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

March 10, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L006 - Wed 10 Mar 1976 / Mer 10 mar 1976

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

KIRKLAND LAKE TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

GO TRANSIT

PAYMENTS TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS

OHIP PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE LABORATORIES

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

PROVINCIAL TAX REVENUES

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

INCO SMELTER WORKERS

CANADIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

KIRKLAND LAKE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS’ DISPUTE ACT

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

MEMBERS OF COMMODITY BOARDS ACT

DRAINAGE AMENDMENT ACT

TERRITORIAL DIVISION AMENDMENT ACT

LOCAL IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT ACT

GIFT TAX AMENDMENT ACT

INCOME TAX ACT

EMERGENCY MEASURES REPEAL ACT

BLIND PERSONS’ RIGHTS ACT

COUNTY COURT JUDGES AMENDMENT ACT

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

EVIDENCE AMENDMENT ACT

SURROGATE COURTS AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP. AMENDMENT ACT

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES MINISTRY OF HEALTH

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have here a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, signed by her own hand.

Mr. Speaker: By her own hand, P. M. McGibbon, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, transmits estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1976, and recommends them to the legislative assembly. Toronto, March 10, 1976.

Perhaps before we start the proceedings, I might announce this is an historic day in the House, I think you will agree. In accordance with the decision of the House last session, the Speaker’s advisory committee suggested that today and for a few days an actual test be made of filming the proceedings of the House. This will allow the technicians to study the minimum lighting requirements and other technical matters.

Also, the new sound system is not really functioning at its top performance, so the House might have to put up with something less than maximum desired performance for the first couple of weeks. There will be several adjustments made during this two-week period and tests made. Then, during the break two or three weeks hence, hopefully the thing will be put in proper order. I would ask that the background noise be kept to a minimum for one thing, and that everyone speak up and speak directly into the microphones as much as possible.

Statements by the ministry.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary estimates that the House leader just tabled for the 1975-1976 fiscal year amount to $207 million. I just wanted to remind the House --

Mr. Lewis: Now, that’s restraint.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- that these supplementaries are included in the revised expenditure total published in the January issue of “Ontario Finances.” I want to stress that they are not in addition to the deficit that we published at that time.

KIRKLAND LAKE TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement and bring the House up to date on a situation concerning the Kirkland Lake Board of Education and its secondary school teachers.

The contract of the secondary school teachers of that board expired Aug. 31, 1975. Well before that date and since that date they have been negotiating for a new contract. As part of the process under Bill 100, those teachers voted to go on strike and they struck the Kirkland Lake Board of Education on Jan. 12, 1976. I might say that there are 96 teachers involved and 1,650 pupils. Since that time, negotiations have continued off and on between the board and its secondary school teachers.

Last week I asked the Education Relations Commission if it would report to me as to whether the programmes of the students in the Kirkland Lake Secondary School would be affected by the continuance of this strike. The Education Relations Commission held a hearing in Kirkland Lake last Saturday and a further hearing with the board and the teachers here in Toronto yesterday. The parties negotiated from yesterday afternoon until 4 o’clock this morning; however, they came to an impasse. I would have to say that negotiations in this particular dispute appear to be at an impasse and nothing further seems to be taking place nor does it seem possible that anything further will take place.

This morning I received a letter from the Education Relations Commission and a statement regarding this dispute, and I will quote from the

summary at the end of their two-page summation and decision on this matter. They say: “In

summary, however, it is our opinion that the continuation of the strike in this dispute will place in jeopardy the successful completion of courses of study by the students affected.”

Therefore, we are doing as we did in the dispute between the Metropolitan Toronto Secondary School teachers and the boards in Metropolitan Toronto. Having reviewed the situation and considered all the alternatives, and particularly the fact that an impasse in negotiations appears to have been arrived at, we have arrived at this conclusion.

This government feels that we have no alternative other than to introduce a piece of legislation this afternoon forcing the teachers back to their schools, ending any lockout, if such were to exist in that area, and having the matter settled in the same manner and through the same procedures as the Metropolitan Toronto dispute was settled. Therefore, the piece of legislation that we intend to introduce this afternoon is, I would say, a parallel type of legislation to the one we introduced in the Metropolitan Toronto dispute. I intend to introduce it at the introduction of bills later on this afternoon.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Hon. J. R. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: Is that your resignation?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister for Correctional Services has the floor.

Hon. J. R. Smith: I rise on a point of privilege, not in response, I may say, to the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) to apologize through the House for the language used with respect to the most recent report by the Ontario Economic Council dealing with education, housing and social equity.

The council has, of course, every right to comment upon or differ with present or past government policy --

Mr. Singer: What a fall was that!

Hon. J. R. Smith: -- or to advance new alternatives to broad public discussion.

Mr. Roy: Did the Premier (Mr. Davis) write that for him?

Hon. J. R. Smith: Any suggestion in my speech of March 8 to the contrary or the suggestion that such activities in some way are subversive, I deeply regret. My disagreement with some of the suggestions in the report should not allow me to comment detrimentally on the role of the council or its right to offer views or criticisms based on its independent assessment.

I apologize to the Legislature and to the council for my inappropriate remarks in this regard. I thank the House for its indulgence with respect to the point of privilege.

Ms. Cassidy: Why don’t you resign?

GO TRANSIT

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce to the House that in order to relieve crowding on the GO Northwest trains operating between Georgetown and Toronto, a fourth train in each direction is to be added to the five-day-a-week schedule.

Specific times of the new schedules, which will become effective in late April, are being studied by the CNR and the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority. Details are expected to be announced early next month by the transit operating authority, which administers GO Transit on behalf of the government.

The additional trains, combined with minor rescheduling of existing trains, will enable commuters to choose between earlier and later departures both morning and evening. The new early-morning run will enable commuters from Brampton and Georgetown to reach Malton and Etobicoke for earlier day-shift work.

I should add that even with the addition of these trains, the service provided in the northwest corridor is not likely to keep ahead of demand. Since its introduction in May, 1974, the northwest service has grown from an average of 1,500 passengers per day to more than 4,000 and that kind of growth is expected to continue.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

PAYMENTS TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS

Mr. Lewis: I was asleep at the switch, Mr. Speaker. My apologies. I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services, who clearly anticipates it: Can I ask the minister to provide for the Legislature a single concrete example from anywhere in the Province of Ontario of a group of single-parent families, mother-led, who have refused to work when offered jobs, in order to back up what can only be described as his fatuous and offensive remarks about single-parent families and women on social allowances everywhere?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I simply refute the comments that my remarks were fatuous. On the contrary, the proposals that my ministry has in terms of tightening up legislation and regulations with regard to the eligibility of recipients of welfare have been known for some time and we are proceeding with those regulations. If there are persons on welfare who are receiving payments who should not --

Mr. Lewis: What do you mean “if”?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- be receiving payments, then I am sure he will agree they need to be weeded out. If the member expects me to review all of the welfare system files, then --

Mr. Moffatt: Give us one example.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Just a minute. Basically what the member is doing is making an accusation.

Mr. Martel: You are making the accusation.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: He doesn’t agree with what I am prepared to do in terms of general welfare. He doesn’t agree with that. He would have everyone on welfare if he could, because that’s the policy of his party; but if he would care to review the files, the general welfare assistance files, throughout this province, I would be happy to accommodate him in that regard. if he wishes to review the family benefit files, I would be happy to accommodate him in that regard. All he is trying to do is to make an accusation and to adopt a position contrary to what we have been trying to do in terms of tightening up the welfare system.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we should keep this to a question period and not so much of a debate. The hon. Leader of the Opposition may proceed.

Mr. Lewis: May I say, Mr. Speaker, in your presence, that that offer is accepted. We will accept it. I accept it on behalf of the caucus, to review the files. We will do that. Now, the supplementary is simply this: Does the minister not think that he as a minister who supervises the entire social allowance programme in Ontario, supervises the entire day- care programme in Ontario, has a political and moral obligation to provide facts on which his assertions are based? And did he know that it is his ministry which has consistently refused to provide the support services to these very women when they have requested jobs?

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Again it’s a matter of another accusation or statement on your behalf.

Mr. Lewis: We will document it

chapter and verse for you. My own riding -- I can read it to you --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: All right, you can say that if you wish but it’s not correct at all.

Mr. Bounsall: Absolutely true.

An hon. member: It’s only partly accurate.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Do you want the facts? You know you’ve always had the facts from me. Whatever you’ve requested in terms of facts I’ve provided you with facts; I’ve provided you with figures in the press.

Mr. Cassidy: We have had rhetoric and rubbish.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Look at your correspondence that you’ve had from me. I’ve been most co-operative and sensitive to the needs of the people and you know that.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister tell us to which body of psychological expertise he has referred when he decided that single parents -- single mothers in particular -- of school-age children are better working in industry than they are working at home to provide a secure environment in a family already bereft of one parent? Which body of psychological expertise has led him to this brilliant conclusion?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Certainly not yours.

Mr. S. Smith: You have reached a new height.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: May I say this: There have been no suggestions that the child should be taken away from its mother. We are eliminating the area of discrimination in terms of sex which, of course, you have been advocating, I’m sure, for a long time.

Mr. Nixon: Force the mothers out of the home.

Mr. S. Smith: You are going to force single parents out of the home.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: We’re not discriminating as to whether it’s a male or a female. There has been no suggestion that young children be taken away from parents.

Mr. S. Smith: No, you’re taking the mothers away from the children.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: We haven’t suggested that at all. I certainly haven’t suggested that.

Mr. Cassidy: Of course you have.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: But there are situations where --

Mr. Lewis: Get them out of their bathrobes is what you said.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: If you wish to learn and if you wish to listen, I can tell you this -- in talking with the welfare administrators throughout this province, if you want some empirical evidence then you go and talk to them about their working experience --

Mr. S. Smith: I already have.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- and you will learn something. You will find that there are, in fact, dependent children who may be 18, 19 or 20 years old who are not in the work force but are receiving benefits as dependent children.

Mr. Warner: And there are lots of jobs available?

An hon. member: That wasn’t the question.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: If you wish those children to receive public welfare and to sit at home, then come out and say it. Stand up and say that you’re in favour of not only the parent but dependent children of that age, for example, sitting at home, whether they be male or female.

Mr. Lewis: You should resign.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order. It’s very difficult to hear with the sound system, as I mentioned earlier, as it is. Please, we would like fewer interjections. It’s very difficult to hear.

