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

December 20, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L145 - Thu 20 Dec 1979 / Jeu 20 déc 1979

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NEW PLANNING BILL

MENTALLY RETARDED FUNDING

PEACE BRIDGE ASSOCIATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

ILLEGAL ACTS BY POLICE

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

AID TO CHRYSLER

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND

REFUGEE ASSISTANCE

TRIBUTE TO CLERK OF THE HOUSE

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACCESS TO OHIP SERVICES

EMIGRATION FROM ONTARIO

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

MINIMUM WAGE

ILLEGAL ACTS BY POLICE

HYDRO RATES

PREMIER’S MEETING WITH CLAUDE RYAN

HIGH-SPEED CAR CHASES

WETLANDS POLICY

REDHILL CREEK VALLEY

UNEMPLOYMENT IN ST. CATHARINES

FACILITIES FOR THE HANDICAPPED

PROTECTED ENVIRONMENTAL AREA

PETITION

SPECIAL LICENCE FEE

REPORT

STANDING PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO HYDRO AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL OMBUDSMAN ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

MINISTRY OF ENERGY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

PEACE BRIDGE ASSOCIATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

BUDGET DEBATE (CONCLUDED)

SUPPLY ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

PROROGATION SPEECH

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NEW PLANNING BILL

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to table a draft of a proposed new planning act for Ontario. As members may recall, this draft act follows publication, earlier this year, of the white paper on the planning act.

The draft legislation translates into legislative terms the conclusions contained in the white paper. Some changes have been made resulting in part from preliminary concerns expressed on the white paper and from technical implementation of some proposals. These changes are clearly identified in the explanatory notes that accompany the legislation. These modifications are a clear indication of the effectiveness of our public participation process and of the willingness of this government to give expression to the views of the community in these important matters.

To further clarify how the revised planning system would work, the second part of the document contains summaries of the main provisions of the key procedural regulations which will be issued at the same time the new act comes into force. Also included is an explanation of the nature and purpose of the new provincial policy statements proposed in the white paper.

One area that has not been covered in the draft legislation deals with the transitionary provisions that will need to be included before the act is introduced into the Legislature. This is seen as a specific technical aspect that should not hinder an understanding of the new act itself.

Beginning late in January 1980 senior staff from my ministry will again conduct a series of workshops across the province for municipal representatives and those in the private sector so that further questions and concerns arising from the white paper and the draft act may be addressed before final submissions are made to the ministry. The deadline for such submissions we have now set as March 31, 1980, and a list of the meeting dates and locations will also be provided to all members.

Finally, I would stress that this document is a proposed act for discussion purposes only. While it represents as closely as possible the content the proposed legislation may take, it is still in draft form. Copies of the draft legislation are now being forwarded to all municipalities and to individuals and groups which have participated in the public review process over the last number of months. All members of this House are of course cordially invited to attend any of the meetings to be held with municipalities throughout the province over the next number of months.

Copies of the draft legislation will be in the mail box of each member. In addition, I would like to say we are again prepared to brief both opposition caucuses on the draft legislation and its implications.

MENTALLY RETARDED FUNDING

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House today of the government’s intention to increase the provincial funding for the development of community services for the mentally retarded in Ontario by eight per cent in the 1980-81 fiscal year. A news release giving details of this increased funding and what it will mean at the community level is being distributed to members of the House and members of the legislative press gallery this morning.

PEACE BRIDGE ASSOCIATION FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

Hon. Mr. Norton: I must regretfully inform members of the decision taken by the Peace Bridge Association for the Mentally Retarded in Fort Erie to cease operations on December 31 and in so doing to withdraw community residential opportunities and training programs for approximately 50 developmentally handicapped children and adults. I want to emphasize that I remain hopeful this unfortunate decision can be rescinded.

The Peace Bridge association, which has granted its staff extremely high salary awards in the last six months, is contemplating closure as a result of its inability to pay for those increases. I would encourage the association’s board and the staff to search diligently for ways within their current allocation to avoid a complete cessation of services.

The Peace Bridge association currently operates residential services for 27 adults and children. The association also provides vocational programs for 37 clients, some of whom live in the community.

It is with considerable consternation, then, that I report the closure action contemplated by the Peace Bridge association. This ministry has been and continues to be strongly supportive of community-based programs for the mentally retarded. Our commitment to this concept will continue, as will our policy to promote and to provide for an expansion of community residences and programs for the developmentally handicapped.

In so far as the Peace Bridge association’s decision is concerned, the association’s current difficulties stem from the fact that recent salary awards greatly exceed ministry guidelines and the association’s ability to pay. On April 1 this year we, the ministry, allocated funds which permitted the association to award a 15 per cent salary adjustment, which was agreed to by the ministry despite our general five per cent guideline on salaries that had been brought to the attention of all associations. In doing this, we recognized there were large inequities between what employees of one association are being paid and what those in other associations are receiving.

Following that agreement, the Canadian Union of Public Employees was certified as bargaining agent for the association’s staff. The association’s board of directors and the union signed an agreement on October 15. The terms of that new agreement included a 19 per cent increase retroactive to January 1 of this year, plus an additional 12 per cent increase on April 1, 1980. This was in addition to the 15 per cent salary increase awarded by the association in April of this year.

In

summary, this settlement and the earlier award combined to give staff a 36.5 per cent increase in 1979 and by April 1980 they would have received considerably in excess of a 50 per cent increase in 15 months.

As I indicated earlier, it is recognized that inequities exist among certain associations in terms of the salaries they pay their staff. It was in that context that we provided in our 1979-80 funding additional allocations to pay extra moneys to those associations whose staff salaries deserve special consideration. Peace Bridge was one association given extra money for that purpose. Overall, the association received a general increase of 12 per cent in 1979-80 over the previous year’s allocation. That allocation included provision for the salary increase of 15 per cent.

As I indicated at the beginning of my statement, it is with deep regret that I announce the association’s decision to end its operations. This termination of services is particularly painful for the mentally handicapped who have benefited by their presence and living in the community. For those people who will be denied community living opportunity I want to assure them, their families and friends, that alternative accommodation has been arranged in our provincially-operated facilities for the mentally retarded. This will only be a short-term solution while we pursue vigorously alternative arrangements for these adults and children.

The only other solution proposed by the Peace Bridge association would be for the employees, the Canadian Union of Public Employees local and the board of directors to review their situation within the context of available resources. I strongly encourage those involved to do so.

The ministry has reviewed a number of possible program changes with the association, but it was jointly determined that the program changes alone could not permit the association to live with such dramatic salary increases. It is possible that program adjustment in combination with the review I’ve suggested above could resolve the problem.

I hope, of course, for a positive resolution of this problem. Whatever the resolution, our commitment to community-based care is well known and will continue to be a priority of this ministry. In this era of slower economic growth, it is incumbent upon all of us to recognize fiscal realities and to accept the responsibilities of working within reasonable financial parameters.

ILLEGAL ACTS BY POLICE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you and the members of the Legislature of the results of my review of the transcript of some of the testimony during the recent trial in Barrie of a criminal charge against Gerald Stevenson and Robert McLean of the Metropolitan Toronto police department arising out of their use of a fictitious affidavit during the investigation of the shooting death in Toronto of one Bruce Lorenz.

I undertook to the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) and others to make a complete statement on this matter before the House rose.

One of my agents, Robert McGee, deputy crown attorney in charge of the downtown Toronto office, was called as a character witness by the defence in this trial and some of his testimony was the subject of considerable comment in the press. I indicated earlier that I wanted to review the transcript before commenting.

During my term of office as Attorney General I have repeatedly emphasized that equality before the law is a principle of fundamental importance in our society and that one part of that overall concept is the very basic principle that no person is above the law. Recently, the activities of police officers in this country have been the subject of considerable public scrutiny and debate. Throughout this analysis and discussion we have maintained the self-evident principle that the police are not above the law. No responsible person has questioned that principle.

Notwithstanding consensus on this issue, it is sometimes difficult to apply this important general principle to specific cases which arise from the very nature and necessities of police work. For example, may an undercover police officer, investigating an allegation that a highly organized criminal extortion and blackmail operation is being carried on in an hotel, further his investigation by registering under a false name at that hotel, notwithstanding the provisions of the Hotel Registration of Guests Act? This act makes it an offence for any person to register under a false name.

Are apparent breaches of regulatory laws, or even on occasion criminal laws, by police officers necessary in order to ensure that crime is detected and prosecuted? In some cases, what may appear to be a breach is not a breach because by legislation and at common law, police officers have wider powers than ordinary citizens in many areas such as the power to arrest and the right to carry firearms.

In addition, the law of Canada affords special protection to police officers and in limited circumstances to private persons in the work of law enforcement. Whether couched in terms of defences, exemptions, excuses or justification, those involved in the work of law enforcement are, under certain circumstances, protected by our law from prosecution.

To the extent that the law does not explicitly permit the act in question, is it possible for society to permit its law enforcement officers to do the act and yet, at the same time, maintain an honest adherence to the principle that the police are not above the law? If not, is legislation necessary? The question is what degree of protection our laws should provide for police officers acting reasonably and in good faith in the administration and enforcement of the law. It is a very old principle of our law that the state owes protection to those to whom it entrusts the duty of enforcing the criminal law.

The establishment of and the proceedings of the McDonald commission should have put these questions in very sharp focus, not only with respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but also indirectly with respect to every other police force in Canada. Unfortunately, the provincial Attorneys General in Canada have not been afforded the access by the Solicitor General of Canada and the McDonald commission to factual information that we must have in order to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities as the chief law officers of the crown in our respective jurisdictions and in order to have participated in a meaningful way in the McDonald commission hearings.

In June 1978 my officials were advised by the McDonald commission, through its counsel, that the commission would be concerning itself with some of these very questions and would welcome submissions from provincial Attorneys General in addition to the submissions it was expecting from the Solicitor General of Canada in his capacity as the elected official responsible to the people of Canada for the conduct of the members of the RCMP.

Earlier in the spring of 1978, the RCMP in Ontario had provided me with a report to the effect that the criminal investigation branch of the RCMP had conducted no “intelligence probes” in Ontario similar to those identified before the McDonald commission as having taken place in other provinces.

The Solicitor General of Canada did not permit the RCMP to provide me with a similar report with respect to the activities of the security service branch of the RCMP in Ontario and, despite an early request, the McDonald commission refused my request for observer status for one of my senior officials during the in-camera commission hearings regarding such activities.

I wrote to the Solicitor General of Canada in July 1978 and said in part “As the chief law officer of the crown in this province, it is my view that, over and above what may take place by way of submissions to the McDonald commission, it is essential that you and I attempt to arrive at some mutually satisfactory agreement on these questions.

