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

March 11, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L007 - Thu 11 Mar 1976 / Jeu 11 mar 1976

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION

RESIGNATION OF JEFF PERKINS

GRANTS TO CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

UNITED ASBESTOS PLANT

DENTAL TECHNICIAN FACILITIES

QUEENSWAY-CARLETON HOSPITAL

PROPOSED RECREATION COMPLEX IN VAUGHAN

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION

RADIOACTIVITY AT PORT HOPE

STANDING COMMITTEES

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY AMENDMENT ACT

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

KIRKLAND LAKE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, on Feb. 18 last, I wrote to the federal Minister of Justice requesting that his government direct a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine the constitutionality of the federal anti-inflation legislation and the legality of the agreement entered into between the government of the Province of Ontario and the federal government in relation to the application of the federal anti-inflation programme.

Mr. Renwick: The Court of Appeal of Ontario is the proper jurisdiction.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In furtherance of this matter, on Feb. 20 the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and I attended in Ottawa and met with the Minister of Justice and the federal Minister of Finance to pursue our request with respect to an early reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice advised me that such --

Mr. Renwick: I cannot understand it. It is in total subversion to the system.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- a reference would, in fact, be directed to the Supreme Court of Canada, and I am advised by the federal Minister of Justice that the details of the reference will be made known later this afternoon.

Mr. Renwick: Who would be able to intervene on behalf of the people let alone the government of the country? This is the most improper statement made by you.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: This is the most improper statement that has been made by you.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the member for Riverdale,

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, please tell the hon. member opposite to learn how to behave himself; he has been here long enough.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: I rise on a point of privilege. My privilege and the question I put to the Speaker is, is it the role -- I would like to have the attention of the Attorney General and not the smile. The Attorney General plays to the cameras all the time, let’s get it straight.

Mr. Deans: He even brought the cameras in so that he could play to them here.

Mr. Renwick: My question to the Speaker of the assembly is a very simple one: In the democratic system, as we understand it in this province, is it proper, when there is a case before the courts of the Province of Ontario, for the Attorney General and his cohort, the Treasurer of Ontario, to interfere in the regular judicial process which would permit a case before the courts to go to the divisional court, to the Court of Appeal of Ontario and to the Supreme Court of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Wells: You are debating.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: The reason I ask that question is that the rule --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I would like --

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, will you hear me out?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will continue.

Mr. Renwick: May I continue my point of privilege? When a matter is sub judice, which is part of the standing orders of this Legislature, is it appropriate or proper for the Attorney General of the province to subvert the system by intervening, as he has done in the assembly? I refer to the precedent set out in the Legislature about the ruling on sub judice, and in particular to my letter to the Attorney General about this very intrusion which he has made upon the system of justice in the province.

Mr. Speaker: I am in no position to comment on anything that is before the courts and therefore sub judice at this point in time.

Mr. Renwick: There is, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of that, so I haven’t anything further to say at this time.

Mr. Bullbrook: What brought this all on anyway?

Mr. Singer: Where is the sub judice rule? Which rule is that?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

An hon. member: Simmer down.

Mr. Renwick: I won’t simmer down at all. You don’t understand the constitution of the country. He doesn’t have the dignity --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member for Riverdale please obey my request?

Mr. Renwick: He doesn’t even, have the dignity to reply to the letter that I addressed to him on the subject.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think I will give the Attorney General a moment to respond.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have been called upon to reply to what I view, Mr. Speaker, as a most ludicrous and irresponsible statement made by the hon. member for Riverdale.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: To suggest that the Attorney General of this province is in some manner subverting the --

Mr. Renwick: You certainly have.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- justice processes, or indeed the constitution of this country because it is our desire to have a ruling on this matter by the highest court of the land at the earliest possible opportunity --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: And it will never have the benefit of the Court of Appeal of the Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It should be understood by my friend that this is in the very real interest of the administration of justice of this province. There will obviously be a number of interveners in the Supreme Court of Canada in order that all interests will be represented.

For the member to suggest that the Attorney General was subverting the administration of justice, in my view is the most irresponsible statement that I have yet had the privilege to hear in this Legislature.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask that the matter be dropped. Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, in view of the seriousness of my friend’s allegation --

Mr. Nixon: The Speaker said to sit down.

Mr. Cassidy: You are subverting this House as well.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is obviously a difference of opinion. We will begin the question period. I will call upon the Leader of the Opposition to put his first question.

Oral questions.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have carefully evaluated the arguments of the Attorney General and the member for Riverdale. I agree with my colleague.

Interjections.

RESIGNATION OF JEFF PERKINS

Mr. Lewis: I would like to put my first question, if I could, to the Chairman of Cabinet: I gather that on Jan. 28, the Chairman of Cabinet was assigned the overall responsibility for co-ordination of policy in relation to native affairs on behalf of the government. Can I ask him in this new capacity what extraordinary bureaucratic foul-up occurred to force the resignation of Jeff Perkins, the co-ordinator for the government of activities in Grassy Narrows and Whitedog in the northwestern part of the province?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would say that Mr. Jeff Perkins -- I have known him for quite some time -- is a very able and excellent resource officer. He used to be in my area and did excellent work and then he was transferred to Kenora and continued his work with the native people as a community resource officer under the Indian community secretariat.

I was surprised to hear that he was leaving us. At the same time, he has only been, as far as I know, with the ministry for two years. Prior to that, I believe he was in the Northwest Territories and now he is going to the Province of Alberta to work again in a similar role. So again, I believe it’s a personal decision on his part and again I regret very much that he is leaving us. However, we certainly will be filling his position.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the minister realize that in the process of leaving his post, he indicated publicly that the reason involved the difficulty, the impossibility for him, of dealing with the bureaucracy in the Ministry of Natural Resources at Queen’s Park and that he could not fulfil his mandate to the people of Whitedog and Grassy Narrows because of the interference of government? Is the minister prepared to correct that and how can he explain it?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would say to the hon. leader that what he should do is get in touch with both Indian bands in those communities and they will attest to the positive steps that have been taken. This government has allocated $50,000 specifically for those two hands. A substantial part of those amounts has already been spent in resource developments and so forth. I would say that the hon. member should get his facts first before --

Mr. Lewis: I spoke to Mr. Perkins this morning.

By way of a supplementary, did the minister know that the straw that broke the camel’s back was a request for $1,000 for Whitedog for women to do handicrafts and that that couldn’t even be cleared sufficiently quickly to allow the band to use the money?

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I wasn’t aware of that specific request but, again, I would like to show that substantial sums of money have already been sent in the last month to assist the Indian bands.

GRANTS TO CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services: Am I right in understanding that the Metropolitan Toronto Children’s Aid Society, in 1975, had a disagreement with the ministry over the total amount of the budget which should go to that society? The society said it needed roughly $19,700,000, your ministry said only $19 million and it went to a board of review which decided that the figure would be $19,400,000 plus. If that is so, and that is provided under the Child Welfare Act, why then do you base your increase to the Metro Children’s Aid Society on the lower figure which you determined and which the board of review repudiated?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: May I explain that initially it wasn’t really a dispute insofar as the initial budget of the Metropolitan Toronto Children’s Aid Society was concerned. Of course, it was reviewed and approved at a certain figure. There was a dispute in regard to the number of additional personnel that the Children’s Aid Society thought it should hire and which it did. As a matter of fact, I think it wished to hire an additional 115 persons up to the end of last year. I believe they’ve hired about 91. The appeal process was exercised and the hearing took place. The recommendation was made. I accepted that recommendation and provided the additional funding.

Insofar as Children’s Aid Societies throughout Ontario are concerned, it has been the practice in past years to carry operating deficits into the next year and then to incorporate those operating deficits as a part of the base and build from there. I looked upon the additional money that was required as an operating deficit and, of course, that wasn’t included, in accordance with the guidelines which applied and apply to the 50 Children’s Aid Societies throughout Ontario.

Insofar as the impact of that is concerned, of course, much has been said in terms of the effective rate. May I say, while I’m on my feet, that several weeks ago I met with the chairman and directors of the Toronto Children’s Aid Society in connection with the particular problems surrounding that society, and the whole budgetary problem has been under review since then on a day to day basis with our respective staffs. I expect to be meeting with Mr. Edwards early next week to finally resolve the matter of the budget.

Again, if I can impose upon the time of the House to explain in conjunction with this question, I have indicated that I was actively seeking additional funding because of the transfer of burdens to Children’s Aid Societies because of such things as the repeal of

section 8 of the Training Schools Act. I have done that and I may say that I feel confident of success in that area and I expect that whole matter to be resolved.

In the meantime, the board of directors of the Metropolitan Toronto Children’s Aid Society indicated and promised me that we would deal in good faith on an ongoing basis and there would not be any pressure through publicity action to try to interfere with that process.

Mr. Lewis: They’re quite desperate.

