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

April 4, 1978

31st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L028 - Tue 4 Apr 1978 / Mar 4 avr 1978

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MEMBER

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

HARTT INQUIRY

ORAL QUESTIONS

OMA-OHIP FEE SCHEDULES

USE OF SEWAGE SLUDGE

HARTT INQUIRY

DECLINING ENROLMENT

POLICE BRUTALITY

HARTT INQUIRY

NOISE LEVELS

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

ROBARTS REPORT

NATIVE STUDIES

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS

PRODUCT LABELLING

E. C. ROW EXPRESSWAY

INCREASE IN OHIP PREMIUMS

USE OF SEWAGE SLUDGE

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

MACLAREN HOUSE NURSING HOME

“THE THREE FACES OF JESUS”

DESERTING FATHERS

PETITION

INCREASE IN OHIP PREMIUMS

MINISTRY INFORMATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PREDATOR CONTROL ACT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

HARTT INQUIRY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INCREASE IN OHIP PREMIUMS

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MEMBER

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

On March 16, 1978, while this assembly was in session, Messrs. MacLean and Chercover, barristers and solicitors, 85 Richmond Street West, Toronto, caused to be served upon me, through my secretary, without my knowledge or permission, at my office, Room 121, North Wing, Main Parliament Buildings, a notice of action pursuant to the Libel and Slander Act.

The solicitors were apparently acting on the directions of the following persons and organizations who were shown in the notice as plaintiffs: Robert White, L. Seymour, Lorna J. Moses and Frances Piercey, on their own behalf; as officers and members of the International Union of United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and Local 1620 thereof, and on behalf of all members of the International Union of the UAW in Canada and its Local 1620 in Ontario.

After receipt of such notice, I forthwith instructed my solicitor who, on my behalf, on March 20, 1978, replied to such notice. I am advised by my solicitor that in such notice he rendered his opinion to Messrs. MacLean and Chercover that the notice of intended action contravened

section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act.

In addition, on March 20, 1978, I received by mail at my assembly office from the registrar of the Ontario Labour Relations Board a notice of application for consent to institute prosecution by the UAW against myself and others. I instructed my solicitor in connection with such notice and he advises me that he has replied to such notice as required by the Labour Relations Act.

My solicitor informs me that he has advised the Labour Relations Board that the filing of such application in his opinion is probably a contravention of

section 38 of the Legislative Assembly Act. My solicitor further informs me that the validity or otherwise of the commencement of those proceedings against me is not a matter for decision by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Notwithstanding the reply of my solicitor to the notice of intended action, the solicitors for the intended plaintiffs whom I have named, on March 30, 1978, directed an additional communication at my assembly office pursuant to the notice of action originally served upon me.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to defend these actions on the basis of the merits and the facts. As I have mentioned, I have instructed counsel so to do and such is being done. However, the continued direction of litigious material to me is, in my opinion, a molestation of my parliamentary function, rights, duties and privileges. I believe there is a clear breach of my privilege, and I would ask you, sir, to consider this matter and to take whatever action you deem appropriate and necessary in the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: I will consider the point of privilege raised by the hon. member and report to him at a later date.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

HARTT INQUIRY

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, just over eight months ago, the government established the royal commission on the northern environment with broad terms of reference concerning the economic, social and cultural future of northern Ontario, north of the 50th parallel. Since then, Commissioner Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt has travelled the vast areas of the north of the province and, largely through public meetings, the concerns and opinions of the people have been presented to the commission.

I am tabling today a copy of an interim report and covering letter from the commission and wish to add some general remarks in response.

First, I think it is fair to say that the report and the recommendations it contains serve to re-emphasize the vast distances, relatively small population and climatic conditions that contribute to and underscore the issues that face the people of the north. Evidence of the differing opinions among the population as to appropriate actions is also more than apparent.

If a single direction or purpose can be taken from this preliminary review, however, it is the call for continuing co-operative and consultative processes among all the parties involved, namely governments at all levels and the people, both native and non-native, of northern Ontario.

The government welcomes this general approach and I would only reaffirm here that it is a direction to which we are fully committed. The government views this report as a constructive outline for future consultation. It will be given detailed consideration by the appropriate ministers. I fully intend to talk at greater length with Mr. Justice Hartt to obtain from him more sharply defined terms of reference for the specific structures proposed, so that we may avoid unnecessary overlapping, duplication or misunderstanding.

As well, it is my intention to discuss with Mr. Justice Hartt his particular role in these future developments and I am delighted that he has indicated his dedication to continue to serve in the interest of assisting all of us in dealing with the many problems of the north.

In this vein also, I wish to inform the House that I have received from the Association of Treaty No. 9 Chiefs the concerns of their grand council with regard to the future role of the royal commission itself. And I would just interject here, Mr. Speaker, that the chief of Treaty No. 9, Mr. Andrew Rickard, is in your gallery. This and other responses will be referred to Mr. Justice Hartt for consideration and future discussions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may turn briefly to the specific recommendations of the commission’s interim report arising from matters viewed by the commission as needing urgent attention at this time:

Perhaps the most significant proposal is for the establishment of a permanent tripartite committee, representative of the federal and Ontario governments at the ministerial level, and of the Indian people. The report states: “The committee would attempt to resolve, through negotiation, issues raised by its members, and in particular would address questions of devolution of authority to govern local affairs and access to resources for the Indian people. A small secretariat, acceptable to all parties, should be established to support the committee.”

In addition, it is proposed that the problems related to the Whitedog and Grassy Narrows Indian communities be the first priority item to be addressed by the committee.

Mr. Martel: Further delay.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The government of Ontario endorses the idea of such a tripartite committee. This principle is already an initiative of the government, in that proposals for such a committee have been discussed both with the federal government and with the chiefs of Ontario. This formal structure is seen as a necessary base for future decision-making on various issues of mutual concern. It is also planned that operational support will be provided by a joint tripartite steering committee at the staff level.

We would also endorse the notion that the circumstances affecting the communities at Whitedog and Grassy Narrows should be a first item of business for such a committee, although we are cognizant of the fact that similar types of social problems affect other Indian communities as well. Further, there may be reason to question whether a time limit of 90 days is sufficient to deal with a matter of this complexity.

It is our intention, as I have noted, to pursue these recommendations further with Mr. Justice Hartt by seeking from him detailed proposals on the creation, structure and function of this committee. All our work to date will be made available to him.

A task force of northern residents as a liaison between government and the people is also recommended. As I have mentioned before, increased public participation has been one of the major objectives of the government in establishing the commission.

At the same time, I need hardly remind the House that it has been but a year since the government created a Ministry of Northern Affairs to meet the type of need described in this recommendation. In addition, and indeed more important, there are some 15 members of this Legislature, from all parties, who represent the interests of northern communities and their citizens.

We should, therefore, perhaps look at the various roles that already exist before committing ourselves to the notion of the task force recommended in the report.

The government supports the recommendation concerning a review by the commission of the West Patricia planning process and sees this as fully within the authority and sanction granted to the commission. I might add that the recommendation is in keeping with the approach suggested by the Ministry of Natural Resources to ensure necessary public participation in the West Patricia land-use plan as the focal point for overall government planning in the area. The involvement of the commission would be most beneficial.

As to the question of the Onakawana lignite development project, the government has long since stated that the procedure will be followed under the Environmental Assessment Act. Public consultations between the Ministry of Natural Resources and local residents have been proceeding for some time. In fact, prior to any decision to issue a mining lease to Onakawana Development Limited, a series of open sessions was held with local residents.

In the supporting text of the report, the suggestion is made that the commission play an “observing and counselling role” in these proceedings. The government feels that the proposal should put the commission in a position to make constructive recommendations on the adequacy of the environmental assessment process as it might be applied to various types of future potential development in the north. In addition, it will enable the commission to provide skills in resolving possible difficulties which may arise.

The commission’s last recommendation proposes that no government licences for wild rice harvesting be issued to non-natives for a period of five years.

It should be noted that policy proposals for promoting a viable wild rice industry among the native people are included in the mandate of the proposed new tripartite committee. The government has encouraged the growth of this industry among the native people and it is important to ensure an opportunity for the natives to develop this industry on a competitive basis. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller) will pursue this matter with Mr. Hartt to ensure in the development of this important resource a future course of action that is consistent with the objectives of involving the native peoples.

Finally, the focus on economic development in the north must not be overlooked. I would cite here the commissioner’s explicit statement of the benefits to be derived from planned resource development and his recognition of the fact that: “A general moratorium on development, even for a two- or three-year period, could needlessly cause hardship, increase unemployment and delay benefits to people which can flow from well- planned ventures.”

In

summary then, the government feels that this interim report lays the ground for a thorough and systematic review over the next two years or so, which will, at the same time, enable and indeed ensure that legitimate development is not thwarted or frustrated in the process.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OMA-OHIP FEE SCHEDULES

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Health. In view of the minister’s various statements that Anti-Inflation Board controls apply to the OHIP

schedule of benefit payments to he made this calendar year to most doctors and other practitioners, may we take it that the government will limit any increase in its proposed

schedule of benefit payments to what is permissible under the Anti-Inflation Board policy? If so, what does the minister understand the Anti-Inflation Board policy to be, both with respect to those doctors who receive only the

schedule of benefit payments from OHIP and those doctors who bill on their own?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The AIB limits are on the physicians, which, therefore, dictate the amount by which the

schedule will increase. I don’t recall the figures off-hand and I wouldn’t want to try to recall them from memory, lest I get them wrong. Let’s put it this way: Our negotiations are very much constrained by the realities of the anti-inflation program for the balance of 1978.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, can the minister tell us what he understands the Anti-Inflation Board restraints to be, particularly with respect to the fee

schedule as opposed to the $2,400 limit on individual doctors, and has he told the Ontario Medical Association that any increase in that

schedule will have to conform with AIB policy this year?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is acknowledged by both sides in the negotiations that we are constrained by the anti-inflation program and the limits which are placed on individual practitioners.

[2:15]

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister be prepared to explain -- and I don’t think this question has been asked of him up until now -- why it is that when it comes to these negotiations he talks about being constrained by the anti-inflation program, but when it came to imposing premiums on the people of the province of Ontario he imposed an increase of 37½ per cent and completely disregarded that program which he had endorsed?

Mr. Warner: He uses the guidelines when he feels like it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the hon. member knows, in preparing the anti-inflation program, when it came to questions of price increases or fee increases it was written right into the program that, in fact, increases would be relative to cost increases, and as he very well knows the costs of providing health care have gone up by as much or more -- in fact it is much more -- in the last few years than the increases in the premium revenue.

Mr. S. Smith: That is not a fact.

Mr. Conway: In the preparation and tabling of his estimates for the year 1978-79, has the minister taken into consideration and allowed for the maximum increase permissible under AIB as he understands AIB to be?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Maybe this question would be more appropriate at estimates I suppose, but yes, we have calculated both the effect of the AIB on the increases in income as well as factoring in anticipated increases in utilization.

