaged and broken lives. What a pathetic and pitiful record that is.

Let’s not just see the International Year of the Child, which has been plagued with so much humbug, simply disappear and vanish into the air. Let us pass something here today that will have real significance and real meaning. Let us pass something of value which we can carry over as part of our work into 1980 and beyond, that will leave a lasting record; something that will be of genuine significance for the children of this province.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The time for debating this issue has expired.

Bill 102 will be dealt with at 10 minutes to six.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Cureatz: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and may I say how pleased I am to see you in the chair again.

Mr. Acting Speaker: To see how pleased the member is, will he move the motion?

Mr. Cureatz: Would you like me to read it all, Mr. Speaker? I’m going to read it in a minute anyway.

Mr. Acting Speaker: If the member reads it now he won’t get it into his time. If he reads it later on, it will come out of his time for remarks.

Mr. Ruston: Play it again, Sam.

Mr. Cureatz moved resolution 34:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should request the Atomic Energy Control Board to commission a study to analyse the likelihood and consequences of a catastrophic accident, such as a nuclear meltdown in a nuclear reactor or radiation escape, but if within six months of the date of the request the Atomic Energy Control Board has not commissioned such a study, the government of Ontario should undertake the study on its own initiative.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Does the member wish to reserve any time?

Mr. Cureatz: Yes, I would if there is a few minutes left. Are we on our way now?

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member is on his way now. He can proceed.

Mr. Cureatz: I must say that if this resolution causes such controversy as it did in my own caucus it’s going to be an interesting debate this afternoon. In addition to that, it’s going to be an interesting vote.

Mr. Nixon: I see the member’s caucus is electrified.

Mr. Cureatz: Yes, indeed. The members will see how electrified they are as soon as the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) comes in.

Might I say, from the outset, in regard to proposing such a study, it’s not only of interest to the people of the province of Ontario but of great interest to those in the wonderful riding of Durham East, the riding I represent. As the members are aware, and the members who were on the select committee of Ontario Hydro, of which I see a few in the assembly, there is presently being constructed in my riding the Darlington generating station, a nuclear facility. As the representative for that riding, this station has caused me concern, favourable and unfavourable. The favourable aspect, as we all acknowledge, is the economic benefits. But the unfavourable aspect is the recent occurrences at Three Mile Island and such.

This is not to say I have no faith at all in Ontario Hydro’s electrical system. The select committee on Ontario Hydro this summer investigated the safety features of the Candu reactor system. After such investigation, as the preliminary report pointed out -- and I might add, as I personally feel -- the Candu reactor system is safe to all intents and purposes. I feel that our system is second to none. But notwithstanding my confidence in the Candu system, I think it is in all our interests to investigate all aspects of any feasible problems that could occur in a Candu system.

We have learned that, notwithstanding the logistical breakdowns and the improbability of accidents in a nuclear generating station such as a core meltdown or radiation escape, nothing in the future is predictable. As slim as the possibilities are, there could be an accident of a catastrophic nature.

I believe it is my responsibility to bring this to the attention of the public, especially in the light of the fact that I’m the representative for the riding of Durham East in which the Darlington nuclear generating station is being built.

I think it’s important that we have this debate so that not only residents of my riding but the people across Ontario have a better understanding of this mode of electrical power production.

There is no doubt my resolution has stemmed from one of the recommendations made by the draft report of the staff and the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs. However, I singled out this particular recommendation with the addition of some of my own specifics because it is my belief this particular area of investigation is of a central concern to all of us. I wanted this debated this afternoon because I did not want this issue to become one of 10 or 15 points in the final report that is to come out within two or three weeks. I wanted this House to give cognizance to this matter of the feasibility and possibly of a meltdown or radiation release.

What is a meltdown or what is a radiation release? As in many definitions, the term “meltdown” can cover a wide scope of interpretation. A meltdown could possibly mean the centreline melting of the fuel element -- which, according to my understanding, would be of little significance -- or it could mean the further extreme I am centring on. This is where there has been a loss of coolant in the reactor core and the coolant has not been replaced, with the result the fuel heats up to such an extent that it begins to distort its containment. It begins to melt down due to the severe temperatures that have resulted because it has not been cooled.

This within itself requires the specific investigation of the probabilities of this happening and of the result of such an event. But stemming from this core meltdown, we have a further concern and to some degree a greater concern, and that is the extent of radiation release. If we do have a core meltdown and it melts to the bottom of the containment building with the result that no radiation is released to the atmosphere to harm the public, then the accident itself is catastrophic but not to the extent of injuring the population.

This is why I specifically centred out the possibility of radiation release, because it is this radiation release that is the direct concern to the public at large. It is the radiation that directly affects people and not specifically the meltdown. I might also add that radiation release may not necessarily occur from a meltdown but might occur from some other internal accident in the containment building which would allow radioactive gases to spread out from the station to the surrounding population.

The concern of a meltdown is in another governmental jurisdiction and that is why I specifically stated the request should first be directed to the Atomic Energy Control Board, which is answerable to our federal government. It is their responsibility to the people of Canada, and in our case, particularly the people of Ontario, to ensure the safety of all nuclear generating stations.

During the select committee sessions I was greatly impressed by the representation of all members of the AECB and I have full confidence in their expertise and their authority in protecting the public at large and fulfilling their mandate as directed by the federal government. As a result, the agency in charge should provide the necessary backup in regard to all possibilities involving accidents at a nuclear generating station. No doubt this might stem from their authority.

During our investigation they felt confident that the chances of such an accident happening would indeed he very slim. But even if the chances of such an accident are very slim, we should be prepared in case it ever happens.

I have set out a time limit to see whether the AECB would follow up on such a request. I believe such a time limit is of great importance. If the Atomic Energy Control Board does not feel that such an investigation is warranted, and if after six months a lack of interest is indicated, then the responsibility to follow up must rest with the government of Ontario. After all, the majority of nuclear generating stations are in this province and it is my belief that the government must take a responsibility to investigate all aspects of generating stations.

