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

March 29, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L010 - Thu 29 Mar 1979 / Jeu 29 mar 1979

ESTIMATES

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS LEGISLATION

HEALTH SERVICES

OMERS LEGISLATION

BUDGET DATE

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CONFEDERATION

KENORA PLANE CRASH

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH SERVICES

FORMER MINISTER’S SPEECH

HEALTH SERVICES

HYDRO URANIUM CONTRACTS

PROPERTY TAXATION

PHYSICIANS’ SALARIES

RAPE CASE

TOURISM

DRIVER EDUCATION

MEMBERSHIP OF POLICE COMMISSIONS

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

COMMUNITY SERVICE BOARDS

PETITION

MENTAL HEALTH LEGISLATION

REPORT

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

MOTIONS

DISCHARGE OF BILLS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL NIAGARA HYDROELECTEIC SERVICE ACT

YORK MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM AMENDMENT ACT

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT REPEAL AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

KINDERGARTEN PROGRAMS

REGISTRATION OF LOBBYISTS

KINDERGARTEN PROGRAMS

REGISTRATION OF LOBBYISTS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ROYAL ASSENT

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

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

Mr. Speaker: Pauline M. McGibbon, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1980, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, March 29, 1979.

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege: Last Tuesday in the Legislature, on asking a question of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), I stated that three paediatricians at the Northwestern General Hospital and all of the anaesthetists at St. Joseph’s Hospital had opted out of OHIP.

I want to set the record straight because, in fact, all of those particular physicians are in the plan. Our information arose from a misunderstanding in the telephone conversation between our researcher and the head of department, in one case, and one of the other anaesthetists in the other. Perhaps this illustrates the difficulties the general public is having in determining whether or not doctors are in or out of the plan.

Mr. Conway: The researcher is now the NDP candidate in Mount-Royal.

Mr. Speaker: To set the record straight is not a point of privilege. That is a point of clarification or to set the record straight.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I think I have a point of privilege. On March 13, I asked a question of the Minister of Health regarding a situation that arose at Hotel Dieu hospital in Windsor involving overcrowding on one evening when 14 patients had to stay in the emergency room. The minister’s answer was misleading, I believe, in that he said the overcrowding was a result of a particular peak in one instance.

I would like to point out to the Legislature that in talking to the hospitals in Windsor I have found that since January of this year Hotel Dieu has averaged three nights per week on which it has had to use its emergency rooms because of lack of beds. Grace Hospital has also averaged three nights per week, and Metropolitan has averaged three nights per week. This clearly indicates there is a lack of active treatment beds in Windsor and that the information the Minister of Health presented to this Legislature was wrong.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider the comments of the honourable member and to talk with some of my staff who are regularly in discussions with the individual hospitals or the local health council. I do not have in front of me my exact response on that day, but I believe I pointed out that at this particular time of the year it is a period of peak utilization as a result of injuries and illnesses associated with winter and that it is not uncommon for there to be a peak utilization. But I will look at the member’s concerns and see if they have any substance which requires followup on our part.

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr. Lawlor: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: On March 15, 1979, the Minister of Health made a statement to the House that the average inpatient population at Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital over the past six months has been about 280. He has been misinformed, I put it to you, and has misinformed this House on this particular matter. It has been 337.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Again, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the information which certain individuals in this House and abroad, as it were, purport to distribute as being authoritative. Any information that I would give to this House would be based on a report from my staff. I am giving some thought to how we might effectively put to an end this growing spreading of incorrect information abroad.

Mr. Lawlor: By your being more accurate.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, any time any figure I use is wrong, I have said so. I can assure you that particular figure was one based on a question that was put repeatedly to staff, but I am always willing to ask the question again to make sure.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) will be here to introduce a bill to amend the Business Corporations Act, and he has asked that I read this statement at this particular time in connection with that legislation.

This legislation means the company that is incorporating -- not the government -- will have to make sure the proposed corporate name and articles of incorporation are not in conflict with the law.

The new Business Corporations Act will provide substantial benefit to business. In recent years the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has received numerous requests from business and from the legal community to speed up the process of incorporation. Unfortunately, the escalating volume of requests for corporate name searches and business incorporations received each year has made it increasingly difficult to handle them as quickly as business requires.

Fortunately, within the past two years, facilities and technology have become available which will permit the government to hand over to the private sector the responsibility for corporate name acquisition. In practical terms this will mean the role of government in the process of incorporation can be reduced from 12 days to less than an hour.

On the subject of corporate name search, the Business Corporations Act states that a proposed corporate name should not be the same as or similar to the name of another corporation, association, partnership or individual if its use will be likely to deceive. Under the legislation as it now stands the minister must decide whether the proposed corporate name should be prohibited. The onus, of course, lies with the incorporator to select a proposed corporate name that will not conflict with the prohibition under the act.

Over the 1977-78 year, the ministry conducted almost 62,000 name searches. This represents a 70 per cent increase over the number of searches conducted in 1974. So, Mr. Speaker, you can appreciate the burden which this workload has placed on that ministry’s companies division. It now requires an average of five working days to clear a corporate name. In individual cases, the time to obtain a decision varies anywhere from three to 12 or more working days. This occurs before the incorporator even files the articles of incorporation.

Fortunately, within the past year and a half, three private search firms have begun operating a name search service directly to the public. These companies have on-line data terminals with access to the automated name search system operated by the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This system contains the trademarks and the names of all corporations from every jurisdiction in Canada, including foreign corporations carrying on business in Canada.

These search houses obtain for clients computer printout search reports from that system within 24 hours or less. The service means that this ministry can safely withdraw from the corporate names business.

The new act will privatize the name search and decision. To assist the business community in making appropriate name selections, the legislation will provide for expanded regulations and guidelines. These will require an ANS name search report to be delivered with articles of incorporation as evidence that a name search has in fact been made.

On the subject of articles of incorporation, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has experienced similar problems with the process of proposed incorporation. Under the present legislation, incorporators submit to the ministry articles of incorporation together with a cleared name search report and the prescribed fee. The staff in the companies division examines the articles to ensure they comply with the act. If the articles of incorporation conform to the law, and all prescribed fees have been paid, the division then issues a certificate of incorporation.

Once again we have been unable to handle requests for business incorporations as quickly as the business community requires. The average service time has increased to 8.6 working days from 5.3 days in 1974. Those delays have understandably generated a number of criticisms from the business community.

To alleviate this problem, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations last year introduced procedures permitting lawyers to file legal opinions to the effect that the articles conform to law. Under this procedure, the articles are examined only for proper execution and to ensure they are accompanied by the prescribed fee and cleared name search report. This has, of course, worked to the benefit of both business and government.

Under the new legislation, the incorporator would deliver to the minister articles of incorporation accompanied by an ANS name search report and prescribed fee. The staff will examine articles to determine that they are properly executed, that the accompanying name search report is for the name set out in the articles, and that the prescribed fee is paid. If these conditions are fully satisfied, the certificate will then be issued.

In conclusion, the amendment poses numerous benefits to both public and government. The service time will be reduced from the present average of 12 working days to, first, 30 minutes where articles are filed and the certificate of incorporation is issued, or, second, one working day where articles are delivered by mail.

Administrative expenditures will be substantially reduced, and the amendment is consistent with the 1967 recommendation of the select committee on company law that corporation law should impose minimum restrictions and afford maximum convenience and simplicity to incorporation and organization of companies.

The new Business Corporations Act will benefit everyone -- business, the public and government -- and it reflects this government’s policy of simplifying the procedure for dealing with government agencies and for privatizing functions which the private sector can perform more efficiently.

HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, if I may, in connection with the statement I am about to make, I would like to draw to your attention that in your galleries --

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

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- among your guests today are Dr. William Vail, president of the Ontario Medical Association; Dr. Edward Moran, general secretary of the Ontario Medical Association; Dr. R. M. MacMillan, Dr. D. Y. Caldwell and other gentlemen from the executive of the Ontario Medical Association, as well as the members of the staff, and the president and the executive director of the Ontario Hospital Association, Professor John Wevers and Mr. R. Alan Hay respectively.

A solid, high-quality and universally accessible health system is, and can only be, the result of a partnership between health-care professionals, the medical community, the public and the government. This partnership, despite some difficulties, has worked well in Ontario.

As the members are aware, in recent months we have been meeting frequently with representatives of the Ontario Medical Association to discuss areas of mutual concern. We have also had discussions with the Ontario Hospital Association.

Flowing from these principles, I would like to announce the following:

First, both the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Hospital Association have agreed to begin joint discussions immediately to devise a mechanism to ensure that in every public hospital in Ontario the patient will have a choice of access to physicians’ services at OHIP rates. All parties have agreed this will be given the highest priority.

The third action relates to the process through which the government and the OMA conduct fee negotiations. The OMA and the government have agreed on the key principles of a new procedure, which recognizes the OMA as the sole negotiating agency for physicians in Ontario for the OHIP

schedule of benefits and provides for the chairman of the negotiating committee to have the role of an independent fact-finder.

I am confident the new agreement will produce a level of remuneration for the services rendered by Ontario physicians that will be accepted as fair by both the people of Ontario and the medical profession.

As I have indicated, the OMA supports the principle that the physician should inform the patient in advance of any charges above those provided for in the OHIP

schedule of benefits. Further, the OMA endorses the principle that the patient should not have to pay rates above the OHIP

schedule of benefits if the doctor has not given the patient prior notification.

The OMA executive feels strongly this is a matter for which it must assume full responsibility, as a self-regulating profession. Since they view it as a matter concerning the integrity of their profession, they have undertaken to communicate this information to their members and, through existing mechanisms such as tariff committees, to help in the resolution of any difficulties that may arise between doctor and patient.

The OMA also recognizes that should difficulties persist with this issue, the government will have little choice but to consider some form of consumer protection legislation to address the problem.

It is worth reiterating that our health-care system in Ontario remains one of the finest in the world. It is based on co-operative, rather than master-servant, relationships. Reasonable people can always resolve their difficulties amicably, given a rational environment in which to consider them.

The actions I have outlined today, I believe, will help maintain that spirit of cooperation and the high standard of health care which we enjoy in Ontario today.

OMERS LEGISLATION

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, today I intend to introduce three acts for amendment. The first is the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Systems Act. I have two amendments to introduce in connection with the OMERS act. One is intended to give the OMERS board more leeway in investing surplus pension funds. According to the present act, OMERS may invest only a portion of its surplus moneys in the private sector; the remainder is to be paid over the Treasurer of Ontario in return for a province of Ontario debenture. The new provisions will permit the board to invest all its surplus funds in the private sector.