Mr. Bullbrook: If you cut down the answers you will get fewer interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We will allow another supplementary from the member for Wentworth. Order, please.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question: How does the minister equate his current position that mother-led, single-parent families should go out and find employment with the actions of his ministry to cut off the home daycare programme for the very women who are currently in the job market, operating and working, and who are not going to be able to take advantage of it?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, it is cut off.

Mr. Deans: It is cut off.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Again, you’re just giving another example of a distortion and something that is basically incorrect.

Mr. Deans: It is not.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Just a minute. If you want to learn something I’ll give you another little lesson. In the fiscal year --

Mr. Nixon: Jim, what can he learn from you?

Mr. Lewis: It’s good this is on television.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: That’s why you’re jumping up.

Mr. Singer: That’s why you should sit down.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: In the fiscal year 1976-1977 there will be $6 million in capital funds put into new daycare construction in this province.

Mr. Martel: That was carried over from last year.

Mr. Deans: I asked about home day care.

Mr. Martel: That’s carried over from the $15 million.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

An hon. member: All in Hamilton.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: There is no question about that. There are 56 daycare centres involved in the capital expenditure of $6 million in the next fiscal year.

Mr. Deans: That’s not the question.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: All right, you’re talking about day care, I’m telling you there’s going to be more day care.

Mr. Deans: Home day care?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: In regard to those daycare places, that will involve 2,250 new daycare places --

Mr. Deans: On a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Just a minute. Let me finish.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You are afraid of the answer.

Mr. Speaker: This is generating into a debate and it is not slackening off. Yes, the hon. member with the point of order.

Mr. Deans: I specifically referred to the home daycare programme. I wasn’t talking about daycare centres. I wasn’t asking how much the government was spending on them. I was asking how the minister was able to equate his current position with the cuts that his ministry is currently effecting in the home daycare programme which will take people out of jobs and back onto welfare. Try that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister replies as he sees fit, of course, to all questions; that’s true. Does the hon. member for St. George have a supplementary? This will be a final supplementary on this question then.

Mr. MacDonald: He should deal with the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we’ll have the other supplementary, the final supplementary.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say how pleased I am that the minister doesn’t choose to discriminate. I wonder if he would tell the House just precisely what steps he’s taking to equate the obligation of the footloose and fancy-free father of the children in this programme?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Very simply, the regulations will apply equally to the male and the female. You can see that for yourself in so far --

Mr. Cassidy: Just as they get equal pay when they go to work.

Mr. Lewis: That’s the first non-sexist policy of the government.

Mr. S. Smith: Let’s not waste the whole question period on this.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we should get on to the next question. Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

OHIP PAYMENTS TO PRIVATE LABORATORIES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Health, if I may. Has the Minister of Health been made aware that the public relations office of the ministry is indicating that OHIP payments to private laboratories in the year 1975-1976 will reach a minimum of $66 million -- up 45.4 per cent over the amount of 1974, up almost $7 million even over the Henderson report estimate -- and that it looks as though the figure may climb to $80 million, given the method of payment? What exactly does he intend to do to intervene in the gross and ill-advised public expenditures on private labs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I’m certainly aware of the totals; the figure of $60 million to $70 million is the range I would expect to hear for private labs.

I think, though, to single out private, profit-making labs as a culprit and the only culprit in the growth of hospital and health costs would be unfair. I feel the member is singling them out because they make a profit, not because of anything else.

Mr. Bounsall: Exorbitant profits.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s why Leslie Frost introduced public hospital insurance -- to eliminate the profit!

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think one has to realize that the source of their business remains the medical profession and remains the hospitals of the province, and that in fact the hospitals themselves have pointed out, quietly at times, that they’ve transferred business they could have done from their labs in the hospital to the private sector. I’m very concerned about that because obviously we gave them a global budget for functioning of their labs in a given year.

I can assure the member that in the very near future we will find means of utilizing spare laboratory capacity in public labs in this province that are in the hospitals, because I have no intention of hospitals being able to shift some of their costs out of their global budget and into OHIP.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, is the minister willing to launch either a judicial or legislative inquiry into the methods by which OHIP pays the private labs and into the apparent practices of some of the labs as they are related both to the performance of their work and their relationship with the medical profession?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I know the Premier (Mr. Davis) some time ago said we were considering the matter and were prepared, if necessary, to have an inquiry; and I certainly would totally agree with that point of view. I think what we have to do is find out whether this is as widespread -- in other words, the illegal part -- as reported in the press or not widespread. I’m very concerned; the laboratories are concerned about it; the Ontario Medical Association is concerned about it. Long before the press got the story we had been preparing our own internal review, which incidentally I was just getting ready to prepare when Abko’s name hit the press.

Mr. Shore: They just beat you to it, is that it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact is that we will keep an open mind, I think, as the OPP collects information on the first of these cases. We will have a better idea when we’ve straightened out their books.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton West with a supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Given that the minister admits his tremendous concern about the fact that the private labs are an extremely expensive vehicle right now, and possibly being misused, how can he justify closing the public health labs, such as those in Woodstock and in Kenora, an area which is disadvantaged in Ontario? How can he justify closing these admittedly efficient, well-run labs, in order to make imaginary savings and transferring automatically certain proportions of this work into the private sector?

Mr. Laughren: He is a private enterpriser, like you.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member has made a couple of assumptions, and a little bit of truth always sounds pretty good.

Mr. Nixon: That sounded fine.

Mr. Reid: Let’s have some from over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: He knows the provincial public health labs do certain types of tests not done by anybody else at all, and therefore --

Mr. S. Smith: Some are.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, roughly 10 per cent in some cases.

Ms. S. Smith: Between 10 and 15 per cent.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact is that in a case like North Bay we are able to transfer the great bulk of the clinical work into the local hospital labs, where it should go, and I am told without any budgetary change. Now those two are unrelated statements. The question is, we have a lot of labs in the province. We froze the licensing of them, I think it was in 1972. Scarcely a new lab has been licensed since. We are now on the point of cutting back and we will be cutting back in the near future on the types of tests individual labs can do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park- Swansea with a supplementary.

Mr. Ziemba: I am curious about the $80 million figure; and the minister is suggesting that it could be $60 million or $70 million. Does he recall the meeting at Seneca College, when I suggested that private labs would he paid about $80 million for the year 1975 and he said that was wrong, and it would be no more than $50 million? How come, in the space of two weeks, he has added an extra $20 million?

Mr. Shore: Apologize, right.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am not permitted to ask him a question, I guess, am I, in response?

Mr. Roy: You can ask; he can’t answer.

Mr. Deans: He can’t answer.

Hon. F. S. Miller: A sudden thought crossed my mind. I am wondering if the fact that he is trying to be a facsimile of the former member for that riding --

Interjections.

Mr. MacDonald: Deal with the issue.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- has anything to do with the fact that I have been told a facsimile of him has been going around saying he is an inspector of my office.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am just wondering if it has. It’s something quite serious if it turns out to be true.

Mr. Speaker: Is there an answer to the question?

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, if I may, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. MacDonald: What has that got to do with the question?

Mr. Lewis: The minister is raising something that he obviously --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Has the hon. minister completed his answer?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I don’t know whether anyone in the NDP has ever said he was working for my ministry and gone into the laboratories.

Mr. Davidson: I can’t think of anyone who would want to.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Please let me ask the member that question privately. I’ll speak to him later.

Mr. Lewis: I will rise on a point of privilege after the question period and ask the minister to explain.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Lewis: I have another question of the Minister of Health: In view of the increasing evidence from all of the small community hospitals which he has closed down that the figures provided by the ministry are in contradiction to the figures which are provided now by the communities themselves, will he review each and every decision on these hospital closings, and will he allow a considerable period of retreat, six months or more at least, so that the Legislature can make an assessment of the propriety of this programme?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, certainly in visiting some of the hospitals where I asked for closure, I pointed out that my basic purpose was to trim the number of beds in a geographic area to those we thought were necessary, and at the same time effect savings by so doing. As members know, only a few beds were saved through total closures of hospitals -- in a range of, say, 500 in round figures. Another 1,500 or thereabouts may have been saved through wing closures, rather than hospital closures.

We pointed out that the dollar savings per bed effected by closing a total hospital were generally higher than those obtained by closing equivalent numbers of beds in wings of hospitals. So in a given area it might be hard to supply all of their needs and get all of the savings we deemed were possible.

[2:30]

I haven’t closed the door at any time upon suggestions for alternative ways of saving those dollars in a given geographic area in which I selected a hospital. I suspect some suggestions of this type will come to me. I’ve heard rumours that they’re working on some alternatives. I know the Premier (Mr. Davis) is meeting with members of hospital boards -- I believe tomorrow and probably next week again -- and I’m sure we will be quite interested in any alternatives.

Mr. Lewis: One supplementary if I may -- a quick supplementary: Has the minister yet prevented the imminent resignation of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) by providing him with proof of the cost savings for the Doctors Hospital closing?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I sincerely hope I have. I think one will have to let the member answer that question.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: In view of the minister’s statement that he would be willing to entertain suggestions from the various regions where these hospitals have been closed and where these town economies are being threatened and destroyed -- in view of this suggestion that he is now open to other suggestions from the community to find alternative ways of saving the money apart from closing these hospitals -- may I take it that that is an invitation to the people in the area of Chesley and the area of Durham, and all the various centres that he has closed, to reopen the negotiations?

And may I ask him why he couldn’t have asked them to do the sensible thing in the first place, instead of announcing that he is going to close the hospitals?

Hon. F. S. Miller: In the case of Chesley, the answer would be no. The decision is final on Chesley.

Mr. S. Smith: Which ones are not final?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The cameras are on you; just wave your hands a little more.

Mr. S. Smith: Never mind insulting me.

An hon. member: You know the facts. You know the facts about Chesley.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister will please answer the question.

Hon. F. S. Miller: You just need to check with your members. They’re talking to me regularly and they know it and you know it.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary, the member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: Wouldn’t the minister agree that with the hospitals he is closing, the total of dollars involved is a bit less than $9 million, and with the 5,000 people that we’re talking about involved in the whole picture, the net saving may be $4 million? Wouldn’t he agree that he should leave the closings alone? He’s only saving $9 million in total.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Only $9 million is a lot of money.

Mr. Drea: That’s fast Eddie.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The problem with my budget is that if one talks percentages, they’re always tiny. If one talks dollars, they’re immense. I keep repeating, one per cent of my budget currently is $34 1/2 million.

Mr. Sargent: It is going to cost $5 million to relocate those people.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In effect, I have to find savings where I can find them.

Mr. Sargent: So your net savings are $4 million.