There have been other studies done in the past on the possibility of nuclear meltdown. For that matter under the Rogers report there is presently a specific investigation of a select area in regard to a nuclear accident. But I think it is important to review the past and present ongoing investigations.

[4:45]

The past investigation most referred to is the Rasmussen report, which was a study undertaken in the United States, the cost of which was some $5 million or $6 million. Inevitably, the proponents of nuclear stations in Canada refer to the study and express confidence that the report logistically satisfies our fears in regard to a meltdown or radiation release.

The interesting thing I found out this summer in sitting on the select committee was the continual reference to the fact that the Candu system is different from the system in the United States, and that events such as Three Mile Island could not occur.

I want to say in that regard that fair is fair. I would like to point out you cannot state that our system is better than the United States’, therefore lessening our fears, yet on the other hand bring forward the Rasmussen report, which was a study of the United States system, and support our Candu system with the Rasmussen study. If our system is that much different, then we need a much different study than Rasmussen’s.

The cost of such a study is of great importance. As indicated, the cost of the Rasmussen report was in the millions of dollars. The Rogers report, to which I have already referred, is at present in the range of some $50,000 maximum. Cost alone is by no means an indication of the value of the report, but as the committee has heard, the Rogers report is in regard to a very specific aspect of a meltdown. It is not an overall conclusive package investigation of a meltdown or radiation release.

I would suggest to the House that we must be prepared for any kind of catastrophic accident in Ontario. To be prepared, we must have the necessary backup support and investigation so that -- and I might say heaven forbid -- in the event of any kind of catastrophe there is at least an accessible report to make reference to and to try to monitor the accident as best as possible.

Our first line of defence against such an accident is preparedness. I would like to point out that it is my understanding an investigation is presently being carried out by a private drug firm to see whether the new food additive, called Spartin, I believe, could replace the saccharin food additive, The study to date on this food additive is in the amount of some $6 million. Might I add, surely if private enterprise has the resources, and I might add the responsibility, to investigate the result of an additive in the food we consume, then the government of Ontario, this government, has a responsibility to assure the public that it is prepared.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable member has eight to nine minutes left in his time.

Mr. J. Reed: I would like at the outset to commend the words and the thoughtfulness of the member for Durham East. I think he has put a great deal of effort into the preparation of and into the reasoning for this motion. He expressed many of the thoughts those of us who will be supporting the resolution feel about this particular issue.

When that event now known as Three Mile Island occurred, it brought to the forefront that latent fear that rests with a very large body of the public; that is, the consequences on the possibility of a meltdown. Frankly, there may be other types of accidents in the nuclear system that might have a broader impact on the public at large. I can think of one; a blowup might be more troublesome than a meltdown. However, we don’t know what those consequences are. All we know is that by doing some mathematics we have arrived at certain probabilities of whether or not such a catastrophe is likely to occur within a certain period of time.

We play a numbers game with these things and we conclude that if the numbers are such that the one-chance-in-so-many-thousand figure arises from our deliberations, then we say the chances of something of this nature happening are so remote as not to warrant the kind of investigation the member proposes.

I happen to hold the feeling that the future of our nuclear industry in Ontario and in Canada really rests in one area and that is the area of public confidence. That is the root. All of the good things we might or might not say about the nuclear debate or about the nuclear future really are irrelevant unless we have that public support.

It was in the interests of public support that my party, under the leadership of the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith), really was one of the instruments that helped to precipitate the change around in the policy of Ontario Hydro regarding the disclosure of nuclear information. I think the observation can be made now about five months later, that as a result of that reversal of policy we now have a more enlightened public and a new look at the nuclear industry which has relieved a large number of the real concerns that the public expressed before that time.

The consideration of the meltdown possibility is still with us, and so far it has not been addressed.

I have one question I would like to ask the honourable member and I am glad he reserved some time at the end of this debate. How would he relate the study to the study that Dr. Rogers has been commissioned to do by the control board? I would like to think that this study would not simply be a duplication of that effort, that it would in fact complement it and not tread through the same area that Dr. Rogers has put his mind to. I suggest that in the interest of economy, in the interest of not duplicating, the member might make that very clear.

We are finding nuclear engines run reasonably well. We are finding nuclear engines are just like all of the engines devised by man: there is nothing in this world that cannot be made better and there is a capability of making the nuclear engines better. The select committee, of which I was privileged to be a part, considered that. We will have some recommendations to make in that regard.

Nevertheless, as remote as these large-impact accidents may be in terms of the numbers game, I firmly believe it is essential that we explore them so that, as the honourable member has said, we are prepared when the time comes. I think we are short-changing ourselves if we dismiss the whole idea as something just very esoteric and very remote, and walk away from it. Inevitably, that is the time something of that nature happens.

We have to build public confidence; we have to disclose to the public exactly what the nuclear industry is all about. As I said before, it is they who will make the decision in the end about the future of this technology.

So, it is with pleasure that I support this resolution.

Mr. MacDonald: This resolution is worthy of support. I say that at the outset because of the objective which it espouses. But I say it with two rather serious qualifications, and I want to deal with them first.

The qualifications are that the whole question of bringing in this resolution at this time and in this way strikes me as a little peculiar. The honourable member is a member of the select committee. The select committee has had a draft report. It is going to be considering that draft report and finalizing it a week from now. The member sort of scoops one of the major items. He argues it is because he wants to focus attention on it.

An hon. member: Pirated.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, pirated, and he brings it in here. As a matter of fact, it is rather fascinating, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to argue this but I just throw it out to you. I think in spirit, if not technically, it is out of order --

Mr. Cureatz: Never.

Mr. MacDonald: -- because this issue is out to a select committee and the report on the issue is going to come back for debate at some later point. It’s a strange method, which gets me to the next point that I want to deal with.