Mr. Cassidy: Given the fact that the incomes of individual premium payers have been held down by the AIB over the course of the past year and in future, can the minister comment on the possibility that significant numbers of Ontario residents will allow their OHIP coverage to actually lapse because of the very heavy premium increase in relation to their increase in incomes?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That has not been the experience in the past and I certainly don’t anticipate it to be the experience at the present.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the minister have any evidence for that last reply, given the fact that the only material we have had put forward up until now, when reviewed by the Provincial Auditor, indicated that there were 12 million people in this province covered by OHIP and that, therefore, those statistics are quite meaningless?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the hon. member would read, if there is one, a Hansard of the public accounts committee, or at least talk to members who sit there, the problem which resulted in that anomaly is totally different from that which was the substance of his earlier question, but I am sure that when we get into the standing committee on social development some of the members of his party may want to pursue that and I will be sure that we have the officials available to give the specific figures at that time.

Mr. Martel: Our figures aren’t reliable.

Mr. Cassidy: Final supplementary --

Mr. Kerrio: You just had it.

Mr. S. Smith: He had it, as I recall. Mind you, he does us a lot of good with these supplementaries. You might want to give him a few more, Mr. Speaker.

USE OF SEWAGE SLUDGE

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. His predecessor in that office (Mr. Kerr) was able to answer almost a year ago, on April 22, 1977, regarding my question about the use of sewage sludge on agricultural land, I quote: “In the meantime, the guidelines are being applied in the province to those areas where there is sludge removal. The guidelines are being used now,” and then, in response to my question, and I quote: “Is the minister saying all sewage sludge in Ontario now being applied to agricultural land falls within the guidelines of that report?” his answer is: “That is what we are implementing right now, yes.” That is a direct quote.

Can the minister explain to me how his predecessor could have said those things in the House and yet a year later we still read that an internal report indicates that only 40 per cent of the sludge being utilized in Ontario meets the guidelines?

Mr. Warner: Inconsistency.

Hon. Mr. McCague: No, I really can’t explain the hon. Leader of the Opposition’s question.

Mr. S. Smith: I can appreciate the minister’s answer, inasmuch as I had a little trouble understanding all the incorrect answers I had from that particular minister when he was in that position. I would ask the minister, by way of supplementary -- and I look forward to his response afterwards -- can the Minister of the Environment explain to me why it has taken over a year to implement a report which even a year ago had been in the hands of the ministry for some considerable time, when in point of fact a possible serious health hazard is involved in the usage of sludge with heavy metals, possibly even PCBs, on agricultural land which grows crops for human consumption? Why the delay?

Mr. McClellan: He can’t cope.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give an explanation to the hon. member. All I can tell him is that the matter is proceeding. We intend to have final drafts in about a week’s time and to meet at that time with senior management in Agriculture and Food. I think we will be in a position to have them for him shortly.

Mr. Mancini: Who is in charge over there?

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Welland-Thorold have a supplementary?

Mr. Swart: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment if it’s not true that only 14 per cent of the sludge which has been applied on farm land has been safe for application? Secondly, is it not true also that the only regulations which they’ve had up to this time have been regulations relative to the handling of the sludge and the sites, and not with regard to the quality of the sludge whatsoever?

Hon. W. Newman: Oh, it’s all fine quality.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It helps grow things down there.

Mr. Martel: A farm boy would know that, Bill. In other words, it’s manure.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I don’t have a figure for that here. I think probably what the member is missing is that we’re also talking about treated sludge.

Mr. Kerrio: As a supplementary question to my leader’s question of April 22, 1977, I asked the then Minister of the Environment if he was aware that in jurisdictions where sludge is used on agricultural land, mainly in the state of Wisconsin, there were significant signs of polychlorinated biphenyls in the milk from dairy herds grazing on that land. The answer at that time was: “I know that PCBs have been a part of the problem as far as sludge disposal is concerned and that’s one of the reasons we’re applying the guidelines.”

I would ask the present minister, in view of the kind of experiments that have been carried out and the studies in other jurisdictions, when he will put to this Legislature the safeguard of the users of agricultural products in this province?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think I did say in answer to the opposition leader’s question, “shortly.”

Mr. Kerrio: The minister said that a year ago.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I didn’t say that a year ago.

Mr. Conway: Don’t be so loquacious.

Mr. Swart: May I ask the minister if it’s true that the sludge which has been used may not only be injurious to health but it may permanently damage the land?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is a possibility and we’re looking into that.

Mr. McClellan: Tell the Minister of Agriculture and Food that.

Hon. W. Newman: Why doesn’t the hon. member ask me the question? It will make his moustache grow bigger.

HARTT INQUIRY

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier in relation to his statement about the interim report of the Hartt commission. There are two or three interrelated questions. I want to express some concern on our part at the diffusion that may result from this report because of the splitting up of the responsibilities of the Hartt commission into two, three or even more separate areas.

Perhaps I could begin by asking the Premier this question: Can he explain why, in response to the only single, concrete recommendation for action now in this interim report -- namely, that no new licences for wild rice harvesting be issued to non-natives over a period of five years -- that the government has surrounded that recommendation with cotton wool and has not come out with a firm, clear answer that would enable Indians to develop a strong economic position in the wild rice industry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the leader of the New Democratic Party doesn’t treat, in a constructive way, the interim report of Mr. Justice Hartt. I should point out the report has, I think, resulted from discussions with the native people and I think it has their support. I’m disappointed that he himself doesn’t sense the complexity of this and the validity of the recommendations.

Mr. McClellan: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, the member prefaced his question with an observation that he didn’t like the report.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member doesn’t know what it is all about.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it’s quite proper for me to express my regret that the leader of the New Democratic Party doesn’t have the wisdom to see the positive aspects of this report. I think that’s quite appropriate.

Mr. McClellan: We’ve already had enough cotton wool.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member wants to ask me a question I’ll give an answer. If he wants to make a speech I feel provoked to reply.

Mr. Martel: You are prepared to make a speech too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The answer to the question about wild rice is very simple. This government has been committed and is committed to a policy to see that the native people are assisted in developing a viable wild rice industry in that part of the province of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: Tell the Minister of Northern Affairs that. Are you listening, Leo?

Mr. Cassidy: If I can ask a general question, can the Premier say what role Mr. Justice Hartt will be asked to play in the future series of related inquiries which will go on? In particular, is the government prepared to ensure that there is one central focus for the issues that were originally grouped under the Hartt inquiry; that is, that Mr. Justice Hartt will continue to look at the overall questions about how northerners can be involved effectively in the development of government policy and the questions related to the native peoples which are now being split into three areas?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Justice Hartt has made his personal views known to me as to where he thinks his contribution would be the most appropriate. As I said in my statement, it is my intention to discuss this with Mr. Justice Hartt because, in order to avoid the possibility of duplication, I think there should be more definitive terms of reference for the two or three structures that are suggested in the report.

I think it is fair to say that Mr. Justice Hartt has made it known to me, and perhaps it is referred to in general terms in his letter, that he indicates that, if asked, he will pursue an involvement in this matter. I am very encouraged by that. It is my intention, after a discussion with him, to encourage him to accept a further responsibility. I think it would be wise for all members of the House to have this further definition as to the actual function of the structures that have been suggested, and that would be a more appropriate time to get into this sort of question and answer or even perhaps a period for some discussion here in the House.

Mr. S. Smith: This is supplementary to the aspect of the other leader’s first question on wild rice: Could the Premier please clarify a word on page nine of his statement where he appears to have rejected the recommendation of Mr. Justice Hartt? Mr. Justice Hartt’s recommendation has been to have no non-native licences issued in the wild rice matter for five years --

Mr. Foulds: That was the question that was asked.

Mr. Cassidy: Where were you a minute ago?

Mr. S. Smith: -- and the Premier has said “it is important to ensure an opportunity to develop the industry on a competitive basis.” Competitive with whom? Surely what the Premier means there is with non-native licensees.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not the intention. It is not non-native licensees. it is with wild rice from other sources.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We don’t have a monopoly on wild rice.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: I wonder if the Premier could give the House any information about the time he expects to have a definition for the House in terms of Mr. Hartt’s role and in terms of definition of the structure that Mr. Hartt has set out.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Because of the priority the government has given this and because of the support in a general sense by most members in this House, I would hope to have this available within a couple of weeks. I don’t want to be pinned down to an exact date but it will not be a prolonged period of time.

Mr. Foulds: Make it 10 days.

Mr. Cassidy: Final supplementary: I appreciate that the Premier will do this quickly rather than at length, but can he give some indication to the House now how the conflicts between the different bodies that are being established or proposed for the north will be resolved?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You don’t even know where the north is. Tell me where it starts.

Mr. Cassidy: I have in mind that the tripartite group negotiating with the native peoples will have as an early priority the question of Onakawana, which will also be the subject of an environmental assessment. I have in mind that some of the findings of the West Patricia study, being carried out by the son of the commission, will also affect native peoples and the question of access by northerners to government decision-making. I have in mind the fact that the area of access by northerners to government decision-making is apparently being left completely, rather than being referred back to the main commission, by what the Premier said.

How will all that be co-ordinated and brought together? Can the Premier give us a statement?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have a feeling that some members of the hon. member’s caucus would object if I gave a statement. I will try to reply to the observation and statement that the hon. member made.

Mr. Cassidy: Is that a reply?

Mr. Martel: Why don’t you just give us a straight answer then?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It wasn’t a straight question. I have come to the conclusion that the hon. member’s leader has a lot on his mind. There are some days when we would debate how much he has on his mind; but obviously this afternoon he has a lot on his mind.

[2:30]

It is for the very reasons that the leader of the New Democratic Party has pointed out some of the areas of possible duplication that I said earlier that I would be discussing with Mr. Justice Hartt a clear definition. What we have in this report, really, is in some respects conceptual in terms of how he sees us operating, and I think it needs further definition. When I have that for the members of this House, with a proposal in terms of membership, et cetera, I shall be delighted to share it with the leader of the New Democratic Party and be quite prepared to discuss it at that time.

DECLINING ENROLMENT

Mr. Cassidy: A question for the Minister of Education: Can the minister tell us when he intends to release the interim report of the commission on declining enrolment, which was first expected at the end of February this year, then at the end of March, and which, as I understand it now, is either at the printers or in fact is somewhere on the minister’s desk?