“I suggest the following general outline for your consideration and for the purpose of further discussions:

“(

a) Subject to the possible effect of contractual arrangements in some provinces, you, as Solicitor General of Canada, have the political responsibility for the RCMP as an institution and therefore are politically accountable for the action of its personnel in both criminal operations and security services branches.

“(

b) As Attorney General of Ontario I have the legal and political responsibility to ensure that the law is enforced in this province and therefore that any breaches of the law that take place here are properly dealt with.

“(

c) The expression ‘ensuring breaches of the law are properly dealt with’ does not mean that an Attorney General of a province should review, either in advance or after the fact, all of the activities of the RCMP. Rather it means:

(1) If there are to be guidelines for the RCMP, the provincial Attorneys General should have some opportunity to participate in the formulation of the guidelines.

(2) If there is to be a mechanism for reporting acts apparently outside those guidelines to the attention of the relevant provincial Attorney General, the provincial Attorneys General should similarly have some opportunity to participate in the formulation of that mechanism.

(3) Notwithstanding any such guidelines and mechanism, neither you nor I can interfere in any way with the right of a citizen to swear an information before a justice charging a police officer with an offence or with the duty of that justice to decide whether process should issue.

(4) Similarly, no guidelines or mechanism can alter the fact that I have the ultimate responsibility, as chief law officer of the crown, in this province, to prosecute or stay any proceedings where process has been issued.

“I do not pretend that the answers to the many questions in this area are easy. However, I do want to make it clear that I reject the idea that because something allegedly concerns national security it should be of no concern to a provincial Attorney General. To accept that suggestion would be inconsistent with my responsibilities as chief law officer of the crown in this province for the reasons which I stated above.”

The then Solicitor General of Canada declined to discuss these matters with me. In October this year, the current Solicitor General indicated he was willing to discuss them and I am hopeful these discussions can take place at an early opportunity.

Although we have had no substantive discussion with the federal Solicitor General’s ministry with respect to these matters and although the prospect of being able to participate in a meaningful way in the McDonald commission is still not very encouraging, we have nevertheless discussed the matters at length with our counterparts in other provinces and with our police personnel in Ontario.

These discussions indicate that although there is a consensus the overriding principle must be that the police are not above the law, there may be a need for some legislative change to clarify the application of that principle in relation particularly to provincial regulatory restrictions such as those contained in the Hotel Registration of Guests Act.

In addition, it is clear the police are entitled to the fullest possible information and assistance from crown law officers with respect to the extent of police powers, such as under

section 25 of the Criminal Code, which provides generally that a person acting under lawful authority in the administration or enforcement of the law is entitled to use as much force as is necessary to carry out that lawful purpose and with respect to the applicability of the relevant common law defences in those fact situations where the police are at all in doubt as to the propriety of any proposed action.

Hopefully the McDonald commission will ultimately provide some guidance with respect to what legislative changes are appropriate. In the meantime, we in Ontario shall continue to do our best to ensure the overriding general principle is followed and the police are given as much guidance and assistance as possible.

In addition to possible legislative change and the fullest reasonable reliance on existing statutory and common law defences, it is important to remember the proper application of prosecutorial discretion may dictate that a particular case ought not to proceed to court even though there may be prima facie evidence tending to indicate an offence has been committed.

In early 1978, I had occasion to advise this House of the results of a police investigation into certain events involving a former federal Solicitor General. I said at that time and wish to repeat now:

“A prosecution is not automatically launched in every case where there is some evidence to support the laying of criminal charges. Police officers and the crown law officers who advise them have broad powers to decide whether or not to launch a prosecution taking into account all the circumstances surrounding the case.

“Henry Bull, the late crown attorney for York county, a highly respected prosecutor, stated that the crown’s duty in deciding whether prosecution is justified is twofold. The first duty is to determine whether a criminal offence is disclosed by the facts in the sense that a prima facie case is made out. The second duty is then to determine whether prosecution would be justified in a particular case.

“This exercise of judgement was best put by two Attorneys General of England, Sir John Simon and Sir Hartley Shawcross, both speaking in the House of Commons: ‘There is no greater nonsense talked about the Attorney General’s duties than the suggestion that in all cases the Attorney General ought to prosecute merely because he thinks there is what lawyers call a “case.” It is not true, and no one who has held the office supposes that it is.’

“Sir Hartley Shawcross supported Sir John Simon’s position: ‘It has never been the rule in this country ... that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution ... the public interest ... is the dominant consideration.’”

Mr. Speaker, I would stress that not merely is this the law of Canada as well as of England, but it also reflects very accurately the responsibilities of the Attorney General of Ontario as I have experienced them during the last two and a half years at that time.

It is obvious that there will be cases where evidence is presented to a crown law officer which tends to show that a police officer has committed an offence in the course of his duties as an investigator, but in the proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion it will be the crown law officer’s view that the public interest would not necessarily be served by proceeding with a prosecution. A police officer, like any other citizen, is entitled to have a potential prosecution against him considered by the appropriate law officer applying long-accepted principles of prosecutorial discretion.

The exercise of prosecutorial discretion must however be something done with individual cases, not on the basis of general exemptions or immunities. The exercise of such discretion must never be allowed to interfere with the fundamental duty of the Attorney General and his agents to see that the administration of public affairs, including law enforcement, is conducted in accordance with the law. The exercise of prosecutorial discretion in individual cases does not mean that the police are entitled to come to the crown in advance to obtain permission, let alone encouragement, to breach the law.

After reviewing the transcript in the Stevenson and McLean case, I am satisfied that none of the witnesses called by the accused advocated that the police should be above the law or immune from the same sanctions as any other citizen absent, some saving statutory provision.

I am also satisfied that it is clear from Mr. Skatfeld’s testimony that there is no instruction given at the Ontario Police College which would tend to encourage a breaking of the law such as the use of illegal tricks or stratagems in the conduct of investigations. I regret that on the part of some witnesses there was a failure to distinguish between “tricks or stratagems” which are legal in the sense of not being proscribed by any statute and those that are illegal.

In my statement, Mr. Speaker, I have set out the cross-examination of Mr. McGee, the crown attorney, who was called as a defence witness and who was asked certain questions and gave certain answers. Now these are set out on some four and a half pages and this statement has been provided to the members. I do not intend to read this portion of the statement now, in the interest of time.

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that in view of the importance of this statement, the fact that it has been distributed to the members is not a reason for dispensing with the reading of any part of it.

Mr. Speaker: That’s at the discretion of the minister as to what he wants to put on the record.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when statements of the ministry are provided to the members of the assembly, those parts that the minister wishes to put on the record should be in the statement and nothing else, so I would suggest that because of the importance of the matter, the Attorney General do us the courtesy of reading all of the questions and answers that were put to Mr. McGee in the case.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have no objection to that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: During cross-examination, Mr. McGee was asked the following questions and gave the following answers:

Question: “If they had come to you and said to you that they wanted to do that, to make up a false affidavit, to put her signature on there without authority, what appears to be her signature without authority, to indicate that a JP had sworn that and signed it, what would you have instructed them?”

Answer: “Well, you told me you were going to ask me this question sooner or later.”

Question: “Out of fairness.”

Answer: “I told you it was a very difficult question to answer. I would have to phrase my answer in the context of the type of case that these officers were investigating. As I understand it, they were investigating a man who they believed was a diabolic, hardened, clever criminal and a man who they had great difficulty in getting evidence against. I would have to phrase my answer in the context of those circumstances.

“If they came to me and told me that the only way they could obtain any evidence against this man that they knew to be the murderer was by the use of a document such as this, I think that my advice would be to them that they would have to recognize the risks they were running, the possibilities of legal consequences against them, but if this is what they wished to do and this was the only way they could see to do it, then they should.”

Question: “You would advise them to do it?”

Answer: “I would advise them of the risks they were running in doing it and I would advise them that if they felt as police officers that this was the only way they could gain evidence against a man who had committed a diabolical murder on an innocent young person in a shopping centre in my area, that would be the advice I would give them, quite honestly, Mr. Murphy.”

Question: “Well in effect, Mr. McGee, then what you are telling us is they have to make the decision?”

Answer: “They have to make the decision. I would advise them of the risks they were running, as I am sure you would. But, I, as I say, I can’t control them. They are not controlled by us. They are controlled by their superiors.”

Question: “I am not asking you this as an expert because you are not qualified as one before the court and you are not called as one, and it would be unfair to do so, although I am prepared to admit you are an expert. You, as crown attorney, a crown attorney, are of the opinion that an officer should and is entitled to break the law of our land?”

[10:30]

Answer: “Should and is entitled to break the law of our land? No. I don’t think he is entitled to break the law of our land. But I think it is our duty certainly to advise this jury, Mr. Murphy, that you know very well illegally-obtained evidence is admissible in our courts. The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that.”

Question: “I am not talking about that; I am talking about breaking the law. I am not defining law; that is why I said I am not asking you as an expert. I am not asking you the very thing this jury will have to decide later. I am asking you, as a crown attorney, do you believe it is a proper thing for a policeman to break a part of a

section of the Criminal Code in order to conduct a prosecution?

Answer: “Well, I certainly don’t think it is in most cases; but in a case where this was, as I explained to you, a highly unusual case, such as this appeared to be, assuming what you have asked me, Mr. Murphy, is” -- and then the next question intercedes:

Question: “I am not asking about this one. Don’t answer a question I didn’t ask.”

Answer: “Pardon?”

Question: “Don’t ask for the question. I didn’t ask a question, I said, ‘Do you generally think -- “

Answer: “You are talking generally.”

Question: “‘ -- that police officers should break the law -- ’”

Answer: “No, I don’t generally. No.”

Question: “‘ -- in order to further his investigation?’”

Answer: “No, I don’t.”

During re-examination, Mr. McGee was asked the following questions and gave the following answers -- that was re-examination by counsel for one or both of the police officers.

Question: “Just to pick up on that, if I may briefly, Your Honour. You would not advise a police officer to break the law?”

Answer: “I certainly wouldn’t.”

Question: “No. You told us that in a peculiar circumstance of this case, with a caveat you would tell them to proceed?”

Answer: “I would tell him to proceed and I would advise him of the risks he was running.”

Question: “And by virtue of

section 21 of the Criminal Code you would be encouraging him under the circumstances?”

Answer: “I suppose I would.”

Question: “And be guilty yourself?”

Answer: “I suppose I would. I suppose I would, but -- I will leave it at that.”

That is the portion of the testimony I believe to be relevant, Mr. Speaker.