Hon. F. S. Miller: What level of savings is worthwhile? If $9 million is not, what is worthwhile in your opinion?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton West with his series of questions.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, continuing on this particular matter, I would like to ask the Minister of Health a question. Could he please provide us and provide the people of Ontario with a list of which of the small-town hospital closings are still open for reconsideration and which are not? How much additional time is he prepared to give to this matter for the communities to come forward with suggestions?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have told each hospital as I’ve visited them.

Mr. S. Smith: Tell us.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Will you listen?

Mr. S. Smith: Yes.

Mr. Roy: Tell us.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Just hope Pierre doesn’t get mad at you, Smithy.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I might say -- no, I won’t say it. Each hospital was told the day I visited it that it had the right to appeal my decision. I tried to say -- particularly clearly, I would say, in Clinton because that was the last of the cases -- I tried to say in other areas that we would consider alternatives. The hospital that has been in so far is the Paris Willett hospital. Doctors Hospital has not yet been in but I understand it is coming in next week. I understand that Clinton is coming in tomorrow; Durham is coming in next week. I understand that those are all the hospitals yet to come. Bobcaygeon has been in to see me.

Mr. Sargent: Chesley isn’t going to close. I will tell you that. You wait and see.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: I did not ask him who had come in to see him; I appeal to him. I had asked which are the hospitals on which he is still willing to reconsider the closing order. I presume he is willing to reconsider Clinton, Paris and Durham if they are able to effect other savings by alternative means in the area. Is he also able to give us the whole list of hospitals for which he would be prepared to consider alternatives rather than closing?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That’s it. You’ve got it.

Mr. S. Smith: This is not a game; these towns are suffering.

Hon F. S. Miller: Can the member name other ones that are involved?

Mr. S. Smith: Doesn’t the minister know which hospitals he has closed? They’re Copper Cliff, Virgil, Bobcaygeon, Kemptville --

Hon. F. S. Miller: I mentioned Bobcaygeon a moment ago.

Mr. S. Smith: Just give me the list. That’s all I ask.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is only one person on the floor at a time. A supplementary from the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Can I understand what purpose this exercise is designed to serve? Is the minister saying to the hospital that he will consider an alternate medical use of the facility? No? That is not allowed?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I don’t mean that quite that way at all.

Mr. Lewis: Just so that the minister takes the Legislature into his confidence, since we have not been sitting, what kind of alternatives can the hospitals put to him which he will then evaluate? For instance, Durham and Clinton -- there are two good examples.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, I’m glad to answer these questions. The member knows he has three more hours with me right after 3 o’clock.

Mr. Lewis: Not on this subject.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I suspect it will come up. The fact remains, though, that if there were alternative uses for a facility being proposed by communities -- perhaps for argument’s sake, and this shouldn’t be construed as a possible specific case, the Paris hospital came along and said, “We’d like to be half- chronic and half-nursing care,” and made a suggestion to that effect, if we had deficits in those kinds of areas, sure, we’d consider that as an alternative use. We’re talking about the appeal, though, from hospitals which say they want to remain active treatment hospitals as such.

Mr. Lewis: You will allow that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No. I’m saying they had the right to come back to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and state their case and be heard, after which the decision would either be reaffirmed or changed.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the member for Grey. He is on his feet.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have an alternative for the Minister of Health. Would he consider taking a further one-half of one per cent cut in the hospital budgets across Ontario which would give him the same $10-million saving to allow these 10 hospitals to stay open?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I wouldn’t for this reason: This year, after a great deal of discussion with hospitals, we agreed to selectively cut budgets of hospitals.

Mr. Good: It would hit too many Tory ridings.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Some hospitals have had $1 million plus taken out of their base this year. Others have had none taken out of their base. That choice was made with the consent of the Ontario Hospital Association and the hospitals which said that penalizing the efficient in the future was not a fair way of maintaining the inefficient.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk with a final supplementary on this.

Mr. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand from the statement made by the Minister of Health that I can convey to the board of the Willett Hospital in Paris that the minister would give favourable consideration to the continuation of the Willett Hospital with chronic care and some other care associated with it, rather than the minister’s programme now which would result in its being boarded up and abandoned?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We will not manufacture uses that don’t reflect a need in a community. That’s fair enough, isn’t it?

Mr. Nixon: It is.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member will recall that the day they came in, I touched on chronic care, and he may remember that they said they weren’t too interested in it. Does he recall that?

Mr. Lewis: No, they did not say that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The Leader of the Opposition was not there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Does he mean that the eavesdropping system works that well? The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was there. Did they or did they not imply that?

Mr. S. Smith: All right. Is it still open?

Mr. Nixon: Since the minister asked me a question, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but you are not allowed to answer it.

Mr. Nixon: -- is it proper then to assume that the Paris-Willett is one of the hospitals whose closing is not complete, final and irrevocable?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, because the member has not received replies from the Premier (Mr. Davis) through me.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, we got a nice letter from the Premier.

Mr. Shore: What has the Premier got to say about it?

PROVINCIAL TAX REVENUES

Mr. S. Smith: We will give the Minister of Health a rest and we’ll turn our attention to the Treasurer. Since it is obvious, even with the institution, admittedly, of needed economies at the municipal scale, that nonetheless there are going to have to be very substantial mill rate increases in the vast majority of municipalities across this province, could the Treasurer explain to us why, in his view, property tax is now considered by him to be a more appropriate method of raising revenue than other forms of taxation open to him at the provincial level?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there are several assumptions in those questions which I don’t necessarily agree with.

Mr. S. Smith: There won’t be any rate increases?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There are indications that there will be tax increases in the province this year. My own guess is that they will not be as severe as we at one time had thought. I noticed, for example, in the city of London that they expect to strike a rate for the municipal side of about four mills, which I would guess --

Mr. Peterson: They have not got them.

Mr. Good: They haven’t got the education centres.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s on the municipal side, and it will work out to a not unreasonable amount, I am sure. I am sure that across the province generally serious efforts are being made, both by municipalities and school boards, to cut expenditures and to cut back to essentials; and I am satisfied that when that is done, the tax increases in the province will not be all that unreasonable.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the Treasurer assure us that any increase in provincial revenues during 1976-1977, including those generated by tax increases and the expiry of last year’s pre-election tax cuts, will be shared with municipalities according to his Edmonton commitment -- or has he reneged on that totally?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that these are matters which will undoubtedly be discussed at the time of the budget.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Hamilton West have any further questions?

Mr. S. Smith: No.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Grossman: Not yet being convinced, I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Mr. Shore: Are you still a member?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health is not in his seat.

An hon. member: He has left.

Mr. Grossman: I think I see him coming.

Mr. Speaker: He is approaching.

Mr. Cassidy: Why don’t you join Smith and Taylor and quit?

Mr. Grossman: My question, Mr. Speaker, is that since all of us associated in any way with the Doctors Hospital are convinced on whatever analysis it be, even if it be a per diem statistic, that the hospital remains one of the most efficient in the province, would the minister therefore either acknowledge that efficiency or inefficiency had no part whatever in the decision to close the Doctors Hospital; and if it did have a part, could he specify the ways in which the ministry believed the hospital to be inefficient?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have never said any hospital was closed totally because of inefficiency.

Mr. Good: You said it just five minutes ago.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Listen a second: I made selective budget cuts in hospitals that were inefficient, not total closures. Closures were based upon the supply of beds in a given area -- such as the Huron county area, such as the Grey county area, such as the Metro Toronto area -- and we had a job to decide which hospital should close. In the case of Metro Toronto, several factors not related to efficiency were my reasons for choosing Doctors Hospital. One was its size; it happened to be lower than the total number of beds we required. Somewhere in the order of 400 within the city had to be closed: it had 319.

Second was the fact that it had made proposals to me, which I accepted in good faith, saying it needed to be rebuilt at a cost of $15 million. Those two basic reasons were the primary reasons for its selection in Metro Toronto.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Is the minister able to provide any concrete evidence of the beds that are available in the downtown core to which Doctors --

Mr. Grossman: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: I’m sorry; I didn’t realize. My apologies.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, I’m sorry, I didn’t see you.

Mr. Grossman: You will have to get used to looking this way a little bit -- at least until we finish this subject.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, in view of that answer, since there will be 12,000 cases displaced this year to Doctors Hospital due to the closing -- and I think it’s fair to assume that those will be spread over three or four adjacent hospitals, since two of those hospitals, Western and Mount Sinai, did not get a decrease in their budgets --

Mr. Singer: Question.

Mr. Grossman: Here it comes -- would it be fair to assume that those hospitals, Mount Sinai and Western, would qualify as somewhat inefficient.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the very fact that they did not get a budget cut would qualify them as efficient.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: Supplementary: Surely the fact that they did not get a budget cut is related to the fact that --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member had his supplementary. The hon. Leader of the Opposition with his supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Very quickly, can the minister provide any evidence to the Legislature, can he provide us with any material to show where these surplus beds are in the downtown core to which the 12,000 patients over the year will be referred, because I want to tell the minister we can’t find them.

[2:45]

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have been a bit appalled that you looked to your left instead of your right in selecting questioners. But let me just say this; in the downtown core we have estimated the number -- in fact, in Metro Toronto -- the number of beds available on a population basis.

Mr. Lewis: Where is it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can only say this; the assumption that we are closing hospitals because beds are empty is not correct. Beds are not empty in any hospital to speak of in the Province of Ontario. It’s axiomatic that doctors fill beds with patients until, in fact, the hospital is running very close to its overall ability.

Mr. Roy: Why did you close all those hospitals then?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Sometimes there are patients in halls. These are used as examples, then, of an overload in the system. The fact remains that medical management does not improve until the total number of beds is brought in line with the total needs of the population. In other words, people are there unnecessarily.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Armourdale with a final supplementary on this subject.

Mr. Givens: Why did the minister permit Doctors Hospital to make an expenditure of $350,000 on the installation of a new air conditioning system only last December if he intended to close it down in February?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think, Mr. Speaker, when one looks back at the approvals for any given institution they usually take in several --

Mr. Sargent: That would keep us open for a year.

Hon. F. S. Miller: They have usually taken several years to come to a point where they are actually done.

I think it is safe to say that while staff in my ministry for some years have fought and recommended to various people that hospitals could be closed, it has just not happened before. So it is quite understandable that routine approvals for improvements in plants, such as that one, carried on on the assumption buildings would continue to exist.

Mr. S. Smith: You don’t plan a year ahead in your ministry!

Mr. Peterson: You need more staff.