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend is correct; it is at the printers. I inquired today and was told it would be two weeks before the printing is completed. As soon as it is finished being printed, he will have a copy as quickly as that.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the report will therefore be two months behind the original deadline, can the minister say what plans the government has to assist boards -- especially low-assessment boards with scattered school populations, such as Timiskaming and other boards in northern Ontario -- to overcome the financial pressures resulting from declining enrolment? We were in Timiskaming a week ago and found that that problem is particularly acute there because of the low assessment base and the very sharp decline in enrolment. Is the government prepared to come up with plans for this fall so that those boards do not have to wait a further year until action is taken?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Is that the royal “we” or the plural?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I believe there was no intention that there would be any particular plans introduced before the next fiscal year. The grant regulations for this year have been printed and have been distributed and presented. There has been no indication that there would be any changes. Anything that is done of a nature that would assist the Timiskaming board in a major way would be in the 1979 grant regulations, when we will have the full benefit of commissioner Jackson’s report and any suggestions that he might make, plus any others. I would just suggest to my friend that if the Timiskaming board has any problems, we would be most happy to discuss them with it.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the Timiskaming board or some of its people brought its problems to us, in view of the difficulties it has been having with the ministry --

Some hon. members: Oh, come on.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Cassidy: -- may I just ask the minister, surely the minister is aware that fixed costs do not decline at anywhere near the rate at which enrolment is dropping in some boards like Timiskaming, and that those boards have got particularly acute problems because their mill rate, their assessment base, is so low they cannot easily go back to the taxpayers for costs they cannot get fairly and squarely shared from Queen’s Park?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, the minister is very much aware of all those things, as are, I am sure, the boards and the commission. I might point out to my friend that there are no particular recommendations to alleviate the problems that my friend is suggesting in the interim report of the committee on declining enrolment. The interim report is more a series of background papers and studies that will be useful as we work up to the final recommendations which will come in the summer.

POLICE BRUTALITY

Mr. Stong: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Would the Solicitor General advise the House at this time what conclusions his ministry has drawn and what course of action he intends to pursue as a result of the investigation into two separate and distinct incidents of alleged assaults by police officers? One involved the York Regional Police on January 15, 1978, wherein it is reported that a man arrested for impaired driving was handcuffed, placed in the back seat of a cruiser and then beaten, all in front of witnesses in his neighbourhood.

The other involves members of the Durham Regional Police and the Metropolitan Toronto Police on July 21, 1976, wherein one Robert McGee is reported to have been beaten on the back with axe handles and had battery acid poured over his penis.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am not aware of the information the hon. member has given me regarding the incident he is talking about of last January. I am not aware of that, and of course I will look into it.

As far as the second incident is concerned, involving one Robert McGee, we are aware of the allegations by McGee. He wrote to the criminal compensation board last December regarding an incident that took place at the time of his arrest in July, 1976. This involves both the Durham force and the Metro force. We are waiting for a report. I have one report from the Durham force. I’m not satisfied with it, so I would assume that the commission will be looking into this.

Mr. Stong: Supplementary: Has the minister been assisted by the findings of the trial judge at McGee’s trial wherein he disallowed a statement of the accused, based on the allegations and evidence pertaining to the activities of the police department? I understand, as well, with respect to the York Regional Police that representations were made to the ministry on that issue in January, over a month ago.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That’s right, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is referring to the voir dire. It is part of our investigation.

HARTT INQUIRY

Ms. Bryden: I have a further question to the Premier with regard to his statement on Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt’s interim report. With regard to Mr. Hartt’s recommendation about Onakawana Development Limited to the effect that the Minister of the Environment should discuss with the local communities and affected groups how they can participate more effectively in the environmental assessment for this project, would the government be prepared to provide public funding to these groups to enable them to participate on a more equal footing with the company in these hearings?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The recommendations in the report, as I mentioned in my statement, are being assessed by the ministry. I would point out to the hon. member that in terms of the presentations made to the interim report by Mr. Justice Hartt certain government funding was made available. It is not possible for me to give a commitment in advance of whatever structures are proposed or hearings held. I would just point out that we did, in terms of this interim report, provide funding to those groups who wished to make representation before Mr. Hartt’s commission.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: Does the Premier not think that a precedent has now been established and that if we don’t want a David and Goliath situation in the hearings on the Onakawana project that we should continue this precedent and make funds available to the interested groups?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Actually, the precedent had been established prior to this, but I won’t go back into history. I can only say that we are as anxious that there be a proper hearing, that there be proper public participation. It’s always one of those matters that as a government we’re prepared to look at, but we don’t make commitments in advance, not until we are sure of just what is involved.

NOISE LEVELS

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would like to respond to a question posed by the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) on March 7 regarding noise levels at A. G. Simpson Company Limited plant in Scarborough. At that time the hon. member alleged that the company had failed to provide casual employees with adequate hearing protection as required by

section 111 of the regulations of the Industrial Safety Act, 1971.

I’m advised by the company that it instituted a hearing protection program on June 29, 1978, which consists of the following: 1. The identification of areas in which noise levels exceed 90 decibels; 2. The posting of signs indicating that protective equipment should be worn in high noise areas. 8. The provision of ear muffs and ear plugs; and 4. The audiometric testing of workers in high noise areas.

Turning to the hon. member’s specific question, an official of the ministry’s industrial health and safety branch visited that plant on March 9, 1978, and found that all employees, both full-time and casual, had in fact been provided with protective equipment and had been instructed in the proper fitting and use thereof. Despite the company’s hearing protection program, the ministry official found at that time that only 50 per cent of the workers were actually wearing the hearing protection which had been provided.

Therefore, the officer held a meeting with company management, representatives of the employees’ association and the company nurse to discuss ways to increase the using of hearing protection. Following that meeting, management of the company agreed strictly to enforce the wearing of protective equipment. An officer of the industrial health and safety branch will revisit the plant very soon to ensure that all workers, both full-time and casual, are wearing hearing protective equipment.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Did the inspector when checking on the plant identify the 50 per cent who were not wearing the equipment, that is, which ones were permanent employees and which were casual employees?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The numbers included both permanent employees and casual employees.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

Mr. O’Neil: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of the decision made by the Workmen’s Compensation Board to advance to May 20 the date that all employer payments for the year 1978 are due, when payments in previous years may not have been due until July and August? Does she not feel that this decision, made without prior notice, places an unexpected cash flow burden on employers, particularly those assessed at higher rates and on smaller employers in general?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It was my understanding that in addition to advancing the date there had been a modification to the payment program in which it could be paid in instalments rather than all at once. If that is a mistake, I shall be very pleased to correct that statement in the House but that was my understanding.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: In spite of the considerable increase in rate schedules this year, was this decision made because the WCB is short of funds and needs additional cash flow at the present time?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No. It was my understanding that it was done in order to facilitate payments on an instalment basis, if you like, rather than asking for the entire payment at one specific date.

Mr. O’Neil: I have a further supplementary. Has there not been a review of the WCB under way for some considerable time with respect to both financing methods and benefit levels? Has the minister not had at least an interim report on financing, undertaken by the Wyatt Company, in her hand since November or December 1976, and did she not promise my colleague from Erie (Mr. Haggerty) during the recent estimates on the WCB that the entire report would be available to the members of this House by the end of March?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, yes, yes and yes. Unfortunately, I have at this time only a preliminary report of the final report. I anticipate that by April 15, hopefully, we shall have the entire report for perusal.

The interim report was a report of the financial position, the investment program and some other actuarial studies related to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The comprehensive report includes a number of other issues which were requested at one point by one of the members of the official opposition during our discussions of the Workmen’s Compensation Board in committee.

That study had been already directed by the ministry, but we were pleased to have the hon. member for Erie support the concept that we needed to look at the funding, the financial structure of the board and the relationship of the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Board to other income protection and income supplement programs within this country.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: Since the Wyatt report was the excuse for failure to raise the rates, may I ask the minister now how much longer she is going to stall around, and when does she intend to raise the rates?

Hon. B. Stephenson: There has never been any excuse for rates or anything else.

Mr. Laughren: You are absolutely right.

Mr. Warner: Where is it?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The Wyatt report is a study of factual information which we believe is necessary in order to make responsible decisions.

Mr. Warner: Jelly beans roll uphill faster than that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: As soon as that report is available to me and I have had a chance to peruse it, we shall be making recommendations to the House.

ROBARTS REPORT

Mr. Warner: My question is to the Treasurer. Since the Treasurer realizes that many months of advance planning are needed when basic changes are made to the municipal government structure of Metro Toronto, is he trying to avoid electoral reform, or is there some other reason for the undue delay in introducing legislation related to the Robarts report?

Mr. Conway: He is working on Chatham.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I expect to be bringing those matters before the House in the fullness of time.

Mr. Conway: He is too busy with Chatham. They are getting regional government in Chatham.

Mr. Warner: In the fullness of time, what a gem! Is the Treasurer now informing this House that this year’s municipal elections in Metro Toronto will be on the basis of a two-year term, the retention of the board of control and no direct election to Metro?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be very unwise for the member to come to those conclusions.

NATIVE STUDIES

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Education. Does the requirement of HS1 and the Intermediate History Guideline 1977 that “contemporary, Canadian and world concerns” must be given, preclude a board from offering a native studies course for students of native ancestry?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think my friend is referring to a request from the London Board of Education which they have written us about and which we are looking into, and about which we are attempting to work out some agreeable solution with them that would allow them to offer this course. I am not sure we have worked out the answer yet on that.

Mr. Van Horne: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Surely the minister is not suggesting that this possibility come to the board as an integrated part of a program rather than as a separate entity; that is, a separate native studies course.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No. All I’m suggesting is that the London board has put before us a proposition and asked for an answer. We will give it an answer and we will work out with it how this can be used.

Mrs. Campbell: In the fullness of time.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As a matter of fact, I believe I sent it a letter two or three weeks ago on that matter, of which I will be glad to send a copy to my friend.

Mr. Van Horne: Further supplementary, Mr. Speaker: My understanding is that the suggestion was that they be integrated and I am suggesting to the minister that that isn’t satisfactory to the board nor for that matter to the native citizens of our province of Ontario.

Mr. Peterson: Would you not agree?

Mr. Van Horne: Do you not agree?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will take that under advisement.

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment about the Environment Ontario reports with regard to the Red Rock mill and the other studies that have been recently done and released. I wonder if the minister could indicate why during the course of the testing -- and if the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Rhodes) would oblige; can the Minister of the Environment hear all right? -- why insufficient samples were taken during the course of the testing last summer with regard to suspended particulate matter, with regard to the dust.

Secondly, could the minister indicate whether recommendation 2-1 that two monitoring stations be put into place for continuous monitoring of hydrogen sulphide and total suspended particulate matter would be established at the Village Inn and at the Bell telephone company switching locations?

Mr. Speaker: Will hon. members please keep their conversations down, please?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the first part of the question as to why more samples were not taken, but I will get that answer for the member. As far as the monitors are concerned, we have recommended them and I understand that they will be in place.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister give us an indication at this time when the report on Marathon, Terrace Bay and Thunder Bay would be available? There are three more reports -- the reports on Marathon, Terrace Bay and Thunder Bay. I wonder if he could give us an indication when they might be available?

Mr. Wildman: Are you ever sure of anything?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of his seat.