I think it can readily be seen that some press reports of Mr. McGee’s testimony were incomplete because they tended to isolate and emphasize one part of his answers without fully reporting the qualification he included in those answers.

Notwithstanding that caveat, I wish to advise the members of this House that I have communicated with Mr. McGee and have made it clear to him that his answers did not reflect what my policy and that of my ministry has been and will continue to be. I am satisfied now that Mr. McCee did not intend to say he would ever advise the police to break the law.

However, in my view a mere instruction to the police as to what the law is, followed by an invitation to them to go ahead and do what they think they should, does not amount to a proper fulfilling of the function of local agents of the Attorney General. I hope in a situation such as that presented to Mr. McGee and the questions asked of him in court that crown counsel consulted by the police would advise the police in the strongest possible terms not to proceed with such a course of action.

It is important to remember that in this very case the investigating officer who laid the charge against Mr. Stevenson and Mr. McLean received extensive advice and assistance from my senior law officers before they made their decision. Mr. McGee’s answers to the hypothetical questions put to him were not consistent with the advice given by my senior law officers prior to the laying of the charges, and I have made my concern about that known to Mr. McGee.

As I have indicated above, I found myself in some disagreement with a part of what Mr. McGee said, and perhaps more so with what he did not say. But he has made it clear to me that he is in full agreement with the policy I believe must be followed. Mr. McGee has been a dedicated and capable servant of the public for a substantial period of time and will, I hope, continue that role for many years to come.

With respect to the ultimate disposition of the case, I wish to advise the members of this House that there will be no appeal by the crown against the disposition. As the members of this House are undoubtedly aware, my agent, the local crown attorney Mr. Murphy, an experienced and competent crown counsel, took the position that an absolute discharge was the appropriate decision.

In Regina v. Aggozino, the Ontario Court of Appeal has made it clear that it is unfair to an accused for the crown to launch an appeal against sentence on a basis inconsistent with the position taken by the crown at trial and that, accordingly, crown appeals in cases such as this will not be entertained. Although I personally might -- and I stress the word “might” -- have taken a different position than what was taken by Mr.

Murphy -- and I emphasize the word “might” because I was not there in court hearing and seeing the witnesses -- I support not only the right but the duty of my local agents to exercise their discretion in accordance with well-established principles and traditions of the office of crown counsel.

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

Hon. Mr. Wells: I wish to inform the members of the House that I have written today to the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto Council, Mr. Paul Godfrey, to let him know that we will not be proceeding with Bill 153,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act during this session of the Legislature. As members know, this legislation deals with residences on the Toronto Islands. However, I want them to know that it is my intention, and the government’s intention, to introduce a new bill which will be essentially the same as Bill 153 during the next session of the Legislature in the spring.

In my letter to Mr. Godfrey, I also made the following observation. I asked that in the interval between now and the introduction of the new bill the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto refrain from any action under the writs of possession which were issued in October 1978.

AID TO CHRYSLER

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I have stated on numerous occasions, our government is deeply concerned about the future of Chrysler Canada, its employees, the city of Windsor and the impact that closing down the company would have on Ontario. We are pleased with the recent actions of the US House of Representatives and the Senate in responding positively to a request to support the Chrysler Corporation. At this time, the House and Senate are meeting in an effort to finalize the package of financial assistance for Chrysler. We look forward to a positive resolution of this issue within the next few days.

The actions of the US Congress are of particular importance to Ontario, since our estimates indicate that the failure of the company could result in the loss of 23,500 direct jobs and between 20,000 and 40,000 indirect jobs; an increase in the unemployment rate in Windsor to between 30 and 40 per cent; and a cost to the federal and Ontario governments totalling up to $1 billion including forgone tax revenues aid costs associated with existing UIC programs.

We have reviewed the various studies which have been carried out, including those of the US Treasury, the American consultants Booz, Allen and Hamilton, and Data Research Incorporated. We have also reviewed the draft bill forwarded to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of the US, by the secretary of the US Treasury.

We have, naturally, reviewed the Chrysler submission to the government of the United States and their proposals for the Canadian company. I will repeat what I have said previously. We are willing and anxious to assist Chrysler Canada. However, we are seeking commitments from the company with regard to new investment and employment, as well as the assurance that any assistance provided by the province will be adequately secured.

Contained in the Chrysler proposal for the development of its Canadian activities are two items which will allow for the updating of operations in Windsor for the manufacture of new generation commercial vehicles and engines. We want to see those established in Ontario, together with appropriate provision for research and development and the manufacture of in-house parts and components, possibly plastics.

These operational changes would substantially increase Chrysler’s employment in Ontario. The company is in a position where it must update products to compete in the North American market place. However, given the current financial status, incentives will be required to develop those facilities. Manufacturing locations for the new products are dependent to some extent on assistance available. We know that various states in the USA are prepared to commit loans or grants to the corporation. Much of Chrysler’s supplementary financing, apart from US government aid, will be from various jurisdictions that have an economic stake in the future of the corporation. Those states are our competition.

In the general consolidation of Chrysler’s activities, Ontario will not risk losing Canadian operations as the corporation rationalizes its production facilities. We have an opportunity not only to maintain the company’s presence in Ontario, but also to expand that presence, with a resulting increase in the company’s payroll.

There is an opportunity for Ontario to take a major step toward strengthening and restructuring the auto industry in this province. We intend to capitalize on that opportunity, while at the same time negotiating safeguards which will protect the province and the public interest, until such time as public funding is no longer required or has been reimbursed.

Presuming the details of American government assistance to ensure Chrysler’s continued existence are completed within the next few days, we are ready to undertake immediate negotiations to achieve the objectives I have outlined in this statement this morning. We will be meeting with the federal government within the next few weeks to co-ordinate our efforts. I would like to take this opportunity to assure both the members of this Legislature and the people of Windsor that we will remain on top of the situation and seize every opportunity open to us.

I am confident the federal government, together with ourselves, will be able to ensure every job in the Chrysler Corporation that can be saved will be saved.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that the Ontario government has approved an Employment Development Fund grant of $10.5 million to assist Domtar Incorporated in a five-year, $112 million program to modernize its pulp and paper facilities in Ontario.

The federal government has allocated an additional $5.25 million in assistance over the next three years. This will be one of the largest capital expenditure programs ever undertaken by Domtar at its pulp and paper operations in this province, and will involve major improvements to three of its mills.

Approximately $62.4 million will be invested in the Red Rock operation; $43.3 million will be spent in Cornwall; and $6.3 million will be invested in Trenton. A portion of Domtar’s expenditures will be directed towards environmental improvements at the three mills. The Red Rock, Cornwall and Trenton operations employ approximately 2,570 people and have an annual payroll of $46 million. The company’s investment in modernization is expected to stabilize these jobs and add a small number of new jobs. While there will be some job changes at each facility, it is expected that they will be achieved through on-the-job refraining. No layoffs will result from the program.

Domtar anticipates that 85 per cent of the goods and services used in this modernization project will be purchased in Canada. The company will be working closely with both the federal government and our government to ensure that their shop-Canadian commitment is met.

The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) is in Cornwall this morning to conclude the agreement, the third to be signed under a program in Ontario to encourage improvements in the province’s pulp and paper industry through incentives for mill modernization, energy conservation and pollution abatement investments. The governments of Ontario and Canada expect to offer a total of $150 million to Ontario pulp and paper producers. Our government will fund two thirds of the incentive program, with the federal government providing one third.

While he is in Cornwall, the Treasurer will also be announcing our decision to provide Employment Development Fund grants to two additional firms in that area. Atlas Hoist and Body Incorporated of Cornwall, a major producer of original equipment bodies for off-highway earth-moving machines, will receive an EDF grant of $300,000. In the interests of time I will not read the balance of my statement relating to Atlas Hoist and Body Incorporated but the details of the program are contained in my statement.

As well in that area, an Employment Development Fund grant of $140,000 has been approved for Henga Canada Limited. Details of the employment program and the investment program are also contained in this statement.

I would add the Henga Canada Limited program typifies the kind of development we are looking to support through the fund. It will provide stable long-term employment, foster the development of needed job skills, stimulate export development and contribute to export replacement.

Finally, I would also like to announce our government’s participation in a major investment project in Sarnia. As the members of this Legislature know, in December of last year, the Prestolite Division of Eltra Corporation closed its Sarnia plant, laying off 220 employees. This division manufactured automotive electrical accessories and fractional-horsepower motors.

[10:45]

Since that time, the Ontario government, former employees of the Prestolite Division, the plant’s previous owner, an outside investor and the local community have all been involved in active negotiations to put together a financial package that would permit the plant to be reopened. I am pleased to announce today that our government will be providing an Employment Development Fund grant of $200,000 to Sarnia Electrical Motors and Appliances Incorporated. As a result of this grant, the former Prestolite plant is expected to reopen early next month.

There will be 99 new jobs created in the first year of operation, increasing to 296 jobs by 1984. The project will result in an investment of $3.7 million and fractional horsepower motors will be manufactured for the North American market. Approximately two thirds of the projected production will ultimately be exported to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, our early discussions with the parties involved clearly indicated that our government’s participation would be key to the success of the project. For $200,000 we have ensured the reopening of the Prestolite plant, levered significant private sector investment and created much-needed new jobs in the great city of Sarnia.

REFUGEE ASSISTANCE

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, Christmas is always special, but this particular Christmas is more special than most. The fact that makes it so extraordinary is the presence among us of thousands of dispossessed men, women and children from southeast Asia.

During the last 12 months the compassion and goodwill of the people of Ontario have paved the way for a remarkable refugee settlement here. More than 10,000 refugees, sponsored privately by more than 2,000 community groups, have come here to settle in more than 200 communities across this province. The provincial government is helping in this resettlement both directly and indirectly. I would like to report very briefly on what we have been doing during 1979.

Before I do that, though, let me simply re=emphasize that the goodwill of the people of Ontario has been the key factor. Our government has had a role, but that role would have been irrelevant without the deep commitment of individual citizens. As honourable members know, the Ministry of Culture and Recreation has primary responsibility for the long-term resettlement of newcomers to Ontario. Given that, it has been assigned the lead role for co-ordinating the provincial government’s response to the refugee movement from southeast Asia. It is fulfilling that assignment in two ways.

First, it is working with such other ministries as Health, Labour, Education, Housing and Community and Social Services to try to ensure that the government as a whole is playing its

part in this resettlement in the most effective way possible.

Second, my ministry is undertaking its own initiatives. The focal point of its activities is the Indo-Chinese refugee settlement unit which runs out of Ontario Welcome House in Toronto. The unit has been set up since the summer and during the last three months it has been providing direct services, information, education and community support.