INCO SMELTER WORKERS

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of Health: Is he prepared to table the report on the converter workers at the Inco smelter, undertaken in 1973?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will get an answer to that question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If as indicated in the report, three times as many converter workers have chronic bronchitis as do refinery workers, what does the minister intend to do about it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think it would be rather presumptuous of me to tell the member until I have learned something about the problem.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary on this, because the last answer doesn’t really indicate much room for a supplementary question. But we will hear the question from the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: To the Minister of Health: If, as we believe, the report indicates that there is three times the incidence of chronic bronchitis among the converter workers, will he then advise the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) to include chronic bronchitis as a compensable industrial disease?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, first of all I don’t make that decision. But in the last while the Province of Ontario has shown -- in fact, it is the only place in North America -- that it is willing to recognize classes of disability before a person had to stop work because of illness. I am taking that approach in the general attitude. I am sure my colleague in the Ministry of Labour is going to be, too. We are trying to protect the workers.

Mr. Martel: The minister has been sitting on the report for 18 months.

CANADIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr. Bullbrook: I would like to direct a question to the Premier in two parts, if I might.

Firstly, has his government in any way formulated a policy of response to the pronouncement by the Prime Minister of Canada that his government is contemplating the unilateral repatriation of the constitution? Secondly, in light of what might well be a confrontation with respect to the constitution, would this government reconsider its position and permit us in this assembly to debate the consequences of Ontario entering into an agreement with the federal government abdicating our rights and responsibilities under the anti-inflation programme?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think they are really two distinct questions from the member for Sarnia, with respect, not entirely related. But I shall endeavour to deal with the two questions because I knew he felt perhaps he wouldn’t have an opportunity to ask the second.

With respect to the first question, Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the Prime Minister of Canada he did indicate to the premiers of the provinces some months ago that he was anxious to once again set in motion consideration of constitutional reform and patriation of our constitution.

In response to this, he had one or two individuals visiting the various governments in Canada, and I think I am right in this, I think I recall meeting one of the representatives personally to whom I indicated that by and large Ontario’s position would be approximately what it was in Victoria in 1971. I think I gave the impression, hopefully so, that I assumed there would be some first ministers’ conference, that it would be discussed openly and that it would be done with the total support -- this is giving and taking a little bit on individual items -- of all the provinces in conjunction with the federal government.

The first minister’s statement, in his observations to the Quebec wing of the Liberal party of Canada -- that is the same group in Quebec that is represented here in the House, I guess, in Ontario -- his observations --

Mr. Roy: What are you trying to say?

An hon. member: Don't make Pierre mad.

Mr. R. S. Smith: What was your position in 1971? You didn’t have a position.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- at that time indicated -- and as I say, it was an indication from the press; I have not gone to the Prime Minister personally -- that he was considering doing this, perhaps, on a unilateral basis. I made it clear, I hope, in a few remarks in public on Monday at noon, or 1 o’clock, that I thought this was regrettable and that any alteration to our constitution or how it is to be dealt with should be done in consultation and with the support of the provinces, and that remains my position. I just question, Mr. Speaker, whether the Prime Minister would in fact seriously consider moving ahead without consultation and the support of the provinces of Canada.

I also made the observation, Mr. Speaker -- and I don’t want this to be misunderstood and I hope the first minister of this country heard those observations -- that while Ontario was quite prepared to sit down and discuss matters on the constitution, that if I had a scale of priorities at this moment, and as I said to a public gathering of some 1,300 people, I think if any of that 1,300 were establishing a scale of priorities, the question of constitutional reform would be very close to the bottom of the list.

Mr. Sargent: Hospitals are first, though. Closing hospitals is first.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And I want to say this to the House, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Shore: What would be the next closest?

Mr. Bullbrook: Don’t do this. Answer my question. We don’t need a speech.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and not that of constitutional reform.

Mr. Bullbrook: We don’t need a speech.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no; but listen --

Mr. Bullbrook: With the greatest respect, just answer the question.

Mr. Yakabuski: You’re getting the facts, so don’t wreck it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I think the member for Sarnia really should want to hear my reaction.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Premier has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Reid: Are you supporting Bourassa? What’s your policy?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Premier has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I called the Premier of Quebec. I read the headlines Monday morning and I did call him. I was offering him a membership in the federal Tory party of Canada.

Mr. Reid: Which party? Which one?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to say, in fairness, he did not accept that, he did not accept that.

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: What did you say to him on the phone?

Mr. Bullbrook: After what you did to Wagner, he wouldn’t accept, I will tell you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, to answer the second question, which was really not related or supplementary, from the member for Sarnia, as to whether or not there would be an opportunity to debate the legality or the constitutionality, if that is the right term, of the federal bill itself or of the agreement that was signed by this province with Ottawa, I would say with respect, Mr. Speaker, we have asked the federal government to have questions directed to the Supreme Court of Canada where the two matters that I think are really relevant in the total issue would be considered by the Supreme Court of this country.

I would think, Mr. Speaker, until an answer is received from Ottawa as to whether or not they will do this or support this, and if the answer to that is in the affirmative, and I sincerely hope it will be, then I would think that we should wait determination by the Supreme Court of Canada as to their views as to whether or not it was constitutional or otherwise.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary. The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: One supplementary, if I may, with respect to the second question and the Premier’s latter response. Wouldn’t the Premier agree that an application with respect to our right to debate, and the validity therefore of his signing the agreement, won’t be necessary if he permits us to debate? One recognizes, If I may, the question of the constitutionality of the federal statutes, but we can avoid any application on the second matter by permitting us to debate the matter here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Sarnia is committing the parties opposite, both parties, that if we go through a day’s debate, that he will support the agreement that has been signed by the government of Ontario with the government of Ottawa, then I would agree with him.

Mr. Bullbrook: I did no such thing -- no such thing at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course he’s not saying that, so that a debate in this House does not solve that problem. I can’t follow the logic.

Mr. Bullbrook: It is a parliamentary procedure called debate.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary, the member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Premier why he does not take advantage of the Ontario Constitutional Questions Act and refer it himself through the mechanism of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to the Court of Appeal, instead of waiting for Ottawa to do something which he should do? Because what is being questioned by members of this House and by the professor in the arbitration --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe the question has been asked.

Mr. Singer: -- was whether or not Ontario acted constitutionally.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t practised law for quite a while, unlike the member for Wilson Heights, so I won’t presume to give a legal opinion. But I think I can go on the assumption that if there were a preference to the Court of Appeal in Ontario, that if either party who undertook that reference wasn’t totally satisfied with the result, there would be a further appeal then to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Singer: In the meantime you wait while Ottawa dallies about.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Recognizing the great public interest, and properly so, and the urgency of the situation, we think it is very advisable to move to the highest court immediately to get that decision.

Mr. Singer: The only thing that is happening is the school board is going to --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recognize that may not be the logic of the member for Wilson Heights, but I think, with respect, it certainly makes a great deal of sense to get it to the Supreme Court of this country and get the final decision as soon as we can.

Mr. Singer: And slough off the responsibility that you should take.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes presented the annual report of the Ministry of Housing for 1974-1975.

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that the report of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses and the returns from the 1975 general election and the preceding by-elections have been tabled and distributed to the members through the post office.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that standing committees of the House for the present session be appointed as follows:

1. Procedural affairs committee.

2. Administration of justice committee.

Committees 1 and 2 combined, under the chairmanship of the chairman of the administration of justice committee, will function as the private bills committee.

3. Social development committee.

4. Resources development committee,

5. Miscellaneous estimates committee.

6. Public accounts committee.

7. Regulations committee.

Which said committees shall severally be empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House, provided that all boards and commissions are hereby referred to committees No. 1 to 4 in accordance with the policy areas indicated by the titles of the said committees.

Public accounts for the last fiscal year are hereby referred to the public accounts committee and all regulations to the regulations committee.

All standing committees shall report from time to time their observations and opinions on the matters referred to them, with the power to send for persons, papers and records.

That there be no duplication of membership among committees No. 1 to 4 inclusive; or between committees No. 5 to 7 inclusive.

That substitutions be permitted on any committee provided that notice of the substitution is given to the chairman of the committee prior to the commencement of the meeting.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this motion carry?

Mr. Singer: No, Mr. Speaker. There are a couple of questions that arise out of this motion, as there usually are when this motion is put every year.

Let me ask the minister, first, what is the usefulness of the regulations committee? The regulations committee was established a few years ago with lots of sound and fury; it was going to give the Legislature an opportunity to question the usefulness of the regulations. What in fact it has got to now is whether or not the regulation is within the four walls of the enabling statute, and anyone could draft a regulation within the four walls of any of the regulatory powers in any of the statutes.

[3:00]

So the committee does absolutely nothing. It is a useless committee, and unless this House gives more power to that committee to question policy behind the regulations, then it’s just an exercise in complete and utter futility. We are going to take up the time -- very little time, because the committee doesn’t do anything -- of 12 or 13 members of this House who are going to assemble regularly and pass whatever is put in front of them.

They are going to incur the extra expense, I suppose, of the chairman’s salary; and I suppose it was rather clever when the House leader arranged all this that he passed off that chairmanship on one of the members of the Liberal Party and therefore we were supposed to keep quiet about it. But we are not going to keep quiet about it. I think it is a pointless and useless exercise. Why we have to follow that kind of a position, because a number of years ago somebody said it would be well to have a vehicle whereby we can question the usefulness of regulations, to do it in this form, I don’t know.

I would like to hear the minister explain that at some substantial length.

The second point I’m concerned about, and this House has been concerned about over a great number of years, is the question of substitutions. Why there should have to be a notice of substitution to the chairman of a particular committee in advance of the hearing of the day, why it shouldn’t be permitted at any time, I don’t know. I think that is a very strong feeling of many members of this House. Certainly it is my feeling.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we ran into this problem earlier in so far as select committees are concerned. I think this House should spell out in this resolution, as it proceeds through its process, that there is a right to any member of this assembly to attend at any hearing of any committee established by the assembly and to take

part in those proceedings, subject to the ordinary rules of order.

Now something new came forth. The member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) evolved as a new member, a brand new idea that committees could cut off other members of the House, and as chairman of a select committee he did that. I think that is wrong. I think it is a negation of the democratic process and I think it’s time this House established a method whereby the rights of the members are recognized, and the time to do it is in this resolution. Those two suggestions, I think, are very important toward the proper function of the committee system, and I would hope that the minister would see fit to embrace them in some form in the resolution that is presently here.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, just briefly on the regulations, I think the House leader is aware that the Camp commission is looking at the role of certain committees, and in fact the regulations committee, and I would like to get the House leader’s response to whether he is prepared to change the terms of reference of that regulations committee? As my colleague has said, the only way we could, in fact, ensure that the regulation was within the four corners of the Act would be to have a whole legal committee scrutinizing every regulation.