Mr. Cassidy: You’re blackmailing them. You’re telling them to shut up.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Unfortunately, the president has informed me that he is unable to control the activities of his staff and the association, and he apologized for that. But I am confident that early next week we’ll have the whole matter resolved to our mutual satisfaction.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: That’s not a question. When you ask a question, I’ll respond to your question.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask then by way of supplementary, does the minister recall the name, and could he give it to the Legislature, of the person who chaired the board of review, whose decision he repudiated by refusing to base the increase upon that decision? Can he promise us now that the amount of the budget on which the increase for the Children’s Aid Society will be negotiated will be the board of review level so that that society does not have to strip its preventive services and take kids out of institutional care because of the folly of government?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Again the member is making an accusation; he is making a statement which is not based on fact at all. It is just another distortion that he proposes as accurate.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what they have said.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Just a minute.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Please let me respond to your question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Let me respond. I stated that the report was rendered and I accepted the recommendations of the report. The member has just accused me of repudiating the report.

Mr. Lewis: Who was the chairman?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Who was the chairman?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The chairman of the committee was William McMurtry.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, yes? The honourable one.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Not honourable now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: That’s whose words you threw out in the process.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: He has always been an honourable person and a very capable person but he’s not a member of this House, if you are trying to impute that.

Mr. Lewis: Then you should have accepted

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? A supplementary, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan). I am sorry, one moment; the member for St. George with a supplementary first.

Mrs. Campbell: May I get through to this minister and just get a simple answer to a simple question?

Interjections.

Mr. Ferrier: Good luck.

Mrs. Campbell: Is it not a fact that the 5.5 per cent increase which you have allowed to them has been based upon the figure which you permitted to them last year and out upon the figure approved by appeal? Can the minister answer that directly?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: That’s a simple question from a simple person and --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Withdraw that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the question period proceedings would proceed much more smoothly if we kept personalities out of this. Does the hon. minister have a short answer for the question?

Some hon. members: Withdraw.

Mr. Breithaupt: Is the Speaker so minded to require the hon. minister to withdraw those remarks?

Mr. Speaker: I consider such comments most unparliamentary and unnecessary and I regret to have heard them. I would think that the hon. minister might withdraw those remarks.

Mr. Lewis: Typical of him.

Mr. Speaker: If he has an answer for the hon. member, would he give it please?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Well, the simplicity wasn’t --

Some hon. members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- wasn’t intended to reflect on the cerebral abilities of the member opposite.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I didn’t ask for an explanation of the remark.

Mr. Lewis: Everything to the right of Bob Welch is falling apart.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. minister please do as we requested?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I will withdraw the word “simple.”

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

Mr. Singer: You are certainly a gracious person.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Certainly I will.

May I say, in response to the question, that the 5.5 per cent is based upon the approved budget for 1975; that was the basis of the 5.5 per cent.

Mr. Lewis: But not the amount that William McMurtry authorized.

Mr. Ferrier: Or the actual expenses.

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

Mr. McClellan: Since the minister has assured the House that he will be bargaining in good faith with the Metro Children’s Aid Society, I wonder if he will give this House an assurance that we will not witness a repetition of the kind of attack he made on the Metro Children’s Aid Society on Feb. 16 when he used senseless statistics with respect to the relationship between Catholics and non-Catholics in Metro Toronto which don’t bear the scrutiny of the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, where he uses statistics which don’t bear up to figures in his own memo of --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This doesn’t seem to be a supplementary. You will please allow the minister to answer.

Mr. McClellan: I simply want to ask the minister to assure this House that he will in the future avoid attacking agencies which he has put into a vulnerable position by his own actions when they try to assert their rights.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: If that’s the question, Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to respond. There has never been any attack by me or my ministry upon any Children’s Aid Society in this province. We work together in partnership to share a common concern in connection with the activities of the societies and the care of children in this province and we will continue to do so.

Mr. Lewis: Oh come on. Then accept Bill McMurtry’s report.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Furthermore, it’s not a question of bargaining with Children’s Aid Societies --

Mr. Cassidy: That’s what you are making it.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- to ensure that children who are in need are adequately looked after.

Mr. McClellan: What a hollow remark that is.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I made a representation right around this province as I toured this province and met with the various agencies that there would be no child in need who would do without, and I meant what I said.

Mr. Cassidy: But you won’t do anything about it as you promised.

Mr. Lewis: That’s nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: We’re very sensitive to the needs of children and I intend to ensure that that is carried out in terms of dealing with all of the Children’s Aid Societies and it is not a question of bargaining or negotiations.

Mr. Lewis: Just on a point of privilege, my supplementary question was based on the evidence from the Children’s Aid Society of both staff layoffs of up to 30 people and removal of 45 kids from institutional placement and those are facts, sir. They are not allegations.

UNITED ASBESTOS PLANT

Mr. Lewis: Now, I want to put a question to the Minister of Natural Resources if I may. Has any further testing been done at the United Asbestos plant in Matachewan since the original test by the occupational health branch in late September or early October, 1975?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of tests in that particular mine site and if the House will permit me I would just like to outline to the members of the Legislature that this particular plant, this new asbestos mine, came into production about last September. It’s operating at about 40 to 50 per cent capacity. About June or July this year we hope to have it -- at least the company hopes to have it -- in full operating condition. There are a number of start-up problems of course, as we all realize, with a new plant.

In direct answer to your question there have been a number of tests. In fact, my inspectors have been there as late as March 2. Health tests have been done or are in the process of being done and reported at this particular time.

I would add further, Mr. Speaker, that my staff have met with the union employees of that particular company, with the safety committee, and you will be interested to know at no time was the dust conditions in the mine raised as a matter of concern to that particular --

Mr. Lewis: Oh come on, come on. We know the conversations.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: And the member can check the record, sir. He is free to do so. I just want to make the record clear that maybe some of the facts that the Leader of the Opposition is using are not totally correct.

Mr. Lewis: Just by way of a quick supplementary, I don’t quite understand this number of tests. Is the minister saying that the occupational health branch is in the process of retesting the workplace for the workers now or retested it recently after the weekend shutdown? There have been no concrete occupational health tests that we yet know the results of since late September or early October, I take it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I just informed the member that there were tests recently taken.

Mr. Lewis: When?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Within the last week.

Mr. Lewis: Within the last week?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, we are waiting for the results of those tests.

Mr. Martel: Was that after you had it closed for the weekend?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Hamilton West has the floor. Thank you.

DENTAL TECHNICIAN FACILITIES

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities: Has the minister finally persuaded his cabinet colleagues not to waste $750,000 by establishing a course for preventive dental technicians in Sudbury when, as he well knows, there is an already adequate programme in North Bay?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There is a very long answer to that and I’m prepared to give it.

Some hon. members: Go ahead!

Mr. Yakabuski: Good, you’ll get more TV time.

Mr. Bullbrook: Good, that’s the kind of spunk we like to see.

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Parrott: First of all, we’ve decided that there will be level 2 hygiene courses in both North Bay and in Sudbury. We think there is great value in those courses being established not only so that the people of the north will have perhaps more educational facilities than the people of the south. There is a far larger area to serve and we think that’s valuable.

We think it’s important that you look at some of the ramifications of what that programme might do for the profession at large. It’s very necessary to have facilities scattered as best we are able so that the profession, as well as the auxiliaries, will have facilities at their disposal to update their own education. Given those leads, I think there’s every justification for having facilities in three locations in the north. There will be 11 locations in all.

We have reduced from $750,000 to $420,000 the amount of dollars allocated to the dental programme in that particular institution. We think now that we do have a very balanced programme in Ontario for the education of the dental auxiliaries not just as it pertains to one level but, indeed, for the three levels of dental auxiliaries that were previously known as one.

Mr. S. Smith: As a supplementary: In view of the fact that the minister well knows that North Bay has already been wall equipped to handle this with the limited number of dentists in the north and the limited number of positions for these technicians, and in view of the fact that the minister himself expressed to officials of Canadore College in North Bay that the Sudbury programme is unwarranted, and in view of the fact that the minister --

Mr. Renwick: Question?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think it has been established that the member should ask a question.

Mr. S. Smith: I am getting there.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member ask the question?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I thought the member didn’t like the north.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One question at a time.

Mr. Sweeney: What’s the matter? Is the government worried about the answer?

Mr. Speaker: We’re not supposed to be presenting a lot of information during question period.

Mr. S. Smith: In view of the fact that $750,000 in capital expenses will be required to put these dental chairs into Sudbury and in view of the fact that the minister has asked the North Bay people to cut back on the number of people taught there --

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question now, please?

Mr. Renwick: Question?

Mr. S. Smith: -- will he reconsider his decision to duplicate unnecessarily a facility which will produce more technicians than can possibly be absorbed in the north of this province?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m afraid that the leader of the Liberal Party either didn’t hear all of the first answer or didn’t comprehend it.

Mr. Shore: He didn’t accept it.

Mr. Good: Or doesn’t believe it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m not too sure which, but let me go over the facts once more.