In the information area, my ministry is providing basic background on the refugees to individuals and organizations who are dealing with those refugees. And in community support, it is providing both professional time and money to help deepen the services that community agencies offer to refugees.

All in all the Ontario effort during 1979 and particularly the volunteer effort has been a very substantial one. I take great pleasure in acknowledging that volunteer effort and the outstanding human qualities that have driven it. I know all members on both sides of the House will want to join me in extending deep thanks to all those people who have given so selflessly to help the dispossessed of Southeast Asia take their place in our society.

TRIBUTE TO CLERK OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: Before we get to all the questions, I would like to remind all honourable members of the House that we are reaching a milestone in the history of this House that I think is worthy of note, namely that on December 20, 1946, our present Clerk was appointed Assistant Clerk of this House. On October 18, 1951 be was appointed assistant chief election officer. On January 1, 1955, Mr. Lewis was appointed Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, succeeding his father, Major Alex Lewis.

On January 1, 1955, he was appointed the chief election officer for the province of Ontario, which means that effective January 1, 1980, he will have served us a total of 33 years, and 25 years as a Clerk of this assembly.

I’m sure that all honourable members would like to join with me in paying tribute to Mr. Lewis for his long and dedicated service and to thank him most sincerely for that service.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will seek the indulgence of the members of the House and allow the Clerk to take 20 minutes to reply. Knowing him as I do, he won’t.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, before we go on to oral questions, I had expected that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) would be making a statement about Atikokan in response to a question from myself earlier in the week. I know he had a statement with him yesterday. I don’t see him in the House. I wonder if the Premier could indicate if he would be here and when he does, would we be able to revert to statements at that time?

Mr. Renwick: I have a similar concern with respect to a question I asked the Premier last week about the allocation of emergency oil supplies in Ontario, in the contingency of an emergency. The Premier at that time said that early this week there would be a statement either by himself or by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch). I notice that this was conspicuous by its absence this morning.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In an attempt to accommodate the time frame and also the concern with respect to the length of time of statements, the Minister of Energy was going to deal with the question the member for Riverdale raised briefly during the discussions on concurrences of his estimates. He will be here to do that and has something to say on that matter.

With respect to the question raised by the member for Rainy River, I will check with the Ministry of Natural Resources. My information is that the minister intended to issue a press release related to that, but I will check that out and let the honourable member know.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACCESS TO OHIP SERVICES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Does the minister recall his commitment to me and to this House in March of this year, March 30 to be precise, when the minister was asked how people who are coming into hospital for operations would have a right to choose an opted-in versus an opted-out anaesthetist? He said that if a person insisted he could get one who was opted-out and he said there would be a mechanism. His exact words at the time, Mr. Speaker, were, “The medical association and the hospital association have undertaken to come up with a mechanism by which this could occur.”

Could the minister tell us what this mechanism is?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will just correct the member’s question. It was to have access to the services at the OHIP rates.

Following those discussions in March with the medical association and the hospital association, they have had a number of discussions between them. They have circularized all their members and essentially it’s been left in the hands of the individual hospitals and their medical staffs to ensure this access. We are all of us -- the medical association, the hospital association, the ministry -- watching it very closely. To date I am not aware of any difficulty in any of the hospitals that would indicate there is not access to the services at OHIP rates.

So the mechanism has been a continuing consultation between the associations and keeping their members apprised of this need and this requirement. To date every indication is that it’s working.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, does the Minister of Health not know what the mechanism is? In most of the instances is it a box that someone ticks off as to whether they wish to have opted-in or opted-out rates when they come into hospital? Is it somebody who comes to them the night before the operation saying; “Do you insist on not paying my full bill?” Is it a question of the anaesthetist deciding who can pay and who can’t; or his or her secretary deciding this? What is the mechanism and will the minister share it with this House? Why has he not reported it to us?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it varies. The finite details will vary from hospital to hospital. For instance, a hospital in London has a member of the staff who goes around and sees the patients on admission. In another hospital the patients are seen afterwards; that’s the case with the president of the Ontario Medical Association. It will vary, but the principle of access, to be seen by the anaesthetist or a member of his staff and --

Mr. S. Smith: And he will make the judgement as to who can pay.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, no, Mr. Speaker; the principle in question here is the right of access to services at OHIP rates, and every indication is that that is being applied and is working.

Mr. Breaugh: It is true that anaesthetists have taken to notifying people, but quite contrary to what the minister just said in that field it’s very difficult to notify ahead of time. Isn’t it really time that the minister brought in some form of legislation like private member’s Bill 169, which requires that in a publicly-funded hospital, using publicly-paid-for equipment, and with publicly-paid-for support staff in the form of technicians and nursing staff, that at least in that one clear circumstance the work should be done at the OHIP rate?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr, Speaker, Bill 169 sort of goes both ways. It talks about the services being available at OHIP rates and it talks about opting out as well; maybe the member didn’t intend it to come out the way he drafted it, but Bill 169 goes both ways. If there were indications that services are being denied at the OHIP rates, yes we would have to look at something like that, but I have to tell the honourable member there’s no indication whatsoever that sort of thing is required. The community hospitals, in his community and in mine, working with their medical staff are ensuring the services are available.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I must ask, by way of supplementary, that the minister clarify this matter. Do I take it that the minister is satisfied with a situation where the patient, either pre-operatively or post-operatively, is visited by an anaesthetist and then somehow out of that meeting there comes a decision as to whether the bill will be an OHIP-rate bill or something above that? I take it he’s satisfied with that without knowing whether the decision as to whether to pay the OHIP rate or not lies in the hands of the patient or in the hands of the doctor. Surely that’s the essential matter.

Can the patient simply state, without having to beg, without having to stand up against any implied threat or any implied bad feeling, easily when he or she enters the hospital, that they insist it be at the OHIP rate and hear nothing more about it; or do they have to engage in conversation with a doctor, does the doctor make the decision as to whether they have to pay above the OHIP rate? Could you please clarify that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it couldn’t be any clearer than in the March 29 statement I released. It says the services will be available at the OHIP rates where the patient is --

Mr. S. Smith: I asked the minister a fair question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am giving the honourable member a fair answer, but he never listens. It’s very clear that the patient has the right to insist, and the medical association and the hospital association have agreed they will ensure the patient has the right of access to all services at OHIP rates. When the member talks about anaesthetists, that is the most difficult area because they aren’t always assigned ahead of time, sometimes it’s on call and that sort of thing.

That’s why the president of the medical association has suggested that in those cases where it’s not possible, because the patient is in great pain or is partially sedated or whatever, to make the arrangement in advance that the anaesthetist at least talk to the patient afterwards before billing. To my knowledge, and I have discussed this extensively with the hospital association as well as the medical association regularly since March, there have not been any difficulties in ensuring that is being carried out. It is being monitored by the hospital board, the administration and the medical staff of the hospital.

[11: 00]

Mr. Cassidy: Given that more than half of the specialists are opted out in many specialties, and in many communities across the province and not just in isolated instances, is the minister aware of the proportion of claims that are charged on an opted-out basis by specialists across the province? Is the minister also not aware of the fact that a general practitioner will generate many more claims which will tend to be opted in than a specialist because a specialist’s fees for each service will be much higher?

Is it not, therefore, the case that the material filed in this House up until now may not give a truly accurate position in terms of the amounts that people are having to pay to opted-out specialists? Does the minister have the information on the proportion of claims by specialists on an opted-out basis and will he provide that information to the House?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t have the information broken down. I’m told that the bulk of opted-out claims do come from GPs and anaesthetists, they make up the majority. I’ve not seen them broken down by specialty in making up the nine per cent of the claims that are billed directly to the patients.

EMIGRATION FROM ONTARIO

Mr. S. Smith: I have the last question initiated by yours truly in the 1970s, the Davis decade in Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: Don’t count on it. We might be here tomorrow.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right, we might be here tomorrow, but I’m assuming we won’t. Does the Premier find it ironic that now, at the end of this decade, for the first time in living memory the net migration figures show 5,000 more people have left Ontario than came here, despite a very large migration here of anglophone Quebeckers? The boast, “Is there any place you’d rather be?” has, under the Premier’s leadership, been answered embarrassingly in the affirmative by thousands of people who would rather be somewhere with a better opportunity of working or owning a home.

Would the Premier agree that his policies have taken “a place to stand and a place to grow” and turned it into “a place to leave”?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I won’t become provoked this close to Christmas by the rather immature, facetious and non-serious question being asked by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. S. Smith: Don’t be condescending.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not condescending at all. I’m just telling the facts the way his party, if it were honest, would express them.

Mr. S. Smith: When you engage in personal insult you make a personal fool of yourself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not being personally insulting by saying I think it’s an immature question, I do think it is.

Mr. S. Smith: Migration from Ontario has been disclosed for the first time in living memory. Why doesn’t the Premier comment on it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, with great respect, it is not the first time. It all depends how long one’s memory is. If the Leader of the Opposition is saying that in his view the strength of this province, the opportunities that are available here and the potential that exists are significantly less, that’s fine. I’m sure that happens to be his point of view. It doesn’t happen to be mine. I have no quarrel with the fact that some people have left this province, whether on a permanent or part-time basis, to travel to western Canada, particularly Alberta as a result of the economic growth that is taking place there.

Mr. S. Smith: To work.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, they’re going for some other reasons too. Some have even gone to British Columbia. If one traces the economic history of the United States, one will find that certain people have moved to the state of California. There has always been a tendency to move in a westward direction. That’s why our policy of “GO east” with respect to the Toronto-centred region has been in defiance of historical tradition even within this province. I’m just speaking for Brampton. There has been that tremendous growth in that direction.

I really could become almost enthusiastic over the way the Leader of the Opposition has worded the question. It really does indicate a degree of cynicism and pessimism on his part. This province represents, in terms of the economy and in terms of the social and educational programs, which he doesn’t think are so hot, still represents the best place to do business, the best place to raise a family, even the best place to be involved in the political process.

This still happens to be so in the province of Ontario, and will continue to be so into the 1980s; and I expect it will be a Progressive Conservative administration that sees us through the 1980s, as it has been in the 1970s, the 1960s, the 1950s and part of the 1940s.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the question has nothing to do with the great potential of this province but rather the sad waste of this potential because of the poor leadership it is now receiving. This province has a very great future, but a future it will only enjoy properly once it is given proper leadership to use the human resources intelligently rather than squander them in the way that is the case at present. Since very shortly, as we go in the 1980s, that responsibility will lie with members on this side of the House --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a supplementary question?

Mr. S. Smith: Yes I am getting to the point of it.

Mr. Speaker: Put it forthwith.