The second amendment is to do away with an inconsistency between the OMERS act and the year-old Family Law Reform Act. The OMERS act now prohibits any attachment of pension funds, but the Family Law Reform Act permits such attachment in the case of support orders. The new provision will allow exception to the general rule, making attachment of OMERS’ pension funds possible in the case of support orders.

BUDGET DATE

Hon. F. S. Miller: The second statement I would like to make is that on April 10 at 8 p.m. I will be presenting my budget to this Legislature.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CONFEDERATION

Hon. Mr. Wells: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis), I would like to make a statement today and table in the Legislature the second report of the Advisory Committee on Confederation. This report deals with the subject of the federal-provincial distribution of powers. It is available in the two official languages of Canada.

Members will recall that this advisory committee was appointed in April 1977 under the chairmanship of Mr. Ian Macdonald. Its mandate has been to advise this government on questions pertaining to the future of our country.

The recommendations in the committee’s second report cover the major issues pertaining to the distribution of powers, including many of the areas currently being discussed among the federal and provincial governments. The report is the culmination of a year of hard work and consultation by the committee.

Last April the Premier had the honour of tabling the first report of the committee. In that report, the committee made suggestions for constitutional changes in such areas as a new second chamber, the Supreme Court, fundamental and language rights, and an amending formula.

At that time the chairman of the advisory committee was asked to convene a small conference of Ontarians, both experts and non-experts, to analyse and evaluate the report. The result was Confederation 78, a most constructive conference held last June at Glendon College. This was organized with the co-operation of the Ontario

section of the Council for Canadian Unity. The committee supplemented the consultative process by meeting privately with several people well versed in the field of constitutional reform to elicit their reactions to the proposals in the first report.

Following this consultation the committee prepared a followup to its first report, which clarified some of the proposals and modified others. The first report and its followup provided the basis for a presentation that the advisory committee made before the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution. This presentation was made last August.

Through the fall and winter, the committee has undertaken a heavy

schedule of meetings, not only to provide counsel to the government on the ongoing constitutional discussions which have been carried on, but also in order to refine its recommendations on the distribution of powers.

I think this second report comes at a particularly important time. I hope its release and wide distribution will provide a valuable contribution to the debate ton the future of our country. The recommendations, like those of the recently released report of the Task Force on Canadian Unity, are thoughtful and very worthy of careful consideration.

As was indicated in the Speech from the Throne, this government is strongly committed to contributing actively and constructively to the urgent business of renewing the Canadian constitution. We maintain the positive conviction that with the co-operation of all the provinces and the federal government a new constitutional agreement can be achieved. Such an agreement would recognize the importance of a strong role for the central government in maintaining an effective national economy for the benefit of all Canadians. It would also recognize the necessity for the provincial governments to retain the tools necessary to reflect their regional interests.

I would repeat what has been said often before, Mr. Speaker, that it is possible for changes to be made in the Canadian federal system that we think will meet the basic concerns of the people of Quebec as well as those of Canadians in all provinces.

I am also sending copies of the advisory committee’s second report to the Prime Minister and to the Premiers of the other provinces as we table them here today. I am also tabling copies of the letters that the Premier is sending to these other people accompanying the copies of the report.

On behalf of the Premier and the government, I would like to thank the chairman of our advisory committee, Mr. Ian Macdonald, the very busy President of York University, and the other members of the committee, past and present, for the time and energy they have given in order to provide guidance to this government and to produce this second report.

I look forward to being able to continue to call upon them, as this government does, for counsel on all matters concerning Confederation over these next very crucial months ahead.

KENORA PLANE CRASH

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I take great pride in this statement and I am confident that all members of this House will share this feeling with me.

Mr. McClellan: The Thursday filibuster.

Mr. Peterson: If the minister would speak up maybe we could hear it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I will send it over to the member.

Mr. Conway: What’s that?

Mr. Peterson: Don’t give away your hearing aid, Jimmy.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I asked for that.

Yesterday in the Kenora area, acts of bravery and determination were performed by two men, one of whom is a member of the staff of the Ministry of Natural Resources. The two men, one a pilot on our staff, the other a young helicopter pilot from a commercial company, rescued three people whose airplane had crashed in the Lake of the Woods. Unfortunately, a fourth person, a woman who was strapped in a stretcher and being flown to Winnipeg for medical attention, could not be rescued.

I would like to recount this incident in detail, from reports we have received during the last few hours from our ministry office in the northwestern region.

Yesterday afternoon, a twin-engine Piper Aztec with three women and the pilot aboard crashed near Kenora in the Lake of the Woods. Just before it went down, the pilot was in touch with Ministry of Transport officials who called our small airfield in Kenora to alert us that an emergency was in progress. One of our ministry pilots by the name of Bob Grant was on hand at the time. Outside the office was a helicopter belonging to Heli-Voyageur. Its pilot apparently was heading home from Edmonton to Quebec for a break.

Ministry of Transport informed Mr. Grant that a plane with both engines gone bad crashed and appealed for help. Bob Grant immediately enlisted the aid of the helicopter pilot, a young 23-year-old gentleman named Brian Clegg. They took off from the ministry airstrip and began searching the area where MOT last had radar contact with the troubled plane.

To give the House an idea of the flying conditions, earlier that day Mr. Grant had cancelled a flight because the weather was too bad. lit was snowing and gusty.

According to Mr. Grant, they searched the area for about 10 minutes until one of them noticed skid marks on the ice below leading into the water. The helicopter was flying at treetop level at this point.

Pilot Clegg dropped down and they immediately saw a man and woman on shore waving. It was the pilot and a woman on board who had managed to swim to shore through the icy water. The downed plane was nowhere to be seen. As they were turning toward shore, Mr. Grant noticed what looked like a coat floating in the water. He took a closer look and realized it was a woman just barely afloat. At this point she had apparently been in the water almost 10 minutes. Both men decided to try to rescue from the air rather than wait any longer.

[2:30]

Mr. Clegg brought the helicopter to within a few inches of the surface of the open water and held it steady in the gusts of wind. Mr. Grant then unbuckled himself and climbed out of the cockpit on to the skid, which he straddled. At this point he was in icy water up to his midsection. Bob Grant grabbed the floating woman and yelled to the pilot to lift off slowly. About 10 feet in the air, he was apparently unable to hold on because of the cold, his precarious position and the weight of the woman whose winter clothes were soaked with water. She fell back into the water.

Mr. Grant and the pilot decided to try again. At this point the unfortunate woman was stiff but still conscious. Mr. Grant grabbed her again and ordered the pilot of the small helicopter up again. Once again, he couldn’t maintain his grip.

Mrs. Campbell: This is unreal.

Hon. Mr. Auld: It seems almost unbelievable that they could continue to do this, given the weather conditions and the skill that it takes to control a helicopter under these circumstances, but they fried twice more and the results were the same.

Then Mr. Grant asked the pilot to fly sideways across the water and backward to the sheet of ice approximately 100 feet away. Mr. Grant all the while clung to the helicopter skid and dragged the woman through the water, He pulled the survivor onto the ice and the helicopter backed up again.

Mr. Grant, on surer footing now, climbed out and pushed the woman into the passenger seat of the helicopter. She was barely conscious, but apparently -- and these are Mr. Grant’s words -- “as stiff as a board” from the cold. Then, with Mr. Grant standing on the skid, half in and half out of the helicopter and with a grip on the woman survivor and the machine, they took off for Kenora.

Within a few minutes they were setting down in the main drive of the Kenora hospital. They delivered the woman survivor and then returned to pick up the others.

Mr. Riddell: It’s a good thing there were hospital beds.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s an excellent hospital.

Hon. Mr. Auld: These are the details of the rescue yesterday that were relayed to me by staff in Kenora. This report was done in a rush, but we believe the facts are accurate.

I’m sad to report the other passenger aboard the aircraft, who was being flown to Winnipeg, did not survive. I’m glad, however, to say the pilot and the two other women passengers, including the woman rescued from the water by Mr. Clegg and Mr. Grant, were released from the Kenora hospital this morning after being treated for exposure. All of them were understandably glad to be alive and anxious to get home.

I will be personally commending the actions of our staff pilot, Mr. Grant, and the pilot of the helicopter, Mr. Clegg, but I’m particularly proud to report that Mr. Grant, although he has only been flying with my ministry for two years, has demonstrated how he fits into the tradition of the Ontario air service that was begun in the early 1920s.

Once again, I am sure all members will join me in thanking those two gentlemen for doing a remarkable job under almost impossible circumstances.

Mr. Peterson: Even you made that sound exciting.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Premier (Mr. Davis), who I thought was going to be here today. The House leader believes he will be here? Perhaps I will save that question.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. S. Smith: I will ask my first question of the Minister of Health. I note in the minister’s statement, Mr. Speaker, that the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Hospital Association, and the ministry I presume, will be meeting to discuss how to guarantee that in every public hospital patients will have a choice of access to physicians’ services at OHIP rates. In the meantime, however, can the minister clarify what the situation is in those hospitals where all the members of one speciality, such as anaesthetists, have opted out?

Is it within the ability of the patient now simply to choose whether or not the patient is to pay the OHIP rate or to pay the additional rate? Would the minister he very clear? I’m speaking, of course, of the conscious patient.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’d be glad to give a conscious answer.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s a change.

Mr. Ashe: Too bad we don’t have a conscious opposition leader.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In individual instances that come to our attention, either through our own surveys or through the efforts of members opposite or through the media, we will contact individual hospitals in the interim period between now and the finalization of the mechanism which the hospital association and the medical association are working on to assure that. Obviously, I don’t want to prejudge what the ultimate mechanism they recommend will be, but we will deal with it hospital by hospital to give effect to that principle of the right to access to services on an opted-in basis.

Mr. S. Smith: I think I understood the minister’s answer to be that in fact the patients can refuse to pay the opted-out rate. If I’m wrong in that understanding, I hope the minister will correct me.

I would like to ask by way of supplementary, stemming also from the statement the minister made earlier, how the minister proposes in those communities where the number of opted-out physicians is rather great to make sure that opted-in physicians are available. Is he now prepared to place health service organizations, or some other form of alternative inside-the-plan services, in those communities to make sure that access exists?

It is all very well for the OMA to say they are going to help people find these doctors, but what about communities where they are not in existence or are insufficient in numbers?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On several previous occasions I have indicated that we are indeed prepared to meet with and discuss with any potential sponsoring group in any community the possibility of the establishment of a financially viable health service organization. One community which has been very much in our minds recently is Peterborough.