Mr. Martel: He doesn’t like the Soo either.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s right. He doesn’t. Or Sudbury or North Bay.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You’re wasting the time of the question period.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I never said, nor would I infer that a level 3 programme was ever desired in all locations in Ontario. The member is talking about a level 3 programme which I said was not necessary. Never did I say that about the level 2 programme.

Mr. R. S. Smith: He is talking about level 2.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m afraid the member is totally mistaken in the observation he just made.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: A supplementary again?

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I hope we can have assurance from the Minister of Colleges and Universities that he will not play the game that the new Liberal leader has, of trying to cut back facilities in other communities.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Martel: I’m just looking for assurance, Mr. Speaker, that we won’t have this happen to us in the Sudbury basin.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am more than pleased to tell the member that we are more than servicing -- and with a very equitable distribution of those services -- the north and the south. I believe we have done that in a very logical and sensible fashion. Three of the locations are in the north; that’s as it should be. We will have an excellent programme in all phases of hygiene.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s not what you said in North Bay.

Mr. R. S. Smith: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is it not a fact that the minister made a statement at a bear-pit session he held at the college in North Bay that the decision to go into Sudbury was made before he was minister and was irreversible because it was made before he was made a minister?

Secondly, would he not agree that within a period of two years we are going to have an over-flooding of the market for level 2 dental assistants? Would he tell us where those people are going to go for employment, other than the fact that we are going to have the drain of our young people from the north to the south perhaps, and that is apparently the policy which he is following?

Mr. Yakabuski: Denticare programme coming.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Richard, you are being silly.

Mr. Speaker: Is there an answer?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am not at all convinced that we will have an over-flooding, but if we do I think we’ve answered an immediate need for the profession to have an adequate supply of level 2 dental auxiliaries, and that is most important for the dental health of this province. It is the one way that we can adequately prevent dental disease. It is not by graduating more dentists; it is by having an adequate number of preventive dental assistants.

That programme will come to fruition in about another year. Given a good result of that programme -- and I believe in it implicitly -- we will then see far less need for dental services. I would be more apt to think we might be able to cut back on the number of dental graduates rather than the number of preventive dental graduates, because the future of dentistry rests in preventive dentistry, not in corrective dentistry, which is part of the problem.

Mr. Speaker: Did the member for Nipissing have a further supplementary?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Yes. My further supplementary is this: Could I ask the minister to answer my first question?

Mr. Speaker: We have spent quite a bit of time on this, and I think we should have a new question from the member for Hamilton West.

QUEENSWAY-CARLETON HOSPITAL

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Could he explain to the House why his ministry has found it necessary to inform the director in charge of the newly built and long-awaited Queensway-Carleton Hospital in Ottawa -- which by his own ministry’s admission has a shortage of beds -- that the hospital must not open before receiving specific further instruction from the ministry? This is a great worry to the people of that area and I would like to hear his explanation.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Queensway-Carleton Hospital has been co-operating with us through the district health council in Ottawa to assist us in relieving some of the problems in Ottawa. They have volunteered to give up their obstetrics

section and I understand it is opening -- if it hasn’t already opened -- as quickly as those facilities are open, as a chronic ward. They just don’t need obstetrics anymore. That was a local decision made by local people. They have also volunteered, I understand, to give us another 43 of their beds for chronic purposes as quickly as they are ready for use. That may be a month or two yet.

It’s pretty normal for us to gauge the opening of a hospital in a given area to match up with the dollars available for it. I think this is the only caution we put, “Please do not start facilities until we have ensured you the money to operate during the balance of the year.” When they have told us they are ready, we will be able to match our dollars to their budget.

PROPOSED RECREATION COMPLEX IN VAUGHAN

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Treasurer. With reference to the proposed “midway” complex on 320 acres of agricultural land in part of the town of Vaughan, could the Treasurer explain to us why he and members of his government have not made it very clear that there is simply no way that particular complex will be tolerated by this provincial government?

Mr. Lewis: He has made it clear.

Mr. S. Smith: No, he hasn’t. Read the letter.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, basically we would not want to take that position until we had heard the position of the local municipality and the region of York.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the minister undertake to report to this House on the volume of garbage that will be generated by this midway proposal, plans for its disposal and, in addition, the amount of energy that it is calculated this particular midway will use?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will certainly take that under consideration, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: How gentle of him. Well, he is but a lamb with all the lights around him. May I ask the minister, am I not right in recollecting that he has written letters about the midway complex indicating his basic displeasure, or his basic hesitation, about the development of a project in that particular area and indicating that he wasn’t inclined to approve it? Has he in fact heard further from the municipality?

Mr. Renwick: We could read the frown in his letter.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have written that sort of a letter but I have not indicated that it is something that I would be approving or disapproving. Essentially it will be a determination of the region, although the promoters have come to us and I believe will meet with us next week. They’re meeting with a number of ministries. They have certain environmental studies and we’ll be glad to take a look at them all. But, essentially, a determination will I be made by the region which, to my knowledge, I don’t think we’ve heard from.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Grossman: A question of the Minister of Health: Has the ministry, in making its calculations of the alleged $6.5 million saving in closing the Doctors Hospital, taken into account the termination and sick pay which will have to be paid upon the closing, which I’m informed this year will amount to approximately $1 million?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I dare not make any more comments to voices behind me because I understand the now Leader of the Opposition starts looking at my Freudian problems as a result of that, right?

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Just the leader of the Liberal Party. Don’t burden me with that bunch.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That’s a Freudian slip too.

Mr. Lewis: I see you as a Marxist not a Freudian.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is that the answer to the question?

Hon. F. S. Miller: And I want you to know we shall overcome.

Mr. Nixon: How is the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick doing? Is that satisfactory?

Mr. Speaker: Is there a further answer to the hon. member’s question?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think, Mr. Speaker, while I recognize the hon. member has legal training, that in the House he doesn’t need to use the word “alleged.” Those savings are definite.

Mr. Grossman: Oh yes I do; so far I do.

Mr. MacDonald: An engineer’s retort.

Mr. Nixon: How would the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick like to be Minister of Health?

Mr. Grossman: If I thought it was soon I might consider it.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the savings we showed are annualized operating savings based upon those which will be made once the hospital closes and we have allowed for the cost of transfer of patients and other costs associated with the closure. They would go on from the date of, let’s say, winding up of assets or of obligations to employees. Of course, in the first year the costs associated with the closure will minimize total savings.

Mr. Grossman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is it then the case that when all the calculations are completed, including the addition of the $1 million involved here, that with relocation and other unusual costs this year there may not be any savings whatsoever in the closing in the 1976 fiscal year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Not at all, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I could have argued that the savings are greater than $6.5 million, because they are based on 1975-1976 budgets; 1976-1977 budgets would have been inflated by a minimum of 10 per cent, that’s $650,000, and that would come very close to the cost the member just described.

Mr. Speaker: We will allow one supplementary on this; the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Could the minister give us the specific figure for the number of dollars that he alleges will be saved in this coming fiscal year through the closing of the Doctors Hospital? He is not giving a clear answer now at all.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have found a great deal of difficulty in four years in ever making the member think I had a clear answer on anything.

Mr. Lewis: That’s quite true.

An hon. member: That’s your problem, not ours.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the hon. minister have an answer?

Mr. Singer: That’s one of the minister’s problems.

Mr. S. Smith: You need psycho-analysis.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The savings in this year obviously cannot be determined until the date of the closure is finalized. The date of the closure will not be finalized until in fact the appeals have been heard and we have been able to set a date by which the hospital should be closed.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, if any part of my remarks should be misconstrued as a ministerial statement I hope you will extend the question period.

Mr. Speaker: Ask the question.

Mr. Lewis: You might say we are enjoying things.

[2:45]

Mr. Renwick: There are so many questions to ask of all the ministers that I have decided today to direct my remarks for this month to the Attorney General of Ontario -- and I want to ask him a two-part question.

Mr. Lewis: That’s Bill McMurtry’s brother over there.

Mr. Renwick: It may be difficult for the Attorney General to understand the connection between the two parts; I had some difficulty myself.

My second question is -- and I am sure that the Attorney General will understand the relationship: Will the Attorney General table in this Legislature, dedicated as he is to the public administration of justice, a copy of every memorandum, directive or instruction which he has given to the assistant Crown attorneys or to the Crown attorneys throughout the Province of Ontario with respect to plea bargaining and other matters before the provincial courts’ jurisdiction, so that we will have the benefit as a member of the public, of the specific views of the Attorney General on those questions?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Attorney General could answer one of those questions. Even I see no relation between the two.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on!

Mr. Renwick: You are not a lawyer.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to answer both questions. The second question I might answer first. I will certainly table any relative memorandums that have been distributed to the Crown attorneys about the province of which I am aware -- and I believe that I am, in fact, aware of those that are in existence. But I obviously can’t guarantee that about memorandums of which I do not know.

Mr. Singer: You might ask someone.

I am very concerned about my hon. friend’s statement that I was in some way interfering with the judicial process in this province in directing this reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. He spoke of certain lawsuits that had been commenced in the Province of Ontario. I think one which he probably was referring to, undoubtedly, was the action commenced by the Renfrew teachers.