Mr. S. Smith: Given that Ontario, as a partner in Confederation, entered the 1970s as a lion and is going out as a lamb with the lowest rate of growth in manufacturing, would the Premier explain to us how, during his leadership, manufacturing growth in Ontario fell to 10th among the provinces of Canada, and exactly what it is he intends to do to make Ontario something other than the sick old man of Canada, which it has become under his dreadful and dreary leadership?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am a very modest person, I certainly wouldn’t want to quote back to the leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario the views of the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada on how he sees the Premier of this province, especially now that the member has endorsed him so enthusiastically What he has been inferring here this morning is in contradiction to what his leader said. I know that would be hard for the member to accept now that he has become so enthusiastic again about his federal leader.

When he made that commitment the other day, did he know that Pierre was going to be the leader again, after the member advised him at OISE he was doing the country a great service by resigning?

However, I won’t get involved in a political debate. I would just say to the Leader of the Opposition if, when he asked the question the way he did, in the rather sarcastic and cynical tone he uses, he would just look around at some of his colleagues as he asks those questions and see the smile upon their faces as they listen to their leader asking a question they know themselves is totally silly.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh come on, Patrick; you know better, I know better.

Why doesn’t the leader talk to some of his colleagues in his own caucus on occasion? Why doesn’t he let them share in some of the decision-making? Why doesn’t he take their advice and assistance? His political life would mature more rapidly if he would accept some of their judgements.

The member agrees with me; I know he does.

In relation to the economy of this province, the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about the manufacturing sector. I can only tell him once again that in terms of the jobs created there is not another province in Canada that has done as well. There hasn’t been another jurisdiction in North America in the past two years that on any comparative basis has created as many jobs within the manufacturing and service sectors as has taken place here in Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: The dollar fell off just like that; more layoffs, more bankruptcies.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on; what does the member mean more layoffs? We have made better progress economically in the manufacturing sector than anywhere else on a comparative basis, and the member knows it. This is in spite of his opposition to our assistance to the pulp and paper industry. It is in spite of his opposition to our assistance to the automotive industry. The Leader of the Opposition totally embarrassed the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) for months by his opposition to the Ford contribution. Of course he did; I read the Windsor paper more regularly than he does. My in-laws send it to me. I know what he says back home and what he says here.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh come on, I know how you supported the Ford deal. Mr. Speaker, I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition, for once, show a little enthusiasm, show a little confidence. I would urge him to join with us as we move --

Mr. B. Newman: I would like the Premier to tell the House just exactly what I say back in the Windsor area if he knows so much.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I know on a very personal basis that the member for Windsor-Walkerville was very enthusiastic about the involvement of this government with respect to the assistance to Ford Canada. Is that not correct?

Mr. S. Smith: We supported it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In support of my leader’s question, I would like to ask the Premier, being the modest man that he is, if he can recall over the years -- the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s -- anywhere in the history of the free world where there has been a contract let for $7 billion such as he signed against the recommendations of a committee? When is he going to get that money back for us? What is happening to Ontario when he can do that; arrange a $7 billion contract for a scandalous deal with Denison Mines Limited? When is he going to get that money back for us?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Grey-Bruce is looking for any personal contribution he certainly is not going to get it from me. I must tell him I did not --

Mr. Sargent: Don’t be smart, you know you are wrong.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh I know the member is smarter. I mean that has been clearly demonstrated in this House for the past number of years, I do not quarrel with that. I mean he demonstrates it with great affection every time we meet in the press gallery. I will not tell people what he says to me on these occasions, which is totally different from what he says here in the House.

Now I am about to answer the question.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of privilege. Every time I see the Premier in the press gallery it is a joy to be with him. But every time he sees me he offers me a deal to cross the House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, the member for Grey-Bruce has invited me to lead his party and I had to reject that invitation. I had to reject that invitation.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it very clear to the member for Grey-Bruce that I did not sign any contracts. It is fair to state that members from his own party on that committee ultimately came to the decision that it was in the best interests of the public of this province and some --

Mr. S. Smith: It is false, you know it. Why do you keep saying it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh come on, it is.

Mr. S. Smith: It is false. You made a false statement just now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: False? Oh, well, all right. Mr. Speaker I will rephrase it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish the Leader of the Opposition would rephrase his interjection, because it is clearly out of order.

Mr. S. Smith: The interjection was, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier has just made a false statement. If that is out of order I will say then that the Premier has made a statement which is factually incorrect? Is that better?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will certainly accept the Leader of the Opposition’s judgement as to what his members genuinely felt. I find it difficult sometimes to translate what people really think and what they express in documentation. I will say, then, that his party is not enthusiastic, he did not think it was in the public interest and we will let it rest there. I just happened to know there are a lot of people who feel it does. I just emphasize to the member for Grey-Bruce I did not sign any contract.

[11:15]

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am just sending over to the Premier some figures, which we prepared yesterday, on the amount of opting out by specialists across the province. My question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker: does the government remain committed to universal access to health care in Ontario?

If so, now that the Premier is aware of the various high rate of opting out among specialties -- such as psychiatry, anaesthesia, obstetrics, orthopaedic surgery, otolaryngology, urology, ophthalmology, and plastic surgery -- will the Premier undertake to rescind the fee agreement with Ontario Medical Association until these specialists agree to stop billing their patients over the OHIP rates?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Heath has really dealt with this rather extensively, not only in the past few days but number of months. If the member is asking if we’re going to terminate the agreement, the answer to that, of course, is no. I am sure the leader of the New Democratic Party would understand that answer. I think it’s also fair to state that all doctors who opted out don’t in fact do what he suggests.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Can the Premier explain why it is that the government tolerates such high rates of opting out among certain specialties, when those specialties in fact, are the areas where medical incomes are already the greatest? If I can be specific, why allow a high degree of opting out when psychiatrists are earning an average estimated income in 1980 of $60,000; when anaesthetists will get $66,000; when it will be $80,000 for orthopaedic surgeons; when it will be $76,000 for the otolaryngologist; and when it will be $71,000 for the ophthalmologist?

When those figures are the estimated net incomes for those specialties, for those who remain within OHIP, why is it the government tolerates those specialists adding a 42 per cent surcharge to incomes which are already extremely high?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The government doesn’t tolerate them adding because a lot of them do not add. As I explained to the leader of the New Democratic Party, who I know would terminate the agreement, legislate everybody in and put everybody on salary, that is not the approach we’re taking. We’re trying to encourage the profession, some of them, to move hack onto the OHIP schedule.

Mr. Lupusella: That is not the approach we’re taking.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course he is advocating it. There is no other alternative the way members opposite present it. He wants a confrontation with the medical profession, we want to see solutions and we think we are achieving them in a much better fashion than the leader of the NDP and his people would.

Mr. Conway: I’d like to ask the Premier, since he has been reported and since I have heard him indicate a personal dissatisfaction with the present rates of opting out, would he indicate to this House today the basis of his personal dissatisfaction with present rates of opting out and what he plans and proposes to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that I’ve registered a personal dissatisfaction in that sense of the word. I believe I was asked a question about whether I was content with it and I think my answer was, “We would, as a government, obviously prefer to have more doctors within the plan.” That’s not news. It’s something I have stated on a number of occasions, as has the Minister of Health.

I said in answer to a question, I believe from the leader of the New Democratic Party, although it might have been the member’s leader --

Mr. S. Smith: Why are you not content? What is the basis of that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: If he will listen. Is he going to let his health critic ask the question?

Mr. S. Smith: That’s the question he asked.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I intend to answer it. Don’t get so excited; relax, enjoy life a little bit. Have a bit of fun.

Mr. S. Smith: Why? What is wrong with the present situation? Every word you’ve said indicates satisfaction.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What does the member mean why am I not content? I would prefer to see more doctors in the plan, that’s why I’m not content. It’s as simple as that. If he wants it as simple as that, that’s the way it is.

Mr. Breaugh: A supplementary to the Premier, who I understand takes great pride in being a reasonable person. Does it seem reasonable, as a taxpayer as well as being Premier of the province, that we, the people of Ontario, pay the overhead; we, the people of Ontario, pay for the equipment; we, the people of Ontario, pay for the technical and nursing staff; but the doctor has no obligation, particularly if he functions in a hospital as most of the specialists do, to charge the approved rate? The Premier is a reasonable man, would he try to give us a reasonable response on that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, a lot of people who are involved in a form of public service have certain amounts of the overhead paid. I’m not going to argue with the member for Oshawa that some members of the medical profession don’t utilize the hospital for which the public has paid, no question about that.

But let’s be very honest with one another. As a private member, he gets -- and I wouldn’t say for a moment too much by way of compensation -- but a constituency office, which is overhead; an office here in the building, which is overhead, and secretarial assistance, which is a form of overhead. We all get this.

Mr. Foulds: We are all on salary and don’t levy surcharges.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s fine, but this is all in addition to salary. All of us in the public sector have a portion of our overhead paid. It’s always easy to single out others in terms of their overhead being paid by the public sector, but let’s acknowledge that some of our overhead is also being paid in addition to the modest salaries we receive.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the fact that the Premier is prepared to see specialists averaging $80,000 a year opt out and get extra net income, I would like to ask him a question about the lowest paid people in our society, the hundreds of thousands of people across this province who are forced to go through Christmas this year on the minimum wage of Ontario, which was set at $3 an hour in January 1979.

Since the Workmen’s Compensation Board benefits have just been increased by 11 per cent in line with the cost of living, effective in July of this year, since the increase in wages and salaries has been about 10 per cent this year; and since corporate profits are apparently running about 45 per cent ahead of last year; does the government intend to increase the minimum wage in Ontario from its present rate of $3 an hour? When will that increase take place and by how much?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The minimum wage is not being altered by the province at this particular time.

Mr. Cassidy: After the Premier’s compassion for people in medical specialties, who are earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in some cases, would the Premier explain why it is that this province has no compassion at all when it comes to the people who do the dirty jobs in this province, who have been earning $3 an hour since January 1979 but whose rate was only $2.65 back in March 1976?

While there has been only a 13 per cent increase in the minimum wage since March 1976, at the same time that there has been a 30 per cent increase in the cost of living, why will the government not act now in order to bring the minimum wage somewhat closer to a decent standard for working people in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought my answer to the first question was clear in that the member asked if we are contemplating raising the minimum wage at this time. He didn’t ask why.

Mr. Mackenzie: Could I then ask as a supplementary of the Premier: could he tell us whether or not he is now telling this House that the minimum wage is no longer an instrument to see a fair distribution of earnings in this province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The answer to that very simply is no, I am not saying that.