Mr. Cassidy: You are starving the health service organizations. It is a hollow promise.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have been approached by two organizations there indicating an interest. One is a group of physicians, the other a group representing one of the major unions in the community. We are quite prepared to sit down with either or both of them to transmit the information about the basis on which such an HSO would be formed, and take them through the various stages associated with that.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the statement by the minister in conjunction with the OMA states only that the patient will have a choice of access to physician services at OHIP rates in hospitals, can the minister tell the House and the public of Ontario what proportion of services by doctors or what proportion of doctors within a hospital must be making their services available at OHIP rates in order to be acceptable to this new standard? Is it the 95 per cent which is comparable to the standard laid down by Ottawa for the number of people enrolled in the plan provincially?

Is it 75 per cent, is it 55 per cent, is it 25 per cent; or is the minister simply saying that as long as there is one doctor in a particular specialty who is prepared to work under OHIP he will be satisfied? If that is his view, how does he then say there is universal access to hospital medical care at insured rates in the province?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would invite the honourable member to reread that portion of my statement, because what I talked about was access to services at opted-in rates. He will know that in every clinical department of every hospital in the province the regulations provide for the right to form a billing group within a specialty, and for each one to have a separate billing group so that accounts can be billed directly to the plan, that is on an opted-in basis.

The principle here is the right of access to services to be provided on an opted-in basis. So really, I don’t envisage and I can’t foresee as part of the development of this mechanism that the hospital association and the medical association have undertaken that it would be a particular percentage of doctors. The principle accepted by everyone is that you or I or anyone, if we insist, will have access to the service to be provided on an opted-in basis.

Mr. Cassidy: If we insist?

Mr. Swart: How can you ensure that?

Mr. Warner: That’s your responsibility.

Mr. Conway: I have a supplementary with respect to the third action spoken of on the bottom of the third page of the minister’s statement. Can the minister clarify for me and members of this House what exactly is this new procedure involving the OMA in its negotiation of the OHIP

schedule of benefits; how it is their input is going to be new and perhaps different from what has existed in previous years; and how it is he expects the chairman of this negotiating committee ultimately to act in some capacity as an independent fact finder?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have not dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s of that agreement.

Mrs. Campbell: You sure haven’t.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, don’t be so cynical. You want to bludgeon the doctors into submission.

Mr. Van Horne: Your ministry should plan a little ahead.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Smile.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The two key principles, as I indicated in the statement, are that we accept the Ontario Medical Association will be the sole bargaining agent with the government of Ontario for physicians’ benefits under OHIP, that is the OHIP

schedule of benefits. The second thing is perhaps even more important, because as we strive to ensure a system that will achieve fair results --

Mrs. Campbell: I can’t believe it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- the chairman of this agency, as it were, will have the authority, on the motion of one of the parties, to examine the arguments and seek out information independently and make a recommendation. It is not unlike, I would suggest, what we have in the role of the chairman of the educational relations commission.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In choosing this route, is the minister now saying that in the next set of negotiations he will move to one approved rate of services for doctors? Will the same rules apply in that instance -- since we’re using trade union and normal negotiating terminology here -- will the same rules apply to the medical association as apply to other people who bargain and negotiate a salary rate, like teachers, like trade unionists; that is if you move to negotiate one approved rate for your services, then you must abide by that and you cannot opt out?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, we will maintain the health insurance plan in Ontario as presently structured, which gives options to the patients and to the doctors. I’m still trying to figure out what the policy of that group over there is. Last week their leader said he would opt all the doctors in; yesterday their leader said that he would avoid draconian measures. Last night he was speaking in Hamilton and was going to tell the world the solutions of the New Democratic Party for health care. Apparently he said nothing.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I understand --

Mr. Swart: You don’t even understand your problems.

Interjections.

An hon. member: I think you struck a nerve there.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I quite understand the policies of that party. I quite understand the policies --

Mr. Cassidy: If you don’t understand the principles of health insurance in Ontario, then you shouldn’t be the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- because I’ve seen the national health service, I’ve seen the disaster which their philosophy has wreaked on the United Kingdom; and they are not going to do it here.

An hon. member: Is the campaign still on, Dennis?

Mr. Makarchuk: Have you checked out the health services in Ethiopia?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

FORMER MINISTER’S SPEECH

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Premier:

Now that the honourable member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) is no longer bound by cabinet solidarity and appears prepared to speak out on his experience as a minister in the Premier’s government, has the Premier, as a matter of priority, today discussed with him the important and relevant remarks which he made last night to the North York Progressive Conservative Association? I might quote from his remarks:

“Legislative overload and abdication of authority has contributed to the transfer of political power to the bureaucracy. Ministries are manipulated by deputies and clever marionette-like manoeuvres. They, in turn, are managed by the Premier’s mandarins, with only the semblance of power at the elected level.”

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question in all of this?

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, since deputy ministers are appointed essentially by the Premier, and in view of this reference to mandarins in the Premier’s office who allegedly manage the deputy ministers, has the Premier asked his former Minister of Energy to provide him with information to substantiate these very serious charges being made about the conflict of democratic government in Ontario?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that very serious question, one of urgent public importance raised by the Leader of the Opposition, which has about as much relevancy as a number of questions he is prone to ask in the House --

Mr. Bolan: A heck of a lot more than the answers you are giving too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have never raised the question of the relevancy of my answers. They usually reflect the tenor of the questions that are asked, and this particular answer will be no different.

Mr. Bolan: Facetious.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, it will be a little bit facetious because the question was more than slightly facetious. t would say to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker -- and I am sure you will allow me the same latitude in reply as you allowed him in reading from the news report -- that quite honestly I have not discussed the particular matter with the former Minister of Energy. He is a very able member of our caucus, one who represents, as we do in the whole caucus, a Conservative approach, unlike the caucus opposite which is ultimately divided into Liberal and Conservative philosophy.

He is one who has never been reluctant to campaign as a Conservative either federally or provincially and not as a representative of a party who, if he goes into Scarborough West, will be faced with election signs saying “Ontario Liberal, Canadian Liberal,” or any other variety of Liberal you may wish to choose in this particular period.

The Leader of the Opposition is quite correct. We do have the responsibility of the appointment of our deputy ministers within this government. I am not one to become too expansive on any of these things. I am always very modest in my praise of individuals, except I would say that I think we have an excellent --

Mr. McEwen: Your halo is slipping.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, there’s a halo. To the hon. member opposite who is gesturing with his hand around his head, indicating some difficulty which we would understand on this side of the House, I would only say to him a halo he does not have.

I would also say I have great confidence in and great respect for the deputy ministers in the government of this province. Not only do I say that, but I am sure in a personal way I really reflect the views of the reasonable members opposite who on occasion do communicate with these deputies in order to get problems solved within their constituencies.

I am told they are always treated politely, cooperatively and in a way that does resolve problems for individual members opposite.

Mr. Makarchuk: You mean he is all wrong, in other words.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I happen to know that this takes place. While the hon. member in the speech apparently indicated some concern that all of us have expressed on occasion as to the role of the “bureaucracy” and that of the elected people, I can say, unlike the Liberal caucus, certainly we are a very independent group on this side of the House. I would say that I have the advice of some of the most able men and women in political life in this country who have never been reluctant either to differ with the deputy ministers or on occasion even to differ with the Premier in their approach to certain issues.

While I know the Leader of the Opposition had hoped in some small way, because of the by-elections, facetiously to embarrass this party, I can only say to him, unlike his party we do not discourage independent thinking. We do not discourage our private members from making observations, and at the same time, unlike his caucus the ministers of the crown in this government do express their points of view. Their points of view are understood by the senior level of administration --

Mr. Sargent: You have made a hell of a mess of it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- in this province and they do accept the ultimate political decision that is made. If the Leader of the Opposition wants me to expand upon this further, I am quite prepared, hopefully, to answer a supplementary question, or perhaps he now feels he has had enough.

Mr. Makarchuk: Any more?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can go on. I can even be provoked into commenting on Hamilton-Wentworth.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I won’t, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I really think the Premier’s answer has been expansive enough.

Mr. S. Smith: Since the Premier seems determined to take the question less seriously than it was intended --

Hon. Mr. Norton: You mean it didn’t achieve the result you hoped it would achieve.

Mr. S. Smith: I would like, by way of a supplementary, to ask whether the Premier is aware that because cabinet solidarity no longer binds the member for Prince Edward-Lennox the member is making some very serious charges about the conduct of government in the province of Ontario under the stewardship of the Premier.

I want to know, therefore, whether the Premier intends, since he has obviously not already done so, to find out the specifics of the accusations being made by the member for Prince Edward-Lennox, whether he intends to share with the House any of the specifics that are involved, and exactly what the Premier’s opinion is of a situation where a former minister, finally free to speak of his experience, tell us the elements of democracy have been undermined by the way in which the bureaucracy acts towards its ministers and the way in which the Premier’s own appointees control the very top echelon of that bureaucracy.

Does he intend I to take this seriously and find out what it is the former Minister of Energy is complaining about and what it is in the system of government in Ontario that may require change?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I take all serious matters seriously and I have every respect for the views of the very distinguished member of this caucus and former minister of the crown. I am delighted the Leader of the Opposition, for the first time since I have been here, is now himself paying some attention to the former Minister of Energy. If memory serves me correctly, he was less than complimentary, less than supportive, and hypercritical of that same individual not too many months ago. It is interesting to see the change that has taken place.

I would further say to the Leader of the Opposition, who has yet to gain some measure of experience in these matters I guess -- and I will just restate it, Mr. Speaker, because the supplementary really was the same as the original question -- that while all of us from time to time are concerned about the balances between the administrative people and the people who labour so conscientiously for the public of this province and that of the elected person, I can only repeat what I say: that I have confidence in the deputy ministers in this government. They are extremely --

Mr. di Santo: Time, time, time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen. My answer hasn’t taken as long as that rather rambling question.

Mr. Swart: Oh yes, it has.

Mr. McClellan: Spare us.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you having trouble with your fingers this afternoon? I don’t doubt it; you got burned earlier this afternoon. I would only repeat to the Leader of the Opposition that in no way am I upset or concerned --

Mr. McClellan: We got burned? Your minister was on fire.

Mr. Wildman: He went up in smoke.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- by what the honourable member has said. I would only remind him if he has something of a specific nature, if he has some criticism to make of the senior deputies in this government, then he should do so. He should not do as he did I in Hamilton, criticizing and in many respects going pretty far with respect to the employees of the Ministry of the Environment who can’t defend themselves; and in this he has not yet been big enough to apologize or take back what he said.

