L047 - Thu 21 Nov 1985 / Jeu 21 nov 1985
The House met at 2 p.m.
PORTRAIT OF FORMER SPEAKER
Mr. Speaker: Before beginning the business of the House this afternoon, may I remind all honourable members of the unveiling of the portrait of the former Speaker, John Turner, which will take place just outside the door to the chamber when the House rises at 6 p.m. today.
It has been the custom in the past to have the proceedings recorded by Hansard. I would like to ask the permission of the House to include that copy of Hansard as an appendix to the Hansard for November 21. Is it agreeable?
[See appendix, page 1698.]
LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Harris: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: It is a point of great privilege and honour for me to rise on behalf of our caucus on this occasion to attempt to express our respect and our affection for the leader of our party.
It is impossible for me to conceal the emotion I feel on this occasion. I need not remind anyone in this House that the political events of the past year have been tumultuous for our party. They have challenged each and every one of us in the caucus. Anyone without the courage, the faith and the conviction of Frank Stuart Miller would have buckled under the pressure that our leader faced during these times.
As House leader, I was especially privileged to witness the way our leader conducted himself with dignity and with concern only for the welfare of others and not for himself. Even in the most difficult moments he always remained loyal to his principles, his colleagues and his staff. Never did he forget to be kind and thoughtful of the feelings of others. Even his well-known and, some would say, distinctive sense of humour remained intact at most times.
I will not presume to predict how the historians will record this particular phase in the political history of Ontario, but those of us who have been privileged to serve with the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) have rubbed shoulders with one of the kindest, most able and most committed public servants ever to sit in this assembly.
We have joked on many occasions about his Scottish heritage and his frugality, and it is all true. But we all know that when it comes to devotion and commitment to the people of Ontario, none has been more willing to give. The member for Muskoka has been our leader and will continue to be our friend. We are immensely proud of him on both counts.
I believe he has set an example for all the members of this House and for those who will follow. He has reminded us that devotion to principles, love of family and respect of colleagues matter far more than any wins or losses of a partisan nature. He has made us realize that the toughest of partisan battles on the hustings or in this House cannot diminish the stature of a human being as truly outstanding as the member for Muskoka. It is a great measure of the man that in the rough and tumble business of partisan politics he leaves with even more respect and with many more friends than when he began.
He is stepping aside as our leader, but he remains our colleague and friend. We are thankful for his leadership and for the standards he set for all of us, and we look forward to his continued counsel and support. We are confident he will continue to serve the province and her people in whatever role he next assumes.
Hon. Mr. Peterson: Members will recall that on Monday last some of us in this House made some remarks about the member for Muskoka, gave our congratulations to the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and paid tribute to two colleagues who ran in that leadership convention on the weekend. But this is a historic day because I understand it is his last day in the House officially as the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, I do not feel I am being excessive if I repeat some of the things I said on Monday and, indeed, add to them.
I said then that if one took a vote in this House as to the most respected, best-liked member of all parties, my educated guess would be that the member for Muskoka would win that award. As his adversary, both as Leader of the Opposition and as Premier, I have found him completely honourable at all times. I can say frankly that sometimes one sees a personal venom intrude into political discussions. That has never been the case with this particular leader. I have for him today the same affection I had for him six months ago and 10 years ago, because that is the kind of imprint he makes on everyone in political life and on all his colleagues who have served with him.
It is a historic day also because members will be aware that this morning we signed a twinning agreement with Jiangsu province in China, a first for this province. I understand that in the long term it is going to establish cultural, educational and trading relationships with that great province in the People's Republic of China.
It is interesting to note that a major impetus for that new initiative was from the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party when he was the minister. It was something that he held as a personal ambition to reach out and take this province out beyond its own borders, and he is remembered in China as well as here for his leadership.
In that regard, because we have been invited to go back to Jiangsu when a new technological centre is opened, probably some time next fall, I would like to invite the member for Muskoka to join the official delegation because of his very strong interest and knowledge and because of the respect in which he is held.
I think he will continue to serve this province in many capacities. I hope he will remain a member of this House for some considerable length of time, and I hope that all the people of this province can continue to take advantage of his great talent and his great dedication to public service.
Mr. Rae: I want to start by congratulating the Premier (Mr. Peterson) for saying roughly the same thing on Thursday as he said on Monday. We are not often used to hearing that from this side and we appreciate that.
I do not know whether "I want to get you on a slow boat to China" is going to become the new relationship between these two parties, but as the author of "Frank, they've turned your plaid suit blue," I do want to say I am delighted to see the leader of the official opposition back in his true colours. We are only sorry it took so long for this to emerge.
Many people have spoken of the personal kindness of the leader of the Conservative Party. I want to mention just one thing. When he was in the middle of having to make a very difficult decision, on the very day he had decided to announce that decision, the leader of the Conservative Party attended the funeral of my parents-in-law.
I want him to know that is an example of a generosity of spirit, a personal kindness, that both my wife and I deeply appreciated, as I wrote him that very day. That is an indication of the kind of person the member for Muskoka is and of the sort of personal decency that has always transcended whatever political differences we may have had.
He has taught me a great deal in that regard, and I want to take this occasion to publicly say that we in this party respect him for everything he has tried to do in public life. We have disagreed with him on many occasions. One could go back through several ministries, several portfolios and several debates. The leaders of our party and members of our party have consistently disagreed with and criticized many of the positions he has taken. We have fought battles on the hustings, and he and I were opponents in the last election.
Despite our political differences, I have always retained a great deal of personal respect and affection for the member for Muskoka. To him and his wife, Ann, we extend our very best.
Mr. F. S. Miller: I find it a lot easier to be a cabinet minister and have nasty questions shot at me than to have everybody standing up and talking about me so kindly. I feel very much like Huckleberry Finn must have felt as he sat and listened to his funeral. I want to warn everyone that I have not yet submitted my resignation.
There is a precedent that should worry almost all my party. About a year and a half ago, when I chose to say I would not be a contender in a race that was not on, Hughie Segal wrote a great column about me that appeared in the Toronto Star. It talked about, "Frank Miller, the spirit of the Tory party," or something like that. I said, "Hughie, after that, I think I will try."
After all these nice comments today, it is almost tempting enough to say, "Sorry, Larry, the letter is not in yet." That is not the case. I am looking forward to being an active member of this House. I have had opportunities few politicians and few Ontario citizens have had.
I am one of 20 people, of whom the Premier is a select member, who have had the chance to be Premier of this province in 117 or 118 years, or whatever it is. That is an honour in itself. It carries with it responsibilities, but we fight hard for the honour and the option to have those.
I thank the Premier for his graciousness in extending to me today -- it was not prearranged -- the opportunity to go to Jiangsu. I will be pleased to do so when the time comes.
I say to the leader of the New Democratic Party too that I share as he did the friendships I feel around this House no matter how we differ. It is always hard for observers of the political process to understand that we do do that. We are fortunate to have that kind of atmosphere. Only once in a while in the heat of a debate do we lose track of it.
As long as we have a system where individuals can access it, regardless of their ancestry -- and we have it -- and at the same time have a system of monarchy which allows us to honour those traditions passed through blood, we have a wonderful mixture and balance of opportunities in our country. We have them in Ontario.
Each of us, according to our ability, has the right to try to change things. If I have learned anything at all as a politician, it is that individuals can affect the history, the wealth and the wellbeing of our citizens by becoming involved in what is a very honourable estate, politics.
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY
REMOVAL OF WINES
Hon. Mr. Scott: Today I would like to bring the assembly up to date regarding the judicial inquiry into certain matters relating to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.
The members will recall that earlier this month my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) told the assembly of a potentially harmful substance found in some LCBO products. This substance was known to produce tumours in a variety of laboratory animals.
On the recommendation of the minister, cabinet yesterday passed an order in council authorizing a judicial inquiry. I am pleased to announce that pursuant to the Public Inquiries Act, Mr. Justice John Osler has been appointed a commissioner to conduct the inquiry.
We are fortunate to have an eminently qualified jurist like Mr. Justice Osler to look into this important matter. The Ministry of the Attorney General will be responsible for providing administrative support for the inquiry.
The order in council basically states that the government is concerned whether the practices of the LCBO in testing liquors, selling liquors and providing the public with information relating thereto have been in the best interests of the public.
The terms of reference will allow Mr. Justice Osler to conduct a full and thorough inquiry, including inquiring into and reporting on the general practices of the LCBO since 1975 in testing its products for substances which ought not to be present for health or other reasons.
The order in council requires all government ministries, boards, agencies and commissions to assist the commissioner to the fullest extent in carrying out his duties. It also empowers him to subpoena witnesses.
RED MEAT PLAN
Hon. Mr. Riddell: It is with a great sense of pleasure that I rise in the Legislature today to announce that I will be signing a historic agricultural agreement in the very near future.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Riddell: Ontario will also pay up to $30.9 million to red meat producers based on our commitment to make tripartite-level payments retroactive to January 1, 1985. We will do this by means of a stabilization payment.
After years of bickering, false starts, political infighting and failure, a national tripartite stabilization agreement is about to become a reality. Both the federal government and Ontario have agreed to sign the tripartite agreement. Final details are being worked out today on where that signing will take place and on some administrative procedures.
The successful completion of this agreement will be an important event in the history of Ontario agriculture. For too long, national stabilization has been a subject of discussion in this assembly as well as in federal-provincial meetings all over the country.
Years have come and gone. Promises have been made by previous governments at both the federal and the provincial level regarding the program. Deadlines have come and gone, leaving no resolution behind. Ontario's red meat producers have shown remarkable forbearance in the face of a difficult financial situation. Finally, they will be rewarded for their patience.
Shortly after I was sworn in as Minister of Agriculture and Food, I made it an urgent priority to hammer out a stabilization program for Ontario. I was able to get the issue of tripartite stabilization on the agenda of the meeting of federal and provincial agriculture ministers just a short time after I took office. At that meeting in St. John's, I told federal Minister of Agriculture John Wise and my provincial counterparts that Ontario and the country could not afford to wait any longer for this national program. Since then there has been a long series of telephone calls, meetings and discussions leading up to the agreement to sign tripartite.
The plan will provide Ontario's red meat producers with an unprecedented level of stability. It will protect them in times of low commodity prices by assuring them of a return that will allow them to survive. The tripartite plan will help to smooth out the drastic and frequent fluctuations in the red meat market.
With this type of program in place, farmers will have the security to do more long-term planning and to make more rational business decisions. The stabilization program will also benefit Ontario consumers, who will be assured of a long-term supply of Ontario red meat at a reasonable price. The tripartite program will provide a big boost for red meat producers, who are currently being hurt by low commodity prices. Along with a series of other measures that I have announced since becoming minister, it will help to ensure the survival of the family farm.
Tripartite stabilization will come into effect on January 1, 1986, and will be financed equally by federal, provincial and producer contributions. The plan is the first major step towards putting producers across Canada on an even footing for the first time in many years. It will end the necessity of provincial treasuries competing against each other in providing their producers with special assistance.
It will eventually put all producers in Canada on the same solid footing. Provinces that do not sign the tripartite agreement will automatically lose federal stabilization payments they now receive for each specific commodity that will be covered by tripartite.
While I am extremely happy we are finally able to sign a tripartite agreement, we did not get everything we wanted in the plan. We wanted a phase-out period of three years for existing government subsidies in the red meat sector. However, the agreement calls for a five-year phase-out period of these extra subsidies, which are known in agricultural circles as top-loading.
In addition, Ontario wanted the tripartite agreement to be retroactive to January 1, 1985. However, the agreement that I will be signing will come into effect on January 1, 1986. But the Ontario government will keep its commitment to Ontario red meat producers. As I mentioned, producers will receive retroactive tripartite-level payments for 1985.
The hard-pressed red meat producers will receive up to $30.9 million in provincial stabilization payments. The federal government has agreed to make stabilization payments worth an estimated $12 million to Ontario producers. In both cases the final amount will be known after 1985.
Farrow-to-finish hog producers will receive Ontario payments of $7.38 per hog for the second quarter of 1985 and $8.20 per hog for the third quarter. In consultation with the pork producers, a split in payment has been agreed between the sow-weaner and finishing production sections for 1985.
There will also be a second- and third-quarter payment for slaughter cattle, based on either a per pound or per animal calculation. Negotiations are continuing to determine the type of payment.
Lambs are also part of the agreement, but calculations have not yet been completed for the third and fourth quarters.
Hog producers should be getting application forms in the mail by early December. The first payments to producers are expected before the end of the year.
For slaughter cattle, the first payment is expected early next year. Application forms will be mailed to farmers who took part in the 1981 beef program. Forms will also be available through local Ministry of Agriculture and Food offices and the Ontario Farm Income Stabilization Commission.
These payments are badly needed in the red meat industry. They will help one sector of agriculture that has had serious problems. The Ontario family farm assistance program, which I announced earlier this fall, is already pumping a further $50 million into the Ontario farming community, and we have also taken steps to help those farmers in the most serious financial trouble through the $6-million farmers-in-transition program.
At this time, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of a valued member of my staff, the late Bernie McCabe, who was director of economics and policy co-ordination. He worked unceasingly throughout the lengthy negotiation process that led to tripartite stabilization. Sadly, he died in St. John's, Nfld., right after the last federal-provincial agriculture minister's conference. My deepest regret is that Bernie McCabe is not here today to share in the pleasure of the announcement of the upcoming signing of this historic and important program.
EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY
Hon. Mr. Wrye: As honourable members know, the protection of the health and safety of Ontario's working men and women is a critically important aspect of any Minister of Labour's responsibility. This government and this minister believe that while there is much to commend occupational health and safety law and its enforcement in Ontario, improvements are required. In that regard, I am pleased to inform the House today that three major changes in the occupational health and safety law and its administration are being undertaken.
First, section 145 of the industrial regulations made under the Occupational Health and Safety Act is being rewritten to provide greater protection to workers who may be exposed to toxic substances.
Second, a new ministry policy on the issuance and enforcement of orders under the act is being put into effect. This policy will ensure that the act is enforced with substantially greater vigour.
Third, the ministry's policy on prosecution is being revised to expand the number of situations in which prosecutions will be launched.
Section 145 of the industrial regulations made under the act is of central importance for the protection of workers in relation to toxic substances. In recent months, it has become apparent this section must be made more explicit, stringent and enforceable. It is my intention to recommend to my colleagues that section 145 be revised so that three vital points are addressed. These are:
1. The requirement that employers reduce exposures to toxic substances through the use of engineering controls and that the use of respirators be permitted only in exceptional circumstances;
2. The need to incorporate, by reference in the regulations, specific exposure criteria for toxic substances;
3. The need to reduce substantially the required time period for air sampling to determine if exposure has been excessive.
These changes will enhance the ministry's capacity to secure conviction when charges for contravening section 145 are brought against an employer.