I think in fairness, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the opportunity to quote briefly from a letter directed to the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis) from the Ontario Teachers’ Federation, of which the Renfrew teachers are represented through the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation. This letter is dated March 6, 1976, Mr. Speaker. It states as follows:

“It is the federation’s understanding that, while the resolution of this question could be left to judicial review, a more appropriate course of action would be a reference to the Court of Appeal of Ontario or the Supreme Court of Canada. Leaving the question to judicial review raises the likelihood of a multiplicity of proceedings as well as a lengthy delay in reaching a final decision as the matter is taken through the appellate court.

“A reference to the Court of Appeal of Ontario, while satisfactory in many ways, is subject to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and this too would cause delay. I think you will agree that, if the agreement were found to be ineffective after a period of one year or more, a large number of otherwise avoidable problems would arise.

“It is the federation’s opinion that in the circumstances, a reference directly to the Supreme Court of Canada would be most beneficial.

“It is the federation’s understanding that the Attorney General for Ontario publicly announced that he was considering asking the federal Minister of Justice for Canada to make such a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“Would you be good enough to give consideration to requesting the Attorney General to proceed with this at his earliest convenience so that the intent of the federal-provincial agreement might be implemented with a view to preventing a number of problems which are going to arise, given the legal opinion the federation has.”

So, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully request that the hon. member for Riverdale perhaps consult with the solicitors for the Ontario Teachers’ Federation, who have strongly endorsed the course that this government has taken.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, his attitude for the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, even at this late date, is most commendable. I hope the Attorney General will convey that view to the minister sitting on his right.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a supplementary question?

Mr. Singer: No, it is just time for a statement.

Mr. Renwick: My question to the Attorney General is a very simple one --

An hon. member: It sounds like it.

Mr. Renwick: -- and I won’t withdraw it.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: A dangerous word.

Mr. Ruston: Order.

Mr. Renwick: -- rather than to require this matter to be dealt with directly by the Supreme Court of Canada?

Mr. Bullbrook: Come on, Mr. Speaker. Come on!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: Well, my friends, the living-room Liberals, pursue it the wrong way every time.

Mr. Ruston: They’ve turned the cameras off.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What is a living-room Liberal?

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

Mr. Renwick: Does he not consider that in the tradition of Sir Oliver Mowat and in the tradition of the Hon. George Ferguson --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: -- this question should be dealt with initially --

An hon. member: Sit down!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: -- by the Court of Appeal of the Province of Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A question like that at this time of the day takes up far too much time. Not being a lawyer --

Mr. Ruston: They’ve shut the cameras off.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Not being a lawyer, I am not sure whether it is the same question over again or not.

An hon. member: He is not sure either.

Mr. Reid: Being a lawyer, he’s not sure either.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Attorney General have a brief answer or was that the same question?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have a brief answer. The answer is no.

Mr. Speaker: Right The next question; the member for London Centre.

RADIOACTIVITY AT PORT HOPE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this question involves more than one ministry, I would like to direct it to the Premier.

In view of the serious conflicts of expert opinion with respect to the Port Hope situation, is the Premier now prepared to consider a full, open and public inquiry of that situation so that the good people of Port Hope can have some honest, objective information about what transpired there and what the government is going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize there is more than one ministry involved in this matter but, in that the Minister of Health has been very closely related to this and has been giving it a great deal of guidance and direction, I would suggest that that question properly should be directed to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Reid: He is going to close down the town.

Mr. Peterson: May I redirect that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The hon. member will have to repeat it to me.

Mr. Peterson: The question is, what steps is the minister taking to ensure that there is an open, objective and honest inquiry of all the facts of the Port Hope situation? As well, I would like to hear what the minister is doing to clean up that situation.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it has been acknowledged, even by the federal government of late, that the real responsibility for Port Hope was theirs. I think that fact needs to be realized. The Ministry of Health stepped in because there was a hazard to the people in the town, and not because we created it. The control of the disposal of those goods was entirely the federal government’s and up to this point in time has been acknowledged as such because they have been paying for the costs involved in any of the work done. The federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has made this statement publicly. He has said there will be an inquiry. I think the hon. member should call him.

Mr. Moffatt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will allow a supplementary. The member for London Centre first.

Mr. Peterson: With respect, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: If it’s very short.

Mr. Peterson: -- I am not saying this in a partisan way but I believe it’s a very serious situation that has very bad implications for the good people of Port Hope --

Mr. Speaker: Your question?

Mr. Peterson: My question is: What guarantees is the minister going to give those people, being responsible for the health of those people, that they have that full inquiry, that they know the facts, that they can make decisions with respect to their own community?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am encouraging and will co-operate with the federal government to do just that. But please don’t ask me to set up an inquiry into an area where the jurisdiction is not mine. One of the things I pointed out in this whole deal was that, in fact, we needed clarification of the relative borderlines of authority in this kind of area.

I think we acted commendably down in Port Hope. I think the fact that in the papers today, or yesterday, you’ll find very encouraging news about the final testing of one family down there who have lived in the home with the greatest known radiation hazard for over 20 years; the best tests available to medical People today showed them to be clear. I hope this has alleviated the fear that quite properly was generated in the minds of many people. We are working with the federal government to try and find out where the other potential sites were. Mr.

Gillespie recently told us where he believed them to be, and I can assure the members we’ll be looking at some of these sites more intensively in an attempt to prevent any other hidden risk.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. Order, please. The time has now expired and very few people have had a chance to ask their questions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The order has been felt on many sides and in many quarters, so we’re not going to place any blame. The question period has expired.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: Point of privilege.

Mr. Cunningham: I’d like, through you, Mr. Speaker, to possibly get an explanation from the Minister of Correctional Services and the member for “Sanity Island,” the justification --

Hon. J. R. Smith: What do you call your riding?

Mr. Cunningham: -- for something that I read in what would appear to be a government-sponsored newsletter; and I quote:

“Temporarily, I am the only Conservative member from the Hamilton area, so my constituency workload is substantial. With your help now this situation will see a dramatic change as the next election brings victory to my fellow Conservatives in adjacent ridings.”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, if I may: “Please call 385-9661 to volunteer.” Is it my understanding that that is the minister’s constituency office funded by public money?

An hon. member: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member take his seat?

Hon. J. R. Smith: Your light just went out.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: All over the world.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

STANDING COMMITTEES

Mr. Villeneuve (Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry) from the select committee appointed to prepare the lists of members to compose the standing committees of the House, presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee recommends that the lists of standing committees ordered by the House be composed of the following members:

1. Procedural Affairs: Davidson (Cambridge), Givens, Henderson, Johnston (St. Catharines), Lupusella, McCague, McEwen, Newman (Windsor-Walkerville), Nixon, Philip, Rollins, Smith (Simcoe East), Wildman -- 13.

2. Administration of Justice: Breaugh, Drea, Gregory, Kennedy, Lawlor, Leluk, Moffatt, Norton, Renwick, Roy, Sandeman, Singer, Stong -- 13.

3. Social Development: Belanger, Dukszta, Eaton, Ferris, Foulds, Grossman, Jones, Kerrio, Maeck, McClellan, Sweeney, Villeneuve, Warner -- 13.

4. Resources Development: Bain, Bullbrook, Cunningham, Evans, Gigantes, Johnson (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel), Lane, Laughren, McNeil, Riddell, Samis, Williams, Yakabuski -- 13.

5. Public Accounts: Angus, Ferrier, Germa, Grossman, Hall, Hodgson, MacKenzie, McNeil, Peterson, Sargent, Williams, Wiseman, Ziemba -- 13.

6. Regulations: Belanger, Bounsall, Conway, Davison (Hamilton Centre), di Santo, Johnson (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel), Johnston (St. Catharines), Maeck, Miller (Haldimand-Norfolk), Morrow, O’Neil, Ruston, Young -- 13.

7. Miscellaneous Estimates: Bryden, Cassidy, Drea, Edighoffer, Evans, Grande, Gregory, Lane, Mancini, McCague, McKessock, Shore, Swart -- 13.

The quorum of the private bills committee will be 13; the quorum of all other committees will be 7.

[3:00]

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the following supplementary estimates be referred to the miscellaneous estimates committee: Ministries of Housing, Government Services, Revenue, Agriculture and Food, Environment, Transportation and Communications, Office of the Assembly; also that standing committees have authority to sit concurrently with the House while considering estimates.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the select committee on Hydro rates be authorized to extend its deliberations until May 1, 1976.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, could I have a brief word on that?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think so. I carried it through very quickly.

Mr. MacDonald: The hon. members of the House might be interested in a word of explanation. In the original terms of reference of this committee, we were to examine the proposed rate for 1976. An interim report presented before Christmas did that, but pointed out that the main determinant was the expansion programme of Hydro in the years beyond, and requested permission to continue that study to get a clearer picture of what is the impact of that expansion programme.