I think the minister knows the amount of regulations that are put through, and have in fact been pushed through by the government, which have received no scrutiny whatever from anyone.

I’m saying to the House leader that unless some substantial change is made to the regulations committee and the power of that committee to look at the merits of the regulations, then the regulations committee is a useless institution. It is, in fact, involved in a very useless exercise. So I’m saying to him, unless we in this party can see some substantial changes coming forward in the operation of this committee, I say to the House leader that we should not encumber ourselves in a meaningless exercise of having a committee set up, and I suppose the only purpose of it is for the chairman to make some extra dollars by being paid something extra.

Really, let’s get involved in a situation where we in this House are involved in a useful and meaningful purpose, to look at the merits of these regulations. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, the original approach of setting it up to peruse regulations could have been a very meaningful and useful process. No one really looks at the merits of these regulations, and unless that’s changed I don’t think we should continue being involved in this charade.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore. Before the hon. member commences --

Mr. Nixon: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if we could have the Conservative caucus meet elsewhere while this debate is on?

Mr. Speaker: That is what I was just going to draw to the attention of the House. Order, please. The level of background noise makes it almost impossible to hear; so could we please have fewer or lower, or both, conversations? Thank you. The hon. member for Lakeshore has the floor.

Mr. Lawlor: I am sorry, I much prefer the foreground noise.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You didn’t know Hughie was over here.

Mr. Lawlor: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, what has been said on this issue is right, and reconsideration of the role and ambit of authority of that particular regulations committee ought to be made. It was first initiated under the aegis of the McRuer report. A very strong case indeed was made for the validity of such a committee in reviewing them, because as we all know regulations have the same weight as the law itself, and may divert, may distort. Policy decisions that go into the thing are as important as what is discussed in this House, and from that point of view itself there is a recognition that as things presently stand on the terms of reference there is a serious deficiency.

What on earth is holding the government up with respect to the rectification of that? We have argued for the past couple of years on this particular matter. Either abolish the committee completely or make an amendment that makes the committee have some viability.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, there is one matter which you personally, I believe, could deal with. It was raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer), and that is the question as to whether each of the individual members of this assembly has the right or has not the right to participate in the work of any committee. Certainly it was always understood that they did have the equal right, even with committee members, to participate, except for voting. I may be incorrect in that, but in my experience they weren’t even asked to sort of sit in a corner and speak last if they chose to do so.

The members of the Legislature were considered; certainly in standing committees at least, and I always considered it to be the same in select committees, individual members could participate in the debate and influence the course of events to the extent of their own ability and knowledge.

Now if there is some question about that I believe you, sir, are in a position to set that aside. It may be very difficult, if not impossible, to have the matter settled by motion of the House, and I feel that it is in your realm of responsibility, with whatever advice you seek, to make a pronouncement on that and it would be acceptable. I would ask, sir, before the committees start to meet, that you make it very clear that each individual member of the assembly has the right to participate in the workings of all of the committees, except of course with a vote.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a few comments concerning substitutions. It’s been my experience in the past that it would be by far better to allow each individual party to have, for the number of members they are allowed on the committee, unlimited substitution without reporting necessarily to the Chair.

For example, we are allowed three members in one of the committees. One of the members may be called out for an urgent telephone message. In the meantime there are other members from that same party who are present; they should be allowed to vote in lieu of the other member, without necessarily reporting to the chairman. We are only allowed three members and it shouldn’t matter which of the three members vote. The party itself decides which of the three are going to represent the party position at the time of the voting. I certainly would hope, Mr.

Speaker, that any member be permitted to speak on any topic at any time in any of the sittings. He may not necessarily have the right to vote, but he should be allowed to express his own thoughts and his own feelings, and this is especially true when it comes to the public bills.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House leader will consider not necessarily recording the individuals who are going to vote on behalf of the party before the meeting takes place, but doing so just before the votes takes place. There will always be a leader for each of the caucuses there and that individual can state who the voting members are going to be.

Mr. Good: Numbers are all that is required.

Mr. B. Newman: Numbers are all it means, really.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to contribute to this debate? Yes, the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I really don’t want to contribute to the debate, but you recall last year, because of the particular wording of the motion, my colleague, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer), who was chairman of the estimates committee, found himself in some difficulty. I am really vitally concerned about the wording of the motion itself, and unfortunately there is only one copy. Do you mind rereading the motion dealing with the fact that there is adequate power within the committee?

Do you recall the problem we had, sir, last year -- you were going to rule on it -- that there is adequate power in the committee to summon all documents that are required for their purposes?

I don’t see it in here. Frankly, it is the very problem we had last year. Maybe I’m not reading it properly, and I hate to hold the time of the House but --

Mr. Singer: Why don’t you take it back and rewrite your motion?

Mr. Bullbrook: I’m wondering if the House leader could possibly respond?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It says, “the power to send for personal papers and” --

Mr. Bullbrook: Thank you very much. It is included.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Bellwoods.

Mr. Bullbrook: I didn’t realize the hon. House leader was omniscient, because sometimes we make mistakes -- like last year he made the mistake. He left it out. He left it out last year.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other hon. members to participate in this? Does the hon. House leader wish to sum up or respond?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to these two points. I think there has to be a little bit of understanding at the beginning of a session, and if this isn’t the way we’re to work, I think perhaps we might then have some instructions from our respective caucuses as to how they would prefer that we do work. The House is in complete control of this situation. This is the motion to set up the committees of the House. We had thought that with House leaders appointed from each caucus there was to be some degree of negotiation and discussion which would be taken back to our respective caucuses with respect to the ordering of the businesses of the House.

The House leaders met some days ago -- it seems like at least two weeks ago -- and we discussed all of these matters to provide ample opportunity for them to go back to their caucuses and to ascertain whether or not these arrangements were satisfactory. The point being that if, in fact, there was some way to avoid undue delays in getting on with the people’s business here, we could have that opportunity to do it.

Mr. Nixon: Why didn’t you call the Legislature back a couple of weeks ago?

Mr. Reid: Why didn’t we come back in January?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I must say this, we don’t have this particular problem with the official Opposition. I always know where we stand with the official Opposition in this House.

Mr. Nixon: You are always in bed with them.

Mr. Roy: Why do you take the time of the House with that? Just answer them.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. House leader has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If, in fact, we’re simply being told there is no way to arrive at some consensus from the third party’s group, and we’re going to go through this all the time, I can assure them that it just will make it that much more difficult to order the business of the House.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Are you trying to remove the rights of the individual members?

Hon. Mr. Welch: If the third party doesn’t want a regulations committee, then why don’t we just dispense with the regulations committee?

Mr. Bullbrook: He will send you back to run Wintario.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Wait a minute. The point is, the rules call for the --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The point is; we are advised that this is a statutory requirement, to have a standing committee.

Mr. Nixon: You will have to change the law, Bob.

Mr. Reid: You were just advised.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It just indicates the amount of co-operation that exists between the two parties.

Mr. MacDonald: You know where we stand.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You obey the law and they don’t, is that it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is sufficient to say at this point that, really, perhaps the simplest way is to leave the motion the way it is, constitute the committee, as the member for Wilson Heights so correctly pointed out -- although I resent the fact that it was sort of thrown to the Liberal Party as a pawn.

Mr. Singer: Well, it was.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member wasn’t at the meeting. In fact, it is quite obvious that all he does is wait for the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) to go to the meeting and then he harpoons him after he has been to the meeting making agreements.

Mr. Singer: I come to some of my best conclusions if I am not at the meeting.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I wouldn’t take the member for Kitchener’s job for three times the salary, working with you guys.

Mr. Roy: How good are you in controlling Smith over there?

Hon. J. R. Smith: We are good neighbours, Albert.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. J. R. Smith) is in control of himself. There is no question about that.

Mr. Roy: That is why he apologized today.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. House leader continue. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Why don’t we let the committee go ahead? The members are going to check and if, in fact, the Camp commission studying the whole committee structure has some other ideas, then we can perhaps discuss them at that time.

On the question of substitution, I don’t know how else we can really run an orderly shop without having some indication at the beginning of the meeting who is, in fact, representing who for the purposes of the vote. I think we’ve taken 15 minutes to discuss these matters, which is just some indication on the part of a couple of members that they didn’t want their House leader to recognize that, notwithstanding the agreements he makes, they reserve the right to appeal here in the House.

[3:15]

Mr. Singer: What is the matter? Did they ignore you, too?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No such problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that a select committee of 12 members be appointed to prepare and report with all convenient dispatch a list of members to compose the standing committees ordered by the House, such committee to be composed as follows:

Mr. Villeneuve, chairman; Messrs. Belanger, Germa, Good, Hall, Hodgson, Lane, Lawlor, Makarchuk, McNeil, Moffatt and Worton.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bullbrook: Does the chairman of that get $2,000?

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Mr. Bullbrook: Does he really? That is obscene.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further motions?

Introduction of bills.

KIRKLAND LAKE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS’ DISPUTE ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act respecting the Kirkland Lake Board of Education and Teachers’ Dispute.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think I gave an explanation before the orders of the day about this bill. I understand that an arrangement has been made that we will begin debate on it tomorrow and, hopefully, secondary schools in Kirkland Lake will be open next Monday.

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Hon. Mr. Welch moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Representation Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Nixon: This is establishing the constituency of “Sanity Island.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this amends the

schedule of the Act changing the names of two electoral districts. Durham North, by this legislation, will now be known as Durham-York. And the electoral district of Welland will be known as the electrical district of Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Samis: “Electrical?”

Hon. Mr. Welch: Electoral; did I say “electrical?”

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was there the other day.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Is this the important business we have to get on with?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, this bill has really two provisions. One, it amends the requirements for vehicles hauling ready-mixed concrete having public commercial vehicle licences. The second provision deals to some degree with the one-way trip leasing of trucks over 28,000 lb.

MEMBERS OF COMMODITY BOARDS ACT

Hon. W. Newman moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act respecting Members of Commodity Boards.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prohibit a person from being a member or continuing to be a member of a commodity board while he or she is in violation of its own regulations and rules.

Mr. MacDonald: It’s what you call a Joe Hodgson amendment.

Hon. W. Newman: On the contrary --

DRAINAGE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. W. Newman moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Drainage Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, this is basically

an Act to allow us to use a lawyer with 10 years’ experience or more when we can’t find a judge to sit as a referee.