If he is saying to me as head of government that the “senior public service” are incompetent and that they don’t take political direction, then he should lust say so and we can debate it here in the House. I would be delighted to do so. I have never been reluctant to defend the public service of this province and that includes the deputy ministers.

I don’t want to go on too long on the subject. They are very able people, they take political direction, they take it from a very able group of ministers. I know that is frustrating the Leader of the Opposition; he only wishes he had in his caucus such ability to demonstrate to the people of this province.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary to the Premier: Since the usurpation of the legitimate rights and powers of the elected representatives by the growing bureaucracy in modern government is a well-known phenomenon that has been discussed ad nauseam in hundreds of political science classrooms, could the Premier inform us from which one of the thousands of texts his minister may have plagiarized those comments?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Knowing the honourable member who just asked the question is himself either an author or an editor, who in this House is a practising political scientist and in the academic community is a theoretical political scientist, who is one of those who does carry into theory some of the practicalities, as I read some of his material and as I have talked to some students to whom he has lectured, I might observe that perhaps the member for Prince Edward-Lennox borrowed some of his phraseology; I don’t know.

I hope he too is expressing at long last some confidence in, and appreciation for, the efforts given to the public of this province by the former Minister of Energy. He didn’t show such great interest not too many months ago.

Mr. Swart: That is a perfect non-answer.

An hon. member: Find out what books he has read.

Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier something arising from the original question and his answer. Does it not concern him that the honourable member who made the speech was Minister of Energy at just the time when Ontario Hydro was making the decisions which are at this time costing the consumers so much money and are above and beyond what is required?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Not really.

Mr. McClellan: You should have asked that a half hour ago.

Mr. Nixon: Is he not concerned that the democratic control of Hydro, which was supposed to have been operating through the former Minister of Energy, was in fact usurped by the bureaucracy and directly by the mandarins, whoever those are, in the Premier’s office?

Mr. Wildman: He certainly showed Smith how to ask a question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the baseball season is upon us and when the leader strikes out the pinch-hitters come up to bat; I understand that. Only I have to tell the honourable member that really, historically he is not correct.

Mr. Nixon: The Premier is making an absolute fool of himself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member I want to recall for him some of the observations he has made recently when we get into more general debate after the fifth.

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary question was quite specific.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was quite specific. Well then, trying to deal with it specifically, Mr. Speaker, my recollection, and of course the memory of the honourable member who asked the question is far better than mine, is that the majority of decisions were made prior to this time.

Mr. Peterson: He is better looking too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly he is better looking. He is better looking than you are, in spite of your wardrobe, in spite of your in-laws.

Mr. Sargent: That is pretty shaggy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are they going to be on the campaign trail for Joe? Sure they are.

I would remind the member who asked the question, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of the basic decisions which are now being debated, and the member for York South can correct me if I am wrong, really in essence were made by Ontario prior to the very former, at least the very distinguished former Minister of Energy having responsibility.

Mr. McClellan: He is very former.

Mr. Breaugh: He is very former.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No; the former, very distinguished, Minister of Energy. I think that is, from the standpoint of chronology, correct; so please don’t try to bail your leader out by asking a question that really is not totally based on the history of the situation.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Health; but first to remind him of what he said on Tuesday: “There is no evidence whatsoever, none whatsoever, that people have in fact been deterred from necessary medical care by our system.” He also said: “There is no evidence, there is no reason of any kind to believe that our health plan is any way at all being dismantled.” Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the conversion the minister has reflected in a statement he gave in the House today.

I would like to ask the minister a very specific question which relates to this question and relates to the comments made on Tuesday. Since the minister was insisting on Tuesday that it would be a violation of the Health Insurance Act to publish names of physicians who were in or who were out of OHIP, can he explain why and how it was a violation of that act on Tuesday to publish the names, but yet on Thursday it is possible to announce an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association where they will publish the names in some way yet to be determined in order to let people know how to get access to an OHIP physician?

Mr. Breaugh: That is the difference between Tuesday and Thursday.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it will be done in exactly the same way that the medical association has for years provided that service to the public when they are new in an area looking for a doctor of any kind. What I said was -- and again I cannot remember my exact words -- I said that I believed that under the provisions of the Health Insurance Act, specifically

section 44, that could, in fact, be a violation. That is the

section that deals with confidentiality. That is being checked out.

Mr. Conway: I wonder what Bert Lawrence would say if he were here today.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: But that is my understanding of it.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, supplementary:

Will the minister not agree that if

section 44 was in fact intended to protect confidentiality it would apply as much to the local medical associations or academies of medicine as it would apply to the Ministry of Health in publishing the kinds of lists that we wanted, for each community in the province, of doctors who are opted in and opted out?

[3:00]

Will he also not agree that

section 44 of the act is intended to protect the patients, but that it is not intended to be a legal smokescreen to allow the Ministry of Health to fail to inform the people of Ontario whether and how they can get service at insured rates?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the relationship between the government, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan and the profession is dictated by the Health Insurance Act. We are all hound by that. The confidentiality of information, whether it is about physicians or patients, must be applied equally.

The relationship between the Ontario Medical Association and the doctors is bound by the constitution of the medical association. Under the terms of that document, they have in the past answered inquiries looking for new doctors. They can and will give some names to individuals who call asking for help in finding an opted-in physician in their area.

The member is talking about a complete list, arid they are talking about giving some names to assist individuals in finding a doctor. They are really two quite different things; they are two different relationships: one to the association under the constitution of that association, and the other to the health insurance plan under the terms of the Health Insurance Act, which is binding on all of us.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Can the minister please explain what kind of choice -- since this is what he keeps insisting on -- an individual patient is going to have if he first has to phone up the Academy of Medicine, which is not listed in the phone books of the various cities and towns of the province and, in the second place, if all the individual gets from the academy is a list of two or three opted-in physicians who may or may not be convenient for the neighbourhood the person is phoning from?

Does it really constitute choice if there are other doctors in the area whom the person who is calling may know personally and whom he may wish to go to but he is not able to find out whether they are opted in or opted out?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, I understand the medical association will indicate in their announcement today the phone number for a Zenith line at their headquarters on St. George Street; so that information will be accessible throughout Ontario, through the Zenith line. That would in fact, ensure choice.

If the individual feels that on principle he wants to deal with an opted-in physician only, then he will be able to get this assistance, in addition to other normal inquiries one would make of fellow citizens in a particular community.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: On the question of opting out, since the percentage of opted-out physicians has clearly increased, could the minister indicate to this House either now or at an early opportunity what increased burdens this has placed on the OHIP administration? Obviously, a substantially increased number of cheques must he sent out to a much greater number of patients. Can he indicate of what order is that increase and what the additional costs of that are?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that I did put that question myself over the phone to the general manager of OHIP about three or four weeks ago. He indicated at that time that, as one would expect, there has been an increased volume of claims associated with patients being billed direct. He assured me that at that point they are able to look after that volume within the existing staff arrangements and that any additional cost would be associated with postage, in the main, and with paperwork, supplies and so forth.

Mr. Cassidy: I have another question, which I would direct to the Minister of Health, arising out of the statement he made in the Legislature today.

The minister states: “I am confident that the new agreement will produce a level of remuneration for the services rendered by Ontario physicians that will be accepted as fair by both the people of Ontario and the medical profession.”

Can the minister explain why the government intends to continue to allow a substantial number of doctors in the province to opt out and to charge fees that are very much in excess of the OHIP rates, if, as the minister says, the rates negotiated with the Ontario Medical Association for OHIP will be fair both to patients and to the medical profession?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It bears repeating, I guess, tune and time again. I really do not think, Mr. Speaker, that member is going to believe it or understand it, let alone accept it. We believe in freedom of choice for the patients, for the doctors. In fact, in any jurisdiction in this country, all of them having health plans, there are choices that have to be made. Even in provinces run by socialist governments, even in that place called the UK, your Valhalla, your Nirvana, there are choices that are made.

In Ontario we have been extremely well served by our system, which is based on these options of the patients and of the doctors and will be maintained in that fashion.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is saying, in effect, that the rate negotiated with OHIP will in fact be a fair rate both to the patients and the doctors, but then he is also saying that it will be open to doctors to charge a rate which by definition will, therefore, be unfair. Can the minister then say, as far as the so-called freedom of choice of patients is concerned, why he will not insist that patients have access to care at the insured rate, why he insists on trying to have this House believe that it’s a quirk of a few people in the province who insist on the principle of having services at the insured rate?

Why will he not understand that for most of the people in the province of Ontario getting service at the insured rate is not a quirk, not some kind of eccentricity, but in fact it is a matter of dire necessity? Why, therefore, will not the ministry, having accepted the principle that some doctors names in OHIP can be published, publish all of the names for each community across the province of those doctors who are in the plan and those doctors who are out of the plan, so if the ministry insists on people having a choice there is a fair choice both for patients as well as for doctors?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if there are any quirks around here, if there are any eccentricities around here, they all come from Ottawa Centre.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, if you will look at the track record of this health plan, if you will look at the reality rather than the distorted perception the member is trying to sell, the people have the right of access, the people have the option. They have been well served by this plan.

It amazes me that for all his talk of this the people still support the plan; the people know that they have a health plan that does look after them.

HYDRO URANIUM CONTRACTS

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I had thought the Premier would have had a statement to the House today regarding the nuclear spill in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and that his power officials would be down there finding out what is going on. I have been in touch with that office now --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Sargent: I am leading into what I am talking about; and don’t start giving me the gears about a question after what has been going on here the last few months.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Sargent: You will hear my question now.

Mr. Speaker: Please put it immediately. Please put it right now, immediately.

Mr. Makarchuk: Tout de suite. That’s in the other official language.

Mr. Sargent: To the Premier, with regard to the $7 billion uranium contract, about which a lot of people are considering a class action verging on public fraud, and wherein he has given them a $2 billion profit before they have even started on the $40 to $60 a pound price, in view of the fact that the Wall Street Journal has said it can be bought at the mine for $1 a pound --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. member take his seat? Will the hon. member please take his seat?

Mr. Sargent: I will stand here all day to get this question.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member please take his seat?

Mr. Sargent: I will not. I want to get this question in.

Mr. Speaker: I have no alternative but to name the honourable member and ask him to withdraw from the balance of this sitting.

Mr. Sargent: You are impossible.

Mr. Makarchuk: Do you want me to show him out?

Mr. Sargent: We are talking about a $7 billion deal and we can’t get a question across. Who do you think you are?