Let me turn to the ministry's new policy on the issuance and enforcement of orders under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. As I have indicated in the House on several occasions in the past, I regard compliance with the act to be a first priority, perhaps the most important area of public administration for which I am responsible. In this respect, I am pleased to report that the ministry's new occupational health and safety orders policy has been finalized. This policy is designed to ensure early and full compliance with orders issued by ministry inspectors.
Let me now enunciate four of the most important attributes of the policy.
1. Orders will not be re-issued.
2. Compliance will be required at the earliest practicable date.
3. Specific deadlines will be set for compliance with every order issued.
4. Except in the most limited of circumstances, a prosecution will be commenced if the deadlines are not met.
The Valenite-Modco case is a classic illustration of the limitation inherent in the former government's orders policy. The new orders policy is specifically designed to address and eliminate these shortcomings.
The former prosecution policy unduly restricted the circumstances for which charges were to be considered. For example, the new policy will require prosecution to be considered where minimum age requirements for certain types of work are contravened. If the principal purpose of prosecution is deterrence, then we ought not to limit the circumstances in which prosecution might be appropriate.
While I believe the new orders and prosecution policies will significantly enhance the enforcement of the legislation, I wish to emphasize that we are also considering amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act to tighten up the existing section dealing with orders and prosecutions.
In closing, let me say I am both satisfied and convinced the initiatives I have outlined represent a substantial move forward in this government's continuing effort to enhance the protection of worker health and safety in our province.
ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE NORTHERN ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Recently, there have been questions from various organizations, groups and individuals about the Fahlgren report and the review process which has been under way in this government.
Tout d'abord, laissez-moi vous dire à nouveau que le gouvernement actuel reconnaît le caractère unique et distinct du Nord de l'Ontario, tel qu'il est présenté dans le rapport de M. Fahlgren. Notre gouvernement s'est prononcé clairement pour des changements et des améliorations sérieuses dans le Nord, comme prévu de notre détermination vis-à-vis de nos engagements.
J'ai annoncé aux membres de la Législature le 22 octobre dernier l'instauration d'un comité ministériel chargé du développement du Nord. Ce comité se rencontrera régulièrement pour examiner de près des idées d'initiatives nouvelles touchant le développement économique dans le Nord.
In addition, a $100-million northern development fund has recently been set up.
As another example of our determination to move ahead with our agenda for the north, members will recall several recent announcements by my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) regarding the management of our forest resources. In addition, he and his staff have had meetings with representatives of Indian associations, such as the Nishnawbe-Aski nation, and individual Indian bands, such as Aroland, Lansdowne House and the Whitesand band, to discuss new Indian reserves and access to natural resources.
Les députés se souviendront aussi de l'annonce récente faite par la ministre des Affaires civiques et culturelles (Mme Munro) quant à un programme spécial conçu pour rencontrer les besoins économiques spéciaux et les besoins de développement communautaire des peuples autochtones de l'Ontario.
Three million dollars has been earmarked for the Ontario native economic support program this year for projects designed to increase employment opportunities in native communities, including those in northern Ontario.
Thus it is clear that much has been done.
As for the government review process, I ask that those who wish to make formal submissions or comments on the Fahlgren report direct these to me. I will make sure all comments are redirected to the appropriate ministry. I am also asking that all submissions be in by the end of this year. This does not mean, however, a time limit on our consultation about northern issues; it is simply proposing a time limit for that phase which relates specifically to public comments on the RCNE.
Un comité de contrôle interministériel a été mis sur pied. Il est présidé par mon sous-ministre et ceux du ministère des Richesses naturelles, du ministère du Tourisme et des Loisirs et du ministère de l'Environnement. Ce comité se rencontrera régulièrement afin de se tenir informé de toutes les initiatives et de toutes les activités des différents ministères, sans jamais perdre de vue leur but premier de s'occuper, comme il faut, des intérêts et des besoins du Nord.
In addition, the new cabinet committee on northern development will be looking at the implications of the Fahlgren commission as well as other important northern issues.
Many of our plans will require much consultation with northerners. We are committed to involving the people of northern Ontario in the development of the north. Along with my colleagues, I have already begun discussions with representatives of northern groups, including native people, around northern problems and needs. We have also had discussions about new ways to ensure more effective communication with northerners regarding each region of the north.
As members know, I have proposed setting up regional development councils to provide me and the cabinet committee on northern development with advice on economic development matters.
Au cours des prochains mois, de nouvelles initiatives seront annoncées. En dernier lieu, il reviendra aux habitants du Nord de juger de la performance et du dévouement réel de notre gouvernement vis-à-vis des problèmes touchant le Nord de l'Ontario.
We are fully prepared to be measured in this way and are confident that by bringing new ideas and a spirit of true consultation to the table we will be able to meet our mutual objectives for the north.
Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. During question period on Tuesday, the minister stated that his brother's firm is not allowed to sell its products outside Ontario. I accept that. He also indicated he was taking some meat products to his daughter in Israel. Again we accept that without any difficulty.
If only he had left it at that. I cannot accept his boasting, to quote the Canadian Jewish News, "I simply defy anybody to sample Kwinter salami, hot dogs and pastrami and claim they have ever tasted anything more delicious." On Tuesday the member for York South (Mr. Rae) noted concerns expressed to him by Kwinter competitors, and no wonder. Does the minister not understand that he was clearly shilling for his brother's meat products here in Ontario?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the member's placing a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations; however, I do not see how that question relates to the ministry headed by --
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do appreciate that the other day a question was redirected from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) the other day. If the minister wishes to answer, all right. However, I draw to the member's attention that there is a little question in my mind whether that really relates to this minister's portfolio.
Mr. Runciman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If you are having difficulty with my directing that question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I will direct it to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) with respect to the performance of a minister of the crown.
Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think his performance, compared to the member's, is so beyond reproach that the member should be ashamed.
Mr. Runciman: That just confirms what I said the other day about this government.
Presumably, the minister has received guidelines concerning conflict of interest. In the view of this party, he has clearly overstepped reasonable bounds in this action. Will the Premier admit that a conflict exists and will he finally clear the air on this matter?
Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am absolutely amazed you guys cannot think of a better question.
For the honourable member, I would like to read this into the record. This is a telegram received by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology:
"As a member of the recent trade mission to Israel, I can assure you that the criticism from the Legislature is ridiculous. This was a hardworking, businesslike mission. Mr. Kwinter's presence added dignity and importance to the mission, which the Israelis recognized. My company is looking forward to significant results from the mission and appreciates Mr. Kwinter's support." It is signed by J. J. Mackay, president, NYAB Vicom Division of General Signal Ltd.
Mr. Rae: The minister may have been kibitzing with a couple of salamis and a reporter from the Canadian Jewish News and it may all have been misinterpreted and blown out of all proportion; but is the Premier aware of the fact that there are other producers of the same product as the Kwinter family name and that they have expressed a concern with respect to the activities of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations as reported in the Canadian Jewish News and subsequently in the Toronto Sun? Is the Premier aware of that fact?
What reassurance is he prepared to give today to those other producers of products, which I am sure the Premier would agree are equally fine, equally wholesome and equally tasty, but which apparently do not have the official seal of approval of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations?
Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am aware we are a province noted for our pastrami, our smoked meats or our ham. There are many fine producers. However, I think the member's colleague to his left said it all last Monday when he said, after this ridiculous exchange: "That is enough of the baloney. Let's get down to the serious business."
Mr. Runciman: It is unheard of that a minister of the crown would have his picture taken and put it in Ontario newspapers to advertise products of his family. In 1972, Premier Davis ordered, "While holding office, ministers will abstain from day-to-day participation in any business or professional activity."
Will the Premier accept the fact that his minister violated that directive, which he should have read by now? Will he admit his minister erred? Will he assure this House that this minister has no other possible conflicts outstanding?
Hon. Mr. Peterson: To my knowledge, he has no conflicts of interest. He was there doing an important job on behalf of this government. He was representing the government, leading an important trade mission. It was not as though he was being paid by the government of Taiwan to go there. He did important work. Everyone recognized that and the member knows it. Does my friend know something? If he is going to make progress around here, he has to ask a little better questions.
Mr. Bennett: Answer the question.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Runciman: This a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. As the minister will know, questions have arisen about the reasons behind his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations being chosen to head this trade mission to Israel. Will the minister tell us what criteria are used in terms of selecting the leader for trade missions such as this?
Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Thank you for the question. He was chosen for the trip because at the time I was too busy with other matters I needed to look after here in the House to go. He was the best, the most qualified person, and I felt he would do an excellent job on that trip.
Mr. Runciman: The figure of $31,176 is quoted in this morning's Toronto Star as the cost of this trade mission. Will the minister confirm the accuracy of that figure and provide us with a breakdown of the costs?
Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I am aware the figure given was close to $31,000. It is likely a little closer to $32,500. That covered a 12-day trip to Israel plus an additional three or four days spent in London, England. I have checked out the total agenda. The minister whose integrity he is questioning started to work at about 7:15 or 7:20 in the morning and worked pretty well to 12:30 a.m. every night. He was very busy and he did an excellent job for us.
Hon. Mr. Bradley: Wait until we start checking the member's trips. Check that wine that went to Kenya.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Runciman: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations obviously carries a punch clock around with him; no question about it. Since there has been no announcement of new contracts, new business or new jobs, it seems we spent a lot of money to deliver a couple of salamis.
Will the minister tell us just what this mission did accomplish?
Mr. Wildman: That is not even a crude joke.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I find it very strange that a person who was a minister from eastern Ontario, when the Premier reads a letter such as he did from one of the leaders of one of those companies in eastern Ontario talking about the excellent job he thought the minister had done and how he feels --
Mr. Runciman: It was just a coincidence.
Hon. Mr. O'Neil: No, that came unsolicited. The member should know without asking what these trade missions do and how excellent they are.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have gone through this before.
Mr. Rae: Dare I say we may go through it again, Mr. Speaker.
LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY
Mr. Rae: I have a question today for the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines. I hope he is ready for a series of questions today on what is and is not happening in the north. He was in Sudbury very recently and was quoted as saying in the Sudbury Star at the end of October 1985, "In so far as the Sudbury situation is concerned, we will try to put everything together by next week and will try to do something." That is what he was quoted as saying in the Sudbury Star in a very favourable editorial headed, "`Next Week' Push to Boost Sudbury."
The minister will know that Inco has indicated it is trying to lay off as many as 1,200 workers and has offered an early retirement program that has been taken up by roughly only 500 workers. He will be aware of the developments in world nickel markets and of the very real problems facing the workers in the Sudbury basin.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Rae: Will the minister require that company to come before the Legislature of this province and justify its decision to continue to lay off workers year after year in the Sudbury basin?
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: The answer I gave in Sudbury, that I would have an announcement next week, was in response to the fact that we were meeting with the federal government, the company and the regional government to work on a scheme for Sudbury. To date, I have met at least three or four times with the company and I have met with the chairman of the region of Sudbury and the union. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) has done the same thing with the same people and with Ottawa.
We are very close to establishing a fund for Sudbury and we are trying to find a solution for this problem. When it comes time, if it is legal that we bring those people over here, I will, but I do not know all the laws on that, so we will see.
Mr. Rae: I am sure the minister would not want it to be said that the snail was about to become the symbol of the Liberal government of Ontario. The minister made a statement at the end of October saying it was going to be done in a week. We have workers and their families involved. In 1971, there were 18,000 workers at Inco and today that number is well below 8,000.
Through the powers he has as minister, will he convince the cabinet that there has to be a justification of Inco's decision before this Legislature? We have to be able to get at those figures, to get at what is going on and to require, once and for all, that this haemorrhaging of the economy and of those jobs finally comes to an end in the province.
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First, I am not God. If the member is God, he should not be here. We are not alone in this negotiation. The member should know that it is not only up to the province; it is up to the federal government and other departments to move. If we are so slow, it is funny that he is still in opposition and we are here. That is the difference.
Second, at every cabinet meeting in the last three weeks we have discussed the Sudbury issue, and this morning we spent more than half an hour on it. It is first on the agenda for my ministry, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, and we are going to do something. The member always has a question. It is easy for him to ask a question such as that, but we have got to put it together with the people of Sudbury, and that is what we are doing. He should wait a little longer and we will have some results.
Mr. Gordon: Surely the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines is aware that the welfare budget in Sudbury at present after seven months is already $1.5 million over budget and that there are many unemployed workers in Sudbury who are employable but who right now are on welfare because the Liberal government consistently refuses to come up with programs. When is it going to come up with a program to help those workers who are unemployed, on welfare --
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Gordon: This is not a comedy hour.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Gordon: When is the minister going to come up with a program for those workers who are employable, who are on welfare and who are between the ages of 24 and 50?
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I will have to say this in French, because je ne comprends plus rien dans cette affaire-là.
Premièrement, je ne peux pas comprendre que le député de Sudbury mette la question. Si cette question venait de l'autre bord, du Nouveau Parti démocratique, je l'accepterais parce qu'eux autres sont comme nous autres, on est des nouveaux ici. Mais ce gouvernement-là, qui était là pendant 42 ans, puis en plus depuis les dernières années qui savent ce qui se passe à Sudbury, je leur demande ce qu'ils ont fait pendant 42 ans, ce qu'ils ont fait depuis 20 ans à Sudbury.
Mr. Rae: I hope the minister will know that a meeting was held with the Premier on September 27 by a number of people from Local 6500 of the United Steelworkers of America in Ontario. One of the major issues addressed at that meeting was the fact that a pattern of persistent scheduled overtime has gone on for a very long time, and now the company is suggesting a dramatic reduction in the work week. What is the minister going to do to resolve this very real problem of the company abusing its employees in this way?
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour to answer this question, please.
Hon. Mr. Wrye: Unlike the previous government, we are going to tackle the problem of overtime, and we already are tackling it. At my direction --
Hon. Mr. Wrye: The members opposite should just listen. They may learn something.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening and I just cannot seem to get anything. Everyone is so quiet.
Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to be helpful, because this is a very important issue. At my direction the employment standards branch has received from Inco, Falconbridge and a number of other employers, including Stelco, the amount of overtime worked, I believe, up to August 31 of this year.
If I may use Inco and Falconbridge, taking those figures over eight months and extrapolating them out to one year, it would appear that over and above 48 hours a week which, as the leader of the third party will know, is the mandatory overtime period, the overtime permits have allowed or would allow the two companies, during the course of a year, to employ workers an additional 100,000 extra hours approximately over and above the 48-hour week.
Obviously, that is a matter of no small concern to this minister and this government. I am currently reviewing with my officials what our next step ought to be in trying to work through this entire problem, because there are some legitimate emergency concerns, but we want to address the core problem. The members will see the next step in a series of initiatives coming forward in the next short while.
ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE NORTHERN ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines with regard to the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment, which was established eight years ago and reported three months ago.
Since that commission was established to devise ways to transfer some of the decision-making power with regard to economic development to northerners, is the minister satisfied with his statement today? Really all he is telling us is that there is further study and that he has established a number of consultative processes for further study of this report. Is it appropriate that this report should be studied by a committee of bureaucrats who were largely responsible for the decisions the commissioner was criticizing?