As members might well judge, the problem of investigating Hydro in the kind of detail that is required for that purpose has proven to be a somewhat longer one than we had originally anticipated, and therefore it will require hearings on into April -- we are trying to curtail them -- and a careful consideration of the report. It is our hope in the light of this motion that we will have a report before the end of May.

It does raise another matter that I know the Minister of Energy is very cognizant of, that is, that there are statutory requirements imposed upon Hydro for initiating the process for consideration of its rate for 1977, and there will have to be amendments to the Act to facilitate that this year. I will leave any comments that the minister would like to make in that connection.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Responding, first of all, to the latter comments of the hon. member for York South, I would say that the ministry has prepared an appropriate amendment to

Section 37(

a) of the Act and will be proposing it to cabinet in the next few days and hopefully introducing it to the House in the next couple of weeks.

I am interested and intrigued by his comments about the difficulty, if I can call it that, when one starts to investigate Ontario Hydro. If one looks back at Hansard in November, 1975 and looks at some of the comments of the members of the third party and the debate that occurred in this House in December, one would have got the clear impression that Hydro is a piece of cake, that it is a very simple thing, that you look at a profit and loss sheet and take it from there.

I am pleased to hear the hon. member acknowledge, as I am sure all reasonable members of his committee would acknowledge, that in fact it is a very complicated question and one which I know they are taking very seriously and which of course my ministry and the entire government take very seriously.

We will look forward with anticipation to the comments of the select committee. As I have indicated to the select committee on one or two occasions, am particularly interested in knowing what they are going to recommend on the question of conservation. If there is any one area which is of prime importance to society in general and Ontario specifically, it is the question of conservation, how we can better use our resources to extend their lifetime and to do everything possible to main- thin the standard of living and the kind of society that we have in the province at this point.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the motion was agreed to.

Introduction of bills.

[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills. The hon. minister.

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY AMENDMENT ACT

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

An Act to amend the Personal Property Security Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I know this is a great anti-climax but this very important bill eliminates the 30-day period which is now required for a secured party to register a financing statement. The remainder of the amendments are purely housekeeping.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, consideration of the Speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry.

Mr. Villeneuve: Thank you.

Mr. Cassidy: Your maiden speech.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Sit down.

Mr. Villeneuve moved, seconded by Mr. Grossman, that a humble address be presented to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

“To the Honourable Pauline M. McGibbon, QC, BA, LL.D., D.U. (Ottawa), BAA (Theatre), Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

“May it please Your Honour:

“We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects of the legislative assembly of the Province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us.”

Mr. Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to move adoption of the second Speech from the Throne of this 30th Parliament and of the government chosen by the people of Ontario on Sept. 18 last.

While this honour is often reserved for a new member of this Legislature I am pleased to speak, in moving this address, on behalf of the members of my party and as a member who has served in the Legislature for some time.

Those of us on all sides of the House who have served in this assembly have, I think, a particular reason to support the approach to the priorities of our province set out in the government’s programme as contained in Her Excellency’s address. The decline of the power of sterling in recent days is evidence of a world economy that is in trouble.

In my constituency, people are quite concerned and anxious about the economic circumstances that they and their children can expect in the months and years ahead. I suspect, if we each think about it for a moment, there is little of more importance in the realm of our duties here in the Legislature than that of providing my constituents and the constituents of all members of this assembly with an economic future which they can count and depend on to maintain a standard of living that gives an equal opportunity to all who apply themselves.

Mr. Samis: Say that in eastern Ontario.

Mr. Riddell: And hospitals.

Mr. Villeneuve: -- good hospitals --

Mr. Cassidy: You don’t know what’s happening with your government.

Mr. Villeneuve: -- that these things on which they depend are safe and well managed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Villeneuve: These concerns, these desires are perhaps no different from concerns expressed years ago by other Canadians at other times in their own province’s history.

Mr. Cassidy: Comment Windsor et Essex?

Mr. Villeneuve: When I first came to the Legislature in 1948-1949, Ontario had a total budget of less than $258 million. Health costs amounted to less than $22 million in total for the province in that fiscal year.

Mr. Good: That would just about do the Premier’s office now.

Mr. Villeneuve: The largest expenditure was education with a little over $44,221 million.

Mr. Foulds: Thousand.

Mr. Villeneuve: Thousand, pardon me. Although this province has seen continual prosperity and growth, absorbing almost 50 per cent of the total number of immigrants --

Mr. Laughren: Not in the east.

Mr. Villeneuve: -- who have come to Canada in the last 30 years today in 1975-1976, the total budget is over $12 billion.

Mr. Nixon: Why are we so hard up then?

Mr. Villeneuve: I sense that we are, in fact, at a very crucial crossroads in the history of our country and in the history of our province. It is a time for sitting back for a moment and looking carefully at the options before Ontario -- the options our province has to choose from.

For example, I guess it is fair to say that there is an option that comes forward from the federal government’s approach -- regulate everything; control as much as you can; make government bigger; keep government spending high while no one else can afford to expand their own spending because of general economic problems.

Mr. Nixon: Still you say it is not enough.

Mr. Cassidy: You are opposing the anti-inflation programme, is that it?

Mr. Villeneuve: I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues in this House that the people of my riding won’t accept that option.

Mr. Good: Against the AIB?

Mr. Villeneuve: They won’t accept it because they believe that larger government means more bureaucracy, more impersonal dealings with people --

Mr. Nixon: Your people know all about that.

Mr. Villeneuve: -- more insensitivity to the real local and regional problems that people have.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will continue.

Mr. Villeneuve: My people also pay high taxes on their earnings which is why they reject more government spending; more civil servants; more expensive control programmes.

Mr. Nixon: They have to pay Judy LaMarsh.

Mr. Samis: Why did they vote Liberal in your riding, federally?

[3:15]

Mr. Villeneuve: Which is why the Dave Barrett option for Canada is also not accepted by the people of my riding. They reject that option, because they sense --

Interjection.

Mr. Yakabuski: Smarten up.

Mr. Villeneuve: -- when the air is taken out of the private enterprise system, when government determines by itself and without advice or consultation the direction of a society, then government has too much power and the individual citizen has too little.

I am also certain that they have no interest in the third option, which a young student in my riding wrote me and described as the hard-hat gloom-and-doom option. These are the people who want you to close hospitals when you are opening them, and open hospitals when you are closing them. These are the people who want to cut back education costs but expect more money for the local school board.

Mr. Yakabuski: Right on.

Mr. Villeneuve: The people who want to save farmland but don’t want government to have authority at the regional or provincial level to do anything about it.

Mr. Nixon: Which one are you, Osie?

Mr. Villeneuve: It’s the backwards-forwards approach that my friends in the third party might have some awareness of, and which they will hopefully try to do something about, because it hurts Ontario as much as it hurts them. It’s an option that the people of my constituency want nothing to do with. This is why I am honoured, as someone who has served in this Legislature for a while, to speak in support of the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Nixon: They finally asked you to do something.

Mr. Villeneuve: C’est un discours qui démontre un programme pragmatique et efficace qui va répondre aux besoins actuels de la province, et non aux besoins créés par des fonctionnaires qui sont absolument capables de créer des programmes seulement pour assurer leurs propres emplois. C’est un programme qui ne coûtera pas de nouveaux impôts aux payeurs de taxes.

Mr. Nixon: Spoken like a man who speaks French intelligently.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is a programme which is committed to creating new opportunities for income security for the Ontario farmer, a security which is vital to the style of life those of us in eastern Ontario have come to enjoy.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Villeneuve: Representing a rural riding, I will have more to say on agriculture in general on some other occasion. It is a programme which clearly understands the importance to Ontario of our system of justice, and indicates a sensitivity to initiatives with regard to its administration that are crucially important for all of us.

The commitment to the best health care system in the world is a commitment upon which I would like to reflect for a moment.

Mr. Foulds: Are you talking about Sweden now?

Mr. Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, it is not an easy task for a Minister of Health to personally go into an area of the province to close a hospital.

Mr. Sweeney: It’s not necessary either.

Mr. Nixon: Not unless his predecessor opened them.

Mr. Villeneuve: I can sympathize with any community and its people when a decision is made to close a hospital, and in particular in a rural area where there are already limited opportunities to offset the attraction of large urban centres that offer better chances for employment.

After a careful study by officials of his ministry to make sure that no area of this province would be without needed hospital care, the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) accepted this responsibility.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That is where you are going wrong.

Mr. Villeneuve: Those areas directly affected find it very hard to accept, and this is understandable. But when you are faced with spiralling costs beyond our capacity to pay, a responsible minister must make decisions and sound government administration is necessary.

The opposition is raising from day to day as many personal, bad news stories as their researchers can find. I don’t quarrel with their right to do that, although it would not be the way I would choose to seek improvement in systems or programmes which warranted improvement.