Mr. Sargent was escorted from the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Cunningham: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. I would like to ask the minister if he is aware that the proposed equalization of assessment in the city of Hamilton has caused increases in both commercial and residential property, anywhere from 42 per cent to over 500 per cent. I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to take any action, as provided in the Municipal Act, to provide some relief for those people who will be facing very severe and radical tax increases?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I am aware that there are some increases in taxes and also some decreases. There is a balance there: those whose taxes will go up and those whose taxes have gone down. One has, really, to consider both sides of that coin.

Section 505 of the Municipal Act comes under the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs; however the municipality has the right, at any time, to make the request of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs if they want to use

section 505 to phase in any part of the tax hike that might result from the reassessment.

Mr. Cunningham: The increases on some of these businesses will be upwards of 400 per cent and 500 per cent, especially on some small businesses. A similar effect may be imposed somewhat radically on individual home owners who are already facing the burdens of regional government in that particular area. I’m wondering if the minister would take it upon himself to meet, as soon as possible, with officials from the city of Hamilton to see that if any increases are going to be imposed on these people, that in fact the provisions of

section 505 might apply and that those increases be very marginal at best and phased in over a period of time.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I might advise the honourable member that we did meet with the mayor of Hamilton yesterday in this regard. He has been advised of

section 505. There is also another

section of the Municipal Act,

section 636, that could he applied as well. That action has already taken place.

Mr. Charlton: Would the minister inform us of what, specifically, he is prepared to do in terms of phasing in the increases in Hamilton? What form will the financial assistance take, and how much?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I have not made any commitment that there will be any financial assistance from the province whatsoever.

Section 505 deals with allowing the municipality to make adjustments.

Section 636 does the same thing in a different way, as I’m sure the member is aware. There have been no commitments from this government, at this point in time, for any financial assistance to Hamilton or any other municipality.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, that’s not what the Premier was reported as saying today.

PHYSICIANS’ SALARIES

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question of the Minister of Health: Will he explain to the House why his ministry decided to freeze the salaries of those general practitioners who are generally considered to be the lowest paid practitioners in general medicine in Ontario, those working in community health service organizations?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: My understanding is that in each case the salaries are negotiated with the individual boards. If the member has a particular case in mind of a doctor’s income being frozen in the health service organization in which he works, let me know and we’ll look into it.

Mr. Breaugh: If I could clarify it: We have some indication here that the ministry staff has indicated that because the ministry doesn’t have a contractual agreement to provide the increase approved in the OMA schedule, it is not, therefore, going to increase the doctors’ salaries in the community health service organizations. Is that the policy of the ministry’s program development branch?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I think that of the 28 or 29 individual contracts that we have, a number do have escalation clauses that relate to the changes in the OHIP schedule. A number do not. I believe, in fact, there was a presentation made to the select committee on that by Mr. Ray Berry, the branch director, around the first week of August, at which time the whole system of the HSOs was explained to the committee. If the member has a particular one in mind I’d be glad to look into it for him .

RAPE CASE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, on March 9, the member for York Centre, in a question addressed to the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Welch), asked whether or not my ministry would review the possibility of appealing the acquittal of an accused on a recent rape charge.

The member for York Centre referred to a story in a Toronto newspaper which purported to quote the assistant crown attorney as referring to a prostitute as an unrapable woman.

Senior officials of my ministry have reviewed this matter with the crown counsel in charge of the case and, as a result, is of the opinion that there are no legal grounds upon which any appeal may be based. I wish to make it abundantly clear that at no time did the crown counsel who prosecuted the case use the term, “a prostitute becomes an unrapable person.” I’m sure that the member for York Centre was quoting from a March 8 edition of a newspaper which apparently used this phrase. The reporter responsible for this

article subsequently apologized to crown counsel for the fact that someone had rewritten his original story.

In the view of crown counsel, the jury in question was properly charged by the trial judge, and it is apparent that this case is one where the jury felt that the case simply had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

TOURISM

Mr. Eakins: I have a question of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, Mr. Speaker. In line with his efforts to reduce the province’s $660 million travel deficit, will his new director of tourism be investigating such practices as a tour operated by Cray Coach Lines, one of our publicly-controlled companies, to transport residents to Niagara Falls every day of the year and which offers accommodation on the American side of the falls only?

Mr. Kerrio: Shame.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, of course we will. I think we have some great facilities on our side of the border and we’ll speak to Gray Coach about that --

Mr. Kerrio: The best, the very best.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and see why it’s doing it and if it can’t do it on our side.

Mr. Eakins: A supplementary: While the minister is looking into this, will his director of tourism look into why they rejected a submission from the Canadian operators in Niagara Falls? I believe the operators were asked for a submission, they prepared it and they were turned down. At least, we ask for the opportunity for tourists to stay on the Canadian side if they wish. At the present time, they have no alternative.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I would. I would be very interested to learn the circumstances surrounding that since it would seem to me, in view of the dollar exchange, it would more than likely be cheaper to stay in any of the fine facilities in the great city of Niagara Falls on our side of the border than in the United States. I would be very interested to find out what happened in that situation and I’ll report to the House.

Mr. J. Reed: The minister doesn’t know anything about it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I may go out there myself.

DRIVER EDUCATION

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, of which he’s had notice, I believe, for some time.

In view of the increasing surplus of teachers in Ontario and in view of the discussions now under way in the ministry toward upgrading of driving education and the professionalization of driver instruction in the province, what progress has now been made in utilizing the skill of our surplus teachers to improve driving education in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the member did advise me some time before the recess that he was going to ask that question, but I must admit that I had almost forgotten.

I can’t tell the honourable member what specific action is being taken, if any, for the use of surplus teachers in the role of driver education Certainly no action is being taken at this moment by my ministry in that area. It may be that though the boards of education and the secondary school system some role is being played in this area for more intensive utilization of secondary school teachers in driver education.

As I’m sure the honourable member is aware, last fall we published a discussion paper on driver education which was distributed rather widely. I believe 3,000 to 4,000 copies were distributed throughout the province. We have had a fairly good response, but not as great a response as I would like to have had. We have had response from education officials, boards of education, driving instructors, commercial driving school operators and safety associations. These replies to our discussion paper are being tabulated right now, or have been.

I don’t intend to proceed with legislation on anything this spring session but, perhaps before the summer recess I hope to be able to either distribute draft legislation or table for first reading legislation for discussion purposes outlining what I will be proposing for dealing with the whole matter of driver education in Ontario. Then, during the summer months, I hope to have meetings and discuss this and perhaps proceed with something further in the fall to bring a more formal solution to the whole driver education system of the province.

Mr. Young: Supplementary: I would like to thank the minister very much for his reply. Certainly the urgency of this situation is underlined by the dilemma in which the Minister of Health now finds himself.

I wonder whether or not the minister is planning anything in the way of stepped-up driving instruction over this summer, or whether his program -- and I understand the difficulties here -- has advanced far enough that driving instruction can be stepped up during the summer months instead of being cut back as it was last year.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t expect that I will be able, in any way, directly through the ministry, to step up driver education. I certainly recognize the need. One of the things I have been very interested in over the past couple of years -- three years, as a matter of fact -- is bringing a more formal curriculum type of program to the whole driver education system. As the honourable member well knows through his committee on safety there were some valuable comments and recommendations made.

I am not completely happy with the driver education system we have in the province today. It’s fragmented; it’s not a uniform system. But the ministry directly is not in the business of supplying driver education; the boards of education are and the commercial driving schools are and a great many private individuals are. I will tell the honourable member right now it is not my intention to make a course of driver education, whether it be by a board of education or by a private driving school, mandatory to obtaining a licence, advisable as it may be. Ontario is a very large and diverse area of land with a lot of people --

Mr. Kerrio: We give up, we give up.

Mr. Speaker: Will the honourable minister be a little bit more crisp in his answer?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the area of the province to which I am referring now happens to be that great area which you represent a major part of.

Mr. Speaker: It has been crisp up there.

Mr. Breaugh: You’re right, Mr. Speaker; I was just there.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I recognize the honourable member’s keen interest in this; he has been very helpful. I look forward to being crisp and, by June, having draft legislation for us to consider.

MEMBERSHIP OF POLICE COMMISSIONS

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the member for Eglinton -- and I address him that way because I think the question concerns both of his portfolios.

In view of Kent county Judge G. Brian Clement’s refusal, because he finds he does not have the time, to act on the police commissions in four municipalities, would the minister either direct the judge to act in this capacity or, probably more preferable, appoint someone else to act in that capacity?

At the present time there are only two members acting on these police commissions; negotiations currently are under way regarding salaries and so on, and they feel a great deficiency in having only two people.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I cannot direct any judge to sit on any board or commission, and I was not aware of the particular problem involving this judge.

Part of the problem in some areas is caused by legislation which requires that the commission include a judge as a member. In my view, this should be changed, not to exclude judges as members, but to leave it up to the individual municipality to determine whether a judge is the appropriate member. I hope an amendment to the Police Act in this respect will be brought forward, certainly before the end of spring. In the meantime I will look into that particular situation.

Mr. Worton: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The Attorney General has had correspondence from myself and from the mayor of Guelph in regard to additional members other than the three members in the municipalities, such as the regional governments have. Is the minister going to give consideration to that when he brings in this amendment to the Police Act.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, we are, Mr. Speaker.

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, my perennial question is for the Minister of Health. While the minister was away -- it is perfectly all right to go away; I am not saying much about that -- a goofy decision was made by some member of the ministry staff to close the special observation unit at Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital.

Is the minister aware of the case of a young woman, Theresa Bonnici -- we have permission to use her name -- 22 years of age, who had been in the hospital, involuntarily, whose condition was such that she had to be taken to the special observation ward? She was forced out last week because of the closing of the ward and is not locatable at the present time, and her parents are profoundly worried about her. Is the minister aware of this case?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Not that particular case, Mr. Speaker. My understanding -- I am looking for the note I had on that; I had asked a question about the special observation unit -- is that all the patients in the special observation unit are in secure wards at this time. I will check that out and confirm that.

Mr. Lawlor: Supplementary: Since there are many patients in these conditions, dangerous to themselves and even possibly to others, and many court referrals -- the ministry will be getting a lot of complaints from the courts, judges and police very shortly if it has not got numerous complaints already -- would the minister consider reconstituting the special observation ward at least until his further plans are developed?

[3:30]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’ll be glad to talk with the staff in the psychiatric hospitals branch to assure myself the decision that’s been taken is not causing any harm to the patients, because obviously the welfare of the patients is first and foremost.

The member’s comment about the requirements of the courts and so forth relates more to Queen Street, inasmuch as that’s where the METFORS forensic unit is located. Of course that is carrying on as presently constituted.