PRODUCT LABELLING

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. If he does not feel it is specifically within his jurisdiction he might redirect it to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s his.

Mr. Bradley: You’re sure it’s his? The question deals with generic labelling. My understanding is that at present on food products sold in the major food chains and other stores, the weight, the name of the packager or retailer, the ingredients and the grading must be listed but there is no requirement to list the country of origin of the product inside -- for instance, the can of tomatoes or the can of apple juice. Is that correct; and if so, is the minister prepared to take action which would require them to indicate the country of origin?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Can I refer it to the Minister of Agriculture and Food?

Mrs. Campbell: Both of you answer it.

Mr. Peterson: Let Frank Drea answer.

Hon. W. Newman: Just relax. Mr. Speaker, this is a great concern that we have because when the housewife does go shopping it is confusing.

Mr. S. Smith: Some men shop too, you know.

Mr. Breaugh: You sexist.

Mr. Conway: Some have no choice.

Hon. W. Newman: In my busy political life I don’t have much time, I gather you do; that’s all right.

Mr. Makarchuk: Get out there and look at the prices, and you might be more responsive.

Hon. W. Newman: In all seriousness, it is a concern of ours because when people go shopping -- let me put it that way -- when people go shopping --

Mr. Makarchuk: They buy something, don’t they?

Hon. W. Newman: -- it is very hard for them to differentiate, sometimes, between Canadian produce or Ontario produce, whatever the case may be, and imported produce. It’s different for different labels. For fresh fruit in cans it can be different than it can for fresh vegetables in plastic bags, or tomatoes or whatever it may be.

Mr. Breaugh: Why is that, Bill?

Hon. W. Newman: What we are trying to do -- and the Leader of the Opposition might be very helpful on this -- we would like to have goods produced in Canada clearly and distinctly marked on the cans or the labels. Any imported products that are coming into Canada or into Ontario would be clearly marked so the people in this province and in this country will know what they’re buying.

Mr. S. Smith: What stops you?

Mr. Breithaupt: Are you going to do it?

Mr. Bradley: As a supplementary, is this action that is contemplated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food; and is the minister looking for the support of the opposition in that regard?

Hon. W. Newman: We’re looking for the support of all parties to talk to Ottawa to clinch this situation. That should have been done long ago.

Mr. Makarchuk: Are you saying the Liberals don’t believe in it?

Mr. Ruston: No, Joe objected to that.

Hon. W. Newman: We’re asking Ottawa.

Interjections.

Mr. Swart: In view of the fact that many of the Ontario farm products, perhaps the majority, do not have the logo displayed on them or above them, would it not be reasonable to have the canning companies and the other packaging companies display the logo right on the package or the can itself?

Hon. W. Newman: Quite obviously the member doesn’t understand that it does take time to change. Their labels are printed long in advance. We’ve just been into this program for about seven months. We are having discussions now with the processors and many are talking about putting the logos on their cans for sale in this province and elsewhere.

Mr. Breaugh: What about putting a logo on your can?

An hon. member: It would have to be a big one.

Hon. W. Newman: We are working towards that. It’s not that easy.

Mr. Makarchuk: Friend Bill.

Hon. W. Newman: If products are processed here and in the other provinces, it may give them some problem. But we are having ongoing discussions with them on this matter right now.

Mr. Peterson: What are you doing for Ontario oranges?

Mr. Eakins: When are you going to support Ontario wine, Bill?

E. C. ROW EXPRESSWAY

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Is the minister aware of the latest problem that has developed in the construction of the E. C. Row Expressway in Windsor whereby the path of the expressway goes directly through native burial grounds? If the minister is aware of the problem, what action does he plan to take to make sure that the rights of the native people are protected?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation that has arisen there. It’s quite a long and detailed matter. It was first brought to the ministry’s attention, I believe sometime in 1975, that there was a possibility of a burial ground in that area. It has been investigated. We have had archeologists from the Ministry of Culture and Recreation -- and I believe a professor from the University of Windsor -- working with the other ministries and being very careful in dealing with this situation. As the hon. member knows, the ministry is in partnership with the city of Windsor in the construction of the E. C.

Row and, of course, we’re working with our municipal partners as well. I think that’s about all the information I have at this moment.

[2:45]

A few months ago -- I believe it was in the fall -- a Bell Canada telephone line was installed and no traces were found that would indicate that the burial ground was there, and when this work was going on we had representatives of the ministry and the professor from the university actually on the site to observe. We are trying to handle it in the best way possible until we find out really whether there is a burial ground there or not.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: Given the fact that there were 16 skeletons found in this area 40 years ago and another found in 1967, why did the people planning this expressway -- and, in particular, people from the ministry -- not discuss this problem with native leaders in the area before? Now it is only one month before the construction of that part of the expressway is supposed to start. Why did we wait till the last minute?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I won’t argue with the information the hon. member has stated. It is news to me; to my knowledge according to my files, the first indication that the ministry had that there may have been a burial ground there was in 1975.

Mr.

Bounsall: As there now appears to be a delay in the further development of that site -- and it may be quite an extensive delay, should further findings turn up the fact that it is, as suspected, a burial ground that dates from the years 900 to 1100, and therefore is fairly significant -- would the minister use the intervening time that he is likely to have in ensuring that his officials shift the location of that highway, also consider in the placement of the highway, which may now be a problem, that it be consolidated to a design with a safety division down the middle of four lanes rather than the wide median strip as at present?

This would also cut down the cost of construction on that particular portion of it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think it would be premature to say that at this moment we would redesign that highway. The statement that the hon. member makes with regard to costs, comparing a median barrier with a median strip, is not necessarily so in most cases; it may be in some, but this matter has just come to my attention over the weekend. The contract for the actual road -- the E. C. Row -- is not imminent. There is an imminent contract for some of the service road work in preparation for the main contract, but the main E. C. Rowe contract under way at the present time is not in this location.

INCREASE IN OHIP PREMIUMS

Mr. Conway: My question is of the Minister of Health. In this House on March 10, in an exchange with my colleague the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neill), in the matter of the Treasurer’s OHIP increase in the budget of March 7, 1978, the minister indicated that in contemplation of the shift away from premiums to perhaps an alternate scheme this kind of adjustment would be difficult. To use his words, it is because: “We would have to dismiss 625 staff from OHIP.”

Could the minister explain, and perhaps amplify on that statement, with specific reference to the 625 staff in OHIP that he identified?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think the hon. member is both getting into estimates and into what will be before the standing committee, but suffice it to say that I would have to say now that figure is perhaps a little overestimated, although there is a very large number of staff employed by OHIP whose positions will become redundant if there were not a premium system.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: In that same exchange the minister indicated, and I quote: “We have been working in my ministry for nine months, looking at various alternatives to a premium system, which we will be more than happy to share with the social development committee.” In a letter dated March 31, to the chairman of the social development committee, the minister appends not any internal documentation to support that intraministerial discussion which he alleged he would be very happy to share, but a rather pointless bibliography of known published material.

Is the minister saying that he will not share with the social development committee any of the intra-ministerial reports and studies that relate to his very intensive discussion and analysis of alternatives to the premium system?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I understand the intention of the hon. member and his colleagues in referring the annual report to the standing committee and on looking at the press release which he issued at that time, it is their intention to present alternatives and, quoting from their press release, “to look for a cheaper alternative to the premium system.” We will be glad to respond to their recommendations at the committee level and share with them the problems that we see.

Mr. Conway: May I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Grey-Bruce have a supplementary?

Mr. Sargent: No, I have a new question.

Mr. Conway: Do I understand, then, that as far as the social development committee is concerned, all we can expect from the Ministry of Health is this well-worn, well-known bibliography of published materials and that we are not going to get, as was indicated in his exchange on March 10, any of the alleged voluminous materials by way of studies and analyses of alternatives to the premium system?

Mr. S. Smith: They don’t exist. There are no such studies.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Again, it is the party opposite which has been saying it has the alternatives. We’ll be glad to answer any questions and we’ll be glad to share any figures to respond to the proposals which are going to be put forward by that party.

Mr. Sweeney: You’ve had nine months of study.

USE OF SEWAGE SLUDGE

Mr. Swart: My question is of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Pursuant to the questions this morning to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McCague) on the use of sewage sludge on farm land, and the report in this morning’s paper by Messrs. Seto and De Angelis that a large volume of sewage sludge is being spread on agricultural land, which does not meet the safe metal and chemical levels, I wonder if the minister could tell the House what regulations his ministry has instituted to protect the farmer and the consumers of Ontario food? Has he stopped even once the use of sewage sludge on agricultural land because it did not meet the safe level criteria?

Hon. W. Newman: I think most of those questions have been answered by the Minister of the Environment. But answering the member’s last question first, I can’t tell him whether one load has been dumped in the wrong spot or not. I’m not exactly sure. I would point out to him that properly-treated sewage sludge is an excellent source of nitrogen for growing plants.

Mr. S. Smith: We know that.

Hon. W. Newman: I’m glad you know that. There is monitoring constantly going on, both by the federal Minister of the Environment and the provincial Ministry of the Environment. The pesticide lab at Guelph is working on a regular basis to make sure that the products which are being grown on these lands where the sewage sludge is going on are safe for human consumption. I have quite a lengthy report here, which I will be glad to show the member, which I picked up this morning. It points out that they are constantly monitoring to make sure they are safe for human consumption.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree, after the report which was submitted by Messrs. Sew and De Angelis, that the monitoring and the regulations have not been adequate when far more sewage is being used than is safe? Will the ministry now run tests on the soil, and on all sludge, and discontinue the use of any sludge which does not meet the safe level?

Hon. W. Newman: As I said, properly treated sludge is quite satisfactory on the land.

Mr. Makarchuk: The minister doesn’t answer the question.

Hon. W. Newman: Does the member know what his problem is? He wants to save it but he doesn’t want to grow things on it. In the Niagara Peninsula he wants to save all the land, but he doesn’t want to grow anything on it. He wants to stop all of that. I can assure him that we are going to continue using sludge as a good source of growing Ontario food, and don’t forget it.

Mr. Swart: But grow it safely.

Mr. Kerrio: All you do is shovel it.

Interjections.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: Is the minister aware of the fact that in this

article it suggests that research showed that unless vegetables were scrubbed and washed carefully there was some danger to the people who ingest them? Is he satisfied that those crops grown on this land are safe, and should he be giving notice that care should be taken by people who are going to eat the vegetables from those lands?

Hon. W. Newman: I think that question could be directed to the Minister of the Environment, but I would point out to the hon. member that monitoring is going on --

Mr. Kerrio: I get pages and pages of that stuff from the ministry.

Hon. W. Newman: -- at this time by the various levels of government and the various departments of government.

Mr. Kerrio: Is the minister going to tell us about it or not? He spreads it around.