I was recently hospitalized for a period of time. While in the hospital I received great care from a very competent, highly trained medical staff. Modern medical equipment had an important role in assisting with my recuperation. Intensive medical care of this type is very expensive. I was fortunate that this province not only provided the tremendous medical facilities but that it also paid for a very substantial portion of the cost of my hospitalization.

Mr. Riddell: You were fortunate that your hospital was there.

Mr. Villeneuve: I know of hundreds of other cases where lives have been saved, where premature babies have been given a real chance at life and where old people have been nursed back to health and always they have done so without risk of personal financial debt or setback.

We all know that it isn’t that way across the border, in the richest nation in the world. We all know that there was a time when it wasn’t that way even here in Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: It is a federal programme; it always has been. Paul Martin started it and Mike Pearson finished it.

Mr. Villeneuve: So when I see my Minister of Health making cuts -- painful and difficult cuts --

Mr. Foulds: Incisions, you might say.

Mr. Villeneuve: -- to keep the system affordable and the standards high, I say to you that I understand what he is doing, and so do the people of my riding. They know what he is fighting for and why.

Mr. Nixon: Because it didn’t happen to them.

Mr. Villeneuve: Anyone who has ever had a sick relative, a personal ailment or a hospital stay knows precisely who he is fighting for -- the good people of this great province.

Mr. Samis: Are you going to show the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) the text?

Mr. Villeneuve: This is the fundamental challenge that we face in Ontario today: The capacity to order priorities to avoid redundancies and cut back duplication. It takes courage, stamina and leadership, and this government has it.

I urge my colleagues opposite to claim no monopoly on concern about these cutbacks. But if they choose to remove themselves from understanding the larger issues, the greater needs that a responsible government must move to protect, then I regret that they choose not to see or understand.

Ontario is filled with hardworking people who have themselves had to cut back on luxuries and plans because of the overall fight on inflation and who expect their government to have the courage to do the same. It is an Ontario that is prepared to pay tax dollars to help those who are truly in need. I’ve nothing but admiration for my colleague, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor) when he states that we must put an end to helping those who simply choose, with no handicap or reason, not to help themselves.

Mr. Nixon: You have gone too far.

Mr. Warner: You are not serious. You can’t be.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the hon. member has the floor.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is an Ontario that deserves and requires stable, responsible government that can look ahead beyond today’s headlines to tomorrow’s needs and problems and respond with commitment and leadership.

Mes amis, M. l’Orateur, c’est toujours mon privilège de servir un comté fier de son histoire, confiant de son futur et fort commis à l’avenir de l’Ontario.

As a member of the Progressive Conservative Party and of this government, it is more of a privilege than ever to serve at a time of such importance in Ontario. A time when so many of the courageous and important choices for this province’s future are being made by my colleagues in caucus and the cabinet of this government.

As is the case with seatbelts, I do not pretend that all decisions are accepted without debate or disagreement. I would like to suggest to the hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) that design improvements in seatbelts be encouraged to make them easier to get in and out of.

Mr. Kerrio: Put Johnston on the committee.

Mr. Villeneuve: Recent amendments to seat- belt legislation have been favourably received.

In summation, I plead with the hon. Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson), and all clergymen of every faith in my area to join with me on humanitarian grounds and ask her to intercede through her good offices with capable, experienced negotiators to get Domtar paper management, along with labour representatives, back to the bargaining table.

Mr. Samis: They did not ask her. They didn’t single her out.

Mr. Villeneuve: This long strike of 1,200 workers is having a very adverse effect, not only on the city of Cornwall --

Mr. Samis: She has tried to do something about it.

Mr. Villeneuve: -- but the three united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Mr. Samis: They broke off negotiations.

Mr. Villeneuve: It is these very decisions which mark the courage and vitality of the government within which I am pleased to serve and whose Throne Speech I am so pleased to move.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity and, indeed, the honour to rise to second the motion of the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry.

I think it was 15 or 16 years ago that the man who is now the Premier of this province (Mr. Davis) had the honour of moving the address, and my predecessor had the honour of seconding that address. I don’t know if the mover today perhaps aspires after the then mover’s job, but there are plenty of days when I aspire after the present job of the then seconder.

Mr. R. S. Smith: You will have to decide to sun again.

Mr. Grossman: I would hope that all members of this House would join me in thanking Her Honour for her address, which laid down a solid foundation and base for our deliberations and actions over the ensuing months. These months will require the type of hard work, careful deliberation and responsibility which Her Honour has referred to on many occasions. I am sure the members on all sides of the House will join me in assuring her of a very high degree of concentration, responsibility and thought in dealing with the very difficult matters which will be coming before us in this session.

It is by now repetitious and redundant to say that the times demand this level of behaviour and this responsibility, but it nonetheless is a fact. While some would be foolhardy enough to say we are in a state of dire emergency, nonetheless it would be equally foolish to suggest that the past does not slope towards that state unless a combined effort is made, each being guided according to his or her own conscience to legislate and deliberate fairly, judiciously and properly -- hopefully after the cameras are gone -- without partisan considerations; notwithstanding tile ever- present spectre of an early election.

[3:30]

The tendency to legislate in order to get re-elected -- or, in the case of this Legislature, elected -- is a tendency which has never been one fraught with dignity, honour or even a shred of respectability. At this point in time, efforts along that vein would be treasonous and a total abrogation in all respects of the mandate with which we have been sent to this minority parliament. I hope that we will succeed in jointly mounting the necessary battle over the ensuing months regardless of the decisions which result in order that our responsibilities be met.

It is trite but also equally true to say that the time call for restraint. Anyone who has sat in this assembly, either on the floor or in the galleries, cannot be unaware of the seriousness of this statement. Anyone who has glanced at the front pages of our newspapers or caught the slightest portion of the smallest newscast cannot help but be aware of the seriousness of the problem. Certainly, anyone who has spent even a few minutes watching the deliberations of our select committee studying Hydro’s rates for 1976, cannot help but have a deep appreciation of the enormity of our task.

At that committee, we have seen the basic assumptions upon which our world-leading hydro-electric system has been based come under severe scrutiny and review. At the beginning, we acted with an eye on the economic factors and the enormous costs of hydro-electric power. As time went on and the pressure of events changed, it became very clear over the short ensuing months thereafter that rather than just keeping an eye on our economic situation, we, like other bodies of this Legislature and this government, were going to have to be governed and controlled by the economic facts of life.

Ontario Hydro itself is now reassessing its entire concept of simply meeting demand by providing power and doing so at cost. It is no longer a simple assessment of the demand of the public of Ontario for power and a simple determination of how we will meet that demand. The starting point, it appears, will now be the availability of money, our access to capital markets, our ability to borrow, our ability to support that borrowing and the ability of the public to bear the rate.

The bottom line of that equation is the amount of money that Hydro will have available to it to provide power, and from that point we will obviously be moving to determine how much power we can provide for that amount of money, and then assess what we must do about adjusting demand to meet that supply of power rather than adjusting, as we historically have, our financial and other resources simply to meet demand.

Demand for electrical power will have to be like the demand for every service, and that is, it will have to meet the supply we can afford to produce. Anyone who has sat and listened to our committee must have been speechless to hear us discuss, just this past week, the possibilities of brownouts and blackouts as possible alternatives as soon as 1981 or 1982.

Mr. Ruston: Closing plants.

Mr. Grossman: We are convinced that there are ways to avoid that, but let’s consider the reality of even approaching those two alternatives as, in fact, alternatives. For the first time, we are assessing those as alternatives and it’s shocking and frightful to have to do that. It is an eye-opener even to veterans of parliamentary dollars to begin to deal with the direction issued to Ontario Hydro to strip $500 million from its borrowings in each of the next three years; $500 million.

Those dollars are large dollars even here, even to those persons who are daily in the business of dealing with global dollars and global terms, and so the question that this assembly must face is surely one of sorting out priorities and choices. We are going to do what I suppose we should have begun to do some time ago and that is more carefully rank our needs and demands, having determined that we can no longer simply be slaves to our demands, our feelings and our wants.

Our emphasis will now shift from providing what is demanded and what we would just like to allow as legislators and good governors -- shift to an emphasis of meeting immediate needs and only where and if those needs are established, and for those who are in need only. Our responsibility is not just economic but also sound financial management. And sound financial management requires a careful reassessment of our priorities. Not only do we and should we demand it in this Legislature but our poor taxpayers, the ones who are paying the dollars, which is sometimes forgotten across the floor, demand it.

It seems to me that there is finally some appreciation, not only in this House but in all Houses in all provinces and in all Parliaments, that the days of wine and roses are over for the time being. There is finally some appreciation that someone pays for medical services, that someone pays to build the luxurious institutions and that someone pays the salaries that it takes to support government. It’s even a fact that someone pays for the social and human services that so many people, quite rightly, have come to rely upon.

Mr. Ferrier: What about the taxes on the corporate sector?

Mr. Grossman: It’s not just enough to say: “Well, that’s okay, go tax the big corporations.” When you start to tax those big corporations and then the corporations face some difficulties and lay some people off, who is the first to scream? The package of programmes set out by the Lieutenant Governor indicates a mixture of those concerns.