COMMUNITY SERVICE BOARDS

Mr. Bolan: I have a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs with respect to the community service boards which his ministry is proposing to establish in unorganized townships in northern Ontario. Is the minister aware his ministry officials who have been holding meetings in northern Ontario communities to explain to the people the proposed legislation of community service hoards are very uninformed when it comes to answering questions, particularly in the area of funding? Could the minister also tell us what would happen to existing contractual arrangements which some of the unorganized townships already have with respect to providing services to these unorganized townships?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As the honourable member is well aware, we’re moving around northern Ontario with the Northern Affairs staff to discuss a position paper -- a white paper if you want to call it that -- to get northern input, because something northerners really want is input into legislation before the legislation is written. There’s nothing in that position paper that says that what is there will be in the legislation. That is our purpose in going around.

I regret the member wasn’t at that meeting in his riding. He was invited; he did not see fit to attend.

I have to say to him I’ve had some discussions with my staff and I am confident they are fully aware, very much aware of the proposals we have brought forward. They discuss it in a very open manner, and they get input from the people in the unorganized areas. I must say both the UCANO groups in the east and in the west have been very much involved in the preparation of this white paper that seems to be acceptable to most of the people in the unorganized areas.

There are certain areas we haven’t really clarified. One of them is bequests to a municipality and another is the volunteer labour aspect which we’re working on. We’re getting their advice, and prior to any legislation being drafted of course, we will be back to those unorganized areas again to get their advice and their input to make sure that when the bill is introduced it will be acceptable to all parties on all sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.

PETITION

MENTAL HEALTH LEGISLATION

Mr. Lawlor: Pursuant to standing order 33 of the Legislative Assembly, we the undersigned members of the assembly hereby petition that sessional paper 19, compendium of background material on the Mental Health Act, Bill 19, tabled on March 2, 1978, be referred to the standing committee on social development for such consideration and report as the committee may determine.

There are in excess of 20 signatures from members.

REPORT

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Mr. Breaugh from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the following report and moved its adoption.

Your committee has considered its order of reference dated October 24, 1978, and recommends as follows:

Once the order in which estimates are to be considered is determined under the provisions of standing order 47, that order may be changed either by substantive motion upon notice or by unanimous consent.

Mr. Breaugh: This recommendation from the committee deals with the matter that was referred to the procedural affairs committee by the House. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate circumstances in our last session when we ran into an occasion when the estimates had to be reordered due to the untimely death of one of the ministers.

It provides a suggestion by the committee of a way to handle it which offers the House two options. One is, if there is some emergency, to do so by unanimous consent. The other option, if that unanimous consent cannot be received, is by simple notice to put a motion before the House.

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

MOTIONS

DISCHARGE OF BILLS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Bill 2,

An Act respecting the County of Middlesex, and Bill 7,

An Act to amend the Milk Act, be discharged from the committee of the whole House and ordered for third reading.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that on Thursday, April 5, private members’ public business be set aside in order to resume the debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that this House endorses the following

schedule for committee meetings during this session: The social development committee may meet on the afternoons of Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The resources development committee may meet on the evenings of Tuesday and Thursday. The general government committee may meet Tuesday afternoons and evenings, for the sole purpose of completing Bill 163, and regularly on Wednesday afternoons. The administration of justice committee may meet Thursday afternoons and Friday mornings.

On Wednesday mornings no more than two of the following committees may meet unless authorized by the House: general government, resources development or administration of justice. The following committees may meet on Thursday mornings: public accounts, members’ services, procedural affairs and statutory instruments.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL NIAGARA HYDROELECTEIC SERVICE ACT

Hon. Mr. Auld moved first reading of Bill 29,

An Act to provide for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Municipality of Niagara.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, this bill received first reading last fall as Bill 180. It establishes a new municipal hydro-electric commission for 10 of the area municipalities in the regional municipality of Niagara. The principal difference between this bill and Bill 180 is that the service area boundaries of the Grimsby Hydro-Electric Commission will remain unchanged until the Grimsby council directs its expansion to the municipal boundaries. In Bill 180, the Grimsby Hydro-Electric Commission was required to serve the entire municipality of Grimsby by January 1, 1980.

In addition, there have been some minor changes. First, the implementation date on which the new commissions must commence operations have been deferred to January 1, 1980, and other dates have been adjusted accordingly. There is provision, however, for earlier implementation as a result of agreement between a new commission and Ontario Hydro.

Second, under this bill, each municipal council will decide whether the transitional commission in that municipality will have three or five members. However, where there are two or more existing commissions in a municipality, the transitional commission must have five members, including one from each of the former commissions.

Third, the bill has a new provision retroactively deeming the trustees of the former police village of Queenston to have been created as a hydro-electric commission when the Regional Municipality of Niagara Act came into force in 1970.

All other provisions of the bill are the same as those in Bill 180.

YORK MUNICIPAL HYDRO-ELECTRIC SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Auld moved first reading of Bill 30,

An Act to amend the York Municipal Hydro-Electric Service Act, 1978.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Auld: This is a minor housekeeping amendment to clarify that municipal councillors can sit on the hydro-electric commission.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. F. S. Miller moved first reading of Bill 31,

An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act.

Motion agreed to.

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. F. S. Miller moved first reading of Bill 32,

An Act to amend the Audit Act, 1977.

Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT REPEAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. F. S. Miller moved first reading of Bill 33,

An Act to amend the Agricultural Development Repeal Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before the orders of the day I wish to table the answers to questions 93 and 94 standing on the Notice Paper; and, Mr. Speaker, may I have the unanimous consent of the House to call Bills 2 and 7 for third reading at this time?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 2,

An Act respecting the County of Middlesex; Bill 7,

An Act to amend the Milk Act.

[3:45]

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

KINDERGARTEN PROGRAMS

Mr. Grande moved resolution 2:

That in the opinion of this House the government should: (

a) provide financial assistance to every school board that establishes or operates a full-day senior kindergarten program on the basis that each pupil enrolled in the full-day senior kindergarten program is a full-time pupil for the purpose of determining the amount of legislative grant; (

b) establish prior to September 1, 1981, a maximum enrolment of 20 pupils for each class in grades one, two and three of the elementary school program.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I will reserve any portion of my 20 minutes that is left for the end. Before I begin I would like to express regret that the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) is not in the House to debate this very important issue. It is an issue with which the Minister of Education has certainly concerned herself, but going in the opposite direction. It is an issue on which the Minister of Education has said that what we need to do in this province is to increase the class size, instead of reducing the class size.

The Ministry of Education as a whole is making a mockery of the International Year of the Child. Their suggestions are laudable but their actions are at best superficial. The resolution I am presenting to the Legislature today speaks to a fundamental aspect of the education of young children in Ontario. The first four years of education from kindergarten to grade three are the foundation upon which a child’s educational future is built. All of us in this House must ensure that the foundations are built on solid rock and not on shifting sand. The future of our children depends upon the decision we make today. We must not let them down.

The NDP for a very long time has been committed to improving the quality of services in the primary years of the elementary school program. This resolution is important, particularly for those children whom the school system so frustrates that the only solution open to them is to drop out before graduation. We know that over 50 per cent of Ontario students never complete their course of studies. The government should be ashamed to allow this state of affairs to happen.

Even although the resolution today is directed at improving the learning conditions in the first four years, it is also aimed at providing opportunities for those 50 per cent of the students who drop out, by providing them with the necessary skills and attitudes to succeed.

The resolution does two things. It allows local boards to receive funding for all-day senior kindergartens and it establishes a maximum class size of 20 children to one teacher in grades one to three. This resolution will give substance to the minister’s recent letter to the chairman of school boards encouraging them to honour the International Year of the Child.

In that letter the minister wrote: “Here in Ontario children have always been regarded as our most precious resource. Consequently, their growth, physical, emotional and intellectual, is uppermost in any objectives set forth by the Ministry of Education.”

Section (

a) of the two-part resolution calls upon the government to provide, as I say, the financial assistance. I will not read that part of the resolution again; it is already in the record. This part of the resolution does not force school boards -- and this is important to point out at the very beginning -- to institute full-day kindergartens. It does not force the parents to enrol their children in full-day kindergartens. It simply allows the boards to establish such classes if they perceive the need in their communities. However, it does force the ministry to provide funding where the programs are established by local boards.

The standing social development committee last year found out during the estimates of the Ministry of Education that 7,500 five-year-old children across this province did attend full-day kindergarten classes, and legislative grants were given to the boards concerned to set up the programs. The resolution today calls upon the government to encourage all boards of education in that direction.

The previous Minister of Education, the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells), made a commitment in committee last year. He stated he would be willing to consider seriously proposals that boards might bring to him outlining special needs of five-year-olds. I think the previous minister said, “In some cases, that could be a viable program. If the city of Toronto were to come in with some proposals in that regard we could take a look at them and do it.”

To my astonishment and disbelief, the ministry made a retrograde decision in this year’s announcement of the general legislative grants in February which wiped out the 7,500 places for full-day kindergarten classes in the province. The decision flies in the face of the massive, incontrovertible evidence that reveals the extreme importance of the early childhood years in determining a child’s linguistic and cognitive growth.

The decision to wipe out the 7,500 full-day kindergarten spaces by September 1980 flies in the face of the findings of the Windsor early identification project funded by this ministry. The project report produced in 1976 states: “When children identified as high risk or high performers were isolated statistically from the full sample, prediction to criterion reached very close to 100 per cent accuracy.” What that means is that the Windsor early identification project was very successful.

Identifying children who are at risk in the system is not enough. As a matter of fact, some people believe it can be harmful and detrimental, because it might lead to labelling children as slow learners, brain-damaged, disadvantaged and a myriad of other terms that have pejorative meaning to the layman.

The Federation of Women Teachers’ Associations of Ontario in its brief to the commission of inquiry into the education of a young child put it in this way: “There is no point in early identification that merely identifies; such identification can be used to predict future levels of achievement or to label children. These uses, because they are not in the best interests of a child, are totally unacceptable. The only purpose for early identification is to uncover the child’s needs and to structure the learning system to meet those needs.”

In other words, providing the funding necessary to establish full-day kindergartens allows parents and teachers the means to develop programs that will meet the physical, emotional and intellectual needs of five-year-olds. This is the way of realizing the commitment the minister demonstrated in her letter to the chairmen of boards of education.

I mentioned a few moments ago the mass of incontrovertible evidence that exists to support the value of full-day kindergartens. Let me point to some of it.

Dr. Burton Wright, of Harvard University, who is recognized all over the world for the work he has done with young children, said in a paper entitled Reassessing our Educational Priorities, “Failures in the fundamental learning’s of language development, curiosity, social development and intelligence in the first years lead directly to underachievement in the elementary grades and beyond.”