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: My friend the member for Algoma should know the committees I am forming will recommend, not only to the bureaucrats but also to him and to us, a new industrial or economic strategy for the north while at the same time studying the tourism side of it and trying to protect what we have right now. The member heard me say last week, and I was serious, that those regional development committees will be in place before Christmas.
I also want to assure my friend that the bureaucrats who are working on it are not doing so to put the report on the shelf and let the dust collect on it.
Mr. Laughren: Come on.
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: No, come on; we have to be fair. We are already implementing some areas of this report. We cannot do it in one day, but every day we are going ahead on it. As I said to the member earlier, we have met with the natives, and we are going to meet with them again next week. Also, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who is the minister responsible for native affairs, will meet with the natives during the week of December 16 on issues directly related to the commission.
I also want to remind the member that the native people probably do not want another commissioner. They want to deal directly with each ministry, and that door will be open to them.
Mr. Wildman: During the last election campaign, the Liberal Party campaigned on a number of initiatives in northern Ontario. For instance, it said it was going to increase the processing of ore mined in the north, establish an economic base for native people, guarantee an immediate settlement of the Grassy Narrows mercury pollution problem, improve and expand the northern road system, establish a $10-million northern education fund and regenerate the entire backlog of cutover forest land.
Since the government has not moved on most of these matters, can the minister advise us whether his southern Ontario colleagues and his southern Ontario advisers have convinced him that these matters are no longer a top priority for the Liberal government?
Mr. Davis: It is like the rest of their broken promises.
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: There is always somebody talking over there. Those people who are talking should look at what they promised for 42 years in the north and come and see what we got for 42 years. I would like to ask my friend if he was in the north before another member was in the north himself.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister has said continually that he would like to ask questions of me or members on this side of the House. I would like to assure him that we would be delighted to provide him with the answers should he ever want to ask.
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: The member for Algoma gave me this long list, and I will have to look at each budget to see which one applies -- I am sure most of it will be touched in the next six or seven months because we have another budget coming in. In addition, there is some money in the $100-million fund for the issues he has discussed.
The member also talked about the processing of ore in the north. I discussed that with another member of his party, and we are going to try to look into that too in the future.
Mr. Ramsay: Why is the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines not moving on all these Liberal promises? Why did he borrow all these issues from us only to have them stolen back by all the bureaucrats in his ministry?
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I do not know who stole what. First, I want to remind the member for Timiskaming that it is only three short months that we have been here. We are going to be here for four years. We are going to be judged four years from now on what we did for the north.
Mr. McCague: I have a question to the Treasurer, as he would expect. I note from the Treasurer's budget that he is interested in presenting to us a fair and accurate picture of the province's finances. To that end, can he tell us what the value of the increased personal income tax will be? Is it going to be $50 million, $70 million, $115 million, as one of his staff agreed was a reasonably accurate figure, or $220 million?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I cannot give the honourable member the figure right off the top of my head; I will get the precise number and report it as soon as I can.
Mr. McCague: With all due respect, that is the same answer I got from the Treasurer two weeks ago, and I thought he might have had the answer today.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. McCague: Regardless of what that figure is, can the Treasurer give us assurance today that whatever it is, he will use that to reduce the deficit of $2.2 billion?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I now know what the member is talking about. I thought he was referring to the annualized revenue from the change in the income tax that is now before the Legislature and has had second reading approval. He is referring to the reports that come from the Department of National Revenue in Ottawa as to how effective the revenues are on the basis of the income tax in the collection agreement we have with the government of Canada.
From time to time, the government of Canada reports to us on the flow of revenue, based on the income tax collection agreement. With the buoyancy of the economy of Ontario, its most recent report projected that the revenues would be higher than expected. All we can go on are the projections that come from the government of Canada.
The member will recall that a year ago the province's revenues from this source fell short of expectations by close to $700 million and the projections were very wrong, as wrong as they have ever been. These are the responsibilities of the government of Canada and not the Treasury of Ontario.
Actually, we are very glad to hear from the government of Canada from time to time, as we have, th at the revenues are higher than expected. It is their expectation, not ours, and the fact that the revenues are higher than they predicted is certainly to our benefit and an indication of the buoyancy of the economy of this province.
Mr. Martel: I have a new question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines. In his presentation --
Mr. Martel: He liked it. We did not have to ask those guys questions because they did not do anything for the north.
In its presentation to the select committee on economic affairs, the Ministry of Northern Affairs and Mines admitted we have lost half the jobs in the iron ore and nickel industries in the past nine years. The ministry played down those figures by suggesting those job loses will be compensated in part by the new boom in gold.
Is it the government's policy to respond to resource busts in iron and nickel by waiting for some other resource to be discovered? Does the minister really think the answer to job loss in iron ore and nickel will be offset by the new jobs created in Hemlo?
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: On this one, I think my friend the member for Sudbury East is right. There are some jobs in other mines in the community, but they probably are just replacing a few being lost at other places. In the north we will have to have a new direction and let the new government --
An hon. member: A new government.
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Do not worry about us; we are going to be here longer than they were, I am sure. I am not worried about those guys.
We will have to work together to bring new industries to replace those jobs that are being lost in the iron ore sector and in the mines around Sudbury. I am sure, as the honourable member says, there will not be enough gold mined to replace all those jobs; so we will have to work together to find other kinds of industry to move north. That is going to be a hard job, because the Conservative government tried for 42 years and did not do it. We will have to try other kinds of incentives. I am looking at transportation and hydro as incentives. I think those two should be a tool to help us to survive in that great north of ours.
Mr. Martel: With the creation of the Ministry of Northern Affairs in 1977-78, I moved an amendment to the act suggesting the government should establish what we call, for want of a better name, a tomorrow fund; it would be a tax on resources, forming a permanent basis for funding economic development in the north.
The minister will be aware that Fahlgren made a similar recommendation, that there should be a permanent financial package in place using a percentage of underground mining taxes and a stumpage fee to provide a permanent basis for funding. I want to impress on the government that it has to be put in place permanently to create some stability for economic development in the north.
Is the government prepared now to introduce that -- not $100 million over five years, but a permanent policy with a permanent fund for economic development, using a portion of the taxes from the resource industry?
Mr. Speaker: Does the minister want to redirect the question?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Was my friend asking me or him?
Mr. Martel: He is redirecting to the Treasurer.
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I redirect to the Treasurer.
Mr. Martel: Who is on first?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines redirecting that question to the Treasurer?
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Does my friend want the short answer?
Mr. Martel: I want a real answer.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will not give the short answer. I have already said, although I have not researched this as carefully as I intend to, that the north raises from its revenues on resources more money than is spent up there by this government. I want to make a careful assessment of that, not that this should be the basis of a decision, because it is an asset enjoyed by the whole of the province; that is true.
Also, the commitment in the budget to the continuation and strengthening of the northern development fund, particularly under the leadership of my colleague who is under such strict questioning today, is a tremendous advantage and a breakthrough in policy for the development of the north.
It grieves all of us to notice that the present economic downturn, which the whole country has suffered in the past few years, has stayed turned down in the north and, as a matter of fact, appears to becoming even worse than it was before. With the very rapid decline in the price of nickel and other base metals, we can see the situation is becoming even more serious.
The minister has indicated the policy development in the government is well under way, not that there is enough money to make prosperity come to all communities and for all families in the north -- we wish there were -- but at least to provide the targeted economic, industrial and business stimulation that we hope is going to provide some assistance. That is the answer to the question.
Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Sudbury, and I presume it flows out of the reply by the Treasurer.
Mr. Gordon: It certainly does flow out of the reply by the Treasurer. The members on the left, and most of the members in the House, realize that if we are to have true economic development in the north, we are going to have to have a policy emanating from the Treasurer's good offices that development will be channelled into the north and that it will have to be a policy of this government that manufacturing is going to be put into northern Ontario.
Is the Treasurer prepared to make that kind of commitment? We have seen money poured in the past, but it is not just money that is needed; what is needed is a policy commitment. That is what everybody in this House is driving at. Will the Treasurer do it?
Hon Mr. Nixon: The honourable member was probably correct when he said that in the past he saw money poured in, without policy direction. In many respects, I suppose that has been wasteful.
The member for Sudbury East and the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) brought in a delegation from Sudbury about six weeks ago. The regional chairman and some other very important people from the community presented one of the most impressive briefs, by way of the economic situation and projections, that I have seen in my short time as Treasurer. It certainly impressed me. I believe the same presentation has been given to my colleague the minister from the north and the caucus from the north. We have been impressed with this.
They pointed out, for example, that although one of the great new programs brought forward by this government to provide employment for people under the age of 24 is acceptable and important in Sudbury, it does not hit the mark of the requirement there, where the huge level of unemployment is in the major and standard work force. Something other than that, something in addition, is required.
We are aware of the situation and intend to finance programs with policy, direction and leadership. It is those last three things that have been lacking for so many years.
TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Sargent: On behalf of the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock), I want to tell the House we are very glad the Grey county teachers' strike was settled last night. I want to pay tribute to the minister for his --
Mr. Sargent: Hold it. I pay tribute to him for his round-the-clock surveillance of the situation for 50 days --
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the member it is question period.
Mr. Sargent: In view of the fact that the minister inherited this archaic situation from the former Tory government, will he consider scrapping the whole procedure and give us a game plan that will not force our students to take the flak for the teachers' salary process?
Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to thank my friend and colleague the member for Grey-Bruce for his question and for drawing to the attention of the House that last evening in his great city the matter of the secondary school dispute in Grey county was resolved by both parties at the local level.
The honourable member knows that in the past number of years we have developed considerable experience with the legislation, Bill 100. While it is not a perfect model and while I have indicated to my friend from Mount Forest on an earlier occasion this fall that I would be prepared to entertain the advice of members in the upcoming estimates of the Ministry of Education in the standing committee on social development, I feel it is very important to indicate, on my behalf and that of the government, that we have a legislative mechanism which by and large has worked very well; it has resolved vastly more than it has left unsettled.
In conclusion, I was delighted to be told late last evening that those two parties in Grey had done what so many other parties in so many other communities across this province have done; that is, respond to the community concern and settle those matters at the local level between themselves.
Mr. Ferraro: I share in the joy of my friend the member for Grey-Bruce and I am hopeful I will soon be able to smile as widely as he is smiling today. Not that my friend ever needs support in this House; far from it. The feisty individual can usually go it alone. I share his concerns about the need to look at the workings of Bill 100 and the functions of the Education Relations Commission. It would not do any harm at all to look at them.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think it would do a bit of harm to ask a supplementary. Please do.
Mr. Ferraro: I hope the Ministry of Education will consider my friend's request and also a plan for a submission from the University of Guelph as to the effects of a strike on the community. Will he consider it?
Hon. Mr. Conway: In answer to the member for Wellington South, yes, I would be prepared to entertain the submissions and constructive advice of all members of this House on the matter of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, Bill 100. I have so indicated on earlier occasions.
In addition, I would note that four or five years ago the Commission to Review the Collective Negotiating Process between Teachers and School Boards -- as the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) pointed out so appropriately in the debate Tuesday afternoon -- looked at the workings of Bill 100. We should perhaps use that as a good focus for the discussion.
I would be most anxious to accommodate the interests of all honourable members in this connection, knowing the concern of people like the member for Wellington South.
Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am very pleased the strike in Grey has been settled and I hope the meeting today with the Wellington teachers and trustees will also be fruitful. I thank the minister for setting up the meeting.
Will he and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) now please set up an all-party committee to review Bill 100 and the Matthews report to see if we cannot improve it to better protect the rights of students?
Hon. Mr. Conway: There is an all-party committee of this Legislature which has a mandate to look at these matters and that is the social development committee. I repeat that I would be most anxious to discuss that matter at that committee at any time the members might find it useful.
I must say to the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, I would be interested to know here in the late fall of 1985 what the view of the official opposition is with respect to the fundamentals of that legislation.
Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. There is a grave concern that the interests of injured workers will be jeopardized in the dispute between the Ontario Medical Association and the Workers' Compensation Board. Can the minister assure this House that he will safeguard those injured workers?
Hon. Mr. Wrye: The Ontario Medical Association has indicated it is having some difficulty with the amount of money we have offered it and with the way we are finalizing the policy the WCB offered to the OMA which the former government agreed to.
I note with interest the OMA has made some comments which give me some concern. I believe the administration of the Workers' Compensation Board, under Dr. Elgie, has put a reasonable offer to the OMA. I am still hopeful the matter can be resolved amicably. We are monitoring the situation very closely.
Mr. Gordon: As the minister is aware, every day this dispute goes on, injured workers' rights are being threatened. Will he give us an assurance that he will try to move things along and stop this from becoming a very bad divorce case? Will he have Dr. Elgie and the president of the OMA, Dr. Myers, get together to discuss this and try to resolve this dispute?
Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member will know that this dispute stems from an agreement between the board and the OMA whereby the fees payable to doctors were to reach 95 per cent of the OMA rate in the fee schedule by April 1, 1985, if memory serves me correctly.
As a result of activities the previous government undertook in reducing the OMA fee schedule by two per cent, the Workers' Compensation Board took a similar action. That is what started the dispute. The matter has been aggravated by the fact that the offer the OMA has received from the board of five or six per cent this year, if taken with all the previous offers, would allow that 95 per cent figure to be reached by the OMA. In my view, the OMA has been unreasonable in rejecting that offer and instead wants 12.5 per cent for last year and the 11.5 or 11 per cent that was originally agreed to this year, in spite of the fact the individual-year agreements were to reach a 95 per cent figure.
I cannot give that assurance because the OMA has these matters in its power to some extent, but we hope --
Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.
Mr. Laughren: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources on yet another northern problem. The minister will know that the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment commented that an average of 42,000 hectares of productive forest land were lost during the 1970s due to lack of regeneration. His party promised to address that problem in its policy on northern Ontario earlier this year.
Could the minister tell me what plans he has to regenerate this backlog? How much of it will be done this year?
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I really cannot say how much will be done this year, but I can say this government and this ministry are going to pursue the new arrangements with forest management agreements as a very high priority to make certain we get the regeneration up to the reforestation that will ultimately lead to sustained yield. That is the program we are putting in place.
It is going to take some time. I shall not attempt to suggest otherwise. The member will, very properly, be fully apprised and will participate in the decisions that will yield to sustained yield.
Mr. Laughren: The minister will know that his party's policy on northern Ontario published earlier this year stated the government was going to have a new forest production policy that would set targets because of the wood supply it is anticipated we will need in the years to come. The previous government had not updated its forest production policy for 13 years. Could the minister tell us if he has now finally arrived at a new forest production policy, which his party promised to do? Just what is it?
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I cannot say that has been done at this time. I am suggesting we have all the intentions and a commitment to do it. The first thing that is being done is the assessment of the numbers I have been given by Dr. Baskerville. Having made some kind of assessment as to what I am inheriting from the government of 40 years, I will be more properly able to tell the member what my restrictions are going to be and how soon I can accomplish my goal.