The member’s revelation that this has provoked a great debate in the Tory caucus and he thought that maybe presaged a rather stormy or spectacular debate here rather intrigues me, because as he and every member of the select committee knows this issue was a major preoccupation that came up -- I was going to say almost every second day during our summer hearings, and as a major preoccupation he and everybody else was aware of it. Yet, if I recall correctly, I don’t know of a single instance in which a government member spoke to this issue at any great length and with any great substance.

I remember the member for York West (Mr. Leluk) at one point alluding to it and when he had to leave he left the question with the consultant to the committee to ask of a certain witness, and I think the member for Durham East raised it. There was a great silence there among the government members. So this member, I suspect for reasons of the fact that his public image is of an almost unqualified mindless espousal of the nuclear option and he is now having to contend with that growing body of opinion in his own riding and elsewhere, who have some concerns about it, is trying to be on both sides of the fence and is bringing in this resolution.

Mr. Hennessy: Which side are you on?

Mr. MacDonald: I will tell the member what side I am on. In fact, I revealed it in the committee, which is something that the member for Fort William didn’t do and he might have done it since he was a member of the committee.

Let me get to the substance of the issue. Sorry, let me go back just a wee bit. There is another thing I am a little concerned about. I think the framing of the resolution, which of course could be cleaned up a bit if one went to its terms of reference for a study, but the meltdown and melt-through is the main preoccupation in the committee and for people, and suddenly the member brings into it a radiation escape.

One can have radiation escapes in relation to many kinds of accidents around a nuclear plant far removed from a meltdown and a melt-through, so I am puzzled about the terms of reference in the resolution and it’s my second sort of major qualification on it. On the main thrust of it, and let me speak to that, the issue of the potential of a meltdown and a melt-through is the real catastrophic accident that really brings people to a cold halt to consider the whole nuclear generation of power.

As I said a moment ago, this was brought up many times during the course of the committee. We had testimony from Hydro that it wasn’t possible. They even explained on one occasion that if there was a meltdown and it all fell on to the floor of the containment body that it wouldn’t melt through because they had water in pipes that were cooling it so you would have a second cooling system. We had other testimony from Dr. Edwards and others who said nonsense, that the heat from that melted- down fuel would fracture the cement and then you get into the spectre of that melting down into the earth, the whole spectre that was so dramatized by The China Syndrome.

It is an important issue and I must say, in answer to the member for Fort William as to where I stand, I have many times in the committee said to witnesses, “Look, if this is the ultimate, if this is the potential catastrophic accident, why do you take the position, as they do at Ontario Hydro, as they do at AECL, as they do at AECB, that we are spending most of our time and our energy in forestalling that kind of an accident? We have never really looked at the consequences of it.”

[5:OO]

It seems to me the failure to look at the consequences of that kind of a catastrophic accident is illogical; it’s folly. If you want to answer the growing concern out there, bolstered by the psychological fallout from Hiroshima from the Second World War and The China Syndrome, you have to face up to the potential catastrophic accident. That is what people are going to think about as they think about the great complexity of the nuclear situation.

The committee, as the honourable member has indicated, had testimony to the effect that some measure of study has been done in the direction of this issue by Dr. Rogers, from Carleton University. The committee was studying the amount of heat that could be generated there and, therefore, whether that amount of heat raised the prospect of breaking through the containment. Dr. Rogers himself suggested that there was another step in the study which he would like to take. Whether or not it was because of the prospect of our hearings and our testimony and the committee’s questioning, the AECB has agreed to that further study. But it represents only two little nibbles at a great big problem.

In the United States, as has been alluded to, Mr. Speaker, you had the Rasmussen study; a study in which there were millions of man-hours put on it. They spent some $5 million. But the American system is different. Some of it con apply to Canada but much of it has to be just an extrapolation and then we have to study the details of the Canadian system.

Therefore, there is a reason why many times in the committee I, in my rather rare ventures to questioning, asked why we don’t pursue that kind of study. The usual argument is the one that the honourable member, at least fleetingly, raised today: it would cost a lot.

Let me put it this way: suppose it cost all of the $5 million that the Rasmussen study cost in the United States. I don’t think it could or should, but suppose it did. Put that in the perspective of Ontario Hydro taking one of the oldest plants in its system, shutting it down in 1976, then spending $36 million to rehabilitate it. Once rehabilitated, it was mothballed because Hydro didn’t need its generating capacity. If you can spend $36 million rehabilitating an old plant, you can certainly spend up to $5 million on resolving the potential, the possibilities and the dangers involved in the catastrophic accident that can take place in a nuclear plant.

I think it is in the interests of the nuclear industry, whose credibility and viability is seriously questioned. It is in the interests of Ontario Hydro. It is in the interests of everybody who is part and parcel of the nuclear establishment in the province of Ontario to face up to this issue.

The honourable member has suggested that we should leave it to AECB. He doesn’t need to be told that AECB in effect said, “Nonsense. We don’t want to proceed with this.” They have given a little bit more of a job to Dr. Rogers. Six months from now he will know that AECB isn’t going to do it, so he will hand it back to the Ontario government and place the responsibility there.

I have said in the committee already that rather than wait for the AECB if we can’t get an immediate commitment, spend $5 million of the $1 billion a year spent for the extension of the nuclear system. It would be a wise expenditure. It may be in part scientific, it may be in part public relations, but it would be a wise expenditure.

So with all my reservations regarding the reason why and the manner in which this resolution was brought in, and with all of my reservations regarding what I think is the untidiness of its wording representative of the terms of reference of the study, I still think the object it is focusing on is a very important objective. We should pursue the study and, therefore, the resolution is worthy of support.

Mr. Ashe: When we discuss and debate such an important issue it seems rather redundant to have to say that naturally we are all concerned -- that it is, if you will, a motherhood concern. It is much deeper than that. The safety of our whole environment, the safety of our nuclear system goes without saying. Of course, that is one of the reasons why this resolution is before us this afternoon.