ILLEGAL ACTS BY POLICE

Mr. Stong: I have a question of the Solicitor General. In his statement this morning, he indicated he was satisfied there was no direct course taught at the Ontario Police College which would encourage police officers to break the law in conducting investigations.

I wonder if the minister can give his assurance to this House, as a result of the legal maxim quoted by Mr. McGee at that trial that illegally obtained evidence is admissible in court, that not only is no course directly taught, likewise there is no indirect encouragement by path of acquiescence to that legal maxim at the Ontario Police College, which would tend to encourage police officers to use illegal methods to obtain evidence or go on frolics of their own.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I know the honourable member is familiar with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Regina and Wray, which in effect is in support of the statement that was made by Mr. McGee. I think I indicated to the member, though perhaps not during the Solicitor General’s estimates, that I was reviewing that portion of the course that is given. I know there are senior officers who review the police college course that is related to evidence, the admissibility of statements and what not, to ensure there isn’t that type of encouragement to which the member just referred.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: I’m wondering if the Attorney General can tell us whether the two police officers sought advice from the crown or from the Attorney General’s office prior to the course of action which they took.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: To my knowledge they did not.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: In reading the evidence given by Mr. McGee, does it seem to the Attorney General that Mr. McGee seems to have confused the issue of illegal admissions and admissions obtained by criminal methods?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Certainly the transcript might be interpreted as containing some confusion in that regard.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary, the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Would the Attorney General put to rest another open-ended matter in connection with his statement this morning? Did Mr. Murphy, the local crown attorney, consult with the Attorney General or with any of his senior law officers on the disposition of the case by way of absolute discharge?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, he did not.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question of the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch). With the Ontario Energy Board about to produce recommendations for changes to Hydro’s rate structure, which at the very least will probably recommend that Hydro adopt rates related to time-of-day use, why is the government allowing Ontario Hydro to both pre-empt the Ontario Energy Board report and to begin a three-year stall on implementing province-wide time-of-day pricing, a stall that Hydro’s going to effect by two new unscientific time-of-day “experiments”?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not familiar with those particular experiments. I would be delighted to have the Minister of Energy reply to the member during the hopefully brief discussion on concurrence of his ministry’s estimates. I will alert him that the member has asked the question so that he will be able to deal with it during that brief discussion.

PREMIER’S MEETING WITH CLAUDE RYAN

Mr. Sweeney: I have a question of the Premier with reference to his meeting with Claude Ryan in Quebec earlier this week. The question is asked in the same spirit of harmony in which I understand the meeting took place. Mr. Ryan is reported to have said: “Mr. Davis’ remarks went further than anything the Ontario Premier has been willing to accept in the past.” It is also reported that when the Premier was questioned about sufficient numbers being required to supply French language education he responded, “No, that’s not necessarily part of it.” Could the Premier advise us what those two statements meant? What will they mean for Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not sure I can, because the discussions really covered a variety of topics related to the production by Mr. Ryan’s party of their approach to federation, which paper will be out some time in the early part of the new year. I want to make it very clear, because the press reports may have created an inaccurate impression that I actually saw some of that documentation. I did not, the documentation has not been finalized.

Mr. Peterson: Has Hugh Segal seen it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No one has seen it, because it isn’t finished yet. That will come as a great surprise to the member for London Centre but that, I am informed, is actually correct. I really didn’t see any documentation. We covered a number of issues.

Mr. Peterson: My father-in-law has seen it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I saw the member’s father-in-law the other night and he told me he hadn’t seen it. But I probably see him more often than the member does.

Mr. Peterson: That’s your problem. Don’t come here and complain to me about it.

[11:30]

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not complaining. He complains to me about the member. That’s what I have to suffer through. This is totally irrelevant, I would just assure the honourable member his father-in-law thinks he is all right.

Mr. Sweeney: I am waiting for the answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was the member’s colleague who interrupted me. I was trying to give a serious answer.

Mr. Sweeney: I’m still waiting.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right. We discussed a number of those matters which I am sure the honourable member would expect us to discuss, the question of distribution, the question of declaratory power and all of those things that have been part of the ongoing review of the constitutional process.

What I did say to the press and which I hope I made clear, though it did not emerge in the press report -- because it wasn’t even a press conference, the press just walked into the room, and properly so, at the conclusion of our discussions -- was that in my view the issue that faced us in this province and in this country was total non-acceptance of sovereignty-association, and also a recognition, at least from my standpoint, that the status quo couldn’t be maintained either and that there had to be some other alternative. In my view it has to be by constitutional change or reform.

I think this is the general direction that the documentation which Mr. Ryan’s party will be producing in January will take.

On the question of language, I told the Quebec press, in my view and contrary to the point of view as expressed by most, the best way to deal with some of the rights in relation to language and culture, because I still believe education is fundamental to any discussion of language or culture, is within a constitutional context. This wasn’t a new proposal; I mentioned that at the last first ministers’ meeting on the constitution. As the member may recall this was not accepted by the other provinces, but I think there was some indication of acceptance by the then Prime Minister.

Simply put, my argument is rather than reciprocal agreements between provinces as advocated by the Premier of Quebec, if we were genuinely concerned about language rights in relation to education then they should be part of a constitutional change; and while education is without question a provincial responsibility, from my standpoint in terms of principle we would be prepared to have that in any constitutional change. If it is put in with respect to constitutional change, I would suggest it be put in as a matter of principle. The administration is something for which individual provincial jurisdictions have to assume the responsibility.

I am not optimistic that my point of view will be accepted in other parts of Canada. I can’t honestly convey that hope to the member opposite. It may be this point of view would be acceptable in terms of the position that may be developed by Mr. Ryan and his colleagues, but I can’t answer for that at this moment.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Given the Premier’s reference to constitutional change, what constitutional changes would the Premier recommend or accept that are not now in fact the law of Ontario with respect to language instruction?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think that question can be answered in a simple way. What I have said we would accept in terms of the constitution is the right of a youngster in this province -- and this would have to have application right across Canada -- to an education in either of the two official languages of Canada. This was the position I took. It was exploratory in terms of the constitutional conference itself.

I would remind the member that people were arguing for unanimity in terms of the amending formula, which meant unanimity in terms of getting constitutional change. There was really no enthusiastic endorsement from any other jurisdiction as I recall, although I may be wrong. Certainly the majority were not in favour of that suggestion.

HIGH-SPEED CAR CHASES

Mr. Germa: I have a question of the Solicitor General. Can the Solicitor General report on the circumstances of a high-speed police chase last Thursday which involved OPP detachments in Parry Sound, Still River, Noelville and Sudbury; a chase which lasted in excess of one hour and that covered over 100 miles of highway; a chase in which vehicles exceeded speeds of 100 miles an hour; and a chase which resulted in damage to three police vehicles and the hospitalization of one OPP constable?

Considering the guidelines for high-speed chases which say that the seriousness of the crime should be a consideration, does the minister think that all of this activity was necessary to recover a carton of cigarettes from a 16-year-old kid in a half-ton truck?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the matter to which the member has referred. I will ask for a report and will advise him accordingly. During the recess I will be quite happy to communicate the response that I will obtain to the member.

WETLANDS POLICY

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Natural Resources. Under the Forestry Act, I believe it’s order in council 1348-25, dated May 14, 1975, there is authority that a grant may be paid to the owners of managed forests.

Since conservation authorities and others interested in the preservation of the natural environment would like to see that expanded to cover wetlands, would the Minister of Natural Resources consider including wetlands in that order in council?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at our policy as far as wetlands are concerned. There have been representations made by the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and others. We are looking at either that approach or the possibility of a favourable type and lower municipal assessment on that property, or a combination. That’s all I can tell him at the moment. It is being actively looked at. I was discussing it with the federation the night before last.

Mr. McGuigan: Supplementary: I am pleased with the minister’s answer. To carry out that work, would he consider calling a conference of interested parties who would be able to discuss this matter more thoroughly with him?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I will certainly consider that. I believe, though, that there have been a number of discussions between our staff and various interested organisations perhaps not publicly advertised.

REDHILL CREEK VALLEY

Mr. Mackenzie: Some weeks ago the Minister of the Environment made a commitment that he would personally take a walk through the Redhill Creek Valley before he made any decision and took a recommendation to cabinet. I am wondering if the minister has taken that walk through the valley, and if so if he’s brought a recommendation to cabinet on this matter?

Mr. Martel: He took a walk somewhere else.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m afraid I’m getting too much advice from my colleagues on this one, Mr. Speaker. No, I’m not going to sing any appropriate hymns.

If I can turn to the question. No, I have not as yet. I had it scheduled for a Monday morning two weeks ago and it was pouring rain, so I didn’t have the opportunity to do so on that occasion. I would say to the member I regret not having done so on that morning but it just wasn’t logical to do so. However, I do have something to report on that situation. We have had some meetings that I didn’t expect to have on that subject matter. Although I’m not at this minute ready to advise of the outcome of those meetings, in the not-too-distant future I will have something of significance to say and I’ll be glad to communicate that to the member prior to the next session.

I can assure the member that I will walk the valley. That is something I intend to do. I will be glad to discuss it with him, say in the month of January.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: The second part of the question was that the minister had said he would take the walk before he made a recommendation to cabinet. Has he made a recommendation to cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, indeed I have not. Without going further at this minute, I am pleased with the progress of the discussions I had on the subject matter. I think there has been real accomplishment. I would certainly like to conclude that discussion, plus make the visitation as promised before I recommend anything to cabinet. I certainly will not be doing so until I have done both of those things.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN ST. CATHARINES

Mr. Bradley: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Considering the fact that in the Niagara region we have a large number of people on the welfare rolls and that those people are in the category of employable and many of them are young people; and considering the fact that the number of people on the welfare rolls in the city of St. Catharines is the highest in history; has the minister spoken to his cabinet colleagues, specifically the Treasurer (Mr. F. S.

Miller), to persuade him to take any specific action which would alleviate the unemployment for the people in those specific categories; thus reducing the cost to his ministry, and more important the cost in human terms to the people who are directly affected?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, there are a number of programs that my colleagues in both Treasury and in the Ministry of Industry and Tourism are operating across this province to stimulate employment in communities everywhere, not specifically restricted to any one area. Those programs are developing, as I understand it, very well. I think members have on a number of occasions in this House heard my colleagues who are more knowledgeable in these programs than I, respond and indicate their impact in the creation of employment.

With respect to the specific individuals who may be temporarily out of work and in receipt of general welfare assistance in the member’s community; no, I have not gone to them with a specific proposal for the creation of jobs for a restricted group of individuals.