Mr. Hennessy: I direct my questions to the Minister of Health. Has he come up with any specific program and date on the implementation of the cost assistance for health travel for people in northwestern Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Elston: I am pleased to have that question brought to my attention and by the indication made by the member to my parliamentary assistant, the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward), that this question would be forthcoming. Naturally, the gentleman has been invited to be with the member for Wentworth North when he attends at a function in Thunder Bay on Monday next, and we expect to have the program available and details to be announced at that time.
Mr. Hennessy: I would appreciate the invitation in writing, not verbally.
Mr. Breaugh: Who is going to read it for the member?
Mr. Hennessy: The member who asked that will.
Will the members from northwestern Ontario be advised of the details of the program and the time and place of the announcement by the minister? I would just like to know for sure. I would not like to come back to Toronto and find out the announcement was made in Thunder Bay and the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) and I had not known about it.
Hon. Mr. Elston: Given the way we have handled the development of this project and the way I have announced programs in Thunder Bay before, the member can rest assured that an invitation expressed to him verbally or in writing, either way, is a genuine invitation for him to be with us. I have already spoken to the member for Port Arthur. I know the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) has been contacted by the member for Wentworth North.
We extend the invitation. If the member wants it in writing, I will get him the exact time and place. For sure, it will be on Monday in his fair city and the details will be available for all the people across Ontario to review at that time. I will be writing a note as soon as this question is finished, to invite him formally to attend at the Thunder Bay conference. I am sure my parliamentary assistant will be able to provide him with the exact time and date, and a chair to attend at that function on Monday.
The invitation is extended by me orally now and I will write it down for him in about two minutes and send it across the floor.
Mr. Foulds: I would be glad to send the member an invitation myself.
Has the minister hammered out the difficulties he spoke to me about, I think about five weeks ago? Are all the details of the plan now in place?
Hon. Mr. Elston: A round of consultations has taken place under the auspices of the member for Wentworth North -- and those have been considerable -- with members of the northern caucus of the New Democratic Party, members of the official opposition party in northern Ontario, various people in this party and then with all kinds of people who have an interest in northern Ontario.
We have been able to hammer out a workable program, the details of which will be made available to members on Monday as well, and I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, that we will address most of the questions raised by people such as the member for Port Arthur, who has had a long-standing interest in this project. I think we have met most of them, but we are reviewing the implementation of the program and we will be looking at it from an ongoing standpoint.
Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines. He has announced he is planning to introduce a bill this month that will change the name of his ministry to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. What will this change do to develop secondary industry and jobs for the 45,000 people in northern Ontario who are unemployed now?
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: By changing the name, we are trying to give a new direction to this ministry. It was a dream of mine, in consultation with the people who work in northern affairs and the people of the north. Before northern affairs was in the east, when people talked about northern affairs they always thought it was in the west, in the riding of the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier). I realize that was not true, it was a false perception, because at the end, during the last three or four years, we in the east were trying to get our share of it. But now the people in the north want a new name, and I decided to go that route.
As for job creation, I will ask my friend the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) to wait. We are going to start slowly to implement some programs. The old program will exist together with my new program. Early next year we are going to have new direction by way of a new program. The northern Ontario regional development program will stay. AgriNorth will be there, and the Ontario Development Corp. and the small business development corporation are there, but we are working with the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, and the Ministry of Natural Resources to find new programs to create new jobs.
Mr. Morin-Strom: I am afraid the people of Ontario do not want to wait to hear what the minister's proposal is. We would far prefer to be involved in setting a new direction for northern Ontario. Since the minister's intention, as he has just stated, is to change the direction of his ministry and what the government of Ontario will be doing in the north -- a change that will affect all the people of northern Ontario -- will he give northerners the opportunity to have input into this change by sending the bill to change the name of his ministry to a committee that will hold hearings across northern Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I don't have to send the bill to committee; I am going to be sworn in next week.
SENIOR CITIZENS' SERVICES
Mr. Cousens: My question is for the Minister of Health and I will try to squeeze it in so he can give me a quick answer. It has to do with North York General Hospital's need for a seniors' health centre. There are 60 beds waiting for approval for chronic care and nursing home care. It is a promise he made during the election campaign. When will he be making an announcement about licensing those beds?
Hon. Mr. Elston: Is the honourable gentleman quite clear on the question? He is speaking of chronic care and he also is talking about nursing home beds. Before the question can be adequately addressed, maybe the member would like to provide me with more detailed information as to what he really is asking, so that we can answer properly.
Mr. Laughren: I have a petition, as follows:
"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:
"That the practice of renting out provincial parks be stopped and that, as outstanding leases expire, the Ministry of Natural Resources resume direct management of the parks."
More than 20,000 signed the petition.
ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Mr. McGuigan: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with regard to funding. I will not read it, as many others have been presented before. There are about 100 names on it.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. McCague from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:
That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the office of the chief election officer be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:
Office of the chief election officer program, $287,000.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. R. F. Johnston from the standing committee on social development presented the following interim report:
On July 9, 1985, Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act, was referred to the standing committee on social development for public hearings and clause-by-clause consideration.
The committee wishes to inform the House that the public hearings on Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act, have been concluded at this time and that any further witnesses speaking on the bill will appear at the invitation of the committee. The committee also wishes to advise the House that clause-by-clause consideration of the bill has been postponed until the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled on the issues that have been referred to the court.
Mr. Speaker: Shall the report be received and adopted? No? It is just being presented.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Haggerty from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:
Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:
Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the County of Elgin.
Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:
Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Belleville General Hospital;
Bill Pr22, An Act to revive 404 K-W Wing Royal Canadian Air Force Association;
Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of Brampton;
Bill Pr30, An Act to revive the Balfour Beach Association.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Monday, November 25, and Tuesday, November 26, for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 1, An Act to revise the Family Law Reform Act.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that in the standing committee on public accounts the estimates of the Office of the Provincial Auditor be considered for three hours.
Motion agreed to.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. McFadden moved, seconded by Mr. Davis, first reading of Bill 59, An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. McFadden: This bill would amend the Residential Tenancies Act to ensure that tenants in nonprofit housing projects are afforded the same protection against unjustified rent increases as tenants in other forms of rental accommodation in Ontario.
ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL CLERKS AND TREASURERS OF ONTARIO ACT
Mr. Mancini moved, seconded by Mr. Reycraft, first reading of Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Mancini: This bill provides for the continuation of the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario as a corporation incorporated under a special act of the Legislature.
Under the bill, members of the association will be given the exclusive right to use certain designations and abbreviations thereof as set out in section 7.
ONTARIO LAND INFORMATION ACT
Mr. Martel moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, first reading of Bill 60, An Act respecting the Register of Ontario Land Information.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Martel: This bill would authorize the creation of a public register showing the ownership of all privately held land in Ontario, the use of the land and whether its owner is a resident or nonresident of Canada.
Every owner, purchaser or vendor of an interest in land in Ontario would be subject to a reporting requirement.
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. R. F. Johnston, first reading of Bill 61, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Mackenzie: The proposed bill increases the vacation period to which an employee is entitled under the act. Currently, the act provides a two-week vacation period for each employee, and that does not vary with the amount of employment service, a position that leaves us behind many countries.
This bill would provide for two weeks in each year upon the completion of 12 months of employment, three weeks in each year upon the completion of 60 months of employment, four weeks in each year upon the completion of 120 months of employment and five weeks in each year upon the completion of 240 months of employment.
ONTARIO SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
Mrs. Grier moved, seconded by Mr. D. S. Cooke, first reading of Bill 62, An Act respecting Ontario Safe Drinking Water, 1985.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs. Grier: This bill is intended to protect and enhance drinking water quality in Ontario. It provides for the making of regulations to set maximum permissible levels of contaminants and provides opportunities for public involvement in the making of these regulations.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish to table the answers to questions 79, 80, 84, 93 and 95 in Orders and Notices and the interim answers to questions 85 to 92, inclusive [see Hansard for Friday, November 22].
ORDERS OF THE DAY
PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS
HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Pierce moved second reading of Bill 52, An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act, 1983.
Mr. Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes and may reserve any of that time for the latter part of the debate.
Mr. Pierce: I will reserve the time I have left at the end of my remarks to make some closing comments.
Today I wish to present a bill to the House for consideration. It is long overdue that we speak out on this critical issue and set about correcting some of the serious inadequacies and loopholes that exist in the health care afforded to our children.
My bill deals with the occurrences and documentation of severe side-effects which can result from the vaccination of infants and children. Some members may not be aware that the routine vaccination called DPT, diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus, given to almost every one of our children, can lead to convulsions, brain damage and even death.
As a member of the riding in which eight children are thought to have suffered permanent mental retardation and physical handicap as a result of this inoculation, I feel compelled to see that something is done about this nightmare.
We need to take a close look at DPT. While it is necessary to curb the spread of infectious diseases, it is also necessary to make parents and doctors aware of the potential adverse reactions which can occur from such vaccinations. Most important, we must have in place a system of mandatory reporting of adverse reactions, so we can develop a complete and accurate picture of the benefits and risks of DPT.
For the benefit of those members who may not be familiar with the issues surrounding the DPT vaccine, I will offer some background. Canadian children are routinely given four DPT shots in infancy -- at two, four, six and 18 months -- and then a booster shot at four to six years.
While the diphtheria and tetanus components are mandatory and nonproblematic, the pertussis component, better known as whooping cough vaccine, has been responsible for severe reactions, including high fever, seizures, inflammation of the brain, permanent brain damage and sometimes death. Immunization against whooping cough is not mandatory. Parents have the right to refuse shots, and many are exercising this right.
Federal government estimates, based on foreign studies, indicate that one in 1,750 shots of the pertussis vaccine will cause seizures; one in 110,000 will create a temporary nervous-system disorder, and one in every 310,000 shots will lead to permanent brain damage. These odds may seem low to members and myself, but the risk may be significantly higher because British children, upon whom these statistics are based, receive a somewhat different vaccine from that for North Americans, and North Americans are vaccinated at a later age when the nervous system is less vulnerable to drug-induced damage.
My riding is one of the smallest in Ontario, with roughly 30,000 people, yet there are eight children who have suffered severe, adverse reactions to pertussis. To me, that indicates that the calculations of risk may well be inaccurate. Every riding might have children like these. I urge my fellow members to take a close look for vaccine-damaged children in their own constituencies.
This issue was brought to my attention by the parents of Melanie Tetu of Stratton, Ontario. Melanie was born in March 1976. In June of that year, she was given her first DPT vaccination. She cried continuously for three days. Doctors prescribed a sedative drug used for allergies and attributed her problem to teething.
After the second shot, Melanie was jumpy, had stiff limbs and screamed constantly. Again, she was given a sedative for teething. After her third shot in August 1976, her parents became concerned about Melanie's slow development. Doctors said she was lazy. By Christmas, she was gagging on her food.
In May of the following year, she was diagnosed as having cerebral palsy, mild seizure with some brain damage. At five years Melanie was given a DPT booster. She had had a seizure one week earlier and the doctors were aware of this. A child with a history of seizure should not be given any needles. Melanie's parents feel that more brain damage was caused by the booster.
Patrick Rothwell of Burlington, Ontario, is six years old, blind, mentally retarded and speechless. His father said that no one ever told him of the possibility of an adverse reaction to DPT.
Donna Payne of Etobicoke believes her daughter Amanda died last winter after and because of pertussis vaccination. Amanda went into a seizure eight hours after the vaccine, was rushed to a hospital and treated for epilepsy. Like others, Mrs. Payne says that she was ill-informed.
Steven Ventress of Oshawa suffered seizures after his second and third DPT shots. Doctors at the hospital blamed it on an ear infection, high temperature or chest infection. No one ever suggested it might be a reaction to the vaccine, even though Mrs. Ventress repeatedly asked if this was so.
In 20 minutes I cannot possibly recount all the heartbreaking stories of children who, despite the fact that they showed obvious adverse reactions to the pertussis vaccine, were given subsequent DPT shots. Federal summaries of 366 suspected adverse reactions to DPT vaccine reported in the first six months of 1984 point to a problem of repeated vaccination of high-risk children.
The issue at hand is not whether the pertussis vaccine should be routinely given to children. We all know the protective benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks. Whooping cough can cause mental retardation, inflammation of the brain and other serious complications. One needs only to look at charts that estimate the annual number of cases of whooping cough and permanent injury that would result with and without present immunization programs to realize the benefits of DPT outweigh the risks.
No one questions the need of a vaccine like DPT, but given the risks of paralysis, brain damage and death, the questions that might be addressed concern the levels of effort to find a safer drug and to make parents and doctors aware of the dangers and side-effects directly attributable to the vaccine. Where have the efforts been to make mandatory the reporting of adverse side-effects to the local medical officer of health?
There has been considerable activity on the part of the media and organizations of concerned parents to increase the awareness of the public and medical professions about the dangers of pertussis. Dissatisfied Parents Together, which in short form is DPT, an organization concerned with children who have been damaged by the DPT vaccine, brings families of victims together to warn parents of risk.
The Toronto-based Committee Against Compulsory Vaccination is trying to educate doctors and parents about bad reactions and the need for compensation of damaged children. They argue that parents are not being told of the dangers associated with the vaccine and that some doctors are unaware of what is happening to their patients after shots.
These groups allege that some members of the medical profession know the risks of permanent brain damage but seldom tell parents for fear they will refuse to have their children immunized. Dr. Gold, chief of infectious diseases at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, has stated that one of the problems has been the failure to inform parents adequately about the side effects. Federal reports listing suspected adverse reactions to vaccines indicate that some doctors and nurses have not been properly educated about the dangers of whooping cough shots and are not screening out the high-risk infants.
It should be clear to my fellow members that there are significant and pressing problems surrounding the use of the DPT vaccine. Action needs to be taken in several areas. There must be an increased effort to inform all concerned parties about the risks of the vaccine, about which children are more vulnerable to adverse reactions and under what conditions subsequent shots must not be given.
There is absolutely no excuse for a child to suffer permanent brain damage because of a lack of communication. Although there has been some action on the part of the Ontario Medical Association to promote awareness, this has not gone far enough. Inoculations are still being given to children whose adverse reactions are misinterpreted as teething problems. High-risk infants such as those with a history of seizures continue to slip through the screening process. My bill will alert the medical establishment and the public that there is a concern about DPT vaccine and that Ontarians need to know more about its effects.
In my mind and in the opinion of concerned parents and medical practitioners, the very central and most crucial issue in the whole question of pertussis is the lack of any coherent and compulsory system for the recording and tracking of incidents of severe adverse reactions to the DPT vaccine. It is the issue of reporting that my bill seeks to address.
In the words of Donna Middlehurst, a lawyer and co-founder of the lobby group Dissatisfied Parents Together: "You hear the claim that the benefits exceed the risks, and the statistics are offered on how whooping cough and related deaths have dropped since vaccination began. I am not suggesting that these numbers are irrelevant, but there is a part of the equation that is missing."