TERRITORIAL DIVISION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first rending of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Territorial Division Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, this is purely a technical amendment intended to bring the Territorial Division Act up to date in regard to a minor point of wording. In the passage in question the Act deals with territory around the head of Lake Ontario and refers to townships in that territory. Since there are no longer any townships there, this amendment simply substitutes the term “local municipalities”.

LOCAL IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Local Improvement Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, this amendment provides the municipalities with greater flexibility in the arrangements they may make for the financing of local improvements along boundary roads, in which the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) has some interest.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the amendments in this bill deal with the administration of the Act. Under the first amendment in this bill, responsibility for the administration of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, 1973, is transferred from my ministry to the resources development policy field by means of a redefinition of the term “minister” as used in the original Act.

This transfer of responsibility is simply a reflection of the fact that the Niagara Escarpment Commission is now thoroughly established and is moving ahead on its plan for the Escarpment and the surrounding area and is therefore concerned with the broader issues of policy that are also of concern to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

A second amendment establishes the commission as a legal entity with the power to appeal various matters to the Ontario Municipal Board and to the courts.

A third amendment clarifies a point that was strongly implied but not specifically stated in the original Act in respect to the status of municipal bylaws in instances where development control has been imposed and then withdrawn. Under this amendment, which is retroactive to June 10, 1975, municipal bylaws which have been set aside during the period of development control are automatically restored once development control is lifted.

The fourth and final amendment to this bill deals with another aspect of the administration of development control. This amendment removes the element of what one might call personal licence from the right to develop a given piece of land so that the right to development, once granted, runs with the land regardless of who may assume ownership of that land. This change is based on a principle that is widely recognized as being in keeping with good policy arid practice in regard to development control in the broadest sense of the term.

GIFT TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Gift Tax Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Reid: I thought you said we weren’t going to have much legislation?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, the major purpose of this bill is to provide an exemption from tax under the Gift Tax Act for contributions made in accordance with the Election Finances Reform Act, 1975.

A second amendment in the bill would restrict exemptions from tax to those recipients of a gift who are resident in Ontario. It also stipulates that the aggregate of exemptions claimed by a donor with respect to gifts of shares in a small active business corporation which is also a farming corporation cannot exceed $75,000 so that two exemptions cannot be claimed for the same gift.

The third and final amendment is a tax simplification measure which will remove the requirement for filing returns under the Gift Tax Act, 1972, and paying tax thereunder when an allowance or refund of tax will occur under the recapture provisions under the Succession Duty Act. This will avoid the payment of gift tax which would subsequently be refunded in any case.

INCOME TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moved first reading of bill intituled

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

The second provision shifts the calculation of the provincial tax reduction from tax payable to taxable income for Ontario residents paying $61 or less in Ontario income tax.

The final provision alters the taxation year for which tax credits can be claimed so that for example, an Ontario resident who became a bankrupt and who turned 65 years of age in a particular calendar year is not precluded from claiming his pensioner tax credit for that year.

EMERGENCY MEASURES REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to repeal the Emergency Measures Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the title of the bill is self-explanatory.

[3:30]

BLIND PERSONS’ RIGHTS ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to provide for Certain Rights for Blind Persons.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this Act prohibits the barring of trained guide dogs accompanying a blind person in any public accommodation, facility or service, or in the occupancy of any self-contained dwelling unit. This act will replace the present White Cane Act and will significantly extend the rights enjoyed by blind people in Ontario.

COUNTY COURT JUDGES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the County Court Judges Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is complementary to recent amendments to the federal Judges Act. Its purpose is to extend to county courts the procedure now available in Supreme Court whereby a retiring judge may elect to hold office as a supernumerary judge and thus be available for further judicial work.

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is threefold. It increases the number of judges of the High Court by five, from 31 to 36 judges. It extends to the divisional court the provisions now applicable to the Court of Appeal whereby a judgement of the court may be rendered notwithstanding the death, resignation or retirement of one of the judges who heard the appeal. It also extends to the divisional court the ability now enjoyed by the Court of Appeal to have a single judge of the court dispose of in chambers procedural and technical issues instead of having them dealt with by the whole court, in open court.

EVIDENCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Evidence Act.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the amendment removes any doubt that might exist about the propriety of using as evidence in any action or proceeding an affidavit sworn before or in the office of the solicitor of a party to the action or proceeding.

SURROGATE COURTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Surrogate Courts Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this provision actually is a repeal of a provision which provides for additional allowances paid by Ontario to county court judges in respect of surrogate court work load. The repeal of this provision is necessary by reason of federal legislation which provides for such allowances. The additional allowances in respect of provincial duties are now all contained in the Extra-Judicial Services Act.

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Public Authorities Protection Act

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, briefly, the amendments provide as follows: Firstly, the provision amended prescribes a limitation period of six months for actions against public authorities. The amendment changes the time of when the period commences to run from the time the act was done to the time the cause of action arose to ensure that actions are not excluded when consequential damages do not occur until a later date. In other words, there may be

an act or omission which occurs on one day but the actual damage which gives rise to the cause of action may not occur until some months later. This is to extend the limitation period accordingly.

Further, the proposed amendment also allows the limitation period under the Limitations Act, which is six years after the cause of action arose, to apply to proceedings against a sheriff for an error in certifying as to a writ of execution which binds land, and to proceedings against a land registrar for an error in performing his duties under the Registry Act or the Land Titles Act.

Finally, the amending legislation will permit actions to be brought under the proposed amendments even though they are presently statute barred.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP. AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Burr moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corp. Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to allow the profits from Wintario to be used to support any non-profit project of any community-based organization.

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I wish to inform the House of an unfortunate incident which occurred during the interval between sessions. On Jan. 20, at approximately 4 o’clock in the morning, a fire broke out in the vault in the office area of the Clerk of the House.

Primary investigation by the fire marshal indicated that the cause of the fire was a non-thermally protected ballast in a fluorescent light fixture. However, subsequent laboratory examination has not been able to pinpoint the exact cause of the fire.

Considerable damage was done to some of the records of the House, principally from 1968. However, I’m happy to report to the House that the provincial archives personnel report the majority of the documents lost will be replaceable. Because of the time required for electrical and construction work to be carried out in the fire area, members may experience some delay in obtaining copies of documents they would normally receive from room 110. However, the Clerk of the House has assured me that every effort will be made to maintain the usual service.

I’m sure the members of the House would want me to express their gratitude to their city of Toronto fire department, personnel of the Ontario Government Protective Service, the Ontario fire marshal’s office, the Ministry of Government Services and particularly to the conservation staff of the provincial archives who are continuing to work diligently on the restoration of the sessional papers of this House. It was through the diligence of patrol superintendent George Sloan of the protective service that this building escaped more serious damage, which could indeed have been disastrous.

Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: House in committee of supply.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister have an opening statement?

Hon. F. S. Miller: A very brief one, Mr. Chairman. As members are keenly aware, the costs of health care in Ontario, as in the rest of the world, have been rising at an extraordinary rate.

During the earlier part of this year a great deal of news coverage and discussion centred on my ministry’s very necessary constraints programme. While savings have been achieved within the ministry already, and the savings in the system will be achieved in the coming year, certain supplementary funds are required in the current fiscal year.

For hospitals we will need an additional $85 million, and payments by OHIP will cost an additional $18.5 million, for a total of $103.5 million. The original estimate of $723,972,200 for payments under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan provided for a 3.5 per cent increase in the use of medical services. However, the actual increase experienced this fiscal year is about seven per cent, or 3.5 per cent above the rate provided for in the 1975-1976 estimates. Consequently, supplementary funds in the amount of $18.5 million are required to provide for this 3.5 per cent increase.

In the estimates, no provision was made for the Ontario Nurses Association wage settlement. From July 1, 1975, to March 31, 1976, this settlement will cost $35 million. I might add here that the cost for a full year is estimated at $63 million. As may be expected, with the advantage of hindsight the allowance for inflation during the year was underprovided. The inflation allowance contained in my 1975-1976 estimates represented 12.6 per cent for the fiscal year, exclusive of nurses’ salary adjustments. These figures have been reassessed at 16 per cent to Dec. 31 and 10 per cent from then to March 31, 1976. An additional $34 million will be required for these and other salary adjustments.

[3:45]

There were also some necessary commitments for which no provision was made in the estimates. These account for the balance of the $85 million and include such items as the hospitals of Ontario pension plan, $2.9 million; transfer of psychiatric services from Oxford Regional Retardation Centre to Woodstock General, $203,000; incentive payments to the hospitals for 1973, $1,323,000; and the Canadian Red Cross blood transfusion service, $2,669,000.

Finally I would like to say a word about our hospitals. Despite budgets already strained by earlier constraints, the hospitals in Ontario managed to live within one per cent of their global budgets this year. I have to say that’s a pretty good achievement, considering the size of the system.

The need to restrain advancing health care costs has forced everyone in the health system to be more imaginative, innovative and productive during the past year. Our recently announced constraints package will draw the lines even closer, but I am confident that, with the kind of people and the kind of facilities we have in Ontario, the public will continue to enjoy the benefit of the finest health care system in the world.

Mr. Chairman: If it is agreeable with the House, the two critics for the respective opposition parties will be allowed, hopefully, a brief opening statement on the supplementary estimates generally, with a brief response from the minister. Then we will get into the two items that we have to cover separately: health insurance, and general hospitals and related activities. Does the member for the official opposition have an opening statement?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, did you say two speakers?

Mr. Chairman: The two lead-off speakers.

Mr. Sargent: We have a number of speakers.

Mr. MacDonald: You have only one lead-off speaker.

Mr. Ferrier: You have a lot of speakers over there.

Mr. Chairman: There will be two lead-off speakers who will speak to the estimates generally, and then we will get into the separate votes.

Mr. Nixon: Just before we proceed, Mr. Chairman, are we to understand that after the leadoff speeches from the two opposition parties, any member can participate in the votes as you call them, expressing their views and getting further information?

Mr. Chairman: Precisely.

Mr. Sargent: I am not clear. Do I understand, Mr. Chairman that the third speaker cannot go into it full steam, or does he just speak to a certain vote?

Mr. Nixon: Well, he’ll have to establish the background to make the request clear.

Mr. Chairman: That’s right.

Mr. Sargent: Why do you draw it at two, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: What the Chair is trying to establish is that there will be an official party position by the lead-off speaker for the official opposition and then one for the Liberal Party, at which time, if the Minister wishes, he can reply. Then we will deal with the two specific items, Nos. 1 and 2, where anybody will be given an opportunity to speak to those specific votes.