Recent findings of Project Head Start programs in the United States point to gains in areas such as reading and the development of language. Those children in Head Start proved less likely in the long term to be held back in school and less likely to be assigned to special education programs than comparable groups that have not experienced such intervention.

Ken Fogelman and Peter Gorbach of the National Children’s Bureau in London, England, in a paper entitled The Relationship between Age of Starting School and Attainment at Age 11 conclude, “Our results provide as strong evidence as could be obtained that at the age of 11 children who started school before their fifth birthday are ahead on average of those who started school after their fifth birthday in terms of general ability, reading comprehension and mathematics attainment”

The Minister of Education commissioned Dr. Bienmiller of the Institute of Child Study to find out the effects of half-day, alternate full-day and full-day junior and senior kindergarten programs on children’s constitutional skill, emotional and behavioural development. The study included 340 children from urban and rural schools in Ontario. The children were selected on the basis of “thriving” “not thriving” or being “average.” The study suggests some tentative conclusions.

Conclusion one: “Thrivers tend to benefit more from school than non-thrivers.” I wonder if we needed this study to point out the obvious.

Conclusion two: “The lengthened school day provides no discernible short-term” -- and I underline the words short-term -- “benefits; neither does it prove harmful to students.” Of course we already knew prior to the study that the short-term effects cannot be readily measured. Studies that were done to find out whether Head Start programs were successful in the United States only began to report positive results after approximately 10 years of the program.

To be fair to Dr. Bienmiller, another of the tentative conclusions was, “The long-term effects of the program must be examined.” Precisely. Given the last conclusion one may be tempted to demand from the minister why no study was commissioned to find out the long-term effects of the full-day kindergarten since these classes have been in operation for at least the last five years in this province.

One may be further tempted to suspect that the ministry did not want to find out the long-term positive effects that a full-day kindergarten experience would have on the five-year-olds of this province because, once the results were in, pressure will mount upon the ministry from every nook and corner of this province to establish full-day kindergarten programs.

In conclusion, the research is positive. It shows beyond a doubt that it is beneficial to five-year-olds in this province to have a full-day kindergarten experience. The research evidence reveals the extreme importance of the early childhood years in determining a child’s linguistic and cognitive growth. It shows that the Ministry of Education itself had thought that five-year-olds benefit from a full-day kindergarten experience because the ministry allowed boards of education and gave funds to those boards across Ontario to set up full-day kindergarten programs.

The former Minister of Education made a commitment to this Legislature that he would be willing seriously to consider proposals for full-day kindergartens on a special needs basis. The Windsor early identification project developed by the ministry would be useless if the only thing we do with the children that are identified is to label them. What we need to do is permit local school boards to lengthen the school day for kindergarten children so that programs can be developed early on in the child’s educational experience to short-circuit, so to speak, definite stumbling blocks in the learning process..

This is what prevention is all about. If the Minister of Education and her ministry want to pay the costs for the pound of cure tomorrow instead of paying the cost for the ounce of prevention today, then let the party opposite vote against this resolution. If they want to do something worthwhile in the education of our children and our future working force, as I hope they would, then let’s get the teachers, parents and ministry together and develop viable and vibrant programs for our five-year-olds in this province.

[4:00]

I have talked so far about the kindergarten year and the life of the young children. The three years following -- grades one, two and three -- are every bit as important, every bit as critical as the first full year of schooling. The second part of this resolution requires some planning. That is why I did not call for immediate implementation but rather am prepared to give the ministry close to three years to see that a smooth transition occurs.

In the past there was no consensus in the research literature as to which is the most suitable class size for optimum learning to occur. However, all the literature I have read to date has never researched the primary grades -- grades one, two and three -- and come up with even a modicum of proof to suggest that a small class size is not beneficial to the children.

The class-size report produced in 1977 and commissioned by this ministry, by Wright, Shapson, Eason and Fitzgerald, only refers to the effects of class size in junior grades -- grades four and up -- and makes no mention of primary grades. As a matter of fact, the researchers were careful to point out, “Caution must be exercised in generalizing the results of the study. They cannot be safely generalized to primary grades.”

Recent research done by the Educational Research Service in the United States, and reported in May 1978 by Education USA, a weekly education newspaper, showed, Where smaller classes do have an impact is in reading and math achievement in the early primary grades, when primary-grade pupils stay in small classes for two or more consecutive years.” Further, the research showed:

“Where smaller classes do have an impact is with students of lower academic ability or socio-economically disadvantaged pupils.”

Another important finding of the Educational Research Service is, “Smaller classes have a positive effect on pupil behaviour in elementary grades.”

The study done by Gene V. Glass, codirector of the University of Colorado Laboratory of Educational Research, whose evidence is based on nearly 900,000 students, concludes that, “A clear and strong relationship between class size and achievement has emerged. The relationship seems slightly stronger at the secondary grades than elementary, but it does not differ appreciably across different school subjects, levels of pupils’ IQ’s, or across several other obvious demographic features of classrooms.”

Here is the startling, sobering fact: “A pupil who would score about the 83rd percentile on a national test, when taught individually, would score at about the 50th percentile when taught in a classroom of 40 pupils.” To appreciate the significance of this quote, this Legislature should realize school boards in Ontario in 1971 that had 30,000 pupils or more enrolled in elementary schools have, in 30 per cent of the classes, 31 to 41 children to one teacher. In 10.4 per cent of those classes we find more than 41 pupils to one teacher.

I ask you this, how on earth can a child of six or seven years of age learn how to read in a class of more than 41 students? Where would a teacher find the time with a class of 41 children to assess a child’s needs and develop a strategy to look after those needs? The Minister of Education, who is a medical doctor, should appreciate this, should appreciate these facts. Would she not provide a better service to her patients if she diagnosed 20 patients in a day as opposed to 41 patients in a day?

These recent research findings I have quoted do not surprise the public at large, nor the parents of the children in the schools and, least of all, the teachers.

In February 1972, a report entitled Quality of Education in Ontario -- Survey of the Parents’ Perspective, conducted by Adams, Buckland and Tribbling for the Ontario Department of Education as it was known at that time, was published. This study asked two very important questions. The first was:

What do you consider to be the most important thing that should take place in the schools? A tremendous percentage of those people insisted the most important thing for the children --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I’m sorry, the honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Grande: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I hope the ministry, or whoever will talk on behalf of the ministry, will respond to this crucial question in kind.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I wish to debate the resolution introduced by the member for Oakwood. Before doing so, I would just like to clarify a point for him. He referred to the absence of the Minister of Education and I would note that she is out of province today on government business. Indeed, she is very much aware of the resolution, so it is not a lack of interest on her part but of necessity. She is not able to be in the Legislature today.

Mr. Warner: That’s probably why she left.

Ms. Gigantes: It’s a habit of hers to miss important things.

Mr. Jones: This is a private members’ hour, I believe, and while he was directing some of his comments to the ministry, no doubt they are being recorded as we submit them to Hansard today. I can reassure him that the minister has very much awareness of the debate taking place and the subject.

Mr. Warner: She is big on red schoolhouses.

Mr. Jones: As a member of the Legislature, I, as the mover of the resolution readily acknowledged, find the resolution is almost two in one. I could find myself being sympathetic with one side of it -- and I’ll touch on that in a moment -- but at the outset I have some very real curiosity because I find parts of the resolution to be ambiguous in many respects.

I’d like to just read it quickly again: “In the opinion of this House the government should provide financial assistance to every school beard that establishes or operates a full-day senior kindergarten program on the basis that each pupil enrolled in the full-day senior kindergarten program is a full-time pupil for the purpose of determining the amount of legislative grant.”

It seems to me it behooves us to look at what this means in practical terms. I suggest it means that all school boards in Ontario are being enticed with the taxpayers’ money to establish full-day kindergarten programs whether or not there is a community demand for these services.

Mr. Grande: How do you translate that?

Mr. Jones: I know the mover of this resolution went to considerable pains to say it does not force the school board, it does not force parents. But it does force the ministry.

Mr. Warner: Here it comes.

Mr. Jones: To do that -- I’m coming hack to practical terms -- human nature being what it is, dollars and cents and constraints as they relate to the different levels of the ministry and school boards, being what they are, I do say it is an enticement that is being suggested to those school boards.

Mr. Grande: It is providing programs for kids.

Ms. Gigantes: Are you offering 100 per cent funding?

Mr. Jones: We’d be pretty naive if we didn’t recognize that, under this resolution, school boards would be encouraged to canvass the neighbourhood for students, to fill their classrooms with pre-schoolers, as a fund-raising venture. There’s no other description for it.

Ms. Gigantes: Oh, come on. Are you offering 100 per cent funding? Is that what you’re talking about?

Mr. Warner: Is that the way you run things over there?

Mr. Jones: The honourable member proposes that the number of enrolled, full-time pupils would be the basis for determining grants. In other words, the more tiny tots the board can gather up and bring into the regular school system for a full day, the more tax money it would receive from provincial revenues.

Ms. Gigantes: And the more they have to raise locally too.

Mr. Grande: That’s the way it works.

Ms. Gigantes: Oh, boy. You need some elementary math.

Mr. Jones: If the members would just let me proceed, I would suggest one has to take into account that we already have -- and I believe it was acknowledged a moment ago -- I guess two points that we should touch on here. The way I see this is that I would question whether this is a responsible way I of dealing with school boards. I’m uncomfortable with a proposal that dangles money before the eyes of trustees. Again, the fact is, it’s human nature. I don’t think trustees would want to be part of any such scheme.

Ms. Gigantes: What nonsense.

Mr. Makarchuk: As a matter of fact, all you can see is money. You can’t see the kids at the bottom of the thing.

Mr. Jones: They are urged to use those little toddlers as pawns, I suppose, in a fight for a bigger share of limited taxpayers’ dollars.

Ms. Gigantes: Oh, my heavens, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Warner: What a view of education. A warped view.

Mr. Jones: Just be quiet. The member, as he moved the resolution, talked about this government making a mockery of the International Year of the Child and all that nonsense.

Mr. Warner: No wonder you were good at selling insurance. Spoken like a true insurance salesman.

Mr. Jones: I’d just like to explain this as it reads, not as pie-in-the-sky philosophy but the way it would actually be applied.

Mr. Warner: You don’t care a whit about the system.

Mr. Jones: In my mind, this resolution fails to deal with many basic questions. Let’s look at one: What would be the cost of full-day kindergarten programs created by school boards?

Mr. Makarchuk: What is the cost of the reform schools you have to build afterwards?