The current system in Ontario involves voluntary reporting of adverse reactions. The Ontario Ministry of Health fact sheet on DPT reads, "If a person who received the vaccine gets sick and visits a doctor, hospital or clinic within four weeks after the vaccination, please report it to your local health agency." Similarly, a federal government publication put out by the Department of National Health and Welfare indicates that health personnel should report adverse reactions, especially severe or unusual reactions, to the local health departments.
There is no federal legislation compelling doctors to report vaccine-related reactions to federal health officials. Dr. Stan Acres of the communicable diseases division of the Department of National Health and Welfare admits that we should be paying more attention to adverse reactions. Perhaps we have been a bit delinquent on the issue of follow-up.
Clearly, we are operating in the dark with DPT vaccine. A book is available in all bookstores and should be read by each member of this Legislature, because it provides an insight into what is taking place in the area of vaccinations. The name of the book is DPT, A Shot in the Dark, by Harris L. Coulter and Barbara Loe Fisher.
The reporting of adverse reactions is so inconsistent and medical records so often incomplete that it is impossible to know how any Canadian children have been damaged by the vaccine. As we can all imagine, the system of voluntary reporting cannot and does not provide reliable incident rates of severe reaction to pertussis vaccine.
Our federal estimates are based on foreign studies because there has never been a comprehensive, long-term study of Canadian children with severe reactions to pertussis shots. Why? Because there is no compulsory reporting system that could generate data that would permit calculation of these incident rates.
In Sweden, physicians have for years been required to fill out annual questionnaires on vaccine reactions. Perhaps that is why Swedish estimates of pertussis vaccine reactions, deaths and permanent damage have always been higher than those of other countries.
We do not keep track of the numbers of children who are being permanently brain-damaged by pertussis vaccine, yet we continue to vaccinate our children with hardly a second thought.
My bill, which will amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act to require doctors, nurses and pharmacists to make reports to the local medical officer of health, will build up the confidence we need to make a sound judgement about the use of DPT.
As it stands, compliance with the voluntary reporting of immunization complications is less than optimal. Many physicians are not cognizant of the clinical features of adverse reactions and, further, both physicians and manufacturers have been held liable for damage suits. These factors undoubtedly discourage reporting.
Often the doctor who administers the vaccine is not the same doctor who is called to examine a baby suffering from an adverse reaction. Doctors observing these reactions must feel a certain level of discomfort in seeing damage done by a procedure which they recommend to hundreds of parents, and may therefore be loath to blame the procedure.
Medical officers of health are in a predicament because they do not want to publish reaction figures which might discourage the acceptance of an immunization procedure which they consider on the whole is worth while.
Without the power of the law requiring the reporting and the recording of occurrences of severe reactions of pertussis vaccine, health officials will be able to continue to pass the buck of responsibility and children will continue to fall between the cracks of medical bureaucracy.
There has been a tragic breakdown in communication. The true risk of pertussis vaccine will be known only after all the links of the reporting chain have been repaired -- from parents to doctors and from doctors to health agencies responsible for setting vaccine policies.
For a reporting system to work properly, doctors must be compelled to report reactions, and a central record-keeping agency must be ready to receive these reports. Neither requirement exists in Ontario, and with no legal requirement for a doctor to do so, is it any wonder that parents doubt the reliability of the federal government's analysis of the risks of pertussis vaccination?
Without making it mandatory to report adverse reactions to DPT shots, we run the risk of inoculating our children within the framework of a grossly inadequate picture of the dangers of DPT.
My bill requiring the reporting of severe reactions to DPT will provide a system that generates comprehensive statistics so an accurate benefit-risk analysis can be done. This system can prevent children with prior adverse reactions from being subjected to further harm. It can flag suspicious clusters of reactions to warn doctors and manufacturers should a particular lot of vaccine be questionable and perhaps withdrawn from the market. A system such as this would have prevented the irretractable damage done to the eight children in my riding.
I cannot emphasize enough how important and how long overdue is legislation such as the bill I introduced today. We cannot continue to operate in ignorance when the health of Ontario's children is at stake. We must know the facts about pertussis vaccine.
With these remarks, I invite my colleagues to comment on this proposal and join me in its endorsement.
I would like to reserve the remaining time for my closing remarks.
Mr. D. S. Cooke: I will be very brief on this bill. First, I want to say that I appreciate the fact our colleague has brought this issue forward, but the manner in which he has brought this bill before us, with statistics that are highly questionable and put forward almost as a scare-tactic approach to what is a very basic component of our health care system, is not a particularly helpful method by which to discuss vaccination in Ontario.
I will be supporting the bill, because I think one of the important aspects is that there is a lack of information in our country about what exactly is the reaction to this vaccine. There have been some studies done in other countries. There has been public concern expressed around the world about the diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine. The main problem has been a lack of data on how widespread the reaction to this vaccine is. Reports of major problems have caused major controversies in other countries, Britain and Japan being notable.
In Sweden, originally there was a suggestion that one in 6,000 children immunized was left with brain damage. I believe that figure was quoted by the honourable member today. However, later, through better analysis as to what actually had caused brain damage in these children, the real figure was put at one in 50,000. By the time these true figures had come out, public confidence in the vaccine had dropped so significantly it is my understanding it was eventually withdrawn in Sweden.
Given the reaction and comments the member has made today, we run the risk of decreasing rather than increasing public confidence for this type of health activity.
In Britain, a study was set up to obtain the necessary information to evaluate the vaccine. The main findings were that seizures and comas within one week of administering the vaccine were one in 110,000 and permanent brain damage occurred in one in 310,000. Britain maintains, and I agree, that this vaccine is absolutely essential and should be maintained as part of the health care system.
We must not discourage the use of DPT vaccine. We had lengthy discussions in this Legislature when legislation was changed a year or two ago by the then Conservative Health minister, making vaccines virtually mandatory in this province, with severe fines and withdrawal of children from schools being proposed by the government at that time. The member should realize his Health minister then felt very strongly that vaccination should be mandatory in this province.
Doctors should have to inform the medical officer of health of any severe reaction to DPT vaccine. This is simply a good tool for evaluating the vaccine. Panic reactions demonstrate the need for continuing to collect data and supplying it to the public. Reporting would enable the medical officer of health to track whether there is a problem with a particular batch of the vaccine and carry out tests. This is important, since adverse reactions to the vaccine may be due to problems such as faulty manufacture, storage, handling or administration.
Reporting will contribute much-needed information to aid in the development of better-quality vaccines and will enable doctors to identify those groups at potential risk and build a profile of those most likely to develop problems. Reliable data will allow parents and doctors to make informed decisions on the risks and benefits of the DPT immunization program, preventing the kind of irrational alarm in which some people have engaged.
I do not intend to go on at length on this bill. I will support it, but for a different reason from that of the member sponsoring it. From speaking with several medical officers of health during the week, I gather there is support for the concept, again because they feel having the data would be important in counteracting any alarm that has been spread by members of the Legislature, doctors, families or whatever.
Anything that contributes to better health education and better decision-making by the consumers of this province is worth supporting. However, I want to make it very clear that I, as Health critic for this party, and members of my caucus are supporting this bill not because we feel any alarm about universal vaccination and protecting our children; we have and will continue to encourage this province to maintain the vaccination programs and mandatory vaccinations.
Mr. Henderson: I rise with a slightly troubled conscience to address this proposal that physicians, nurses and pharmacists be required to report to their local medical officers of health any cases they encounter of severe reaction to the DPT vaccine given to infants and small children to protect them against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus.
Ontario has so far been very well served by an extensive and effective voluntary program along much the same lines. This program, I emphasize, has been voluntary. The Ontario Medical Association very actively encourages and recommends that physicians voluntarily report any adverse reactions to all vaccines and drugs, not only vaccines against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus.
The reports gathered in this way are published in the Ontario Medical Review and are sent to the federal bureau which licenses such vaccines. They are also sent, with the names of patients deleted, to the Ministry of Health, where adverse reactions to all vaccines as well as to specified drugs are noted in a way that may lead to suitable action to minimize the anguish which surely is attendant on many instances of untoward reactions.
For its own part, our ministry is instituting a program of reporting adverse reactions whereby medical officers of health will set forth instances of untoward reactions to vaccines and drugs and will share the results of those tabulations with the OMA.
Furthermore, the Hospital for Sick Children's immunology clinic operates a referral clinic for children who have had adverse reactions to vaccines or drugs. Among other things, it makes an assessment of how the immunization should be handled in the future for such children.
This voluntary program, which is not limited to DPT but applies to a large number of vaccines and drugs, has been effective and has led to a significant lowering of the incidence of untoward reactions.
As a legislator with what I hope is a very passionate commitment to the freedom and liberty of the individual, and as a physician who is well aware of the sense my medical colleagues have of being overlegislated and overregulated, I think twice before advocating any step that will override the voluntary nature of these programs of recording and reporting.
I must say this bill seems very un-Tory in its inspiration. Here we have a bill that physicians will view as draconian in its extension of state control being put forward by the Tories and evoking reservations from the New Democrats, who call it into question; so it falls to me as a humble Liberal to put forward a more balanced point of view.
I did not expect to get away with saying that, but apparently I have some support in that opinion.
Mr. Breaugh: You're allowed to ramble on; it's private members' hour.
Mr. Henderson: I have a troubled conscience in these matters. In saying this program works well, I worry a little. It is not good enough that it work well; it must work as well as any program we could devise. Untoward reactions to vaccines and drugs can be lethal.
With our present voluntary system of reporting, there may be instances of a milder variety of potentially dangerous reactions going unreported. Perhaps the physician administers suitable early treatment, feels the problem has been well enough dealt with at a clinical level, knows the patient's condition is now stabilized, proceeds to other pressing clinical matters that seem to command his attention more earnestly and neglects his reporting obligation.
These instances of untoward reaction can, of course, be cumulative from episode to episode. In other words, the patient who has a relatively mild reaction to the first DPT injection may have a stronger one on the second occasion and a lethal one on the third. This occurs because the various antigens to which the patient is reacting lead to a state of sensitization in the body that increases with each successive administration.
If our voluntary reporting arrangement leads to the prevention of 99 out of 100 potentially lethal adverse reactions, we have done a good job. Yet the one death that is not prevented must surely command our interest as well.
As a physician, I know my medical colleagues feel -- rightly, in some ways -- that they are overlegislated and overregulated. I know the burden of paperwork and bureaucracy and the very untoward effect it can have on the mental set and clinical commitment of a busy physician. I would wish to be the very last to recommend any step that would increase this sense of bureaucratic encroachment that already plagues physicians to a point that leads to frustration, vexation and often anger.
Yet I also have training in public health and I know about the infrequent or rare statistic that is no less calamitous to a family that loses a child in one of the tragic and absolutely medically unnecessary accidents that my colleague across the floor is concerned about and has told us about this afternoon. I did have occasion to speak to him informally before the House sat this afternoon and I know he has outlined some specific instances of patients having had severe and even fatal reactions to reimmunizations, patients who had previously had a reaction that occasioned less concern because the reaction was milder. Those tragedies are unconscionable and must be prevented.
I know that many physicians have a social as well as a clinical conscience. I know that we legislators are well endowed with social consciences, and our social consciences are reinforced on every occasion that we return to the polls to test our electoral mandates. I am not without reservations about this step because of the longer-term spinoff effects it may have on the work of physicians who feel so hard pressed to maintain the integrity of the physician-patient relationship with all that it means to their capacity to render compassionate and sensitive treatment.
Yet in balancing these many considerations, in weighing my empathy for the physicians of the province in the critical and exacting work that we depend on them to do and in being mindful also of the needs of our patients and our families and of the tragedies that have occasionally resulted from adverse reactions to reinoculations, I must, in balance, come down on the side of the measure that my colleague proposes.
I therefore advise that I shall be voting in support of the private member's bill introduced by my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce).
Mr. Guindon: I am pleased to join in this debate and I support the bill introduced by my colleague. As the member for Rainy River has pointed out throughout his careful and thorough examination of the issue, there are significant problems surrounding the use of pertussis vaccine. Though no one bill can completely eliminate all the concerns addressed today by my colleague, this bill requiring the reporting of adverse side effects is a clear, definite step in the right direction.
The bill will have three very important effects. First, it will put in place a long-overdue system by which Ontario can keep track of children who are adversely affected by the pertussis vaccine. At present there is no comprehensive, accurate and compulsory system that documents the appearance of severe reactions to the vaccine.
By requiring doctors and public health nurses to report to the medical officer of health any cases they encounter of severe reactions to the DPT vaccine given to infants and small children, we can develop a conclusive set of statistics that documents the benefits and risks of the vaccine. Without such a monitoring system, we will continue to operate without proper knowledge of the risks of pertussis.
The second effect of the bill will be to increase awareness that the DPT vaccine can harm children. We must monitor carefully each child's reaction to the vaccine. Making the reporting of adverse reactions mandatory will serve to place the onus on the medical establishment to watch carefully for and anticipate the possibility that the DPT vaccine can be harmful to some children.
As is clearly documented by my colleague the member for Rainy River, some children's adverse reactions to the DPT vaccine are being misdiagnosed as fleeting problems, such as teething pains. The passing of this bill into legislation will serve to alert medical professionals to possible adverse reactions that must be watched for.
The third effect of this bill would be to reduce greatly the chance of children who suffer severe reactions to the DPT vaccine being given subsequent shots. Because a child may be given a first shot by one person and a second shot by another, records of reactions may get lost in the shuffle. With a single and clearly outlined record-keeping procedure, doctors and nurses will be able to check to make sure a child has not had a negative reaction. In this way, a child will not be put in danger of being given a subsequent shot.
Ideally and quite feasibly, in the age of information technology, health professionals would merely have to check the database of the medical officer of health to make sure the child they are about to vaccinate has not suffered prior adverse reactions. We all realize that vaccines such as DPT are necessary and the benefits of those vaccines outweigh the costs.
I imagine it is very difficult for health professionals to accept that DPT shots could severely damage a child. While we must continue to protect our children's health through inoculations, we must ensure that the vaccine is very carefully monitored. If Ontario children continue to be given this controversial vaccine, we must put in place a comprehensive system for tracking adverse reactions.
I am thankful for the opportunity to participate in this debate and encourage my fellow members to join me in support of this bill.
Mr. Breaugh: I want to support the bill. I listened to the arguments as the bill was debated this afternoon and I am a little taken aback by the motivation presented by the member for Rainy River for putting forward the bill. It seems to me it is not a very carefully documented case for this piece of legislation. None the less, I do want to support it because I believe good intentions are at the heart of the matter. It is something that does need to be done.
The other reservation I have about this bill is that it is limited to one problem. I think the concept is one that needs to be established. In a sense, we establish that by supporting the bill. It is a little complicated because we live in a society where we trust our physicians to a great extent. We often get ourselves into fields such as this, where actual knowledge of a subject matter requires considerable training and information. We take the advice of doctors, for example, that an immunization program is a necessary and desirable thing to do.
We then begin to encounter, as we have in this instance, some identification that, as a general rule, immunization may be a very good thing but it does generate what might be called side-effects, or particular problems to individuals, which are serious enough that we should take note of them.