I do think it is important to bear in mind that there are indications of higher levels of dependency or need of temporary welfare assistance in some communities, but this is not general across the province. I think I can still assure the member that the average length of time an employable person in this province is in receipt of general welfare assistance varies from season to season, but it rarely exceeds two and one half or three months at the most.

So it would appear that in spite of the fact there are periods of higher levels of dependency or of need, that it is not a chronic problem of an overwhelming majority of those persons. They may well be between employment opportunities, moving from one job to another and in need of some temporary assistance. There is no indication at this point that the employable persons who are there for a short term are in need of a major job creation program.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary, to the Minister of Government Services: In light of the answer given by the Minister of Community and Social Services, is this minister undertaking to move up the starting dates of any projects within the Niagara region to assist the construction industry and thereby assist all of business in the Niagara Peninsula, creating these new jobs that might alleviate the problem that exists there? Is he contemplating moving up the timetable on any projects in the Niagara region?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: I would have to look into that, Mr. Speaker. I’m afraid that during the first part of the question I was talking to my colleague to my right, but we will look into that.

[11:45]

FACILITIES FOR THE HANDICAPPED

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation concerning the rights of the handicapped as they relate to his ministry. What is the minister willing to do to guarantee that all community centres, art galleries, arenas and other buildings built with Wintario funds are made fully accessible to handicapped people?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the honourable member opposite knows, Wintario so far has done a great deal to build facilities which are very accessible to the handicapped -- recreation centres, theatres and so forth.

Obviously there is a tremendous backlog in this, but we are working at it. As I at least hope and assume he knows, we do not require the matching funds when we finance through Wintario to build facilities for the handicapped. I really don’t think we can move much faster than we’re moving at the present time, but certainly we’re committed.

The latest example of this is in the magnificent new Massey Hall that is under construction here in Toronto. We have notified the architects and the people who are leading the project that we are prepared to finance fully -- we don’t expect matching funds -- the facilities that will make it possible for the handicapped to fully participate in that wonderful new centre.

PROTECTED ENVIRONMENTAL AREA

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. The question concerns the Oneida crushed stone owned by King Paving and Materials in the town of Haldimand, and the 47 acres that were set aside to protect the 22 rare species of plants and frees. According to an

article in the Toronto Sun by Dr. Morton Shulman this is not being carried out. I wonder if the minister would care to comment. Are they protected, as agreed in the hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I think I have some notes on that. I guess I left them in the office, the

article was printed some time ago. I would have to say that Dr. Shulman was somewhat inaccurate in his article.

Unfortunately, I don’t have the statistical details which would refute his statements with me.

However, I will be delighted to send the honourable member a letter indicating where Dr. Shulman was incorrect. I had debated about writing a letter to the editor and decided that it would be too lengthy. I had hoped somebody would ask me about it.

The 47 acres, as I recall, are fenced. They are fenced to keep people other than those who appreciate the frees, and so on, from damaging them.

The Oriskany sandstone deposit that contains the fossils Dr. Shulman is writing about covers only part of the area. That sandstone stands over hundreds of acres of the whole district, far outside the pit, and it’s untouched in much of that surrounding area. He indicated that the dolostone is not available throughout the entire country.

Actually, it underlies most of southwestern Ontario but there are only a few locations where it is potentially accessible for mining purposes. Other factors preclude mining in other areas.

That 47 acre environmental protection area does include the oak hickory forest and the rare plants. Dr. Shulman said it did not. In fact, the area was enlarged on the recommendation of the consultant to King Paving to include a better representation of the forest. According to the consultant, the protected area is the best example of the forest and sandstone.

Dr. Shulman’s

article implied a contradiction. His first statement refers to an assessment of all pertinent matters, which the ministry does in considering a licence application in accordance with the provisions of the Pits and Quarries Control Act.

The second reference is to a prepared or published independent environmental study, which the ministry does not do and is not required under the Environmental Protection Act.

I have another page here, but I was trying to shorten it a bit.

I think those are the most important corrections to make. I’ll send the rest of the material to the member.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired; right now.

PETITION

SPECIAL LICENCE FEE

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the good people of Deux-Rivieres in the northeastern part of the county of Renfrew, I beg leave to present a petition to the government of Ontario calling for an immediate end of the unfair discrimination against them in so far as the flexible northern licence fee is concerned; and asking the government of Ontario to give the people of the northern part of the county of Renfrew the due that was given to the people of Parry Sound, Muskoka and the far north some months ago; and asking for the immediate implementation of the special licence fee for the good people of Deux-Rivieres in the northeastern part of the great county of Renfrew.

REPORT

STANDING PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Mr. T. P. Reid from the standing public accounts committee presented a final report and moved its adoption.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I just tabled the final report of the standing public accounts committee. I hope it might be included in that great raft of other reports that we might be able to debate in the new session.

The report itself is in a somewhat different format. I hope it will be of great interest to all citizens of Ontario, and particularly of course the government.

On motion by Mr. T. P. Reid the debate was adjourned.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following substitutions be made on committees: Mr. Kennedy for Mr. G. E. Smith on the members’ services committee; Mr. Kennedy for Mr. Handleman, Mr. M. N. Davison for Mr. Germa and Mr. Ziemba for Mr. Isaacs on the public accounts committee; Mr. J. Johnson (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel) for Mr. Yakabuski, Mr. Grande for Ms. Gigantes and Mr. Isaacs for Ms. Bryden on the resources development committee; Mr. Kerr for Mr. Ashe, Mr. Ramsay for Mr. Hennessy, Mr. Rowe for Mr. Hodgson, Mr. Sterling for Mr. Smith, Mr M. Davidson (Cambridge) for Mr. Samis, Mr. Bounsall for Mr. Laughren and Mr.

McClellan for Mr. Dukszta on the general government committee; Mr. G. Taylor (Simcoe Centre) for Mr. Handleman on the select committee on company law and Mr Kerrio for Mr. Nixon on the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs.

Motion agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO HYDRO AFFAIRS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that Mr. Martel be substituted for Mr. Foulds on the select committee for Hydro affairs from January 23, but upon the receipt of a written application by Mr. Foulds to the Clerk of the House, Mr. Foulds will be substituted for Mr. Martel.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL OMBUDSMAN ACT

Mr. Isaacs moved first reading of Bill 211,

An Act to provide for an Ombudsman to investigate Administrative Decisions and Acts of Officials of Municipal Governments and Their Agencies.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to establish the office of municipal ombudsman.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 377, 396 and 401 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved second reading of Bill 209,

An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement yesterday on the bill; I don’t have anything to add to that.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly pleased that the minister and his reindeer have arrived on the rooftop in the nick of time with their seasonal bounty; I could even say in the St. Nick of time.

Mr. Laughren: His elves were there too.

Mr. S. Smith: His elves were there too indeed, I have no doubt.

Mr. Foulds: The biggest elves I have ever seen.

Mr. S. Smith: I am pleased this seasonal bounty has arrived at this particular period of time. I feel in general terms this bill is certainly worthy of our support. My concern, if I may express it, has for some time now been the subject of the ceilings which have applied with regard to workmen’s compensation benefits.

You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that the previous Minister of Labour told this House there was a 25 per cent increase in the benefits the last time a bill of this kind was introduced. She said to this House that represented an 11 per cent increase for three years earlier, an eight per cent increase for two years earlier and a six per cent increase for the year in question. You will recall that very clearly, Mr. Speaker.

Pensioners across this province were led to believe, therefore, that they would receive a 25 per cent increase in their pension. One can imagine the dismay of many hundreds and many thousands of pensioners when they discovered that because they were already at the ceiling, that the ceiling had not been increased for the first two of those three years to which the bill applied, that they therefore did not receive a 25 cent increase but merely an increase for the current year, which amounted to six per cent and has now retroactively been increased to eight per cent.

[12:00]

Consequently, what happened was a deliberate change in the policy of the board and of the government whereby people who were already at the ceiling did not receive the increase, although this House was never clearly told those people would, unlike all other recipients, not be receiving the 25 per cent increase.

I was in constant discussion at the time with the minister -- constant is too strong a word, but I was in discussion with her -- I remember a discussion with her in the corridor at one time when I asked her whether all people would be receiving that percentage. I was assured they would be. I had a very difficult time explaining to my constituents they were not getting the 25 per cent merely because they were at the ceiling.

Lest one think being at the ceiling is some kind of situation of great wealth, let me point out that the opposite is true. For a person earning $20,000, for instance, if the ceiling were $15,000, one would still take 75 per cent of that as the base. If the individual had a 30 per cent disability it didn’t amount to very much in real terms in these difficult and inflationary times.

Basically what happened, in simple words, was that the former Minister of Labour came into this House, presented what purported to be a 25 per cent increase and it was not. It was not for those people who were at the ceiling, but we didn’t discover that until later on. It was a very unfortunate time. The board had changed the policy without the House ever having had a chance to discuss it properly.

Now another increase is taking place and the question is are we going to increase those ceilings to a degree greater than the increase given to all other people so as to make up for the time the people at the ceiling were deprived of what was their rightful benefit?

Members will understand that the rate of benefit and the ceiling itself must bear some relationship to the going industrial wage. The relationship was a certain ratio before 1975, and there is a certain ratio introduced after the increases announced a year or two ago. The net result was that that ratio went down drastically. Now the problem is we have, little by little, to get that ratio back up where it belongs.

It is hard to know where it belongs. Obviously if the ratio and ceiling are too high, there may be introduced into the plan a positive disincentive to work. Nobody wants to see that, but until we see some evidence there is a ratio which is the correct ratio, then we have to believe the situation as it existed in 1975 was reasonable and a ratio that exists in certain other provinces is reasonable; and that is up somewhere around 150 per cent of the wage index that the ceiling would represent.

There are provinces where that is the case. If the minister has evidence that ratio is a positive disincentive to work then he should present that evidence. He will quote from the recent report, the Wyatt report, which says at 150 per cent you are being humane, but at 125 per cent you are being economic, roughly speaking.

It’s all very well to speak of being economic versus humane, but we in the Legislature have to be a little of both, I would suggest. Therefore we ought to have an intelligent discussion at some point as to what that ratio should he. We should be presented with figures indicating the taxation situation in Ontario, which may be very different from that of other provinces. We have to be presented with figures indicating any of the various forces that are part of the interplay which determines at what point a benefit becomes a disincentive to work.

We are prepared to listen to that. We understand the need to have a work incentive. We also understand that the funds for paying these benefits come from the businesses of Ontario and we are very concerned about the charges made on business people, particularly the small businesses, as a consequence of that. So we’re prepared to be fair, but we do insist on having some reasonable and rational explanation as to the adoption of a certain ratio between the ceiling in the Workmen’s Compensation Board benefits and the industrial wage. It’s not good enough to say that some report suggested it. What’s the reasoning behind it? Show us the figures and then we’ll have much more confidence.