Mr. R. S. Smith: On a point of information, Mr. Chairman, as far as the two items are concerned -- one is health insurance and the other general hospitals and related activities -- are you going to allow debate on the provincial laboratories on the first item and the hospitals generally in the second item?

Mr. Chairman: Anything dealing with OHIP payments will be dealt with in the first vote.

Mr. Nixon: That’s pretty general.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Parkdale.

Mr. Dukszta: We in the New Democratic Party agree wholeheartedly with the minister that health care in Ontario could be made more efficient. As anyone with common sense understands, efficiency can be achieved in one of two ways: One, service can be maintained at present levels and costs lowered; or, two, costs can be maintained at present levels and services improved. Yet it is also clear to every person of common sense that the minister’s recent actions achieve neither of these objectives. The policies, if they deserve that title, are irrational and inefficient.

He intends to reduce services significantly and he will fail to achieve any significant saving in cost. He attempts to mislead the public into believing he will rationalize costs and services, when in fact he will do neither.

Instead of attempting genuine improvements, the minister is simply pursuing political expediency. We must not be deceived by the minister’s present performance. He is attempting to transform his government’s image from that of being a spendthrift and deplorably lax administration to a tight, tough budget-conscious government wanting to trim that budget even in the face of personal abuse and political opposition.

The recent cutbacks in social services and health services do not so much undermine the system as they represent a non-system, an absence of social policy. The programme of social services provided by the government of Ontario has always been unplanned, underfinanced, fragmented and fundamentally without any set of social objectives. The system is a catastrophic bureaucratic failure and the Premier (Mr. Davis) and his ministers must take responsibility for the system-wide impact of their policies. By this I mean not only an evaluation of the functioning of the total health care system but of the broader social service system.

Now let us examine in more detail the so-called savings. In its announcements on restraint programmes involving both bed closings and dismissal of staff, the ministry provides data about the supposed savings. Typically, with that accountant’s mind of his, the minister goes into no discussion of people, work lost, opportunities wasted and human misery -- only figures which, as in the past, reflect not financial reality but only the obfuscating and tendentious wish-fulfilment of the minister and his incompetent but expensive gnomes at the Ministry of Health.

The minister has closed the 10 following active treatment hospitals: Chesley; Riverview; Doctors; Virgil; Durham Memorial; Willett; Oxford (with the nursing home not affected); Hillcroft; Copper Cliff, and Clinton. He has closed two psychiatric hospitals, Goderich and Northeastern. He has closed four public laboratories. In addition, he has reduced the number of beds in 36 other hospitals and has reduced staff in 69 hospitals. The minister wants us to believe that these actions will save $40 million. The fact is that these so-called savings will not be real at all.

First of all, Mr. Miller is going to give most of this money back to doctors in --

Mr. Chairman: I must remind the hon. member that you refer to another member either as the member for Muskoka or the Minister of Health, not by his surname.

Mr. Dukszta: The hon. Minister of Health, okay.

Mr. MacDonald: The Minister of Health, anyway.

Mr. Dukszta: -- back to the doctors in the form of an 8.1 per cent fee

schedule increase. Where, then, are savings?

Secondly, because of the staff reductions caused by these cutbacks, taxpayers will be forced to pay out more in the form of federal unemployment insurance benefits. In other words, what we will have in tax dollars at the provincial level is going to cost us more at the federal level due to increased unemployment. Is this a source of saving?

When all the health cuts are effected, there will be over 3,000 health employees out of work yet the provincial government would have us believe that unemployment resulting from the cutbacks will not be a serious problem.

The Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) also has demonstrated his incredible incapacity for compassion and understanding by sloughing off the employment forecast for these 3,000 hospital workers, comprising nurses, nursing assistants, service staff, etc., as not being all that distressing. The Treasurer has suggested that nursing positions in Ontario show a 25 to 50 per cent turnover rate per year, thereby providing ample opportunity for the recently dismissed employees to find positions within a couple of months’ time.

Not only is this suggestion unfounded, it is both cruel and preposterous as the following findings show. The Ontario Hospital Association in its newsletter of Jan. 30, 1976, reported the results of its personnel research study to which replies were received from 66 per cent of all hospitals, representing 73 per cent of rated beds.

This study indicated that out of a total of 43,965 positions in 19 categories of hospital work, including nurses, only 554 were currently unfilled. That is a vacancy rate of 1.26 per cent. Of the 21,199 positions for nurses only 172 were unfilled, a vacancy rate of 0.81 per cent. If we assume the other hospitals which did not report have the same vacancy rates, there are 759 jobs available in 19 categories -- including nurses -- of which 246 jobs are for nurses specifically,

whereas there will be 3,000 people knocking at the door.

The turnover rate that the Treasurer has alluded to is caused by nursing staff moving from one job to another in the health field, not moving outside to other jobs. It is therefore ridiculous to assume that cutting out 3,000 positions will not increase unemployment drastically.

The Minister of Health has stated that he will establish a committee to arrange admitting rights in other hospitals for physicians from the closed hospitals. But what of the hospital staff who will not be provided with similar opportunities? Are they going to find jobs elsewhere? The prognosis is bleak, even according to Donald Robertson, spokesman for provincial hospital administrators.

Mr. Chairman, let us examine the levels of health care service beginning with hospitals. The hospital system in Canada has been over-financed relative to the rest of the health care. Historically, this arose for a couple of reasons.

First, hospital services were the first health services to be widely insured. Thus, to take full advantage of hospital insurance coverage both doctors and patients tended to use hospitals for general primary care. Second, hospital services are cost-shared with the federal government and have been since the mid-1950s. Many alternative services have not been. Thus there exists an incentive to over-finance hospitals. In the boom years of the 1960s this is what the Tory government chose to do. Now, in lean times, it cuts back.

After 20 years of going along with the hospitals’ empire-building and their desire to become the focus of outpatient care as well as bed-patient treatment, the ministry now turns around and closes down hospitals as if they were just beds. But what happens to the thousands of people for whom those hospitals provide all their health care? Those hospitals, in other words, which have been successful over the years in endeavouring to provide more than bed-patient treatment? What happens also to the people presently using hospital beds for lack of nursing homes and other chronic care facilities?

What the government has chosen to ignore is that hospitals, and particularly the community hospitals which the minister is closing, are much more than beds. They are also places where people go to see doctors, where people get their primary medical care. The province should know this having supported, as I said just now, these hospitals’ efforts to become centres for all health care.

Hospitals have contended that they are the logical places from which to offer such care because they have the experts on their staff and they have had the experience. The province has agreed, giving hospitals the money to run family practice clinics and community health clinics which are really hospital-based, general practice clinics.

People served by these hospitals are losing far more than just beds.

Further, although most people would not argue with the minister’s assertion that we do have an excess of active treatment beds, the question is far more whether these beds are appropriately distributed, both by geographic and specialty placement, throughout the province. Yet this issue is one which the rationale for the present cutbacks at no time addresses.

Also, at present these excess acute care beds are often being used inappropriately and expensively to serve people who need nursing care for chronic conditions, because there is a severe shortage of chronic care facilities. But the programmes that were already promised for home nursing, meals-on-wheels and other less expensive alternatives are also cut back. With acute care beds cut back to “rational” levels chronic patients who are now in those beds, however inappropriately and expensively, will have nowhere else to go.

In addition to being hospital-intensive, the present system is also specialist-intensive. This is another area which the Conservatives have never addressed themselves to. Specialists require expensive hospital facilities. Specialists cost a lot of money to train. Specialists make a great deal of money. Yet the current cutbacks in hospital beds are not generally being made in the expensive specialist hospitals but, by and large, in the smaller hospitals which provide both primary and secondary care.

Education in the health services is related to both these factors: It is hospital-based and specialist-focussed. Nurses get their practical training in hospitals; doctors get their training in the most expensive and specialized settings imaginable. How in heaven’s name can we expect there to be a shift in current health practice patterns when all the personnel are trained to perpetuate these patterns?

[4:00]

Let me expand on this point a little. The capital grants programme of the Ministry of Health favours the building of teaching hospitals. These are highly specialized and, without exception, are based in urban areas. They encourage a distortion in the spending of health dollars. The teaching hospitals in Toronto have been engaged in warfare for beds; facilities; hardware; and teaching privileges. There has been a move to concentrate medical teaching in Sunnybrook Hospital.

As a result, Sunnybrook has embarked on building more expensive facilities while of course there already exist complete surgical units, tertiary care, beds and teaching facilities in all Toronto teaching hospitals. The ministry has obviously gone along with this approach: in that damned, topsy-turvy fashion of theirs, in this year of restraint, they propose to fork out more money for extra and largely tertiary care surgical facilities, which Toronto needs like a hole in the head, while the much-needed community services provided by Doctors Hospital are being abolished.

Does, in fact, the left hand ever know what the right hand is doing at the Ministry of Health? How can the minister close 319 beds at Doctors Hospital, beds which have an 83.9 per cent occupancy rate and cost $98 per day, and a fully functioning surgical unit, and then in turn match half a million dollars given by the federal government to provide additional space for an operating room and laboratory in the hospital teaching unit at Sunnybrook Hospital? Sunnybrook has already renovated, at great cost, a 215-bed ward which is empty for lack of money for staff.

The same things are going on with psychiatric care. The closing of psychiatric hospitals and beds, with a significant reduction of staff, will diminish the ambulatory services provided, such as community-based industrial therapy workshops and also the quality of outpatient supervision which is necessary to keep psychiatric patients ambulatory and in the community.

The minister has approached this problem like an accountant dealing with furniture appraisals as he juggles bed counts with treatment appraisals. On Feb. 2 of this year he himself said: “I can weigh life or good health against dollars.” This approach has not led him into selective examinations and pruning of a system based on a rational analysis of the need, the deficiencies and excesses, but into cuts in those areas of health which are either the easiest to cut or are highly visible, or are obviously correlated with quick returns.

A ministry that chooses the management function of using balance sheets over improving health care and saving lives is bereft of any sense of morality. It is clear that the minister has chosen this approach because he feels uncomfortable grappling with the real health costs, which involve the physicians. OHIP payments to physicians in 1974 totalled nearly $600 million, or 25 per cent of the total cost of health in the province. This is a quote from the Minister of Health's “A Financial Strategy for Ontario Health Services, 1976-1980,” page 1, appendix 2:

“Next to hospital staff, physicians represent the largest component of expenditure in the health system and are, therefore, of primary importance in terms of developing a strategy for controlling growth.”