What I find supportable in the bill is the concept that we have, on a large scale now, an immunization program in place and operational. It is not impossible, but it is difficult for individual family members, individual children, to be excused from that immunization program.
I supported that move because I think in something such as this an immunization program must be broad if it is to be effective. In other words, if we are supportive of the concept that we have an immunization program for schoolchildren, it is not very sensible to say we will hit only 60 per cent, 50 per cent, 40 per cent or 20 per cent of schoolchildren. If, for example, it turns out to be a communicable disease, we have not really resolved the problem. So we need, and we support, a mandatory immunization program.
With that goes the other shoe, the other obligation, which is that when we have in place a mandatory immunization program then we also have to have mandatory reporting of problems that might come about. That, in essence, is what is called for in this bill on one particular item.
I believe that is the other part of the equation. I believe members ought to support the bill on that basic principle. I believe most members on all sides of this assembly supported the concept that we must have an immunization program at work, in particular in our school system, which gets to most, if not all, of the school population.
That makes good sense to me. However, I also think the obligation has to be there to have a reporting system which effectively monitors that immunization program. Does the drug in question serve its purpose? Does it have side-effects? Are there indications that one should be cautious with it?
As other members have pointed out, in other jurisdictions the reporting process is more formal than we have here. Once we have accepted the first idea, that everybody gets the shot, then I think we also have to accept the second idea, that every case where there is an indication of a problem occurring has to be reported and monitored.
It seems to me there will be those in the medical profession who say, "This is going to cause more paperwork, more problems." But I would point out to them that part of the respect and responsibility which we as a society give to them is that we take their recommendations about what kinds of drugs to use for immunization programs, and we take their recommendations that an immunization program to be successful must get a total population. So essentially they are the experts who advise us in that manner.
With that kind of expert status comes the other part of the process, and that is the responsibility to monitor the effect of their advice on a society, to report, to analyse as best they can exactly what the effects generated by it are. I believe that on a large scale is an important concept to establish. This bill establishes it on a smaller scale.
I think there are other matters we now have to consider, which many members are aware of as well. There is the whole matter of confidentiality, a problem which was not resolved by the previous administration. At least they talked about it and set up royal commissions on it, so we now have some concept of all the problems related to this information-gathering process.
We also have a related piece of information. A freedom of information and protection of privacy bill is now before the Legislature, so we have some measure of how a new government might approach the same problem.
There are difficulties surrounding all of this gathering of information and analysis that we have to recognize, but in my view they are not insurmountable difficulties. They are problems that can be resolved and we are going to go to work now to try to sort them out. We are going to sort out confidentiality, who gathers the information, how that information is used, how it is analysed and how it might be turned back in the system to change it around again. All of those are important things.
But to get back to the basic, simple principle of this bill, I believe it is an important one and one which is supportable for a variety of reasons. The member has done us a service in putting it in front of us. It is something we should be aware of and I suspect in this case not too many people are. That is the first service that is provided.
Second, he has assisted us somewhat in identifying that there is a need to gather up this information here in this jurisdiction. Our research people, in some research reports they did on this, went to other jurisdictions and gathered information. As someone who used to be the Health critic for the party, it was a regular occurrence for me to try to gather information out of reports done in Sweden, Britain and elsewhere in the world. They did the same kind of thing here.
The problem I have with getting the information that way is that we get paper information. We do not know how that information was gathered. We do not know how that report was put together. We do not even know the organization that put the information in the report. It is useful information and cannot be disregarded, but it is not exactly first-hand information. At best, it is a bit of an academic boiling-down of what went on in their jurisdiction.
This bill would begin -- and it is important that we begin this process even in this limited way -- to provide us here in Ontario with the same kind of information. Then we could do comparative studies of what happened in Sweden, London or wherever, with Ontario.
For all of those reasons, the bill is supportable. I would have preferred to see a bill which was a bit broader in scope and which addressed some of the larger questions that I tried to touch on in the debate this afternoon, but the bill itself is a good first start. It addresses what I believe to be a serious problem and it will be a useful exercise for physicians and, more important, for the people of Ontario.
Mr. Ward: I would like to congratulate the member for Rainy River for bringing this issue to the attention of the members of the Legislature. It is a very important issue. I can understand, as it relates to the specific circumstances of some of the honourable member's constituents, that he must have some pretty strong feelings on it.
No one on this side of the House would want to block the progress of legislation such as this. It makes more information readily available to the public and to the medical profession at large.
The one concern I have in dealing with an issue such as this and in this manner, is the tendency to take facts and figures in isolation. I am sure the member opposite recognizes that by doing so, there is the pitfall that those figures can distort the realities of the situation and cause some alarm among consumers and parents within this province.
Federal legislation is in place which makes federal approval mandatory for any substance or drug that is approved for use. Second, it is mandatory that any adverse effects that result through the use of those drugs have to be reported.
Notwithstanding that this federal legislation is already in place, no harm can come by way of a reporting mechanism within this province through legislation such as this or the Health Protection and Promotion Act, though I am not at all certain that the medical officer of health is the appropriate forum. None the less, the legislation does bring further attention to an issue that is under active consideration by the Ministry of Health.
With regard to the concern about the distorted figures and the odds on adverse side-effects, the one concern I have is that there are significant numbers of people in this province who object to any mandatory program even if it is deemed to be in their best interest. We saw the same sort of thing with seatbelt legislation. There are those who argue that mandatory immunization is an infringement on an individual's rights.
The member for Rainy River did indicate the odds of an adverse side-effect to this kind of immunization. The problem with that is it heightens alarm and may even create further reluctance from people out there who have not had their children immunized. That is the unfortunate part of dealing with information in the absence of comprehensive statistics.
Thanks to mandatory and broadened immunization programs, there are many diseases throughout the world that have been virtually eradicated. The diseases covered by this legislation are well on the way to disappearing.
I am sure we will reach a level where the potential of contracting one of these communicable diseases actually becomes less than the odds of suffering an adverse side-effect. At some point, that determination obviously has to be made, but the important thing to bear in mind is that we have not reached that level as it relates to this vaccination.
The member for Rainy River has done the House a service by bringing some attention to this matter. I do not question his motives for one minute. He obviously has constituents who have suffered some terrible hardships, heartbreak and grief. I, too, have a constituent whose child ended up with severe mental retardation as a result of being immunized, but these have to be put in the proper context of what is of benefit to the general wellbeing of the public. Certainly, from time to time, there is an adverse consequence that someone must bear.
I am pleased to speak in support of the legislation and also to let the member know the Ministry of Health is very actively looking at these issues, not only as they relate to vaccination but also in terms of the impact that medical practitioners have to face when this sort of reaction takes place and what protection is available to them.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there any other honourable member who wishes to participate in the debate? If not, the member for Rainy River has some time reserved.
Mr. Pierce: I am only sorry I do not have longer to summarize what has already been said in the House today. I want to thank the members who have spoken in favour of the bill. I certainly did not intend in my remarks to indicate we would operate on scare tactics. One only has to see the reaction to the vaccine in particular cases to know they come with a lot of feeling in presenting this kind of a bill.
The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) indicated the bill does not go far enough. My intention was to go into the whole inoculation process in depth, but that would have just cluttered up the bill, and I am afraid it would have been stalled. I ask the support of the House for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: If the House gives me the pleasure of accepting the bill and passing it, I would request --
Mr. Pierce: I am told no, Mr. Speaker, but let me first make my point of privilege. I would ask that this bill be referred to the select committee on health and pursued through standing order 64(m). I would ask that the majority of the House support this request.
The Deputy Speaker: This is not an appropriate point for a point of privilege.
Would the member notice that his time has expired?
Mr. Pierce: Yes.
ENERGY CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
Mr. Charlton moved, seconded by Mr. Philip, resolution 19:
That in the opinion of this House, since the government of Ontario has in the past failed to adequately promote and assist in the implementation of energy conservation and renewable energy alternatives, and has thereby failed to serve the best interests of the people of the province, therefore the government of Ontario should take immediate action to ensure that the Ministry of Energy fulfils its responsibility to the people of Ontario in the areas of energy conservation and renewable energy resources, their promotion, availability and programs to assist in their implementation.
Mr. Charlton: I became the Energy critic of the New Democratic Party caucus after our recent election in the spring. I have been an avid follower of energy issues for many years. Over the course of the last four or five months, I have become extremely disturbed by what appears to be a reversal of what we saw happening in the late 1970s and early 1980s in this province in relation to energy, its use and ultimately its conservation and, therefore, extended life.
My motion refers to both the former and the present government. I realize members of the former government party, the present official opposition, will not be entirely happy with my critical comments, but I would like them to be taken in the context of some positive realities that confront us in this province. At present the vast majority of the energy resources we use in Ontario are finite; they are not renewable. We should, therefore, be concerned about them and we should be working on an ongoing basis to ensure their continued reduced use at all levels in our society.
During the late 1970s and into the early 1980s, we saw a significant governmental and public reaction to an energy crisis that was created by political means, the oil shortage and the dramatic oil price escalation that occurred largely as a result of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel. Along with oil, almost all forms of energy escalated in price, to varying degrees obviously. None the less, they did escalate dramatically.
We saw a significant public response to that. The public started to switch from larger, inefficient cars to smaller, more efficient ones. We saw public demands for government programs to assist people with conversions of heating in their homes, insulation programs and so on. The programs that were implemented, most of them federally but some provincially, started us gradually in the right direction in energy use and conservation.
Over the course of the last couple of years, we have seen a reversal in that trend. That reversal upsets me, almost haunts me, in terms of what we as a society are doing to ourselves and to our future. The progress we made in the late 1970s and early 1980s in energy conservation, and our experiments, some very successful, with alternative energy sources have only scratched the surface of the potential we have and the potential we could achieve in this province and across the country.
We have seen the scratching of the surface in the realization that our homes, for example, which we heat with finite resources, again for the most part, can be made much more efficient. We have had excellent demonstration projects in this province and across Canada and, for that matter, around the world. We have had some right here in Ontario and in Toronto. Some have been supported by the Ministry of Energy.
Some of those projects have, in fact, been created by the Ministry of Energy. However, if we look in realistic terms at what we have accomplished out there in the real world, in the homes where real people live, it is minimal and the progress with respect to moving from minimum to maximum has stalled.
We saw the former government reduce its support for a number of useful and positive programs it had in place. To date, we have had no major statements and no major initiatives announced by the new minister to elevate some of those existing programs to new levels and to announce the implementation of new major initiatives on conservation and alternative renewable energy resources.
We hope those will be coming shortly. Essentially the reason I chose this topic to debate today was a hope we would be able, in the spirit of co-operation we have had on so many other issues with the new government, to stimulate a rapid growth in initiatives to encourage energy conservation and to promote the development, promotion and implementation of alternative renewable energy resources in this province.
I emphasize those last two aspects because we have done some good work in the past with respect to studying and reviewing research that has been done elsewhere in Canada and around the world in relation to alternative renewable energy sources, but we have done extremely poorly when it comes to implementation.
We have seen major projects with wind generation and cogeneration sponsored by the Ministry of Energy. We have seen significant research projects around solar energy, but we have seen no effective implementation of those technological potentials in the province, with the exception of the demonstration projects about which we like to talk so much.
In Ontario, we have the resources to perform miracles where energy use is concerned. Again, I have no idea what the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) and the present government may have in their minds that they have not yet said, but publicly the only things going on in relation to energy are Ontario Hydro's advertising campaigns; campaigns around talking furnaces and cold floors, encouraging Ontario residents to switch their home heating from one energy source to another, both of which use finite, nonrenewable resources.
I was absolutely astounded and hurt by the way in which Ontario Hydro presented that program both publicly and before the select committee on energy. They presented it in a fashion that was to reflect some positive approach to energy use in Ontario. They presented it and tried to sell it as a conservation program.
Surely at least the new Minister of Energy understands that switching from one type of heating in an inefficient home to another type of heating in an inefficient home is not energy conservation. It is Ontario Hydro's drive to find ways to use up the electrical energy surplus it currently has in Ontario and to make its predictions for certain needs in the future come true. Switching fuels and switching the approach to heating a home is not energy conservation if one still ends up with an energy-inefficient home at the end of the process, having spent probably several thousands of dollars on the conversion.
The biggest single problem we have in Ontario in relation to energy conservation and alternative energy sources is the lack of information that the public has in its hands and in its head. I was astounded during the course of the hearings in the select committee on energy that several members of that committee were absolutely unaware of the potential for energy conservation in a home and absolutely unaware of the problems associated with that conservation.
If the members of the Legislature -- members of the former government party and members of the present government party -- are that unaware, where is the public? Where is the information that the people of Ontario need to make conscious, realistic and positive decisions about their energy future if those of us here, supposedly at the centre of the debate in this province, know so little?
We need commitments from this government to make rather significant approaches to promoting energy conservation and alternative energy uses. We need, as well, a number of initiatives from this provincial government in terms of programs to assist in the implementation of both conservation measures and alternative energy measures.
We are in a situation where those sectors that are currently promoting energy use in Ontario -- at least those that have the money to promote it in a large public way -- are those that are promoting the traditional ways of dealing with energy use, those that are, in fact, promoting inefficiency and continued high use of energy.
Literally thousands of entrepreneurial small companies are developing in Ontario that are prepared to provide to this province major gains in conservation and major innovations in efficient alternative energy technology. Those small businesses in this province are trying to compete with huge multinationals and with Ontario Hydro in the promotion of the direction of energy use in Ontario.
All of that, in spite of all the positive things these companies are prepared to do, is counterproductive because they cannot compete in the information market, the advertising market and the promotional market. They need assistance and they are going to have to get this assistance from this government in the policy decisions it makes around energy and our energy future in Ontario.
During the course of the public hearings on Hydro, specifically on Darlington, one thing that became very apparent was the concern about jobs, specifically the construction jobs at the Darlington nuclear power site itself.
It is very clear that a large number of jobs -- albeit they are temporary jobs, but there are about 5,000 construction jobs -- are tied up at the Darlington site. When one is trying to deal with a question such as Darlington it becomes very difficult to ignore so many jobs. However, in connection with this province's energy future, we have to start looking more realistically not only at our future energy needs but also at the jobs we can create through the expenditure of public funds.
I will give a couple of examples of what I am talking about. When the construction of the Darlington project is finished it will create about 300 permanent jobs for the expenditure of almost $11 billion. An equivalent investment of $11 billion in any number of other private sector initiatives, such as Bell Canada, would create more than 50,000 jobs -- not 300, but 50,000. An equivalent investment in the auto industry in Ontario would generate about 165,000 jobs.
One of the things we heard during the course of our hearings on energy and Ontario Hydro, something we heard from Hydro itself, was that we need to proceed in the very high cost way in which we have proceeded in the past because conservation and alternatives were not happening in Ontario. Even where they were happening they were not happening fast enough to replace the need for plants such as Darlington and future developments after Darlington.