Hon. W. Newman: The member can spread it too. Let me tell him we are constantly monitoring to make sure there are no human health problems.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. I haven’t had a chance to frame it properly, but I want to ask if he is aware of what is going on in all the Escarpment areas where we are having 1,000 people crowding into halls, 500 people standing in the cold for hours, and 99 per cent of them are opposed to the NEC?

In view of the fact that the whole Niagara Escarpment area in the Grey-Bruce area is in complete limbo and we cannot develop -- our economy is the worst in the province of Ontario -- would he please either come to a meeting to find out what’s going on or call off and cancel the whole Escarpment, abolish the whole thing and give us a chance to run our affairs and get back in the ball game in our part of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that the hon. member is speaking for his party when he suggests that we abandon the Niagara Escarpment plan, including the Peninsula, including the town of Caledon, and including those many historic areas of the province of Ontario which the Escarpment planning area is attempting to preserve in the interests of the general public, and I am delighted to know that it is now Liberal policy --

An hon. member: In the interests of self-preservation of all the committees.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that we will have no preservation of this kind, no planning of this kind and the Niagara Escarpment --

An hon. member: What about the sunset law?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- will be abandoned to development, pits, quarries and all of those things. Is that the policy? In answer to the hon. member’s question, I understand there is a problem, yes.

Mr. Breithaupt: That doesn’t answer the question.

Mr. S. Smith: We certainly want to save the Escarpment.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: The facts are that 75 per cent of the Escarpment area, $1.3 billion of land involved, is in the Grey-Bruce area and we are hurting very badly. We cannot do anything. We can’t expand. We can’t even make a subdivision or anything. There are areas where we haven’t had a subdivision since 1963 and we have to have some action. Please abolish this commission.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will not minimize the problems the member senses exist. I understand them.

An hon. member: What are you going to do about them?

An hon. member: We have them in Caledon too.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary: Has the Premier come to any conclusions with regard to the cost of acquiring the lands that are presently under the control orders in the Niagara Escarpment Commission, and at what price and what level the private land owners will be compensated?

An hon. member: Now they want to nationalize the land.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure that there has been any determination made on that particular matter. I understand it is perhaps Liberal Party policy to buy everything in sight.

Mr. Kerrio: Oh, come on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Our commitment is to acquire those areas that will be in the public interest and, of course, any time government acquires lands in the public interest, government pays the market value.

An hon. member: Get Alan Eagleson to buy some and he will free it up.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member for St. George permit the hon. member for Grey to ask a question?

Mr. McKessock: Supplementary: Will the Premier take a close look at the fact that the Niagara Escarpment Commission stepped outside the intent of the Act when it developed the planning area in the Niagara Escarpment area, and take a close look at turning some of this planning area back to the municipalities involved?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, having formerly represented a part of the Niagara Escarpment Commission area I know of the problem being mentioned by the hon. members. I question whether the commission has extended beyond its legislative authority. If the hon. member is suggesting it has, certainly I would be prepared to take a look at that.

As for the possibility of returning some of the land that is within the planning area to the local municipalities, I can’t give any commitment on that. I guess if one could assume that the local municipalities would in turn zone those lands consistent with the Niagara Escarpment Commission plan, that might he a possibility, but I question whether the hon. member would be in a position to give that commitment on behalf of those municipalities.

MACLAREN HOUSE NURSING HOME

Ms. Gigantes: A question of the Minister of Health: In answer to questions I asked him in July 1977 concerning MacLaren House Nursing Home, the Minister of Health wrote to me in late August and assured me that “a condition of the sale of MacLaren House to Mr. Bordo was that Mr. Bordo would take steps to ensure that the physical plan of MacLaren House Nursing Home was in total compliance with the Nursing Home Act, 1972, within 12 months of the date of the purchase” --

Mr. Yakabuski: Question.

Ms. Gigantes: He went on to describe how Mr. Bordo was then planning to fulfill his commitment. I wonder if the minister is now prepared, one year after the purchase, to provide a full account of what firm proposals Mr. Bordo has filed with the nursing home branch; and has Mr. Bordo received ministry approval for these proposals?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Obviously I don’t carry all those figures and facts with me. I’ll take that question as notice and give the member a complete answer.

Mr. Warner: Why not? You should.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You’re going to get another award, Warner. Just keep it up.

“THE THREE FACES OF JESUS”

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Following the comments made in the House of Commons with respect to a film, apparently entitled “The Three Faces of Jesus,” I was wondering if the minister has requested a report on that film from his theatres branch and when he receives that report will he be able to advise the House as to whether it is the intention to have this film shown publicly in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answers are not yet, and yes.

Ms. Haggerty: Did you get your award, Larry?

DESERTING FATHERS

Mr. Blundy: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. In view of the fact that it was reported in the press last week that the Minister of Community and Social Services was disturbed at the cost to his ministry of the increasing numbers of deserting fathers, what plans does the minister have to seek out and find these people and to recoup these funds?

Hon. Mr. Norton: My remarks on that occasion went beyond purely the economic costs; I was also commenting upon the social costs to our communities and societies across this province of the apparent breakdown of the family unit in our society. But certainly, with respect to the part to which the hon. member has directed his attention, it is my intention to have discussions with my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) to see if we might take steps to improve even further the enforcement of orders, where orders do exist.

I would be hopeful, of course, with the new family law reform provisions, that perhaps there would be more voluntary agreements and involvement on the part of spouses to provide for the care of the children prior to the disintegration of the family unit where that should occur, and that there would be fewer situations -- that may be unduly optimistic -- but I would hope there would be fewer situations in which the families of deserting spouses would be dependent upon the other citizens of the province.

PETITION

INCREASE IN OHIP PREMIUMS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with 2,194 signatures. The petition is 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 recent proposed increase in OHIP premiums is unconscionable and should not proceed, and a less regressive method of paying for Ontario’s health services he instituted.”

That was signed by 2,194 people in the Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario area.

MINISTRY INFORMATION

Mr. Conway: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like to beg your indulgence, sir, in respect of material that I consider to be very important for the deliberations of the social development committee, which begins hearings tomorrow.

[3:15]

At my request, the chairman of the committee wrote to the Minister of Health some days ago asking for material which we believed to be important in the discussion of what the ministry and the government had considered as alternatives to the premium mechanism in so far as the financing of Ontario’s health care system is concerned. In this House on March 10, the minister clearly indicated they had been working for nine months and one got the distinct impression that there were at least a number of studies that had been commissioned, either by the Ministry of Health or by the Treasury, or perhaps by both ministries in conjunction.

Today we have before us, supplied from the office of the chairman of that committee, a response from the Ministry of Health which is clearly indicative that there will be no such ministerial material coming forward for members of that committee who begin very important deliberations, I think, tomorrow.

I wonder, can we accept this letter dated March 31 to the chairman of that committee from the Minister of Health as an admission that in fact the nine months of studies and analyses, and whatever, produced nothing more than this bibliography of known publications, and that because we have nothing more than this bibliography there is in fact nothing more within the government -- either in his ministry or that of the Treasurer -- to supply to the members of that committee for those deliberations?

The point of privilege is simply this: We were led to believe by the Minister of Health that there had been a very serious nine-month discussion and analysis period within the government in looking at alternatives. I expected to be in receipt today, or at the latest tonight, of those ministerial or intergovernmental reports, analyses or whatever. Twenty-four hours or 22 hours before the committee meets, I have, courtesy of the chairman of that committee, nothing more than a bibliography which I dare say even I could have put together.

Mr. Speaker, I want to know, through you, if there will be no further material coming in addition to that bibliography; and if not, does that indicate that in fact the government, through the Minister of Health and/or the Treasurer, is not willing to share with members of that committee any other material? Is this an admission that while there may have been a nine-month discussion period within the ministry, there is nothing concrete, there are no studies and there are no analyses of the alternatives which the government, through the Minister of Health, can provide members of the social development committee for their very important deliberations beginning tomorrow?

Mr. Martel: You should do better than that, fellas.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in considering the point of privilege raised by the hon. member, I ask you to consider several things. First of all, in the letter dated March 16, 1978, from the chairman of the committee to me, the way I interpreted it, I believe the letter of March 31, 1978, was in fact answering that which had been requested by the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt).

Second, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider the petition of the members of the official opposition and the press release which accompanied -- or at least announced that petition to the public. It was clear from that, and the pronouncements of the members of that party since, that they intend to put forward certain alternatives and to argue for them.

Mr. S. Smith: You don’t have any studies, admit it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Third, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider that during question period today I did make it clear that we would be glad to answer any questions and to provide any numbers or any facts with respect to any of those alternatives which the official opposition are going to advance. They will have our complete co-operation.

Mr. Conway: To that point, Mr. Speaker, if I might, I can well appreciate the points which the Minister of Health on behalf of the government adds to your deliberation of this point before us now. I just want to have you also consider the remarks made by the Minister of Health, remarks which we, or I at least, considered -- rightly or wrongly -- when he said on March 10 that “we have been working in my ministry for nine months looking at various alternatives to a premium system and we will be more than happy to share these with the social development committee.”

Mr. McClellan: This is out of order. Let’s get on with the debate.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I beg you to consider when you are making this ruling, or giving the advice that is being sought, to indicate whether or not --

Mr. McClellan: Abuse of privilege.

Mr. Conway: -- this very minor bibliography is in fact a substantial enough response to what we were led to believe by the ministry was a substantial amount of material --

Ms. Gigantes: What is going on? Sit down.

Mr. Conway: -- in so far as alternatives and their discussion were concerned.

Mr. Cassidy: Boy, you are really floundering.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On the point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The hon. member for Renfrew North arose on a point of privilege and I gave the hon. minister an opportunity to respond. I was in error in allowing the hon. member for Renfrew North to speak again to his same point of privilege, and of course I’m not going to perpetuate the felony by allowing a dialogue across the House.

All members of the House know that if you have what you consider to be a point of privilege inasmuch as something is not going to be provided in a committee of this House, it is the responsibility of that committee to take whatever action it deems necessary, and if they can’t settle it to bring it back to the House for some action by the House as a result of a concerted effort by that committee; and that is where it rests at the present time.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PREDATOR CONTROL ACT

Mr. Riddell moved first reading of Bill 54,

an Act respecting Predator Control in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to authorize the establishment of local predator control committees throughout Ontario to develop methods and procedures to protect livestock and poultry from destruction by predators. A committee is established for each predator control area designated by the minister, and the committee within one year of its establishment must prepare a predator control plan for approval by the minister. The bill requires every predator control committee to regularly review the predator control plan, and to report to the minister on an annual basis concerning whether the plan has been effective in reducing the level of predator activity.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Dukszta moved first reading of Bill 55,

an Act to amend the Education Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Dukszta: The purpose of the bill is to provide for heritage language instruction in Ontario. The bill sets forth the procedure for the establishment of heritage language programs in order that the heritage language may be taught as a subject of instruction or as a language of instruction. When a school board decides to institute a heritage language program the bill requires that a local heritage language advisory committee be established to provide continuing advice to the boards concerning the nature and content of the heritage language program.