This minister is now prepared, possibly as a result of a number of letters which I have written to him and certain communication as a consequence of these letters, to increase the ceilings more than the benefits themselves are being increased.

I welcome that. I welcome that as a sign of understanding on the part of the minister, a willingness to show a certain flexibility and good will, and possibly even as a response -- and I believe it was a response -- to the communications I have sent him from time to time. I am pleased with that.

The minister, however, will accept that we are certainly not yet back to the ratio that existed in 1975. I am prepared to accept this bill for now as far as it goes, and to thank the minister for what I perceive to be a response to our communication whereby he is at least addressing the question of ceilings, attempting to get the ceilings back up and admitting that those who are at the top, at the ceiling -- and as I say, that’s not a princely income let me assure you -- will get more of an increase than those who are not at the ceiling; just as a few years ago they got less of an increase than those who were in the middle somewhere.

All I can say is they still haven’t made up the deficit which is a consequence of that change in policy a year or so ago, but at least they’ve moved in that direction. After all, if a government in a minority situation makes a reasonable move in a direction which one has asked them to take, then it’s reasonable for the opposition to accept and to support such a move, even to welcome it, while at the same time pointing out there’s room for more movement which ought to occur.

If the minister feels that additional movement should not happen, I hope he will, perhaps by letter or whatever over the break, give me the factual basis upon which he made the decision not to move further in repairing the damage done to this ceiling by the previous Minister of Labour. I therefore ask that if he has figures to explain why $18,500 is appropriate as opposed to $19,500 or any other number, he share those figures with me. If he can’t do so at this moment in the House in view of time, perhaps he would do so by letter on some other occasion.

Apart from that I think the minister is being quite reasonable in these benefits. I hope it’s a consequence of communication he has received from me and other members on all sides. I hope part of his reasonable attitude reflects some of that relationship. In any event, I think his bill is a reasonable bill deserving of support.

I just want to draw the attention of the Legislature to the question of ceilings, to welcome the fact that some move has been made to restore what was lost last time, to suggest that a greater move is still necessary and that we would be willing to look at any figures the minister might have to indicate why, in his view, moving to a greater ceiling at this time is still unwise.

So basically, Mr. Speaker, we think it’s a good bill. We welcome it. We simply draw that particular matter to the minister’s attention, and to the attention of members of the Legislature, so that we never again have what happened under the previous minister, a very important policy change without it being flagged for discussion in this House, or even for private discussion outside this House. I was very disappointed with the attitude of the previous minister. The present minister is certainly a welcome change in that regard.

Mr. M. Davidson: We in the New Democratic Party welcome the legislation that has been presented to us with regard to amending the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I suggest that by opening up an amendment to the compensation act, one could probably stand here and discuss the whole act. I have no intention of doing that, let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, although some of my colleagues may during their discussion of this bill. As the minister is well aware, we too, in going over the bill, felt there were certain areas where we would like to place amendments.

However, having spoken to the minister through our House leader we have been given certain assurances that our concerns will be looked after in any event, either through the presentation of the white paper or what comes out of it. If by next fall nothing has emerged from the white paper, certain sections will again be placed before this House in order to allow amendments particularly, I believe, involving temporary total disability.

We also welcome the fact that the minister has taken a step in bringing to the injured workers of this province some retroactivity to make up for the inequities that existed in the last adjustment made by the then minister. I can understand that happening because it is my personal belief this minister has much more compassion for the injured workers of the province than the previous minister ever indicated. I can well see why it would be that this minister would want to put in those increases that she neglected or failed to do.

We are a little concerned, however, about the timing of this bill and the timing of placing it before the Legislature. Had the minister walked in today dressed up in a Santa Claus suit with a bag over his shoulder, I can assure him we would have placed the amendments we had discussed with him. Given that he did not, and recognizing full well that the injured workers of this province are in vital need of these increases at this time, we did not in any way want to do anything that could very well cause the bill not to pass prior to the House adjourning.

For these reasons, we will withhold any amendments that may have caused that to happen. We do have one minor one which will be placed, with which I think the minister would agree. It is just a slight word change. As the bill was brought in at a time when the House was winding down, so to say, for the winter break, it really did not afford this House the opportunity to go fully into the situation as it exists. We are certainly not placing the blame on the minister per se, but we have faced this not only on this occasion with this bill, but on numerous other occasions.

I refer back to last fall when we were doing Bill 70 and a very similar situation existed. It appears that each and every time major legislation of this type comes before the House, it is brought in one or two days before the House adjourns. That really does not give the opposition, be it the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party, the opportunity to scrutinize fully the bill and place any amendments which we feel may be necessary at that time.

Having said that, as I said, we welcome the fact that the minister has brought this bill forward, knowing that the injured workers of this province have waited for quite some time. I might say if there is any credit -- and I noted the leader of the official opposition attempted to take some credit for being partially responsible -- it is only fair to suggest that one of the reasons this bill did come forward and one of the reasons it contained some of the increases it does, is because of the questions that have been raised in this Legislature by the members for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and Dovercourt (Mr.

Lupusella) and various other members who have an interest in and concern about the injured workers of this province. They have on many occasions questioned the minister and the government as to when they would be bringing forward amendments to the pension

section of the act. As a result of that, we now have the bill which is before us.

[12:15]

One of the things that also concerns us, as a party, is the ceiling level. I understand that will be referred to through the white paper and will be discussed and probably put into a new bill, if and when this white paper is ever looked at by the committee the minister is proposing to put forward. Hopefully, that will be done and legislation will be prepared and available as early as next fall or earlier than that, if possible.

I would like to go back. This party has always been concerned about the ceilings that exist. Back in April, 1978, I believe, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) through a private member’s bill, attempted to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act. While part of that amendment related to other matters, a part dealt with the ceiling levels. He attempted at that time to have placed in the act a mechanism whereby the ceiling levels would automatically be adjusted. I would like to read that amendment.

“The board shall, as soon as possible after September 1 in each year, review the wages and salaries earned by workers who suffered injury and to whom compensation was paid during the preceding year.

Whenever such review indicates that 10 per cent or more of such workers were earning in excess of the maximum wage rate at the time of such review, the board shall, by order, increase such maximum wage rate for accidents occurring on and after the first day of the succeeding calendar year by the appropriate number of increments of $1,000 as is sufficient to reduce the number of workers whose salaries exceed the maximum wage rate below 10 per cent of the workers who suffered injury and to whom compensation was paid during the period under review.”

That was the member for Nickel Belt’s attempt to bring some sanity, if one wants to call it that, into the ceiling levels as they exist in the act. Unfortunately, as is true in most cases, his private member’s bill with his amendment to the act was not accepted. Had it been, it could very well be that the ceiling in today’s bill might not have been necessary because it could very well have been, following that method of adjustment, that the level at the present time might be in excess of $20,000.

I can’t and we as a party can’t understand, since the minister has taken the move to increase it over the 10 per cent, why he has not taken the final step and made that adjustment up the $20,000 level. Even at that, in Ontario that ceiling would be relatively low. He has now placed it at $18,500. We’re prepared to accept that because we want to see this bill go through. Perhaps he could explain to us why he did not take that final step and go up to at least the $20,000-mark, such as exists in Saskatchewan and Quebec, I believe.

The other area of concern we have is that even though in this bill he has filled in the inequities that existed from the last bill and added 10 per cent on top, the temporary disability

section still does not really fill the gap that was evident from 1975 to 1978. My understanding is an adjustment was made in 1975, but no adjustment was made for those people in 1978.

If this is an income maintenance measure, then that group of people is still behind what they should have had over that period of time. I don’t know whether the minister has looked at that or whether he feels that 10 per cent is enough to cover that, but that was a concern of ours and one area where we were considering moving an amendment. As I said, we are more interested in getting this bill through because we do believe it is an excellent bill in terms of bringing to the injured workers of this province some immediate income that they have been deprived of for far too long.

I would seriously hope in the future, after discussion on the white paper has taken place and possibly new legislation has emerged from that, we would never again have to find ourselves in the situation where every now and then we have to pressure the government through questions, letters and various other means, to bring forward the necessary adjustments in order that these injured workers in the province can maintain the cost of living which they, as well as everyone else, have to face day by day.

It’s all well and good for those of us in the Legislature to adjust our own rates of salary on occasion in trying to keep up with the cost of living. I just question why it is we don’t move as quickly to do the same thing for the injured workers who don’t have the opportunity to do it for themselves.

We welcome the bill. As I say, we look upon it as being something the injured workers deserve and for which they have worked far too long. We're prepared to accept it. A number of my colleagues will be speaking on some very specific sections of the bill itself and to other areas, ways and means of which perhaps you could take note. We think these could make not only a better method of increasing the pensions and the levels of earnings to the injured workers, but also make the act and the Ontario Workmen’s Compensation Board itself more meaningful.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to Bill 209,

An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I suppose I’d have to follow the almost similar comments of the two previous speakers. Like other members, I will express my disappointment at the minister bringing in a bill of such importance at such a late date in the workings of this session, almost the day of adjournment of the Legislature. I feel he should have provided the members with more ample time to digest and to review the contents of an important bill like this.

We can agree with the amendments that are long overdue in bringing increases in benefits that apply under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, particularly for those who are on the receiving end, the injured workers. But if I were to go through the bill I could find fault after fault.

I thought this minister had shown some compassion for the injured workers in Ontario, but after reviewing the bill and taking a little closer look at it in the short time made available to members, I find the minister has shown little compassion towards a number of the injured workers. One of the things that bothers me most in this bill is that the legislation only goes back to 1970. Nothing goes beyond that level for those persons who have been injured for some 15 or 20 years and are living on meagre pensions from the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

We wouldn’t have to be coming in at the last minute of the Legislature here for amendments to the bill if the minister would consider indexing the benefits to the injured workers.

By indexing I mean that we wouldn't have to have an amendment every year. It would be indexed as for any other employee in the province. I suggest the minister should be looking at this area.

When I look at

section 1(1) of the act, the explanatory note says, “Under clause (a), the burial allowance is increased from $800 to $1,000.” I’m sure that the minister and the board members of the Workmen’s Compensation Board know full well that $1,000 isn’t enough to cover the burial costs for an industrial worker who dies as a result of his work. I suggest the minister should be paralleling this

section with the Canada Pension Plan so between the two of them there are sufficient funds to cover the burial costs.

I notice too that the minister’s going to give a small pension increase to dependent widows. The more I look at it closely -- $365 to $410 a month -- the more I realize it wi