Yesterday, there was an article in the Globe and Mail in which Mr. Campbell, the chairman of Ontario Hydro, predicted that by the time the Darlington nuclear power plant is finished private generators will be paid more for their electricity than the cost of Darlington's energy. The buy-back rate to be paid to small, independent producers will be higher than the cost of Darlington power. That was Mr. Campbell's comment to the Globe and Mail yesterday.
The bottom line is that if that is true, we must tell the people and industries of Ontario in 1985, not in 1992, so they can compete to bring on alternative energy sources in the time frame required, by 1992.
When we head down a road of either energy conservation or consideration of alternative energy sources, the conservation and alternative energy sources have to be able to compete on an equal footing with the traditional sources of energy in this province; the latter are less efficient but have a gigantic momentum because of the institutions that promote and provide them. The small independents, which may either produce alternative technologies or assist us in putting conservation in place, do not have that gigantic momentum with respect to the size of the institutions from which they operate and promote their products and their approaches.
We have a serious problem. We knew in the late 1970s that declining energy resources had to be dealt with. Over the past couple of years, because of a levelling and dropping of prices, we seem to have forgotten that problem; but the problem is still as real as it was in 1979. We have to deal with it.
Our energy future is at risk. We need to be able to sit down as a province and plan our energy future around the economics of our present situation and of our future. We also have to plan around the realities of future energy shortages if we do not start now to proceed in the direction of implementing what we know is available in the form of energy conservation and alternative energy sources in Ontario.
Mr. Haggerty: I want to endorse the thoughts behind the motion put forth by the member for Hamilton Mountain. The key line is energy conservation and renewable energy alternatives.
I recall the days I sat on the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs. One of our reports was in 1976. The chairman then was Donald MacDonald, a member of the New Democratic Party. A number of good recommendations were put in the report.
The Ontario government used one that called for "increased insulation standards in all new homes to a level that is justifiable on the basis of expected future energy prices." The previous government and the federal government moved in that area; they provided sufficient grants, and many home owners did share in the benefits of that program and reduced their energy costs.
Another one was that "the Ontario government make available additional research funds for the development of energy-saving technology." The previous government failed the province and its citizens by not moving in that direction. In some areas it was of some assistance, such as the area of new types of electric motors and increased electrical efficiency in new appliances, but it is a matter that could have gone further.
One of the other committee recommendations was that "the Ontario government make financial incentives generally available to encourage investment in energy conservation related to equipment in the commercial sector." We look at that as a cogeneration program. The mover of the motion was talking about the Ontario Hydro chairman, who had indicated that the buy-back in cogeneration will not warrant any further consideration for development in this area of additional energy without building the heavy, costly nuclear plants.
The committee also recommended that the Ontario government establish energy efficiency standards at an economic optimal level for all new commercial structures. We can talk about the energy loss in this building. We do not have any thermal-pane, double-glazed or storm windows in this building. I can remember my office up in the north wing by the library; it used to have an inch of ice on the window on the inside. On one side of the building, one thought one was down in Florida, and on the other side, one thought one was up in the Arctic. That is how cold it was. This building alone is an example of the loss of energy. If the government thinks about looking forward in the area of energy conservation, it has an example here.
In the annual report of 1984-85, the minister has a page with pictures on it where he talks about energy conservation. It shows shots taken looking down Bay Street, with all the ivory towers, the bank towers, down there. One can look at the pictures, taken at night-time, and see the blackouts, one might call them. The lights are turned off in the government buildings around Queen's Park, but when one looks down towards the lakefront and the CN Tower, it is just a glow of lights.
It is great to say we are going to apply voluntary measures here in energy conservation -- and we do get some industries that will look in that area -- but when one looks at the ivory towers that are lit up every night, one wonders. If any place were going to be looking for conservation or saving money, one would think it would be in the banking institutions down on Front Street.
A number of good things are suggested in the report. One is that Ontario Hydro should consider the design of its rates to be an important tool in furthering reasonable load management objectives. That is a good. I do not think Hydro has moved too much in that area, nor did the previous Minister of Energy.
It also says Hydro should develop immediately a program specifically aimed at reducing peak demand by a target amount of one per cent per annum to 1985. If we had had some leadership from the previous Minister of Energy in this area we would not have to be building the Darlington nuclear plant. That program alone would have saved about 4,000 megawatts, but the previous government did not take that recommendation into consideration.
In chapter 3, about rethinking the generation plan, it says Ontario Hydro should change its planning process to emphasize meeting Ontario's electrical energy needs after implementation of conservation and load management programs with a minimum amount of new generation that is consistent with sound planning. We have not seen any of that, not to this day.
Mr. Andrewes: Not yet.
Mr. Haggerty: No. We will see it.
Another good recommendation was that Ontario Hydro, in developing a new generation plan, should ensure that small hydraulic sites are used whenever feasible and that the potential of solar energy is appropriately tapped.
The chairman of Hydro and other witnesses who appeared before the select committee presented Hydro's response to this recommendation. With respect to small-scale hydraulic potential, they said intensive surveys have been conducted by the Ministry of Natural Resources -- at least somebody is looking at this area -- on additional potential for hydraulic developments of 10 megawatts or less. Roughly, 1,050 sites have been identified, ranging in size from 0.1 megawatts to 10 megawatts, as documented in the provincial list of water power sites. The Ministry of Energy estimates the potential of small-scale hydraulic is roughly 750 megawatts on average; this translates to roughly 1,270 megawatts of installed capacity.
That tells us the Minister of Energy has looked at this area, but he was not listened to by the previous government. It is to be hoped that this government will look into this area, as I am sure it will, and that some action will be taken. Even smaller plants provide security in the system.
If we have to look at the construction of nuclear plants, particularly Darlington, we are putting our eggs all in one basket; 70 per cent of our electric energy will be coming from nuclear plants. There are some faults with nuclear plants, particularly in the breakdown of the plant facilities themselves. We talk about the jobs created in the nuclear industry, and there are some, but let me point out that the production on a manpower basis at Sir Adam Beck generating station will far outweigh what is put out by the fossil-fuelled plants or even the nuclear plants.
There is an area here that we should be looking at. There are sites on the Niagara River that should be tapped today. With the new technology in small hydraulic turbines, one could almost harness the whole river and supply additional energy on this side of the border as well on as the American side. The minister has indicated that some direction will be given to Hydro to renovate or rebuild one of the older sites at Niagara Falls so it will provide an additional 500 or 600 megawatts. We are moving in the right direction in that area.
The other area, when we look at conservation instead of going to heavy expenditures, is that the previous government has failed in the past to look for a national energy grid with the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba. A good source of energy can be purchased there for cheaper than what it costs Ontario Hydro to build plants such as the Darlington generating station. If Hydro had taken the recommendation of the previous committee in this area, we could have been buying energy from Quebec through the interconnection lines that are already there.
The Minister of Energy should be looking to buying hydro from Manitoba. If we are looking for development in the northern part of Ontario, we will not have industry moving in that area until there is a sufficient supply of cheap energy. They will still come down here and say, "We had security in the transmission lines" --
The Deputy Speaker: Might I remind the member that his time is up?
Mr. Haggerty: I was just getting warmed up here. I support the resolution put forward.
Mr. Andrewes: Now that we know the official position of the government on this resolution, it is very helpful to me in making my remarks.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This is private members' hour.
Mr. Andrewes: If I heard the honourable member correctly, he said his party would be supporting the resolution. That is a moot point.
Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This is private members' hour.
Ms. E. J. Smith: Members may say what they please.
An hon. member: He did not say "he"; he said "his party."
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Andrewes: I am pleased to see the member for Niagara Falls, who is the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Natural Resources, present in the House for this debate.
Let me say at the outset that I will not be supporting this resolution for very obvious reasons. In my previous capacity as the Minister of Energy for some 19 months, the member for Hamilton Mountain would understand that the thrust of his resolution might reflect on the mandate that I, in my former capacity as the minister, undertook in the day-to-day operation of the Ministry of Energy.
Nevertheless, I recognize the honourable member's point. I recognize the position that he and his caucus have taken; they have taken it very honestly and very aggressively on many occasions. We could agree to disagree on such areas as whether the production of energy becomes a priority over things such as saving and reinvestment in the energy business, whether the cost of energy production takes priority over other things and whether the question of security of supply becomes a priority over the kinds of things the member has alluded to in his comments.
I think in my previous incarnation I was an advocate of energy conservation, and I must agree that the cheapest barrel of oil, the cheapest gigajoule of natural gas -- I do not need to elaborate on the term "gigajoule," do I? No, I did not think so -- the cheapest kilowatt of electrical energy we can produce is the one we save.
The thrust of the resolution talks about energy conservation and the use of renewable energy, but if one is to approach this subject from the standpoint of where we go from here, one has to look at it as a matter of accepting the necessity of changing lifestyles and of our need to change our lifestyle and our approach to conservation.
As the minister knows, it is easy to insulate an attic. It is easy to install storm windows. It is easy to buy plastic at the local Cashway building centre to put over the windows for the winter. Those are the easy things to do. The next stage is more expensive; it requires extensive renovations to one's dwelling or one's business operation. The next stage may alter the whole lifestyle and life pattern of the family living in that household environment or of the people working in that building.
I want to tell the minister, because he is here and I appreciate his being here, that when we held our hearings of the select committee out at Pickering, we were invited to listen to a group of young people from a high school in Cornwall. Those individuals very forcefully presented their points of view about the Darlington plant, Hydro's mandate generally and the need to address the whole question of energy conservation. They talked about the preservation of our natural resources, our environment and, indeed, the preservation of our cash, how we should not put ourselves in debt for generations to come. They stressed the whole question of energy conservation as an important component of their program and urged us to accept that position.
In questioning these students, it was interesting to find that once we got beyond the exotic conservation aspect -- once they told us about the addition their parents put on their house the previous year incorporating the principle of passive solar and triple-glazing and all of these sorts of things; once they got past those cosmetics -- those students were hard pressed to tell us about the conservation measures they as individuals had implemented in their homes to meet the sorts of things they were asking us to do.
They were hard pressed to tell us that they were prepared to alter their lifestyles, throw away the hair dryers, take two-minute showers instead of 20-minute showers, give up the consumer goods and services that were energy-intensive and were an important component of their day-to-day lives.
That is quite significant, because if we are to make those substantive changes in energy consumption and achieve those goals -- and they are very important goals -- it is incumbent on us to realize that it means accepting some alteration in our lifestyle and some change in our day-to-day pattern of living.
The member for Hamilton Mountain in his earlier remarks talked about the demonstration projects the Ministry of Energy had undertaken. They are, indeed, numerous. There have been many activities over the years that clearly set out to the public what options are available in energy conservation and renewable energy.
The minister may want to consider this suggestion in his program. What is needed now, clearly, for the energy companies in this province, for members as private citizens selecting our options, is a very clear economic criterion so that we can ask the very detailed questions about how many dollars are going to be saved if I do this versus how many dollars I will have to invest in order to do it. Those are important things.
It is not advisable to cloud this issue with histories of other jurisdictions where taxing measures and programs are different. It is advisable, in my view, to present clear criteria that people can handle, people can look at and people can weigh in making their decisions.
There are substantive opportunities in energy conservation. Within the private sector there are many companies willing to complement public policy, to enhance public policy, particularly in working with public utilities.
I was visited by a representative of such a company just this morning. He indicated to me that he was now working with the Ontario public utility, the people's electrical utility, Ontario Hydro. He also indicated to me that Consumers' Gas was now involved in a similar type of conservation joint venture with the private sector.
This is the kind of momentum that is building and that needs encouraging. These companies are acting. They are prepared to act aggressively. There are some 3,000 consulting engineering companies in Ontario, all of which would be anxious, with the right signal, to proceed. These sorts of things should happen. The demonstrations, as I mentioned, are clearly there for assessment and they need that kind of strong economic criterion.
Finally, I allude to a report that outlines the experience in another jurisdiction with what they call interventions in the energy conservation area. They talk about hard interventions, where a utility moves in and actually puts blankets on hot water heaters, versus soft interventions, where they tend to remind one by way of television ads or ads in papers that something is a good thing to do. The conclusion is, quite clearly, that the advertising approach is of dubious value in terms of demonstrated energy conservation. Hard interventions are far more promising than soft interventions such as advertising. That is significant.
Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr. Andrewes: Thank you.
Mrs. Grier: I rise with enthusiasm to support the motion before us at this time, moved by my colleague. I confess that upon coming to this place last May, I did not know a great deal about the functions of the Ministry of Energy. Being appointed to the select committee on energy, and spending September, October and some other time listening to discussions and presentations about Ontario Hydro and energy, I heard a great deal. However, I have to confess I ended up not knowing a great deal more about the Ministry of Energy than when I began.
I did learn what the Ministry of Energy does not do. One of the things it obviously does not do is exercise any independent influence in the policies of the electricity sector of this province, which amounts to 16 per cent of the energy used in Ontario. There is very little evidence of any role of the Ministry of Energy as an independent agency reviewing alternative energy policies and deciding, in particular instances or sectors, which kind of energy would be most efficient and most useful.
One of the other things that became apparent from those hearings was that there was a lot of exciting and competent work being done in Ontario around the whole question of energy conservation and increased efficiency. There are a lot of knowledgeable people at our universities, such as Waterloo and Trent, in independent groups and as consultants, who have done extensive work and are highly respected on the question of energy efficiency. Apparently the lessons they are willing to teach us have not been learned by the governments of this province in the past.
No serious attempts have been made at introducing comprehensive conservation and energy-efficiency policies. We have a very high level of energy use in this country. Canadians use one sixth more energy per capita than the Americans and we use twice as much energy per capita as do the Swedes.
I am disappointed that my colleague the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes), the former Minister of Energy, does not feel he can support the motion before us today. I would have hoped that in his new incarnation he perhaps would have not felt it necessary to defend the actions of the past.
We have, on this side of the House, a number of born-again environmentalists and I had hoped we might have had a born-again Minister of Energy who could have supported a change in direction of the ministry he previously headed. Perhaps the tenor of his remarks demonstrates what has been wrong. He concentrated entirely on conservation in the residential sector, and that is only a very minor part of the total energy use of this province.
From the figures produced by the new minister in his Energy 2000, we see that in the total energy demand in the province in 1984, and this is in petajoules -- a term I am sure I do not need to explain -- one sixth of the end use is by the residential sector.
Most of the efforts of both the federal and provincial governments have been concentrated on promoting conservation in that sector, with no great emphasis being placed on the industrial, commercial and transportation sectors and what can be done to save much greater amounts of energy in those fields.
My colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) has recently advised the minister of a fluorescent-regulating electronic device available from an industry in his riding, which he has suggested be installed in government and Ontario Housing Corp. buildings.
We do not have any stringent energy-saving building codes in this province. We do not make any attempt to produce more efficient vehicles. We do not significantly promote the gains to be made by energy efficiency in the industrial sector. We have to think in terms of what kinds of incentives we can offer to persuade large-scale owners of property, be they commercial buildings, apartment buildings or factories, into retrofitting and conservation. I suggest we ought to have a conservation loan program for all sectors, whereby low-interest loans could be made available to those who wish to take advantage of them to increase the energy efficiency of their buildings.