In the case of a dispute between the board and the advisory committee, the bill provides that the matter in dispute may be referred to the minister for determination.

HARTT INQUIRY

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, a point of order -- just a point of clarification: The Premier in his statement on the Hartt royal commission indicated he was tabling the report. I did not notice during reports that it was tabled. Could you inform me if he tabled it during the course of making the statement?

Mr. Speaker: I am advised that under the new provisional orders they are just sent to the table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INCREASE IN OHIP PREMIUMS

Mr. Cassidy moved resolution 5:

That this House condemns the government’s outrageous decision to raise Ontario Health Insurance Plan premiums to the highest level in Canada; deplores the regressive impact of this arbitrary tax increase on wage earners in general, on farmers and small business, and in particular, on people of modest income; and condemns the government’s affront to the fundamental parliamentary principle of no taxation without legislation. For all these reasons this House no longer has confidence in the government.

Mr. Cassidy: I will not be speaking on this until later in the debate.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party has placed this motion of no-confidence in the government because of the Treasurer’s (Mr. McKeough) budget proposals to increase OHIP fees as a means of increasing government revenues.

We are opposed to this kind of fiscal gerrymandering because it violates a number of specific principles which we believe to be crucial in an equitable society.

The imposition of medicare premiums is in itself fundamentally wrong. The imposition of premiums of this level, $528 a year, is simply grotesque and cannot be justified. This party stands firm in its opposition to this increase. We had hoped -- and still do as a matter of fact -- that the Liberal Party would support us in this motion. If, in the first instance, the Liberals had indicated theft support for Our motion there is little doubt but that the government would have withdrawn the OHIP increase.

The regressive reality of OHIP premiums is not something that can be eliminated with premium assistance any more than property tax credits can make property taxes progressive or any more than sales tax credits can make the sales tax a progressive form of taxation.

The examination of just a few statistics is sufficient to demonstrate why we simply cannot accept this increase in premiums and why the government should withdraw the increase. We are not rejecting this increase, nor have we moved no-confidence in this government, simply because we are in opposition. We have done so because it is possible to generate revenues more equitably if the Treasurer is determined to raise an additional $271 million.

If the Treasurer were to insist on increasing that amount of money he could do it through personal provincial income taxes and corporation taxes in the same proportion as the present tax system, 75 per cent personal and 25 per cent corporate taxes. We can show that most families will be better off if this were the system, and it would be less regressive than it is at the present time.

We know that to raise this amount of income would require a 2.78 per cent increase in personal income tax rates. The provincial rate now rests at 44 per cent of the federal tax payable, and the increase would raise it to 46.78 per cent.

This would represent a 7.4 per cent increase in the level of provincial income tax paid by Ontario residents. If this was done, sufficient revenues would be generated to negate the necessity of this $271 million tax increase that is suggested by the Treasurer.

Corporation taxes would need to rise less than one point to raise theft share of about $68 million. If this was done, all families with incomes below $28,000 would be better off than they are at the present time, or would be with this increase. Individuals with incomes below $16,000 a year would be better off than with the projected increases as suggested by the Treasurer along with the OHIP premiums.

As a matter of fact, all OHIP premiums could be eliminated with an 11.5 per cent increase in the tax rate from 44 to 55.5 per cent. Even with that substantial increase in the personal income tax rate at the provincial level, families with incomes below $26,000 would be better off, and in fact would pay less taxes than they do now with the combination of personal taxes and OHIP premiums. Individuals with incomes below $15,000 would pay less as well under that system.

We find it strange indeed that the Treasurer boasts of Ontario’s personal income tax level of 44 per cent as being the second lowest in all of Canada while at the same time he increases a more regressive tax to a level more than twice as high as any other province in this country. As a matter of fact, Ontario’s OHIP premiums, combined with its income tax rate, gives Ontario residents by far the highest level of personal taxes in all of Canada.

[3:30]

There is a danger that in the heat of this battle over OHIP premiums we may overlook what is just as important as the regressive nature of the tax increase. We may lose sight of the original goals of a universal health care system for our people. We must fight very hard to ensure that these goals are not forgotten.

The founding convention of this party back in 1933 adopted a policy of a socialized health delivery system. As a matter of fact, at that convention the policy drew a parallel between health care and education, which I think is appropriate. Surely we in this chamber would agree that just as for 13 years of elementary and secondary school education there is no premium, or deterrent or tuition fee at all, the same principle should apply to health care as is applicable in our educational system.

There is no question in our minds that the premium of $528 a year will cause some families simply not to pay the premium, for economic reasons they’ll take theft chances on remaining healthy. I suspect this will be particularly so with young people, who are by nature healthy anyway, and they will quite successfully refrain from paying premiums and from contributing to the plan. That’s a problem because we know that, as in any insurance program, it requires that the people who will never draw from it contribute so that those people who will draw from it most heavily will be able to receive the benefits to which they’re entitled.

The provision of health care to people is a noble undertaking. It provides both economic and social benefits to our province and its people. The federal royal commission on health services back in 1964 put it most eloquently, and I’d like to quote from that report:

“We have spoken of the opportunity society, where good health is the key to the benefits available in our increasingly wealthy country. These opportunities depend on the acquisition of education and skills as well as health, but if these are available to the individual Canadian, whether or not he has the income to purchase them, then he can make his contribution to the growth of output and income, which will benefit not only himself, but through his taxes, others in the community. Canadians with sufficiently high incomes have pointed the way by spending an increasing share of their income on health services.

Low incomes and poor health have been too closely associated for us to ignore the adverse effects on income distribution of chronic illness and disability. Expenditures on good health may well be as efficient a device for equalizing the distribution of income as any subsidy can possibly be.”

Of course, the principle of no taxation without legislation is yet another principle that the Treasurer has violated. My colleague from Scarborough-Ellesmere has documented eloquently and exhaustively the precedent for regarding these premiums as taxation. From the Magna Carta to the BNA Act, for 700 years, people have fought against arbitrary assessments such as this, and yet this government has acquiesced while the Treasurer, as a result of the fiscal myopia with which he is afflicted, pursues his single-minded goal of a balanced budget by 1981.

We in this party are proud of the role we have played in the development of universal health care coverage in Canada and in Ontario. The former Premier of Saskatchewan and federal leader, T. C. Douglas, pioneered in providing medicare. In Ontario, our party in 1969 voted against the medicare bill, and our first two reasons in that amendment were, and I quote:

“1. It fails to guarantee an immediate reduction of premiums, thereby continuing a regressive form of payment at unnecessarily high levels without meaningful regard for the patient’s ability to pay;

“2. It fails to prohibit extra billing by participating doctors, thereby supporting a deterrent to use which runs contrary to the principle of equal access to medical care services for everyone in Ontario.”

Here we are nine years later, standing as we did then against those who talk of equity but practise regressivity. They failed to raise revenues through the most equitable form of taxation available to them -- progressive income and corporation taxes. How can we as legislators justify a system of medicare that increases premiums by 37.5 per cent and then, if the OMA gets its way, will allow doctors to increase their

schedule of fees, with OHIP paying a smaller percentage of the OMA fee schedule?

While this debate is centred on the OHIP increases, our motion of no-confidence takes on an even greater significance with the current negotiations between the Ministry of Health and the province’s doctors. I am appalled and disheartened that we have not been joined by the Liberal Party in this fight. Together we could have had the increase in premiums withdrawn. Sending this matter to a standing committee may result in a compromise but it most certainly will not cause the increase to be rescinded, and that is our goal.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario health care system is the only universal service provided by the province to all of its citizens throughout their lives. This is a responsibility of extraordinary proportions. Of course, no individual or group, or even one government, can claim total credit for the health care system now in place. It is the result of the dedicated work of many people over a long period of time. I caution the hon. members in opposition that today they can do this service, and the people who rely on it, irreparable harm.

If I may, I would like to put a human dimension on the health care system as we have it today in this province. In just one generation we have seen the transition of health care from that of a solely individual responsibility, with the accompanying spectre of financial disaster or inadequate treatment, to that of a wider social responsibility accepted by the government.

High-quality health care services have come to be considered a fundamental right of all citizens -- a right predicated on medical necessity regardless of personal financial circumstances.

Ms. Gigantes: You have to pay your premiums, though, don’t you?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We, in this government, wholeheartedly support that right and have worked with all the resources at our disposal to develop and refine the health care system.

We sometimes forget, or take for granted, the developments in health care that have taken place in the past 20 years. Let me briefly refresh the members’ memories, for the government’s record in this area is one of consistent progress.

In 1959, insured benefits covered only full in-patient hospital services, emergency outpatient services Within 24 hours of an accident and some out-of-province benefits. But through the years this government has steadily increased the number of insured services.

By 1964, emergency out-patient services had been expanded to include treatment such as radio-therapy and occupational and speech therapy.

In 1966, health insurance was expanded from a hospital-based service to include all physician services; and in 1969, universal medicare, through the OHSIP plan, was introduced.

In 1972, both plans were fully integrated into a single plan, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. At that time the premiums were reduced from what they had been under the two separate plans.

At this time, benefits were extended under the extended care programs to include patient residents in nursing homes and homes for the aged who were in need of at least one and a half hours of nursing or personal care per day. And in 1974 the drug benefit program was introduced to provide quality prescription drugs to eligible Ontario residents.

But today we face new challenges in health care. We are engaged in the process of reshaping the system to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of the people of Ontario. We are placing increasing emphasis on developments which will ensure that even better ways of delivering care are available to all citizens; that the system remains responsive to all citizens: that it continues to foster scientific and technological progress; and, finally, that it is managed and operated in the most effective manner so the cost of health care can be contained.

In reviewing the motion of the NDP, it must become apparent that their concern is with the short-term financing of health care. We, as the government, have a broader responsibility than that and cannot afford the luxury of a short-term partisan outlook.

Mr. Martel: Look at the 1969 debate. We said the same thing then.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The NDP has conveniently ignored the greater ongoing challenge of how the people of this province -- and I do mean all the people -- are to be served with accessible, efficient and high-quality health care within the responsible economic and financial parameters to which this government is committed.

This is not a problem faced by Ontario alone. The cost of health care has been rising dramatically throughout the western world. In the past two decades, both in terms of total annual health expenditures and per capita annual health costs, the rate of increase has exceeded the rate of growth of the gross national product -- no matter how fast the GNP itself has risen.

In fact, a recent international comparison has shown that in most similar jurisdictions, no matter how fast the economy has grown, health care costs have increased even faster.

In Ontario, as might be expected, we have had our share of cost increases. Overall, the Ministry of Health budget between 1968-69 and 1978-79 has grown by over 345 per cent, despite some transfer of certain services out of our ministry to other ministries. Much of this increase, however, is accounted for by additional services provided, such as medical and other practitioner services of the OHIP program, the extended care program and the drug benefit program, which I’ve already mentioned.