Mr. Warner: They pay less income tax than we do.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: The package indicates a careful awareness of those areas --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick has the floor. Would you give him courtesy?

Mr. Makarchuk: The poor banks are really starving this year, aren’t they? They are going broke.

Mr. Grossman: It is funny what happens when you just mention the NDP bogey about tax the big corporations.

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: Suddenly a very quiet Legislature gets angry.

Mr. Makarchuk: How are the banks doing this year?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Grossman: The package indicates a careful awareness of those areas in which an increase of dollars can assist those who from time to lime may be defenceless against the onslaught of inflation or recession or both. We have a package which can ensure that human, social and public services, while stripped to the bone, are not in jeopardy.

This province has been able to create an extremely high level of social, human and public services, one that stands the test of any administration of any party of any jurisdiction in North America. These high standards have created reliances and dependability which are otherwise sometimes not so desirable.

Mr. Warner: Tell that to the asbestos workers.

Mr. Grossman: But this is one of the difficulties one faces when one tries to do everything one wants to, wishes to and likes to do. It’s a difficult trick to readjust this but one which this government is responsible enough to try to accomplish, that is, to maintain the same level of human and public service by seeing that fat is stripped and where abuses exist they’re caught and eliminated.

Mr. Warner: Tell that to the Children’s Aid Societies.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Grossman: All the painting that the opposition will seek to do of this administration as being right wing or redneck won’t work.

Mr. Makarchuk: You’re taking it out on the children; that’s what you’re doing.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Warner: Tell that to the Children’s Aid Societies, go ahead.

Mr. Makarchuk: You’re taking it out on the kids.

Mr. Grossman: Over there you can’t tell the difference between redneckism and responsibility. A careful assessment of our choices and priorities --

Mr. Warner: Who has been running the province for 30 years?

Mr. Grossman: -- listen to that one -- a careful assessment of our choices and priorities -- do you know what that means? -- a re-evaluation of the programme bit by bit beneficiary by beneficiary --

Mr. Good: That means your dad bungled it when he was here.

Mr. Grossman: None of this touches any of his old ministries -- ministry by ministry, municipality by municipality, will be required, in order to strip the system down to where it’s providing and maintaining that necessary, but only necessary, amount of social and public service. This is something that Her Majesty’s loyal opposition find difficult to understand.

Mr. Warner: Difficult to accept.

Mr. Grossman: More efficient dollars don’t mean less human or effective dollars.

Mr. Makarchuk: Tell that to the Children’s Aid Societies.

Mr. Warner: Tell that to the Children’s Aid too.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Warner: A three per cent increase.

Mr. Grossman: So the question is this, is it possible to accomplish the restraint without one iota of loss in necessary social services, in necessary, needed human services?

Mr. Wildman: Municipalities are dependent on the property tax.

Mr. Grossman: No riding will be a better judge of that than St. Andrew-St. Patrick. No one, I might add, can better attest to the fact that the programme is being implemented without the slightest nod to partisan considerations or politics than I can.

I might say that when I called the minister, as I did when I found out about the closing in my riding --

Mr. Ferrier: The minister knows you are in his party.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: -- I didn’t mention for a moment the fact that we were in the same party, the fact that I hold my seat by 440 votes.

Mr. Foulds: Perhaps you should have.

Mr. Grossman: What I did was I discussed the facts; I reviewed the figures. I attempted to show him that his ministry’s calculations were wrong, and I attempted to convince him.

Mr. Wildman: He doesn’t listen to facts and figures.

Mr. Grossman: -- that the social and human cost was so great that the hospital ought not be closed.

Mr. Ferrier: Are you saying the minister’s computer is wrong?

Mr. Warner: You support his closing?

Mr. Grossman: But not for a moment did I suggest that the fact we are in the same party should have any bearing whatsoever on his decision.

Mr. Warner: You support the closing then?

Mr. Grossman: So I can attest and he will attest at first hand not only to the impartiality of the restraint programmes --

Mr. Ferrier: It’s more important for some than it is for others.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would you extend courtesy to the speaker? The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, please.

Mr. Nixon: He is making out very well.

Mr. Grossman: They will, so long as I don’t hurt them over there.

Mr. Warner: Do you support the closing of Doctors Hospital?

Mr. Grossman: We will get to it and we will talk about how your party supports the closing, if you will just sit tight. We will get to it and it will be worth waiting for.

Mr. Warner: I hope so.

Mr. Nixon: That’ll be quite a story.

Mr. Grossman: My riding maintains a vast number of those types of social service outlets which have grown up over the last 10 or 15 years -- under Progressive Conservative administration I might add -- which social agencies have become in some cases the very core and root of their communities.

To mention a few: St. Christopher’s House; University Settlement; St. Stephen’s; St. Alban’s Boys’ Club; the Chinese Dramatic Society; COSTI; the Learning Resources Centre; and so on. All of these and many more have become so significant in their own work that they have become, in some cases, an integral part of the everyday life and wellbeing of many of our residents.

Many of these residents, in spite of the fact that they live in downtown Toronto, in spite of the fact that they belong to unions, in spite of the fact that they belong to that group of people who our government is, from time to time, alleged to have no concern for, continue to vote Progressive Conservative.

Mr. Foulds: As of last Sept 18.

Mr. Grossman: In case my friends over there are rubbing their hands in glee, let me tell them that whether I choose to stand or not they will continue to vote Progressive Conservative in St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Mr. Warner: Do you want to bet?

Mr. Foulds: Why don’t you?

Mr. Shore: Is this your resignation speech?

Mr. Grossman: I look at my own responsibility, as the representative of persons using those social agencies, to see that there is not one iota of loss in any of these necessary services. Surely this is the responsibility and task of all members, from all constituencies? That is to scrutinize, examine, dissect and analyse the restraint programme as it applies riding by riding across the board to see that inequities are avoided and to see that avoidable harm is avoided.

The types of facilities I have referred to provide a wide range of community service. I would like to deal specifically with some of them since those institutions which serve the public in downtown Toronto have come to form such an important

part in the day-today life of the various neighbourhoods.

There is extensive community development work wherein residents and citizens are made aware of such things as existing housing standards, their rights and abilities to improve their neighbourhoods -- I might add with extensive provincial funding -- and the availability of services to the neighbourhood and individual citizens. The whole question of delivery of services to the community is one which is fraught with problems and red tape, and the availability of those services does not mean that those who most need those services know how to exercise their right to ask for and receive that assistance.

[3:45]

Secondly, in the general area of social services, these centres assist and encourage personal, family and individual responsibility for meeting their own needs. I can’t continue to refer to some of these institutions with their extensive social contribution without noting the fact that not only do these institutions receive a large amount of aid from the provincial government and the federal government and the United Way, but they also get a great deal of support -- large support -- from the big corporations.

In many instances, particularly during this period of restraint, the big corporations are the ones that will help keep some of these institutions going. These are not institutions which ought to or should create reliance upon themselves per se, but which should encourage the individual to be aware and use the existing facilities, so that those who cannot acquire them on their own, with their own dollars, will motivate themselves to use the facilities which this government and other governments have made available to them.

There are, of course, extensive daycare centres, more properly referred to, I would think, as child development centres in many cases. That proper designation speaks for itself with regard to their importance in the communities. They’re not luxuries, they’re not baby-sitting services, they’re not drop-off centres. They are child development centres.

There are less important services than the daycare centres, but to some that are affected by these programmes they are integral. There are music schools, for example, running out of places like the University Settlement House, which in some cases not only make instruments available on loan to those who can’t afford to buy or rent instruments, but in many cases they also provide practice facilities, for example use of a piano. Even more important, some of these institutions specialize in giving music lessons to those with behavioural or emotional problems.

Fifth, there is the whole area of recreational fulfillment of leisure time. This includes arts and crafts, gymnasium equipment availability and the provision of pools and hockey rinks and so on. The fulfilment of leisure time is certainly not a frill and can’t be treated as such. Of course, there are the extensive interpreting services which are available throughout downtown Toronto to various of the institutions; these form a self-descriptive, important facility in filling a need.

This describes some of the package covering what can be done with selective money. The value and importance of these programmes are hard to estimate. After all, we can measure our dollar savings simply; it is a matter of how many dollars have we saved? But we can’t measure the value of human services and the importance of those facilities in the same way. They are measureless. If we are to err in implementing restraints, we should certainly err on the human side, not on the financial side.

Some of the criteria we must surely assess are: Is it developing mature adults with socially acceptable goals and desires? Is it redirecting someone who may otherwise become misdirected? Is it filling time -- leisure time -- that might otherwise have been filled carelessly? Is it fulfilling emotional needs not met in the family unit? Is it teaching about life by thought and example rather than by mistake? Is it assisting a family to develop itself in a healthy way? Is it assisting an individual to be an individual? All these criteria cannot be assessed in dollar terms, but only in human terms, and must be weighed carefully against our restraint programme as it is implemented.