When it comes to retrofitting, we ought to be encouraging the private sector, so dear to my colleagues in both the other parties, to become involved, as it has in other jurisdictions, in promoting with large owners of industrial or commercial properties that a company would retrofit and share in the energy savings to be gained by so doing. We have not had any programs from the Ministry of Energy encouraging that kind of activity. If the savings to be realized by retrofitting some of our older buildings were pointed out and made plain, we would find companies springing up willing to get into that kind of business.
In my riding, I was struck recently by looking at an older apartment building, built in the late 1950s, with single-paned windows, all of which were steamed up on a cold day because people were turning up the heat to maintain the temperature. How much more efficient it would be if the landlord had been encouraged to retrofit the building with double-paned windows and thereby cut down on the energy usage.
There are enormous savings to be gained by consumers. There are savings to the province by avoiding the capital expenditures of the enormous generating plants we are faced with, not only in Darlington but also in the discussions Ontario Hydro is having about extensive hydro projects and Sir Adam Beck III, or whatever it is to be called. It is time we, as a government, took a serious look at the potential for conservation and efficiency and made some definite moves in that direction. I look to the new Minister of Energy and his department to show leadership in that fashion. I hope all parties will support the resolution before us today.
Ms. E. J. Smith: I would like to make a statement in response to the resolution introduced two weeks ago by the member for Hamilton Mountain. The programs of the Ministry of Energy are very valuable to the people of Ontario. One of the ministry's vital functions is to provide the government with advice on energy policy. This advice ensures that Ontario's energy consumers, large and small, continue to have access to secure and reasonably priced supplies of energy.
Our province depends on this energy and most of it comes from outside Ontario. Our industry needs reasonably priced, reliable energy supplies to stay competitive, and our society needs it to maintain its admirable standard of living.
The public is probably not aware of the tremendous benefits it receives as a result of this sound energy advice. Its influence on the taxpayers is substantial but quite often indirect. However, the Ministry of Energy also has a wide range of programs and initiatives which have a more direct impact on the people of Ontario. I would like to mention a few of these programs today.
As members may know, the Ministry of Energy was recently reorganized to better position itself in a fast-paced and changing energy environment. Apart from its role of advising the government on policy matters relating to energy, the ministry has been grouped into four broad program areas. One of these areas addresses conservation and energy initiatives within communities across Ontario. This part of the ministry is responsible for programs such as HeatSave and HeatSave North. I am sure most members are aware of the ministry's HeatSave clinics. Most of them have probably seen a clinic either in or near their own community.
The HeatSave program offers free expert advice on energy conservation to home and automobile owners. Since the program began, thousands of Ontarians have visited the clinics, which are offered in northern and southern Ontario in French and in English.
More recently, ministry staff have been responsible for Draftproof Ontario, a program that employs young people to weatherize the homes of low-income families and seniors. This program has had an extremely successful year, with major program activities in Toronto, Ottawa and other centres.
This area within the ministry is also responsible for providing assistance and energy information to teachers and educators across Ontario. For example, the ministry has developed a play about energy conservation called The Conserving Kingdom. The play is now in its second year and has already been seen by more than 50,000 Ontario schoolchildren. This winter for the first time a French-language version of the play will tour northern Ontario. As well, the ministry has plans to film the play in both English and French so that its impacts can be even wider.
The ministry supports energy education in Ontario in many other ways. It also provides assistance to school boards and other public institutions across the province to encourage them to substitute more plentiful fuels for oil when heating new buildings.
The ministry also has the responsibility, in co-operation with the Ministry of Government Services, for the program that encourages energy management in government buildings. In just nine years, this program has saved the taxpayers of Ontario more than $70 million.
The ministry works to help municipalities and local businesses cut their energy costs as well. It has a program to help religious institutions cut their energy costs, a program in which more than 1,200 congregations in Ontario have participated since 1981.
I could say a lot more about this one group within the ministry, but let us take a look at what the ministry is doing for Ontario's industrial and transportation sectors. In the transportation area, the ministry has a program to encourage the adoption of alternative transportation vehicles. About a month ago, for example, the ministry inaugurated a program in co-operation with the federal government, Union Gas and the Hamilton Street Railway Co.
In this project, six diesel-powered buses in Hamilton are being converted to run on natural gas. The project will assess how the buses perform in daily service and will provide some much-needed data on the potential of natural gas as a transportation fuel.
A week ago the first bus underwent its load test. I understand it carried the equivalent of a full load up Hamilton Mountain in great style and that the Hamilton Street Railway is very enthusiastic about the bus.
I hope that in introducing a resolution that is critical of ministry programs, the member for Hamilton Mountain does not include this valuable Hamilton project, one that is going on right in his own backyard. Projects such as this one are indeed valuable to all the people in Ontario. They broaden our perspectives on energy and provide us with some elbow room, some energy alternatives for Ontario's future. A similar demonstration program is under way in Ottawa, but that one involves converting buses to run on propane.
The ministry's industry group has also developed a program that encourages the development of Ontario's rapidly expanding small hydro industry. During the past few years the potential of small hydro has been well established, and now the minister is actively encouraging its adoption in Ontario wherever it can be a useful alternative.
Mr. Foulds: We will have to wrestle Hydro into line to do that.
Ms. E. J. Smith: We will do that also along the way.
Several municipalities and conservation authorities across the province have already taken advantage of this program. As well, a special small northern hydro program is available to benefit remote northern communities, tourist outfitters and lodge operators.
The ministry also has programs designed to encourage our agricultural industries to be more energy-efficient. These programs have involved such things as monitoring energy use on the farm, installing more efficient grain dryers, retrofitting commercial greenhouses and recovering waste heat from barns for heating farm houses. These are just a few of the very practical and very popular programs in the group.
The ministry is also aware that energy technology is changing very rapidly. One of its goals is to keep Ontario on the leading edge of this technology by encouraging more research, development and demonstration by the private sector, universities and other agencies.
Last Monday the Minister of Energy announced the new $3-million program called Enersearch. The program is designed to encourage more energy technology research, development and demonstration by assisting projects with up to 50 per cent of the proponent's net cost. A wide range of technologies will be included in Enersearch. The beneficiaries of this government support are the people of Ontario.
In the past few years the ministry has worked closely with the federal government and the Canadian Home Builders' Association to promote low-energy housing. Under the R-2000 housing program, the ministry has helped increase the awareness of low-energy housing among the general public and the construction industry. Thanks to these efforts, special courses have been developed for builders in low-energy housing techniques.
Province-wide open houses have introduced literally thousands of people in Ontario to the R-2000 concept. Activities such as this are not only valuable but are vital to the province's interests. They enable Ontario to stay on the cutting edge of energy technology. In a province that depends so heavily on energy, that edge is tremendously important.
Earlier this week the ministry sponsored Energy 2000, an international conference and technology exposition. More than 350 people attended the event, people in government, the academic community, public utilities, private industry and the world of commerce, as well as the public.
The new technology exposition was a great success, with more than 50 exhibitors covering a wide range of technology. Everyone who attended was most enthusiastic about the displays. All these people got together as a result of the dedicated efforts of the Ministry of Energy. The ministry staff are the real catalyst in the energy field in Ontario. It is their responsibility to plan and provide for our future wellbeing in the sphere of energy. They take that responsibility very seriously and they discharge it very well.
Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for Durham West.
Mr. Ashe: That last monologue sounded much more like a ministerial statement, but not given by the minister.
Mr. Gillies: A would-be ministerial statement.
Mr. Ashe: Yes. One of the things that did interest me in the remarks made by the member for London South (Ms. E. J. Smith) is that she put on the record the reason the members on this side, the official opposition, the people who are still talking in a responsible way to the government, cannot support the motion put forth by the member for Hamilton Mountain.
It is difficult to understand why the member for Hamilton Mountain would turn what could have been a very positive resolution, if he had started in the middle, into a very negative resolution, obviously based on a lack of knowledge and understanding of the programs of the Ministry of Energy over many years.
I appreciate and compliment the former speaker for putting on the record all the various exciting programs that were initiated by the previous government and by the Ministry of Energy under a succession of Progressive Conservative ministers. I think even the current minister would acknowledge that virtually every program just enunciated was a program initiated prior to his attendance at that ministry. I am not in any way taking away from him. I know he has been very encouraging and complimentary to the programs already there, and I am sure he is working on new programs for the future.
However, it is unfortunate, as I say, that a very positive resolution was turned into the kind of resolution put by the member for Hamilton Mountain. I think this bears repeating. A couple of the programs have been extremely successful, initiated and carrying on for a multiplicity of years.
The member referred to the HeatSave and HeatSave North programs. They involve taking a technology called thermography, done initially from the air and then from the ground to cut down on the cost. They involve being able to work in various sized communities throughout the province, educating people on how they can do the low-cost things, the medium-cost things and ultimately the higher-cost things, to cut down on their expenses and energy costs, obviously restrain their use of energy and thence conserve that particular commodity we all look upon so graciously.
There were also some references, as I recall, by the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier). She is a new member, so we have to give her that advantage, but she indicated that it is too bad the private sector had not got involved with some creative financing, particularly in the industrial and commercial sectors.
If she had come and asked a couple of the earlier ministers, or I am sure even the current minister, she would have found out that there have been quite a number of companies -- I might add a growing number of companies -- that are doing, have been doing and are still doing exactly what she mentioned.
In other words, they are going to business, they are going to industry, and they have even come to government ministries and said: "Let us have a look at how you are using energy. Let us really look at how we can save you money. It is not going to cost you anything, but we are going to share in the saving you are going to make over the next few years." There are and have been companies doing that for the last number of years. Obviously, it is a lucrative business because the number of entrepreneurs is growing.
So I am glad to report the entrepreneurs in the private sector are alive and well in this province and have been doing so for quite a period of time.
Mrs. Grier: Why are we building Darlington?
Mr. Ashe: Of course, we also have a group of people who have their heads in the sand. That includes those who feel all the answers for our energy problems lie in the sun, the moon, the stars and the wind. We all know they can assist us, but they are not all the answer. If it was not for the energy crush forced upon us a number of years ago with the oil embargo, etc., we would probably have needed two Darlingtons instead of one. So energy conservation has made an impact in this province.
If we want to continue to grow, if we want our economy to continue to prosper, if we want job creation to continue, we have to have the kind of economy where we have a reasonable and responsible source of energy of all kinds, including electrical energy among others.
There is one other very important aspect of energy conservation and renewable energy use that has been done widely and in many forms, and I cannot cover it in just over a minute. That is demonstration projects initiated and co-financed with other levels of government and/or the private sector over the years to prove technologies, to prove whether they were actually realistic, to prove whether, if one invested $100,000, there would be a reasonable and responsible payback period.
There is no doubt we found some of the grandiose ideas were not practical. A few years down the line, as energy costs continue to rise, yes, they may be, but in the meantime some were found to be impractical and others were found to be very practical and are now getting wider use.
It is too bad that what could have been a very responsible and positive resolution, if it had started after the word "therefore" on the fourth line, became not only a negative but an inaccurate resolution concerning the results of the Ministry of Energy programs that have taken place over many years.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ashe: We do have a responsible opposition over in this corner of the House. It is too bad we do not have another responsible aspect at that end.
We will not be supporting this resolution.
HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Pierce has moved second reading of Bill 52.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: According to standing order 64(m), shall this be referred to committee of the whole House?
Mr. Pierce: I would ask that this bill be referred to the select committee on health and, pursuant to standing order 64(m), I would ask the majority of the House to support this request.
Mr. Breaugh: What is the select committee on health?
Hon. Mr. Bradley: It cannot be done. There is no such committee.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is there such a committee?
Mr. Speaker: Is there a select committee on health? Yes, there is. That is fine.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Are any members opposed to this bill going to the select committee on health?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I say it should go to a standing committee, as do other bills. I think it should go to the standing committee on social development.
Mr. Speaker: Is that satisfactory to the member for Rainy River?
Mr. Pierce: I believe the select committee is chaired by the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) from the Liberal side of the House. I again request that this bill go to the select committee on health.
Mr. Harris: We do not want to cause problems. We would like this to be dealt with wherever it can be. The standing committees are tied up with estimates and a number of other matters that are referred to them. There has been a select committee on health formed and we have not heard of a single, solitary thing it is doing. The House leader for the government quite legitimately did not even know it existed.
I will be honest and tell the House I did not know it existed either, until the member informed me. I thought I was on pretty equal footing with the government House leader in our knowledge of it. Unless there is some reason the government House leader knows that this committee is going to be jammed with activity in January, February and March, we think it would be appropriate.
Mr. Speaker: I think I really should quote the full standing order so everyone is familiar with it.
"Private members' public bills given second reading shall stand referred to the committee of the whole House, unless referred to a standing or select committee by a majority of the House."
The request is that it go to the select committee on health.
Bill ordered for the select committee on health.
Mr. McClellan: Whenever it is constituted.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We will deal next with Mr. Charlton's motion of resolution 19.
ENERGY CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES
The House divided on Mr. Charlton's motion of resolution 19, which was negatived on the following vote:
Bradley, Breaugh, Callahan, Charlton, Cooke, D. R., Epp, Fontaine, Foulds, Grier, Haggerty, Hayes, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Miller, G. I., Morin, Newman, Philip, Polsinelli, Ridden, Sargent, Scott, Swart, Warner, Wrye.
Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Bennett, Bossy, Cousens, Eves, Ferraro, Gillies, Gregory, Guindon, Harris, Henderson, Hennessy, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Kerrio, Knight, Leluk, McCague, McFadden, McNeil, Nixon, O'Connor, Offer, Pierce, Reycraft, Sheppard, Shymko, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., South, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, Treleaven, Turner, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Ward.
Ayes 27; nays 39.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to indicate the business of the House for the remainder of this week and next.
This evening we will continue second reading of Bill 50, with a vote at 10:15 p.m.
An hon. member: He hopes.
Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member's House leader hopes. Anyway, the member has already spoken.
On Friday, November 22, and Monday, November 25, we will deal with Ministry of Revenue estimates.
On Tuesday, November 26, we will deal with legislation in the following order as time permits: second reading of Bill 51; committee of the whole House on Revenue Bills 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 and, if required, on Bills 50 and 51; second reading, with committee of the whole House as required, on Bills 57, 54, 55, 44, 43, 22, 11, 12, 13, 34 and 3.
Mr. Martel: Why does the minister not read the Orders and Notices?
Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not know what we are going to do with all the time left over.
On Wednesday, November 27, the usual three committees may sit.
On Thursday, November 28, in the afternoon we will consider private members' items standing in the name of the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin) and the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson). In the evening we will debate the fourth report of the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions.
On Friday, November 29, we will consider the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to remind all members of the unveiling of the portrait of the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner) just outside immediately.
The House recessed at 6:08 p.m.