Today, out of every dollar which the government spends in the province, 28 cents is committed to the provision of health services. We see throughout the western world, the pattern of rising expectations and rising costs of health care, a pattern that often exceeds the growth of the economy. Yet our performance in this regard in Ontario can be a matter of pride.

Between 1970 and 1975, the growth in health-care costs exceeded the growth in the gross provincial product by 11 percentage points, but between 1975 and 1977, the GNP has increased by 29 per cent while health-care costs have increased by only 27 per cent. This is a positive result of the full acceptance of our financial responsibility for the development, the direction and the administration of these services.

I would like to remind this House that it is in the context that the NDP has introduced its motion -- a motion, as I have pointed out, that is concerned only with the short-term and which ignores the realities under which we must live today.

There are those who will ask the question as to whether health care has assumed unwarranted proportions as a priority for provincial spending, considering the other demands on the provincial budget. To them, I would reply “No.” I believe that the vast majority of the people of Ontario would agree with me. There is no question in my mind that health care is one of the most, if not the most, valued of all provincial services.

We must recognize that to maintain the health care system which the people of Ontario expect and deserve, we must deal rationally with the question of costs. Even in the area of simply stabilizing costs, there are those who hold the view that this will inevitably lead to the lowering of health care standards. In this respect, the Ontario Economic Council, in its report Issues and Alternatives published in 1976, cautions that this is an area that must be carefully studied because no easy assumptions can be made. Our experience leads us to agree with this proposition.

When we consider the necessary services the system requires, and the people’s demand for high quality for health care, we find it undesirable to cut back arbitrarily on either the health care services or their quality. We are, however, committed to the containment of costs without jeopardizing the system, and this commitment has engaged much of my time since I became Minister of Health.

Our philosophy in this regard is to seek a balanced system of health care and our focus is on those institutions in which efficiencies and dollar savings can be realized while still having due regard with human and humane factors of the health care system. We are using many methods, including making more efficient use of our resources, amalgamating services, changing staffing patterns and introducing other cost-saving measures such as increased emphasis on day surgery.

If I may, I will elaborate on only a few of these.

We are continuing to work with hospitals to find acceptable ways of reducing the average length of stay of their patients. In fact, the average length of stay in an active-treatment bed has fallen from 10.3 days in 1969 to 8.1 days in 1976. The significance of this becomes apparent when we realize that the average cost of a standard ward hospital bed in 1976 was $129 per day, while the per diem cost for nursing-home accommodation was $21 and the per diem cost for home care was only $11. These figures serve to illustrate the importance of the thrust in the health care system towards de-institutionalization.

This approach has been particularly successful in the psychiatric hospital area where, in the past 10 years, the number of hospital patients has been reduced from about 10,000 in 1967 to 4,300 in 1977, as care has been shifted to the community level. This has been achieved through such initiatives as the homes for special care program and increased emphasis on the community mental health program. These programs have provided benefits, not only in terms of the economy, but also in terms of the patient’s well-being.

I believe it is also appropriate to point out in this context of financial restraint, that while the cost of health services has more than doubled in the past five years, the ministry has accomplished its tasks with a staff reduction of 1,600 in the past four years. As well, administrative costs of the 011W program are now about five per cent against a claim factor of almost $1 billion. This is significantly lower than the American average of 6.75 per cent. A further comparison is with the administrative costs of the Blue Cross program in New York State, which has a claim factor roughly equivalent to that of our province. Their costs average 7.5 per cent.

[3:45]

It may be worthwhile, however, to refresh the hon. members’ memories as to just how large this OHIP operation really is. Virtually all of the 8.4 million Ontario residents are insured under OHIP. Last year 53 million claims were processed, which represents an increase of 60 per cent over five years ago. This represents 250,000 claims every working day, an average of over six claims per person per year as compared to four per person per year in 1972.

Under these circumstances, we believe we are doing a remarkably good job of holding our administrative costs under control -- the result, I suggest, of effective management practices based on sound business principles, principles and practices which I have no doubt are foreign to certain opposition members.

I would like to turn for a few minutes to the premium structure for OHIP. With the introduction of the Ontario Health Services Insurance Plan in 1969, it was the established philosophy of this government that premiums would cover a certain percentage of the cost of this service and that this ratio of premiums to cost would be maintained. The general expectation was that this percentage would be about 33 per cent.

Even though the Ontario plan met all of these criteria, under the federal equalization formula of calculating provincial payments to a national average, this province was never to receive the full 50 per cent reimbursement. There has always been a shortfall in that area.

Throughout this period, this government has kept premiums down. By 1977-78, premium revenue represented only 22 per cent of the total cost of health services.

Mr. Cassidy: They rose by 45 per cent two years ago.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In the budget for fiscal 1978-79, the increase in premiums brought the revenue figure up to 28.4 per cent of the total cost of health services, still below the originally expected 33 per cent. I might digress here to explain that the figures I am using, 28.4 per cent, refer to the premium revenue in relation to the total budget of the Ministry of Health. A figure of 34 per cent has been set out in the new budget statement, but it excludes several significant health care costs, such as those for psychiatric hospitals, the drug benefit program and public health.

Despite the motion of the NDP, the point is that whatever perspective one puts on the matter, premiums still cover only 28.4 per cent of the total ministry budget. It is imperative that these costs be financed responsibly. The government has studied the alternatives through a number of advisory committees that have reported their conclusions on the increasing costs of health care. These include the special program review report, better known as the Henderson report, and that of the joint advisory committee, the Taylor report, released earlier this year.

Mr. Laughren: We know. Self-serving documents.

Mr. Cassidy: It is the gospel for the Tories.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The consensus was that to finance the growing cost of health care, a premium increase was the most sensible and responsible way. The joint committee’s first recommendation was this: “The amount of revenue generated by premiums has declined from 32 per cent of total health care expenditures in 1971-72 to 22 per cent in 1977-78, with the last premium increase in 1976.

The committee felt that since premium increases generate considerable additional revenue while not increasing administrative costs, coupled with the awareness of the cost of health care that is generated by this kind of personal system involvement, that this is a useful way of containing public health care expenditures.”

To carry on with a further quote: “Although most provinces have waived the premiums entirely, the committee felt that in line with its commitment through some direct fiscal involvement by the user in health care costs, premiums should not only be retained but should reflect overall health care costs. The committee also noted that although 75 per cent of total premium revenue is paid by employers, the employer contribution is negotiated with the employee and is an expense for taxation purposes, while the employee pays income tax on this taxable benefit.”

Mr. Laughren: It is a taxation and the minister knows it. It is plain and simple Tory taxation.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The exact recommendation of the joint committee is as follows: “That OHIP premium amounts be reviewed on an annual basis in order to maintain the revenue accruing from total premiums that would approximate 33 per cent of total insured health services costs.”

The Henderson report commented as follows: “Few users of Ontario health services realize that if all costs were paid directly out of pocket, the annual rate premium required from current contributors to finance the province’s expenditures in 1975-76 would be $1,300 per family and $660 per single person.” I point out that under similar circumstances, the premiums required for 1978-79 would be $1,834 per family and $917 per single person.

In addition to these reports, we have studied other methods of curtailing costs -- some very drastic -- including specific service reductions; deferring expansion of chronic care programs; elimination of some research components; the elimination of elective out-of-Canada benefits; and, as members are well aware, the closing of some hospitals or whole wings of hospitals.

Mr. Cassidy: So people are paying more money for less health.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I emphasize considered -- I did not say accepted. As well there were other considerations, such as a deterrent fee related to OHIP and the introduction of a co-payment within the drug benefit program, to mention just a few.

All of these alternatives were rejected as inappropriate at this time.

Even though we have undertaken a very responsible approach to financing the OHIP program, we do not find satisfaction in making changes to the basic premium. However, it should be restated, for it obviously is lost on some, that when all is said and done there is no such thing as free health services, just as there is no free ride for anything else undertaken by the public sector.

Mr. Laughren: What a silly statement to make. Put up a straw man and then knock him down. A really good debating point, Dennis.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If we were to live in a world of fantasy, I suppose we could dream about never increasing premiums despite ever-increasing costs; but as a responsible government, we do not have an opportunity to live in such an Mice-in-Wonderland atmosphere. The real world offers no such escape.

Mr. Cassidy: Somewhere back with Adam Smith. There is an escape for your gang, and it is at the ballot box.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: While there has been an increase in premiums we should also keep in mind that provision has been made to increase the income ceilings for those whose income makes them eligible for full or partial premium assistance.

Mr. Laughren: Any more straw men, Dennis?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: This seems to have been overlooked -- or ignored -- in the general debate over the basic increase. As an example, under the enriched premium subsidy program free coverage will now be available to single people with a taxable income of $2,500 or less -- an upward change of 49 per cent. For families, the upward change is 50 per cent, to $3,000 or less. Subsidies of 50 per cent will be available for single people with taxable incomes between $2,500 and $3,000; and families with taxable incomes between $3,000 and $4,000. The subsidies currently apply to single people with taxable incomes between $1,680 and $2,000 and to families between $2,000 and $3,000.

Therefore, while we have made an adjustment in premiums, we have also tempered the effect of this adjustment on a large proportion of the population. All told, about 1.9 million people, or almost one out of every four Ontarians, including those 65 years of age and over and those receiving social assistance, now receive full or partial subsidization.

I ask whether these 1.9 million Ontario citizens believe, and I quote from the motion before this House, “that this government’s action is an outrageous decision that should be condemned.” I think the answer to that is obviously “No.”

Another question which I believe the opposition parties, especially the NDP, will have to answer is this: Instead of the premium increase health costs being funded out of general revenue, how do they propose raising the additional $271 million required? By enlarging the provincial debt? By borrowing more and further mortgaging the future, or what? The public will want to know this, and they deserve to be told.

In fact, we are still waiting to be told how the opposition parties would pay for some of the recent proposals they have made regarding the provision of expanded services. If these proposals to expand OHIP to include dental coverage, to include the provision of prosthetic and orthodontic devices, and to expand chronic home care immediately throughout the province were implemented, our estimate is that they would cost at least an additional $390 million per year.

It appears abundantly obvious that it is very easy to make proposals without having to accept the responsibility of making them work.

Mr. Cassidy: Who writes these speeches for you? Tell him to retire.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have one of the most comprehensive health care systems on this continent at a direct cost to about three-quarters of the population of an individual annual rate of $264 and a family rate of $528.

Mr. Cassidy: It is the highest in Canada.

Mr. Makarchuk: The most expensive in Canada.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In only a few short years, we have initiated dramatic changes in the duties of government in the health care area to its citizens. These changes have developed an increased and still-increasing expectation of a very highly sophisticated health service.

Mr. Laughren: You’re the oldest Tory over there.