It also has to be put on the record that even those involved in the industry, including Ontario Hydro, also have an ongoing concern about the safety of their system both, naturally, for their own economic reasons and for their own safety reasons concerning their staff and of course the public as well. My honourable colleague from Durham East, whose riding practically abuts mine on the east, is putting this motion before this Legislature in that spirit. He should be and is commended for it.

I suggest there’s probably nobody else as involved as I am. I’ve said this before as well, that no one in this House sits as close to and is as involved in the nuclear industry, in terms of at least the power generation portion of the nuclear industry, as I am.

Mr. Nixon: How close are you to the reaction?

Mr. Ashe: I live about 4,000 feet from Pickering GS, from the reactor itself --

Mr. T. P. Reid: I knew something was going on.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ashe: -- and have done for some 12 years with no concern, I must say, whatsoever.

Mr. Nixon: Second opinion.

Mr. Ashe: It even burned off my upper lip this morning.

Mr. Speaker, that does not mean that I am not concerned for the safety of not only my family but, needless to say, all of the friends and neighbours around me and the people I represent in that great riding of Durham West.

Over the summer, those who were participating in the deliberations of the committee and those who had the opportunity to sit in on it or read the transcript heard an untold myriad of testimony as to the pros and cons of nuclear energy, of the system and, equally important, the pros and cons of this kind of proposed study.

We had expert testimony on both sides of that issue, put forth very sincerely and very honestly on the record, on the reasons why it should be done, the reasons why it was not appropriate to do it and, if there was going to be an expenditure of funds, suggesting other areas where they more appropriately could be spent, still recognizing the spirit of safety as the ultimate goal.

We also heard about and had a lot of testimony relating to the Rasmussen study of the American system. And we also heard that there have been committees and bodies since, on both sides, as a result of that issue; the validity or non-validity of it. I think that is always the problem and what we are concerned with.

With that having been said, the main concern I have in the wording of the motion as it is presently before us I suppose comes down to basically three issues. I’m really concerned that what we are saying indirectly is that the control system in Canada, through the Atomic Energy Control Board, is not, has not and cannot be anticipated to do its job. Therefore, they don’t want to do it. The Ontario government and/or Ontario Hydro will just bail them out and take them off the hook. I really am concerned about that.

Let’s even separate it from the issue for a moment. What we are saying is, if we have a federal body, a federal agency that has a very legitimate industry that is involved in or some system that it is involved in overseeing, we would just take it over from them. I think we had general testimony in the committee that AECB has been doing a pretty fair job. The committee is going to come, very rightly I think, with some suggestions that may suggest how they can do it better. I think that’s very well justified.

But all in all, I think there was general agreement both in the testimony and probably among the majority of the committee members that they are and have been doing a pretty fair, reasonable and honest job. I don’t see why we should give any indication that the Ontario government really challenges this conclusion and should take over responsibility that is theirs.

I am further concerned naturally in the aspect of the dollars. I am concerned we would just say in effect, “If you don’t do it, we’ll let you off the hook. We’re prepared to write a blank cheque and take care of your responsibility.”

Last but not least -- and it carries from the first two -- is, are we not concerned and should we not be concerned as a Legislature and as a government with certain responsibilities to put it on the record that if we feel at some point another level of government doesn’t do its job in the time frame we see as being the right one, we will just let them off the hook and do it for them?

This is the one that concerns me the most. We are setting a precedent. The federal government or its agencies in the future may very well say, “Oh well, when the Atomic Energy Control Board didn’t do a study Ontario thought they should do within a certain time frame, the Ontario government let them off the hook. Let’s try it again.” It could have repercussions well beyond the particular issue we are talking about.

I am really concerned about that aspect of it. I’m not concerned about the end result of what we all agree on -- making the system as complete, as honest and as safe as possible -- but how we do it. To try to still recognize that and to take away some of the concerns, I would propose to the honourable members for their serious consideration, based on the points I have put before them, an amendment to the resolution before us.

I know it is uncommon to have an amendment to a private member’s resolution, even one made by a member of one’s own party, but that’s how strongly I felt about it. I hope that before the honourable members cast their vote on the amendment, either aye or nay, they will think seriously about what I have said.

I move that the resolution be amended by deleting everything after the word “escape” and substituting therefor the following: “although recognizing the legal responsibilities of the federal authorities in this matter, the government of Ontario should consider the undertaking of such a study if the federal authorities do not commission such a study within a reasonable period of time.”

Ms. Gigantes: In the fullness of time.

Mr. Ashe: How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

Ms. Gigantes: Why not “the fullness of time”?

Mr. Ashe: No, not the fullness of time but “reasonable period of time.”

Do I have any time remaining, Mr. Speaker? Would it be in order to put the amendment at the appropriate time when the members are present?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: You placed the amendment, so I suppose the appropriate time is right now.

Mr. Ashe has moved an amendment. Do members wish me to read it again?

Some hon. members: Dispense.

Mr. Ashe: I think I have already covered the points I tried to cover with this amendment. The spirit of the resolution remains identical. The concern as expressed in the resolution is identical. Rather than saying if the federal government doesn’t do it within a certain time we will do it, I would suggest a not very lengthy period of time. This amendment says, “It is your responsibility. If you don’t do it, we will look at it again if the time frame seems reasonable,” which was the terms I used.

I suggest that does not defeat the purpose or the spirit of the resolution, but probably makes it a little more reasonable. It is not putting the government on the hook with future implications of this kind of acceptance of responsibility pertaining to another jurisdiction.

I would suggest to honourable members that we should all be concerned about that aspect of this kind of motion, in the form it is presently before you, without amendment.

Mr. Nixon: I don’t feel the member for Durham West has served the debate well by putting forward the amendment. He has focused the concern of the resolution on who should do the review and who should pay for it, rather than the importance of the review of a possible meltdown --

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Has the chair accepted the amendment?