Mr. Jones: The honourable member didn’t mention it. He didn’t allude to any of those estimates of cost. We’re responsible legislators. We have to deal with dollars and cents.

Mr. Makarchuk: Of course you’re responsible.

Ms. Gigantes: Just say your piece and sit down.

Mr. Jones: The members opposite raise it in question period. We can’t ignore it; it won’t go away. It’s a practical world. The member doesn’t know how many school boards might participate -- I didn’t hear any reference to that -- so I’m working from this financial void, as it were, because I didn’t hear the figures mentioned.

Mr. Grande: This is discussing principle.

Mr. Jones: The member is suggesting, I would have to think, that we should offer the school boards an open-ended funding scheme without any thought as to whether the taxpayer can afford it, and this hardly sounds responsible to me

Ms. Gigantes: You are so mean you squeak.

Mr. Jones: Secondly, what effect would this scheme have on the existing day-care services that are already offered to pre-schoolers?

Ms. Gigantes: The what? The what? Mr. Jones: The answer would have to be that it would drive a lot of them, if not all of them, out of business.

Ms. Gigantes: Oh, now we get it.

Mr. Jones: At the present time there are 618 --

Ms. Gigantes: Now we get the real story: competition of the private day-care services.

Mr. Jones: Just a moment. There are various kinds of those services. There are 618 licensed day-care centres in Ontario right now offering full-day programs to some 50,000 children, and more than half of these licensed centres, some 321, are operated by volunteer parent co-operative boards. I have a youngster, thee years old, who is in one of those very same programs.

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you sell them a policy against the threat?

Mr. Jones: The family involvement is very real, very vital, contributing to the proper upbringing of tiny children.

Mr. Makarchuk: Have you ever looked at the records of the kids in the reform schools?

Mr. Jones: I was polite to the member for Oakwood as he put his case --

Mr. Makarchuk: Have you ever looked at their backgrounds?

Mr. Jones: -- so could the member for Brantford just contain himself for a moment and listen to a couple of facts --

Mr. Makarchuk: You stand up and come across with absolute baloney about conditions that are totally different from conditions in our society.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jones: -- that were not contained in the member for Oakwood’s proposal.

Mr. Warner: He made more sense.

[4:15]

Mr. Jones: Most of these licensed centres do not receive direct funding at present. In fact, only 212 centres operated by municipalities, Indian bands and charitable organizations receive subsidies totalling close to some $35 million a year. These are funds provided on an equal basis by the Ontario and federal governments. In addition, the Ontario government provides a further $5.5 million a year program for mentally retarded children.

Mr. Makarchuk: And when you don’t do it, you give it to the minister sitting next to you.

Mr. Jones: Clearly, we already have an existing, extensive, excellently run network of licensed centres with strong parental and community involvement.

Ms. Gigantes: You guys are not for real.

Mr. Jones: Significantly, the people who work with these little children have taken special training under the early childhood education courses offered at most community colleges in Ontario.

Ms. Gigantes: Reuben, isn’t this making you nauseous?

Mr. Jones: If the school boards were to opt for the tax-paid, state-run scheme the honourable member proposes, then the competition between these qualified, experienced, community-rooted centres would be intense.

Mr. Grande: Talk about education, you don’t know anything about it.

Mr. Jones: In the end they would be driven out of business as tiny tots are transferred to what appears to be a free service in the school system, and we all know that isn’t true. A third question that I suggest this resolution has failed to face focuses on demand. Who is demanding this elaborate state scheme? The school boards?

Ms. Gigantes: All the people who don’t have day care.

Mr. Jones: I am not aware of one singular proposal by school boards or petitions to extend the school system back towards the cradle, as the member talked about the studies that dealt with the first four years of a young person’s total age.

What about the parents? Are they clamouring for a province-wide program to sweep their children into the system before they are hardly out of diapers?

Ms. Gigantes: They want it in their own area.

Mr. Jones: I haven’t heard that either. Perhaps the honourable member believes that this plan would benefit single parents. If so, I would like to examine that. We all agree that single-parent children face a special plight these days. That is why we can now utilize subsidized day-care facilities that we have and that is why we have an Income Tax Act that permits them to deduct up to $500 per child from their taxable income for child care expenses, and that is why we have family financial assistance programs.

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

Mr. Jones: I cannot support this resolution that attempts to place little children in auction in a battle between different levels of government.

Mr. Sweeney: I would like to begin by complimenting the member for Oakwood for introducing this resolution. I have already spoken to him about it. He knows, and I would so advise this House, that I concur completely with the spirit and the thrust of this resolution.

I have some concerns with some of the specifics but the general thrust of the resolution is one which I support wholeheartedly. That thrust, as I understand it, both from reading the resolution and from speaking to the member, is that it is far better for us to assure ourselves that the young children in their early days in school get the best possible education.

We have learned, not only from research but also from practical experience, and I can say this personally, that allowing our primary grade children to be in smaller classes does pay off in the long run arid it pays off in two ways. It pays off in terms of the ability of the student himself or herself to be able to benefit from the subsequent range of education. It also pays off, I suggest, in terms of the later costs if we don’t do it at the early age.

I know from experience, and the research once again has shown clearly, that those children in the primary grades who do not get the individual attention they require, and this is only possible in smaller classrooms -- now whether or not the figure of 20 is the magic figure I am not prepared to argue; it is as good a figure as any to start with -- if they don’t get that kind of individual attention in the primary grade, then we know -- there is no dispute about this, it is a confirmed fact -- that those youngsters are going to have serious learning problems in the junior grades, in the intermediate grades and in the senior grades.

One of two things happens: Either we spend a great deal of money and time, in terms of both human and financial resources, to try to remediate the problem we should have caught earlier, or we allow those young people to fall by the wayside. I would point out to the government members that the number of students falling by the wayside is becoming scandalous in this province.

A very recent study, of which I am sure the member for Mississauga North is aware, has just been finished by the director of the school board in the Mississauga-Peel area. The study clearly identifies that even in that area -- it is not what I would call a downtrodden area of the province; it is a very affluent area of the province -- 52 per cent of the young people who start in grade nine do not successfully complete grade 12. The director, as part of his open, public discussion with his school board, clearly identified as one of the reasons -- not the only one, but one of the reasons -- inadequate educational attention in the younger grades.

One of the things that I have seen happen myself is that those children who do not in their primary grades get a sense of success of accomplishment, a sense of being able to deal with school work or educational matters, continue to have problems in subsequent grades.

If for no other reason, we would support this kind of resolution to be sure that the young people, particularly in the primary grades -- I know there is some dispute about class sire once you get beyond the primary grades but I do not think there is any dispute with respect to the primary grades -- are given that sense of accomplishment or success at school work, at school types of things, because it is going to pay off in the long run. It is going to pay off in human terms and it is going to pay off in financial terms.

It is strange that one of the reasons -- as a matter of fact, from my talking to people, one of the main reasons -- that many parents pull their children out of the publicly supported school system and put them in the private school system, where in many cases they have to pay very high tuition fees, is the smaller classes. There are other reasons too, but for this reason as well they prove there that it does pay off.

What we have in this province, then, is that double standard: Those people who can afford it are able to get their young children in privately funded schools, in smaller classes, and to get them a better education. I do not think that was ever the intent of education in this province.

If I can go back to the comments made by the mover of this resolution, that he was primarily concerned with defining a need, I do not really believe that the member was advocating, as the member for Mississauga North suggested, that it be spread throughout all the province, whether there was a need or not.

Where there can be a clearly identified need and where we can find some mechanism -- and here I pause, because I know it’s difficult; we have had problems with this before -- where we can find some mechanism to limit it to those areas and boards-and those parts of boards, if necessary -- where there is a defined need, then I could support that part of this resolution. I cannot support it if it means we are going to go out on a selling job and encourage school boards all across the province to start full-day kindergartens where there really is not a serious need.

As a matter of fact, speaking very personally, I have some reservations as I to whether it is desirable in all eases I . I know the research is divided on this. My own personal opinion is that I am not sure it is desirable in all cases for five-year-olds to be in school all day long. I think there is some question about that. If we can’t define a clear need that, hopefully, can be met in this way, then I don’t think we should encourage it, but where we can define the need, then I think we should encourage it.

I would point out to the member for Mississauga North who spoke on behalf of the government that one of the observations the Minister of Education made about a year ago was that any of those boards that wanted to do it on their own could do it from the local tax base, There is one little catch in that and that is it is probably possible for public school boards to do this, but it is not possible for separate school boards to do it, as I am sure the member quite well appreciates. The separate school board simply doesn’t have the local property tax base from which to draw sufficient funds to support these kinds of programs.

I would hope if there’s any way the government can see its way clear to do it in those places where the need exists, they would continue to recognize that differentiation that is necessary between public school boards and separate school boards. I will recognize they have done that in all other areas of public versus separate school education in this province.

The question of costs came up. I don’t want to get involved in a discussion of costs because I don’t think that is the central issue but nevertheless, it is part of the question. The difficulty, and what we would like government members to come back with, is what cost are we talking about? We heard figures last year from the former Minister of Education that it would cost $65 million, ranging all the way to a figure that in Metro Toronto alone, it would only cost $2 million. That’s a very significant difference.

I think if the government members are going to speak about the cost factor here, and I recognize it is a legitimate aspect of this question -- it can’t be ignored -- it is incumbent upon them to bring forward some realistic cost figures so we can end up with something other than a potential spread from $2 million to $65 million. We just can’t handle those kind of figures.

Mr. Bounsall: I have many comments I would like to make on this excellent resolution presented by my colleague from Oakwood. I will try and limit myself to five minutes however, so as many speakers as wish to do so can get in on this debate. I support fully this resolution, which is a very simple one and whose intent should not have been muddied by the member for Mississauga North in his comments.

Hon. Mr. Walker: It was clarified by the member for Mississauga North. You should compliment him for keeping the record straight.

Mr. Bounsall: This does relate to the kindergarten grade only, when children are five years old. It was sort of interesting, however. I always wondered what the problem was but the member for Mississauga North indicated to the House this afternoon that he didn’t get out of his diapers until close to age five.

Mr. Jones: I don’t remember.

Mr. Makarchuk: After that speech, we even questioned that.

Mr. Grande: You still are in diapers, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Bounsall: This would establish a full-time pupil funding for those boards which in their wisdom decided there should be full-day kindergartens in their jurisdiction in whatever board area they are in the province.

Secondly, it has been very well studied and very obvious and clear conclusions have come from those studies, of which there have been more than one, in North America and in other jurisdictions. They show the smaller the class size one can get in grades one, two and three, the more efficient is the learning and a greater degree of l