This document from the ministry, however, says that it is too complex and politically sensitive an issue to deal directly with these costs. Let me quote again:

“While wage and fee schedule, settlements affect the operating cost of health services more than any other factor, this component of the strategy has not been considered in any further detail ... because of the complex and sensitive political issues normally involved.”

Actual OHIP fee-for-service payments per registered physician in 1974 were $42,650. According to the document I just quoted from, the ministry projects the following: that in 1976 there will be 15,084 projected registered physicians in Ontario, with a forecast average OHIP payment of $49,200, which by 1980 will have been raised -- in projected figures -- to 17,436 registered physicians earning an average of $72,000. The actual OHIP payment of $42,650 in 1974 is very low compared to the average physician’s gross income as indicated by tax figures.

That is because the ministry’s estimates divide OHIP payments by all registered physicians in this province, and not just by those who bill OHIP -- i.e., physicians who are teaching, on salary, and so on.

The key difficulty with OHIP has been that what started as a compromise between the interests of the consumers and the interests of the providers of health -- i.e., the provision of universal health care financing while at the same time preserving a degree of professional independence for the physicians -- has ended up as a system with no in- built controls over the way the bills are presented and consequently over the way the money is disbursed.

There has been virtually no control over whether or not the physician has actually performed a service. It is reasonable to assume that physicians, like the recipients of welfare, on the whole do not cheat. However, there is a more insidious distortion that occurs and that is one which is perfectly legal under OHIP rules. The physician can ask or “order” his patient to submit to further tests, repeat visits and consultations. All in the name of better health care, but often in reality an unnecessary repetition of services costly to the community but profitable to the physician.

The present method of paying doctors, fee-for-service, is an essential and unquestioned element of the present medical system. But it is a barrier to the lowering of medical costs. It links the patient’s treatment to the physician’s financial motives, and places the physician in a conflict of interest situation. He has no motivation to reduce his costs of service; on the contrary, he is motivated toward a perfectly honest overproduction of his services.

The rate of surgery involving non-vital organs has been estimated at 70 per cent to 100 per cent or more higher for doctors paid on a fee-for-service system, as compared with those on a salaried system. Thus, we have far greater numbers of appendectomies, tonsillectomies, and surgery involving prostate and haemorrhoids. The only way to explain why there are so many more of these types of operations is the financial incentive to do them. Doctors on fee-for-service are pushed toward rapid, routine operations and surgery rather than toward more thorough examination and diagnosis of the patient’s condition.

There is no incentive for doctors to participate in health teaching and preventive measures, or to trace the medical history of their patients.

Another contrast between salaried and fee-for-service physicians is the lower hospital utilization rate by the former. Patients of salaried physicians spend 20 per cent to 30 per cent less time in hospital than does the total population. The present fee-for-service system actually encourages doctors to over-hospitalize patients. With patients concentrated in one hospital and with laboratory and medical personnel readily available without charge, the doctor is able to increase the rate of his visits and reduce his average costs and office expenses to a minimum.

Mr. Chairman, now that we have demonstrated that the minister will not achieve any real savings in cost, nor improve services, we must ask why he chooses to act as he does. It is now perfectly clear why he has to have savings of $50 million. He wants to give it to the medical doctors.

Health care spending is controlled by doctors. Virtually every single service which the Minister of Health budget pays for is accessible only through a doctor. Why then, to cut spending, are we cutting hospital beds, public health laboratories and psychiatric services?

The closing of Goderich and Northeastern psychiatric hospitals will save supposedly nearly $9 million. The several hundred patients from Timmins or South Porcupine, when in need of psychiatric care, will have to take an ambulance, train, get a police escort, or walk the 220 miles to North Bay Psychiatric Hospital or a psychiatric unit in a general hospital.

The 89 employees dismissed from St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital can, after all, go on unemployment; that is not paid by the provincial but by the federal government.

The 61 employees dismissed from Hamilton are generally psychiatric nursing assistants, not doctors, so maybe they don’t count as much.

The Woodstock public laboratory and other public laboratories have to be closed because, after all, the owners of private labs have to make more money.

But we in the New Democratic Party, Mr. Chairman, are complaining. In place of the minister’s spurious policies, the New Democratic Party believes very strongly that, even if beds need to be closed, it should not be done by fiat from Queen’s Park. The local community must have a say. There has been no local involvement in the decisions which the minister has been announcing.

In no way has the minister addressed the issue of over-production, which is so fundamental to runaway costs. No guidelines or incentives have been set up toward providing efficient, widely available health care. Rather, the opposite has occurred and our present system has many inducements that work toward increasing costs and providing the most expensive care.

It is the doctors providing health care on a fee-for-service basis who decide what services will be given and how often. They decide who goes to hospital and for how long. Records show a fantastic increase over the past few years in the number of services per patient -- in fact, gross over-utilization of services -- and this is the fault of the medical profession and not of the patients. Any health insurance programme built on the principle of the more services, the more fees, is bound to encourage runaway costs.

Hospital beds cannot be closed without planning and implementing alternative community-based services. Provision of such alternative services would ensure that patients currently in hospital would not be left without care and that people now employed in hospitals could be retrained and employed elsewhere in the system. To close beds with such a blatant disregard for patients and employees is totally unacceptable. Alternative services must be ready before closings occur.

Hospitals have emerged as primary care centres in many communities, but this is probably an inappropriate use of hospitals. New Democratic Party policy in this area has always been clear: The active development and support of community-based primary services which in the short term, and more importantly also in the long term, will reduce the need for expensive hospital care. Many of these primary services and preventive measures could be performed by nurses or other aides more cheaply than by physicians. Increased attention to preventive medicine is vital to the health of the public as well as to the health of the government budget.

But here again let me repeat that although using hospitals as primary care centres may be inappropriate, and although one in five patients should not be in a hospital bed but in a nursing home or investigated on an ambulatory basis, we cannot simply throw him or her out to fend for himself or herself. Let me repeat: There is no alternative at this time for dealing with this type of problem outside of the hospital.

At no time does the minister attempt to redress the imbalance between the highly serviced and very expensive teaching hospitals in urban areas and the poorly serviced rural areas. Why doesn’t the minister talk of shifting the focus of medical education away from the large urban hospitals? Students trained in smaller centres would be more likely to return to those settings. The presence of students in smaller communities would encourage an examination of the kind of care the communities are getting. Decentralizing teaching would allow a redistribution of tax dollars away from the cities, a redistribution of our health priorities so that they are relevant to the whole province.

Finally, instead of hinting at increasing our regressive OHIP premiums, is the minister not aware that residents of Ontario are already paying the highest health insurance premiums in Canada? The Maritime provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan all have no premiums at all. Why should one of the richest provinces in the country continue to charge premiums which are regressive rather than to finance health care from general revenues which are collected in at least a somewhat more progressive fashion?

Any increase in premiums surely affects one sector of society more than others -- the working poor and our more disadvantaged, who do not have the cushion of “company benefits” to defray premium costs. Any increase in premiums is unjust and unfair most of all to that one sector of our population that can least afford to lose yet another chunk of income.

The Minister of Health has embarked on this restraint programme through an abuse of power, never once appearing before this House for advice or consent. He claims that this so-called rationalization of services will serve to hold down rapidly escalating costs. If the minister is indeed concerned with saving money, then let him respond to the following few more pertinent questions:

1. What is the minister doing to provide alternative forms of care to replace the hospitals he is closing?

2. What thought is being given to the hundreds and thousands of people being put out of work? There won’t be other jobs for these people within the health system. They are trained in health care and health care is being cut back.

3. What is the government doing to directly influence doctors’ behaviour to minimize excessive use of expensive facilities?

4. What consideration is being given to local communities and their perception of their own needs? Why are these decisions being made in a centralized, arrogant and secretive way without any reference to those who will be affected?

5. Why is the minister demonstrating his intention to cut back, if not cut out entirely, the training programme for nurse practitioners? Is the minister blind to the obvious savings that the nurse practitioners’ services could mean in the delivery of health care?

[4:15]

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I recognize that the hon. member has completed his remarks, but I’m wondering if you would rule on Rule 16(a)4 as it relates to the long reading of speeches within the Legislature?

Mr. Chairman: You’re quite right. The member for Sault Ste. Marie points out that --

Mr. Sargent: What are you going to do when we come to your estimates?

Mr. Chairman: -- standing order 16(a)4 precludes members from unnecessarily reading at length from any document. He wasn’t quoting; he was actually reading his speech.

Mr. MacDonald: You will live to regret that when we hound every one of your members when he gets up with a written speech. That is sort of a silly intervention.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know whether it’s silly or not. Some of the veteran members of this House prepared these rules and I’m only trying to abide by them.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I know it was prepared by veteran members and I know it’s a rule in every House, but I know, for a variety of reasons I won’t take time to elaborate on now, that the rule is often ignored, and more often on your side of the House than on this side. It’s that sort of a petty --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Remove the rule.

Mr. MacDonald: Okay, take it out of the rules then. The next time the Premier (Mr. Davis) gets up and reads a lengthy statement and we interrupt him, then you’ll regret your obstruction.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Huron-Middlesex has the floor.

Mr. Riddell: In connection with the point or order which was made, I would draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that when the minister got up to give his remarks he read his comments, as did the member of the NDP.

Mr. Kennedy: Are you reading now?

Mr. Riddell: In the absence of my leader, who was unable to participate in this debate this afternoon, as he has quite a heavy

schedule --

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Huron-Middlesex has a right to be heard.

Mr. Riddell: -- and owing to the fact that he is the critic of the health ministry, I know he would like to be here to lead off in the remarks on these particular estimates. However, it does give me a great deal of pleasure in being able to lead off on his behalf.

The fiscal nightmare, which the former Treasurer of Ontario, Charles McNaughton, referred to in remarks which he made in the House when dealing with the provincial health scheme and its related cost, turned out to be something more than a nightmare. It was a prophecy which came true. lit may well be recorded in history as the last of the big spending by the Davis government. Perhaps our children and our children’s children might read a

chapter in history entitled, “The Fiscal Nightmare of the Ontario Government”. It could quite conceivably be recorded in the following way.

In the days when Sir William was ruler of the land called Overspendario, there lived a man whose name was Lord Darcy. He was the keeper of the treasury but like his predecessors he squandered the riches of the land. Sir William did not interfere because many of his friends became quite prosperous from the contractual tasks which they performed for their ruler.

Then it came to pass that all the treasures had disappeared, and Lord Darcy said unto Sir William: “What do we do? For now