Mr. Nixon: Is the member questioning it on a point of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, I accepted it. I actually put the motion, but was asked to dispense with the reading of it.

Mr. Breaugh: The dispensing of the reading of the amendment was agreed. But I am still not clear under what rule in the standing orders or on what precedents the chair has accepted an amendment to a private member’s resolution during this type of debate.

On page 17 of the standing orders it says, “No amendment may be made to a motion.” I interpret that to mean the amendment is not in order. I would like the chair to make a ruling on that.

[5:15]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would you bear with me a moment? Could we continue the debate for a few moments? I’ll check it out and then make a ruling.

Mr. Nixon: I would be glad to give my remarks while you’re considering the point of order raised by the honourable member.

As a member of the select committee on Hydro affairs, I know all of us feel a tremendous concern for the safety of the atomic reactors that have been developed and built in this province. It appears that the committee may come down with a recommendation to the House that in our considered opinion the reactors presently operating are safe enough. Those are not the words we’ll use, but essentially, with all the political cavils that we can think of to embroider it, it looks as if that’s what we are about to say.

Sometimes some of us will contemplate that recommendation and say, “Where do we stand in the event of an accident some time, now or in the future?” It would be a great thing if by some action that this House could take, without regard to the money involved, we could reassure ourselves that a catastrophic accident is impossible -- or even, I suppose, have someone tell us in more detail what the results of the accident would be.

I say, Mr. Speaker, we know the answer, in great measure, to both those questions now. A catastrophic accident is possible. We have been told, on the best authority we could summon before the committee, that an accident of the magnitude of the type envisaged by the resolution will take place 10^-7 times every year. Whatever that means, it means it will happen about once every 10 million years.

There are those who can argue with me that maybe it’s 10^-6; maybe it’s 10^-5. But if we are to have an extensive review of this, whoever gives us the answer will have to sit on some sort of a number, a probability, which can then be argued by any kind of a researcher.

I would submit to you that if the research were done on the probability of the accident, whatever its clear indications are and its name, it is going to he a very highly improbable occurrence, happening once in a million years.

That doesn’t mean that it cannot happen tomorrow and no amount of research is going to assuage our conscience, as members of this committee or this House, if we allow the atomic program to go forward or to continue to function in its present state. There is no scientist who can tell us that an accident of this catastrophic proportion cannot happen. Those of us who think that voting for this resolution is going to make that possibility disappear are wrong, and we are misleading not only ourselves, but others.

If this sort of catastrophic accident occurred, the ramifications are extremely large. It could very well pollute not only the groundwaters of this part of Ontario but also probably the major part of the Great Lakes system from Lake Huron and Lake Erie and Lake Ontario on down. It’s a real possibility that a whole area, certainly all of Metropolitan Toronto, would have to be vacated -- and perhaps permanently.

The research could be done to give us this information, but in my view the information is really not of use or significance. Rasmussen’s report has already been made, a very expensive one. Others have indicated that as soon as it came forward -- and I agree with the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) that the $5 million is completely irrelevant -- a review of it was established under Dr. Lewis, a much shorter study, drawing to the attention of anybody who would read it certain shortcomings, the incorrect focus and application and conclusion based on some of the findings.

I personally believe that our atomic program is as safe as it can be. People who don’t believe that should be calling for its cessation and a moratorium on all other atomic reactors and a gradual or immediate closedown of the reactors we have.

I feel it is extremely misleading for us, in this House, to vote for the kind of research which is going to come up with results which do not have a significance to us, a type we can support.

I want to quote to you, Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes available to me, from the report of the president’s commission on the accident at Three Mile Island entitled, The Need for Change -- The Legacy of Three Mile Island, October 1979. I’m quoting from the section on page nine entitled Overview.

“We find a fundamental fault, even with the existing body of regulations. While scientists and engineers have worried for decades about the safety of nuclear equipment, we find that the approach to nuclear safety had a major flaw. It was natural for the regulators and the industry to ask, ‘What is the worst kind of equipment failure that can occur?’”

I quote further: “A potentially insignificant incident grew into the Three Mile Island accident with severe damage to the reactor. Since such combinations of minor equipment failures are likely to occur much more often than the huge accidents, they deserve extensive and thorough study. In addition, they require operators and supervisors who have a thorough understanding of the functioning of the plant and who can respond to the combinations of small equipment failures.”

I simply want to stress that this is not written by people with a commitment to the atomic program, or a commitment to “ban the nukes.” This is the president’s review commission, which has brought out an excellent report. It emphasizes here that there has been too much emphasis on a review of the major kinds of accidents, or what is the worst that can occur. That’s what is involved in this resolution.

I want to read briefly, also, from a report which is an exhibit from our committee numbered E-88. It’s entitled, Nuclear Power Reactor Safety in Illinois.

They have almost as much power reactor equipment, either built or being built there. This is a report to the governor. From page 13 of that report is recommendation A-7:

“It is recommended that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of the Environment review their nuclear reactor safety programs so as to place greater emphasis on anticipated events and incidents of moderate and low probability and less emphasis on hypothetical limiting faults of extremely low probability. For too long, both NRC and DOE have displayed a lack of perspective in this regard having allocated most resources to the study of highly improbable limiting faults.”

This resolution is all about highly improbable accidents. The best thing we can do, really, after we pray they don’t happen, is see that the review and the money -- and the money is not a limiting factor -- and the commitment be made so our Candu reactors, which in my view are the best in the world but that doesn’t save us from anything, are made even better and as safe as possible.

I’m not objecting to any money that might be spent for the review of how often a meltdown can happen. We’ve already been told it lies in the range of extreme improbability. Nobody can ever tell us that such an accident cannot happen, because it can. We should not be spending so much time on what the results would be, other than to have a program to save ourselves if such an improbable event occurs.