Mr. Cassidy: The youngest reactionary.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We are taking new initiatives in the areas of operating efficiencies, cost control and manpower control. We are implementing our commitment to de-institutionalization and to community involvement in both health care and decision-making. We are dealing with the problem of over-utilization of the system. At the same time, we are evaluating the need for new and expanded programs. There is much to be done because we direct and operate a health care system in a state of constant transition. Change and improvement are not only possible but necessary.

In two respects alone -- those of lower infant mortality and increasing life expectancy -- we may expect increasing demands on the health care system. This, coupled with the fact that we face a declining birth rate and an aging population, will change the emphasis of our health care needs in the future. Our response to these and other changes, such as the inevitable ones in technology, must be planned and in place.

The second factor under which we must operate is the changed economic climate, as well as the program of restraint on all expenditures in the public sector. We will have to continue to watch our expenditure patterns even if the economy should move out of its present difficulties --

Mr. Laughren: You’ve ruined the economy, now clobber the public sector. You’re pretty good at setting up straw men.

Mr. Cassidy: How many people have you put out of work this week?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- because costs are unlikely to decrease and demands on services are likely to increase. In this respect, one of our initiatives is to persuade the public to accept more responsibility for the maintenance of their own health, and for controlling their use and their demands on the health care system.

Earlier I spoke of the increased emphasis on ambulatory and community-based health care.

Mr. Laughren: Why did you let the Treasurer do this to you? Why do you let the Treasurer run roughshod over you?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In the future I see this process continuing not only as an important area in which to control costs --

Mr. Laughren: It’s the truth, isn’t it Darcy?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- but as a practical and desirable way of bringing health care even closer to the people.

Mr. Laughren: Why does the Treasurer always get his way?

Mr. Makarchuk: That was the laying on of hands, no doubt.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We may anticipate that the process of transition will continue, but none of this can he accomplished by an instant clean-sweep approach or simply by ad hoc change. We deal, in this process of transition, with the human element, both in suppliers and users of the system, and the impact of ill-considered or ill-timed change can have far-reaching consequences.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right -- like premium increases. Your premium increases are ill-timed. That was ill-considered.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Changes in this context will require a great deal of sensitivity and, perhaps most of all, of common sense -- a commodity which we have traditionally found sadly lacking among so many members opposite.

Speaking of common sense, I would like to suggest that the hon. members set aside the extravagant rhetoric of the NDP motion before the House and consider soberly the brief review which I have given of the services and responsibilities and value to the people of Ontario --

Mr. Laughren: You’re the one who’s dogmatic and doctrinaire.

Mr. Warner: Next time you stick your head in the sand you should open your mouth.

Mr. Speaker, I say with the utmost of conviction that it would be both prudent and sensible for this Legislature to reject the motion before it. I add only that I am looking forward to the upcoming meetings of the standing committee on social development. It is high time that the people of this province received an opportunity to scrutinize fully the bombastic propositions of the opposition. It is high time that people received an opportunity to analyze the sound and the fury which has been emanating from the members opposite. It is time to see if there is substance behind their rhetoric or if it is, as I suspect --

Mr. Warner: We should have had time to debate the tax.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- mere posturing, void of any practical policy suggestion.

Mr. Warner: Nonsense.

An hon. member: You’ll see, you pompous jerk.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Renfrew North.

Mr. Warner: Here comes the apology.

Mr. Conway: I am pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon, having had somewhat of an opportunity last Thursday night to join with my colleague from Scarborough-Ellesmere in a related debate. I took time this afternoon to read very carefully what it was we were here to debate and I want to say at the outset that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre has before us a resolution which has a certain measure of appeal.

Mr. Cassidy: But.

Mr. Laughren: Here comes the apology.

Mr. Warner: The government apology.

Mr. Conway: We’ll leave the “buts” till a little later, because there are certain political problems I would invite the hon. member for Ottawa Centre to consider a little later on.

Mr. Lawlor: Like requiring the government to withdraw them.

Mr. Warner: This is Darcy’s brother.

Mr. Conway: Although not wanting to be too mean and nasty, because in a sense what we’re here to discuss is something that just might give us an election, I know the Treasurer will share with me --

Mr. Laughren: Withdraw the increase.

[4:00]

Mr. Conway: -- a certain sardonic interest in a column that appeared today in the Toronto Sun, which in part relates to an item which gave us the last election, specifically the item of rent control, and how the columnist for the Toronto Sun came upon a certain internal memo that was in part authored by the member for Ottawa Centre indicating just how it was that that party might posture, if I could be allowed to use so bold a term, to perhaps produce an election.

Mr. Cassidy: Don’t lecture us about posturing.

Mr. Conway: I have to say, in all fairness, that for all my political sins I don’t think I have ever circularized my caucus with the kind of cynical posturing that is reported on behalf of the member for Ottawa Centre with respect to the item which gave us the last election.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Go get ‘em.

Mr. Conway: For those who would have the world believe that they are truly holier than the rest, coming from the Ottawa Valley, I have watched with great interest the performance of my friend from Ottawa Centre. I have to think that what is reported in the column this morning by Claire Hoy in the Toronto Sun, which among other things alleges --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Let’s hear it. Put it on the record.

Mr. Conway: -- for the interest of the member for Kenora, in a debate that gave us the last election, which there is no mistaking is what we are talking about here today, in the matter of rent control that hon. member who today moves this motion of no confidence, just speaking about the politics of it all and nothing about the substantive issue, to which I will quickly get --

Mr. Laughren: You are being sanctimonious; don’t be sanctimonious.

Mr. Conway: -- he is alleged to have said in that memo about rent control: “If the Tories eventually agree, as is likely, we then still” -- the NDP -- “win credit. If the Tories don’t agree, then we stand alone as the party which works for tenants. If we can make the Liberals make a clear anti-tenant vote along the way, so much the better.”

Mr. Cassidy: That is where your instincts are. You are pulling the province out of rent review.

Mr. Conway: I didn’t see the memo and happily I didn’t author the memo. But I think in its own quiet little way it speaks to the posturing capacity, not only of the NDP but of its lately arrived leader. Maybe, just maybe, it is a footnote worth considering in so far as supporting this call for an election is concerned.

Mr. Warner: He doesn’t know who the enemy is.

Mr. Conway: I may as well say now for the benefit of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, let’s suppose I was convinced by the power of his oratory and the force of his logic to join with him in this --

Mr. Laughren: They would withdraw the increase and the member knows it.

Mr. Conway: I don’t profess to be a Senator Forsey but I want to speak for a moment, for the member for Nickel Belt’s consideration, just to the politics of it. I don’t profess to know much about the politics of it but I was wondering what the import of voting with the member for Ottawa Centre and his happy band in this respect would give us.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They are not very happy.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a very happy band.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They are the sourest bunch you have ever seen.

Mr. Conway: That is a very well-made point because it leads to what I want to say.

Mr. Laughren: Who is the enemy?

Mr. Conway: I have no assurance that Her Honour would necessarily dissolve the 31st Parliament of Ontario without taking into consideration two constitutional precedents which I would have some knowledge of.

Mr. Laughren: They would withdraw the increase.

Mr. Conway: These might suggest that we in the opposition -- no doubt the official opposition -- might be called upon to form a ministry. But, as the Treasurer knows, that might be difficult without the accommodation of my friend from Ottawa Centre.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Don’t hold your breath.

Mr. Nixon: Maybe next week.

Mr. Conway: I must as a private member say that while I do agree with the hon. member for Ottawa Centre’s assertions that while this policy of OHIP premium increases is an outrageous act by an outrageous ministry and is repugnant to me --

Mr. Warner: What are you going to do about it?

Mr. Conway: -- there is on the horizon only one other thing that is for me more repugnant. It is the thought, however remote and however theoretical --

Mr. Cooke: Of your leader being the Premier.

Mr. Conway: -- of being forced into some kind of short-term government with the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Laughren: It would be long-term.

Mr. Conway: I have to say that that is no more attractive and certainly much less attractive than the very serious matter which is before us here today.

Mr. Laughren: Who does the Liberal Party regard as the enemy in this place?

Mr. Conway: I realize that there is a certain hypothetical quality to that. Her Honour might very properly decide that there was an inherent impossibility about the union of the virtue of the Grits with the posturing insignificance of the socialists, thereby rendering impossible any such ministerial accommodation, but I do not know what Her Honour might consider if, on this day in early April, 10 months into this Parliament or following upon the last election, she necessarily felt that way.

I must say at the outset that I simply cannot support at this time a consideration that would bring about the potential dissolution of this Parliament.

Mr. Nixon: The colour is returning to the cheeks of the Treasurer.

Mr. Warner: You won’t vote against the OHIP premiums!

Mr. Conway: There is nothing which frustrates my ambition -- and it’s a very moderate ambition -- for the general health and welfare of this Ontario community --

Mr. Warner: You haven’t the strength of a jelly bean.

Mr. Conway: -- more than the thought of being forced to sit for however brief a period of time on the Treasury benches with my colleague from Ottawa Centre, who is alleged in this morning’s press to be capable of what I think to be the rankest of rank cynicism.

Now to the matter at hand in so far as the policy is concerned.

Mr. Warner: I knew you would get around to that sooner or later.

Mr. Breaugh: It’s about time.

Mr. Conway: I am happy to see the Treasurer is here, particularly --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Policy? Did you say policy?

Mr. Conway: The member for Kenora, who is the Minister of Northern Affairs, says -- and I don’t fault him at all, knowing his expertness in the political strategies afoot --

Mr. Nixon: He’s got a Moosonee tan.

Mr. Conway: Yes, it certainly is that.

The member for Kenora says that he, like the Minister of Health and, no doubt, the Treasurer, is here to find out what the responsible opposition has to say and to offer. I will say, for the edification of the Minister of Northern Affairs and other members of the government who might have an interest in this, that we in the responsible opposition, facing the responsible challenge of this very serious matter of health care financing and health care policy, are not prepared to send this matter to the electorate for the third election in as many years without a full and responsible discussion of the matter.

Mr. Breaugh: I can understand that.

Mr. Conway: It is interesting to me, as a relatively new member in this august assembly --

Mr. Breaugh: Unfortunately.

Mr. Conway: -- to note with considerable interest the fact that the government has carefully managed the affairs of this House and its various committees in such a way as to assiduously avoid any involvement in a real way in health care policy discussion. Of course, we have had the 20 hours of consideration of the Ministry of Health estimates, and all of us who worship at the shrine of the British parliamentary system know just how relevant that is to the politics of the matter.

We have had committees, extraordinary committees of a select nature, that have travelled this province, spending considerable of the taxpayers’ dollars --

Mr. Breaugh: Some even went outside of the province.

Mr. Conway: Some even went outside of the province. Well --

Mr. Breaugh: Some even had their picture taken outside of the province.

Mr. Conway: That’s right.

Mr. Nixon: Some even went out without being on a committee.

Mr. Conway: That’s right.