For those reasons, whether or not the amendment is in order, I don’t find it significant or useful in the debate that has been triggered by this. I further believe that the argument associated with this will have to take place in the committee anyway. I agree with the chairman of the committee. It’s of concern to me that it has happened here where none of us are experts, but votes are going to be given by people who are not expert, or who are going to be called in by the bells and won’t know a damn thing about it. It’s probably unfair to say, but it would appear some could care less. However, I feel that, under these circumstances, I cannot support either the amendment or the resolution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

On the point of order raised by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), he refers to standing order 63(d) which states no amendment may be made to a motion under the standing order. However, the standing order refers to a want of confidence motion. This is a private member’s resolution and there are precedents where amendments have been placed and I can refer particularly to November 27, 1977. Therefore, the amendment is in order.

The member for Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, sometimes you break my heart with this stuff.

Hon. Mr. Welch: And he’s the chairman of the procedural affairs committee.

Mr. Breaugh: I guess we haven’t travelled enough to know that. We will probably correct that situation this year.

I am prepared to support even an amended resolution of this kind. I read with great interest and did attempt to follow the work of the select committee in its deliberations in the summer, and I admit that is a difficult task. It is a matter which should be of great concern to all members in this House. I think most members at least attempt to keep reasonably well briefed on the subject.

It is a matter of grave personal concern to me because my house will be located between two of the world’s largest nuclear plants. That is of some concern to me. The effects of even low-level radiation over a long period of time have been demonstrated on certain members in this House and I would hate to have that happen to my family.

The matter of whether it would be a meltdown, whether it would be a complete break in the system, or whether it would be low-level radiation -- all of those safety factors I think ought to be investigated thoroughly. I read the Hansard, for example, just for one day, for October 4. In that particular debate inside the committee I did notice the member for Durham East was not quibbling over time frame nor posing amendments. On that day, these were his words: “I don’t support the concept.”

That seems to me to be rather straight. He doesn’t believe there should be this kind of an investigation. By today though we have arrived at a point where we are dealing with an amendment now posed by that honourable member which has rearranged priorities somewhat. I was frankly somewhat surprised to read that the member for Durham East had posed this resolution, from several points of view. First of all, I had read in the committee’s work that this matter was under discussion in the committee and would most likely be part of the committee’s final report. It surprised me to see, all of a sudden, this resolution appear on the Order Paper in his name. It appeared to me he had, if you will pardon the expression, a hot flash of common sense. I do not believe that was a radiation flash or that it was likely male menopause had set in.

However, no matter how the resolution came to be, pirated from a committee or otherwise, I welcome it. I think it is overdue and it is certainly an important matter for the House to consider. We are all perhaps over-sensitive these days on the matter of what happens in nuclear plants, the reality of their safety factors and what kinds of studies have been done. It seems to me only rational that in Canada, one of the foremost countries in the world in terms of studying nuclear power and developing new techniques in the utilization of nuclear power, that we ought to use the expertise we have here and around the world to do as complete a study of the safety factors possible.

What does concern me somewhat, though, is I read in that same committee’s deliberations of that day the member for Durham East said, if I may quote him once again, “I would like to see the recommendation be put on the federal government’s plate and then let them, if they refuse, refuse it so that then we have the opportunity of saying the federal government is shirking its responsibility.”

Mr. Speaker, I don’t mean to question the motive of any honourable member, but I do understand the statements in committee are a little different from the statements I have heard in the debate here this afternoon.

This is a matter of growing concern in our community. It is a matter of growing concern across the province. I think the answers, in part, will stem from the work of the select committee. But more important, I guess, the select committee, for all of its fine work over the course of the summer and for whatever recommendations might come forward from that committee, in many instances raised more questions than there were answers. But I hope they brought to the forefront of Canadian and Ontario provincial politics, at least, all of the many considerations necessary in dealing with nuclear power.

[5:30]

I think we have arrived at a point where critical questions must be answered before we proceed any further. I recognize full well that in my area and in others the building of nuclear power plants is seen by some to be a simple, safe exercise such as one would engage in if one were building pyramids. I do not believe that to be the case. I believe there are a great many considerations that have to be thought through carefully and much of that pool of expertise that is present in Canada must be exercised now to ascertain if the public statements made by Ontario Hydro are true, if their television commercials, which may in turn be very successful at convincing the public of this province there really is nothing wrong with nuclear safety, are really factual.

I question the propriety, frankly, in the midst of hearings of a select committee of this House investigating nuclear safety, of the agency which puts up the nuclear plants spending that much money, that much time and that much effort in putting forward simplistic 60-second responses to the work of the committee. I find that to be not a satisfactory approach for Ontario Hydro to take. I recognize that it appears to be quite out of control from time to time and at least quite free to do whatever it feels like doing.

Mr. Speaker, it will be interesting this afternoon to watch the reactions of various members. It will be fascinating to see, having succeeded in amending -- perhaps not too significantly, but at last getting the amendment on the floor -- this particular resolution, if the Conservative front-benchers this afternoon will exercise, as vigorously as they have on other Thursday afternoons, the provisions for blockage.

The Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) certainly has a fascinating interest in it and I note he is one of the few front-benchers to be here at all. I am waiting anxiously for his informed comment on this resolution. There is another front-bencher here, but the remainder of the cabinet is absent, gone.

It will be interesting to follow the voting pattern this afternoon to see, in the first instance, whether the resolution will ever see the light of day, let alone the investigation it calls for and, subsequently, what will be the result of that particular vote.

I have concerns which I have voiced on many occasions about the use of nuclear power and its extent and its safety in this province. This resolution doesn’t do a great deal. It may well be inspired by unusual motives. It may well not be the appropriate way to go about getting this matter before the House. Perhaps it would have been more sensible to let the select committee do its business and provide its report and recommendations to this House.

I am at that point where I do not care how this resolution came before us. I don’t even care who put this resolution before us. I don’t even care who amended this resolution. Something of this nature must occur and for that simple reason I will support even this resolution.

Mr. Hennessy: I doubt very much that there is an issue of greater interest or importance than nuclear safety. It is an issue which is the subject of endless discussion and argument. After having listened to the discussions in the select committee on Hydro affairs, I sometimes feel that the so-called experts are even more confused than I am.

I do not pretend to be a nuclear expert. I don’t think any member of this House can make that claim. I do know that a problem such as this cannot have one simple solution. This resolution is one small part of an answer to a very big question. I am not entirely happy with the resolution. I believe there are many problems which have to be ironed out, but, in spite of these, if we keep in mind that it is only part of a larger solution, I am convinced we should pass the resolution of the member for Durham East.

A study of this sort has to be made. We all have families and loved ones and we want to protect them. We trust others to look after and care for our families and friends. I trust my doctor to give them the best care that he or she is capable of. The same goes for teachers, social workers or any other professional.

We are all elected to serve the people of this province. When we are elected our constituents are telling us that they trust us to look after them and they trust that we will, to the best of our ability, represent and care for them. I intend to keep that trust. I don’t think I could if I didn’t regard the importance of nuclear safety with as much emphasis as I do. I think they would have every right to question the trust if I didn’t support this resolution.

As we all know, there are many nuclear-oriented industries based in Ontario. These industries cannot possibly survive if they do not have the confidence of the people in this province. How can our citizens feel confident and secure if those they have entrusted to maintain the highest level of nuclear safety do not explore every possibility of a nuclear accident? The confidence will never be regained if someone does not undertake this study.

Certainly, the AECB has been given a job to do. Under the Atomic Energy Control Act it is their responsibility to control and supervise the development, application and use of nuclear energy. If they are to do a good job they must be aware of all the alternatives. To pursue a policy of generating electricity by nuclear power without knowing the results would be a mistake. It would not be unlike a gambler getting into a poker game without knowing how high the stakes are. I would suggest the gambler might lose his shirt -- or her shirt, for the member for Carleton East.

Ms. Gigantes: I haven’t been gambling lately.

Mr. Conway: Wait until they hear this in Deep River.

Mr. Hennessy: There is a need for the type of study my honourable colleague recommends. I can always walk across the street. I think we must take a good long look at some of the possible pitfalls. If we don’t look at the problems now, they may come to represent a larger task than we now face.

There is also the very large question of jurisdiction. There is absolutely no doubt that nuclear safety is a federal responsibility. The Atomic Energy Control Act is a federal law and so is the Nuclear Liability Act. The AECB reports to the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.

We must also take a realistic look at how the results of such a study may be used. If it is done for the provincial government, the AECB and the federal government may or may not accept these results as being of any value.

Let’s take a moment to look at their viewpoint. If I was a president of a business producing widgets and I was approached by one of my clients to do a complete study of my product, I may or may not comply. As that client then proceeded to fund his own study, my acceptance of the work would probably depend on the results. If these results revealed that my widgets were safe and very beneficial, I would be pretty stupid if I discredited that study. If, on the other hand, the study indicated that health hazards did exist because of the use of my widgets, I might be tempted to question the quality of the results.

At any rate, the fact remains that AECB has the opportunity open to it to ignore a provincial study. It would be much more difficult for them to ignore a study they themselves have ordered. I feel very strongly that every method of persuasion should be used to have AECB conduct its own study. Perhaps this resolution will be all the persuasion needed to spur a federal review.

As well, I am very concerned about the responsibility of the Ontario government to commission such a review. The quality of such a work is going to depend on who takes this important task. The acceptance will also depend on the author, on his or her credentials.

Let us look at another example. As all members do, I travel home to my riding as often as possible. It would be much easier for me to make that trip, of course, if I represented a riding in or around Toronto. That is not the case. Because I represent the riding of Fort William, in order to get home I have to hop a plane, a plane that is not unlike a DC-10. If for some reason I was concerned about the safety of a DC-10 and wanted to have an independent study undertaken to determine its level of safety, it would be up to me to delegate that study.

Quite frankly, I am not an expert on airplane safety and I am not really sure who I would hire to do the best study. I assure members I would want the best study possible, because I would use that plane quite a lot. I am very concerned that I may have to hire someone to do a study to find the best person to investigate the safety of the DC-10 and only add to the overall cost.

I, for one, do not feel qualified to suggest who should do a study on either an airplane or nuclear safety. What is the best type of study then? I am sure we can agree that a large degree of independence is very important, but just exactly who is independent? I would want someone who is familiar with the modern nuclear industry and has sound knowledge of all the recent changes in technology. I have some fears that finding such a person who is acceptable to all parties may be more difficult than the task itself.

There is no doubt in my mind of the great importance of nuclear power to this province. From the committees I have sat on, I believe it is almost impossible to find a better power corporation in North America than Ontario Hydro. The professionals of that organization are matched only by those of AECB. We have a first-rate nuclear power industry and control board, but does that mean that we cannot continue to improve upon this excellence? Therefore, I feel that this resolution would greatly help the nuclear industry.

I am very distressed when I go into a store and ask a staff member for some help and I am told by him, “It is not my department.” Too often we in government tell the people, “It’s not my department,” and shove the problem off in some other direction. I think it’s about time we stopped passing the buck.

Mr. McClellan: It happens all the time.

Mr. Hennessy: This issue is just too important for that. Yes, there are problems, and I think we could probably get caught with the tab, but I can’t betray the trust the people in my riding have handed me. For this reason, I support the resolution.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I realize there is just a matter of minutes left, so I will be very brief. One of the things that has come out very clearly in the committee is that a nuclear meltdown or melt-through, as it’s called, is the ultimate in a catastrophic accident or could be the ultimate in a catastrophic accident.

We also know, and to me, at least, it was made very clear, that safety in the nuclear field -- and to date it has been good -- is based to a large extent on a series of mathematical probabilities. We have had a relatively safe situation to date because we haven’t been faced with a major accident and we have no real-life experience as to what the ultimate is in terms of a major catastrophe. It’s also fairly clear from some of the evidence given us -- the extent was alluded to by one of the Liberal members -- as to the possibilities in terms of a major catastrophic accident. It’s also clear -- or at least it is clear to me -- that one such accident could change the entire picture in terms of the safety of nuclear power.

If we are going to base the safety of nuclear power on mathematical probabilities, and we could be looking at the safety of thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of people in this province on the basis of mathematical probabilities, I think it’s important to all of us to have all of the factors in that equation. I think there is a possibility -- I am not sure we can get the answers -- that a study such as is recommended will give us the remaining factors in that equation. Without it, we are playing a stupid game,

While I agree that this whole area is scary enough that we may need, as the former leader of the Liberal Party has suggested, prayers for safety in the nuclear field, I would remind him also that one of the little things my parents always told me was that the good Lord helps those that help themselves. Maybe we need a little assistance in this kind of a study.

For this reason, I support the resolution that’s before us.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that I appreciate very much the contribution of those members of the assembly who have participated in this debate and have commented on my resolution. Let me touch base with a few of those members who have commented,

The member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. Reed) brought out a very important point in regard to other types of accidents. Without limiting the resolution that I proposed, I did intend to include any kind of major catastrophe that would be extremely detrimental to the population at large. I would trust that any kind of investigation would take those kinds of considerations into hand.

[5:45]

I would also agree with him that in regard to the Rogers report I did not intend any kind of duplication. Indeed, if we are lucky enough to have an investigation in regard to my resolution take place it should stem from and expand on the Rogers report.

That leads me to the concerns of the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), who is a little worried about the technicality. I would like to bring to his attention that if he was so concerned he should have brought forward those problems two weeks ago when I brought in the resolution.

I want to further bring to his attention that this is private members’ hour and so often I have sat here at about 5:45 and have heard time and time again from those honourable members sitting on the opposite side, “Are we going to have a veto again? What happened to good old private members’ hour?”

I want to tell the member for York South that I feel this is private members’ hour and I want to remind him what it is like to be lining up behind the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) -- and it is nice to see him here, as the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) pointed out -- and then lining up behind the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy, the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) --

Mr. Martel: We’ll see where you line up on the first bill.

Mr. Cureatz: -- and then after that lining up behind the senior members on the select committee, and then finally getting your two cents in. I will tell the member for York South that it is about time that my name was drawn again.

So I had the opportunity of bringing up this concern of mine in regard to meltdowns and radiation releases. I want to underline radiation releases, because I think quite often on the committee we have missed the whole point.

The whole point is that, indeed, a meltdown is a catastrophic accident but if it is contained in the containment, where people are not severely affected, then the accident is not as catastrophic as it might be. But a radiation release of any nature -- and this is why I bring in the member for Halton-Burlington -- a radiation release of any nature could be catastrophic to surrounding population. That is why I specifically brought it in and I am going to bring that to the attention of the committee again when we sit next week.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) brought forth some of his concerns. I was amused at one of his major concerns -- that he worries that the members of the legislative assembly will come in here and, if I could quote him, “They won’t give a damn or know a damn what they are voting about.” I want to bring that to the attention of the member. Is that so different from other occasions in here? Is this so different from other occasions?

Mr. Kerrio: Oh, yes.

Mr. Cureatz: I do fully agree with him that indeed, notwithstanding the cost, we have to be prepared, and that is my whole point.

I want to bring again to the attention of the member for York South that as a member of the select committee on Ontario Hydro I knew nothing about nuclear energy or nuclear safety, but over the last few months during the summer sessions I learned a great deal. As a representative of this assembly I feel it is my responsibility to the province of Ontario and to my riding to reflect those concerns and those issues that have been brought to my attention, and indeed this is my concern, that notwithstanding the probabilities, notwithstanding the costs, we in the province of Ontario have to be prepared.

Finally, the member for Durham West -- whom, I might add, I respect very much, a very hard-working member of the committee, a very hard-working member as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy; he probably worked a bit harder than the Minister of Energy -- has brought forward an amendment to the resolution. I want to say to the members of the assembly that I am just a little worried about this amendment, because after sitting here for two and a half years, and when you hear “the fullness of time” and “reasonable time,” you get a little worried about what that means.

As a private member -- and I want to stress that to those sacred cabinet ministers -- as a private member I want to put a time limit on it and let’s see if we are going to respond to the kinds of responsibilities I think this government has to respond to. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

CHILDREN’S RIGHTS ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 102:

Ashe, Belanger, Birch, Brunelle, Gregory, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J., Leluk, Maeck, McCague, McNeil, Norton, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Rowe, Sterling, Taylor, G., Walker, Watson, Wells -- 22.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Ashe has moved an amendment to resolution 34.

Those in favour please say “aye.”

Those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Cureatz has moved resolution 34.

Those in favour please say “aye.”

Those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Resolution concurred in.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 13 I would like to indicate to the House the business for tomorrow and next week.

Tomorrow morning the committee of supply will meet and consider the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue.

On Monday, November 12, there will be no meeting of the House as it will be the Remembrance Day holiday.

On Tuesday, November 13, in the afternoon we will consider legislation. First, Bill 77 in committee, followed by Bill 160, second reading only, until 6 p.m. In the evening we’ll consider Bill 122, second reading and committee stage, followed by Bill 160 if it has not been completed before 6 p.m. Following that, Bill 156, second reading, if time permits.

On Wednesday, November 14, the justice, resources development and general government committees may meet in the morning.

On Thursday, November 15, in the afternoon, the House will consider private members’ public business. First, ballot item five standing in the name of the member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy) and second, ballot item six, standing in the name of the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). In the evening we will debate the reports from the standing resources development committee on sections concerning acid rain and Inco emissions.

On Friday, November 16, the House will consider in committee of supply the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue.

The House recessed at 5:55 p.m.