Downtown Toronto is in many ways midtown Canada and so the test of our programmes, quite properly, falls upon my riding and my neighbours to the east and west. The values I’ve talked about are not replaceable or purchasable at other places. They are not commodities that we can buy next year rather than this year. A lapse, a delay, a vacuum or a vacancy sometimes creates an abyss out of which some may well never emerge. So, carefully must we watch and scrutinize; to liberate, challenge, anticipate and criticize, in order to make sure that the programmes are implemented without any social or human cost.

The parameters are set; they’re proper and applaudable, but the implementation must be scrutinized and alterable.

In the same vein, we must not play down or write off the problems of municipalities. Their problems are great. It’s only fair however, to point out that they do have some ability to attack, in accordance with the level of services demanded by their own ratepayers and taxpayers. If the ratepayers and taxpayers in an individual municipality demand a certain level of service, they’ll have to be taxed for it. That’s the very basis of local government.

Mr. Wildman: Property tax.

Mr. Grossman: After all, that’s the same criterion that has been placed upon our ministries at Queen’s Park. I might add there was some internal assessment. It wasn’t 10 per cent across the board. It was done carefully; by an analysis, ministry by ministry, of which one could and should bear the load in the next year. So it’s quite fair to say to the municipalities: “Sure, we have created reliances. Sure, we gave you money in years past. But you did live high and well and not very frugally off our largess in years past.” It’s fair and equitable. It’s funny, now that the initial flack is gone and the road show having been closed --

Mr. Foulds: It is not funny at all. It is tragic.

Mr. Grossman: -- how some municipalities have got down to business -- and are now admitting that they’re going to raise do with the lower rate of increase in the mill rate that they went crying about.

Mr. Warner: You haven’t seen the tax bill. Wait until you see the tax bill.

Mr. Grossman: They did it.

Mr. Bullbrook: Are you referring to Darcy as the “road show”?

Mr. Grossman: The municipalities do themselves no credit by simply whimpering and crying at the announcement of a reduction in the increase of transfer payments. First let them put their houses in order and conduct the same type of critically intensive, inward analysis that the provincial ministries have done before they announce they can’t live with the guidelines.

Mr. Shore: Larry, who wrote your speech?

Mr. Grossman: I wrote my own speech.

It’s their duty, it’s their obligation, their responsibility to first exercise every conceivable effort to live within those guidelines. It’s election year for them just as it might be for us, but we bit the bullet here at Queen’s Park; the municipalities don’t like it too much.

Mr. Wildman: Did you bite the bullet?

Mr. Grossman: By crying wolf, the municipalities lend no credibility to the national anti-inflation effort. And if governments don’t lead the way, then how can we expect the taxpayers to follow? This government has led the way; and having led the way, this province can quite properly look to its municipalities to do their share. In turn, the province is setting a scenario within which all Canadians can participate individually in a programme of restraint and the national anti-inflation effort.

Mr. Bullbrook: Has the House bit the bullet with Wintario?

Mr. Grossman: It is with this in mind the Ontario government has opted into the federal anti-inflation programme, notwithstanding opposition bleating. It is precisely that participation which will permit Ontario’s residents to participate in the programme without undue prejudice to their own marketing, wage-earning and competitive positions vis-à-vis the other provinces, and indeed the entire United States; albeit with some prejudice perhaps to the oppositions hopes of getting ejected.

In an effort to make the national programme work, and in an effort to show up what I believe to be a somewhat incomplete federal programme, it is essential that the largest and key economic province in this country join the programme. There’s no marching to the hand and beating your own drum, for if we are out of step with the rest of the country and that programme, we in this province have the singular power to destroy that programme.

So, as in so many other instances and situations, this province will lead the way and come through this crisis, having convinced the taxpayers of this province that our interests have been and will continue to be protected, by doing what we can to bring staggering inflation and recession under control over the next year and a half.

Fortunately, the economy is here to do it. We have created a healthy enough climate, not at nil by accident, to support us through this period of time. Fortunately our employment picture, while unsatisfactory, is better than can be expected; and fortunately, we still maintain the necessary support programmes to help persons through that period of unemployment, at least in a financial way.

Mr. Wildman: Unemployment insurance is federal, not provincial.

Mr. Grossman: Contrary to the picture that the opposition wishes to paint, this is not to say that any amount of unemployment is acceptable or approvable. I reject those arguments that deal with unemployment in terms of numbers and those politicians who may simply qualify their statements about unemployment by saying, “While I don’t mean to be harsh,” and then go on to talk about how much unemployment we will have to live with.

That’s abhorrent. It’s harsh to the person who loses his job and is laid off. All the welfare cheques are not going to give that person the self-respect and support and personal integrity that he needs to raise his family and get himself up in the morning.

Mr. Wildman: Right; he needs a job.

Mr. Grossman: Searching for a job is not finding a job. Maintaining one’s income doesn’t mean one is earning one’s income. Being assured that one’s unemployment is all in the name of the national endeavour is no solace at all. I detest and abhor those who take an attitude that some have to suffer for the sake of many.

While the restraint programme is appropriate and necessary, its application must be so careful, so shrewd, so delicate and so humane that there is not even a minimal effect on those who cannot get through a period of unemployment. That’s our test.

Mr. Grande: That’s rough justice.

Mr. Moffatt: Which is why you want the federal Liberals to do it.

Mr. Grossman: We must not let restraint harm the economy and business and cause layoffs without any thought to re-employment or more efficient employment.

Mr. Wildman: There aren’t any jobs for nurses in the province.

Mr. Grossman: We are getting to your part.

When people are laid off, as surely they will be under the hospital restraint programme, let some real efforts he undertaken to be sure that employment will be picked up by either other levels of government, other ministries or private industry. Let us make sure that the lead time given is appropriate. Let us make sure they are not thrown out in to the cold as statistics in the inflation game, but are adjusted, relocated and otherwise looked after.

I can’t complete my remarks without referring to the singular instance in which I find I must express rather strong disagreement with one particular decision made by the government in the name of restraint, although that decision is still not final.

Mr. Nixon: That’s the one on the not-final list.

Mr. Grossman: That decision, of course, is the recently taken decision to close Doctors Hospital, which is located in my riding.

Mr. Ferrier: It may yet be mandatory. The minister did not pay any attention to our arguments for Northwestern.

Mr. Grossman: The forcefulness of my disagreement with the government is certainly no secret. It is based on two facts, both arising out of my intimate knowledge of the riding as its member and the hospital as its former vice-chairman.

Firstly, it is my firm belief, after many weeks of careful analysis, that although the hospital was being closed in the name of restraint, it is, in fact, a closing which will result in more governmental expenditure, not less.

Interjection.

Mr. Moffatt: Same all over.

Mr. Grossman: I am convinced that the patients formerly treated at Doctors Hospital can’t be picked up by the other hospitals; or that those who can, simply cannot be treated as efficiently or as inexpensively as they are being treated at the Doctors Hospital.

Secondly, I oppose the closure on the basis that the special nature of that hospital makes it so key, so important, to that particular community that its closure, even if it were an inefficient hospital, which it is not, could not be supported. The peculiar nature of the hospital, its staff, its location and its history, is such that it has developed as a very special community which can’t be replaced, either in whole or in part, by parcelling it out to two or three other large teaching institutions. The social cost of the closing, the human cost, is so great, so inhumane, that I would be obliged to oppose the closing even if it did save some money.

I might say that I would oppose that closure even if it were in another riding, if I were as familiar with the statistics as I happen to be in this particular case.

[4:00]

Mr. Reid: Do you want to hear about Clinton and Durham hospitals?

Mr. Grossman: I’m not an expert on the Durham hospital.

Mr. Moffatt: You just need a wealth of statistics.

Mr. Grossman: That might be the case. But as I said earlier, the challenge is thrown out to all members of this assembly to scrutinize the programme and to let the ministry know where the social costs and human costs are great, or where their facts and figures just don’t work. I’ll have plenty more to say during the estimates of the Ministry of Health with regard to that closure.

Ms. Gigantes: That is what we have been doing.

Mr. Foulds: I am glad that you are making this speech before the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. J. R. Smith) makes his apology.

Mr. Grossman: That is great stuff. The NDP was a great support to the Doctors Hospital -- not at all their contribution to the fight on the Doctors Hospital has been predictable and disappointing; but let me tell you what happened. Immediately upon the announcement, in trooped the members for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta) with their Doctors Hospital badges on their lapels. They marched in. The troops came in; all the NDP troops. All their members from downtown Toronto and all their friends on Toronto city council. They suddenly were terribly interested in a hospital that many of them have been fighting with for years and years. Suddenly they were --

Mr. Foulds: Which will now be closed.

Mr. Grossman: I’ll tell you what I’m talking about. The NDP alderman for the area, while I was vice-chairman of the hospital, and while the hospital was trying to acquire land for expansion which would have permitted an earlier construction of a new facility, were fighting the expansion, were fighting the acquisition of land on the basis -- are you ready -- that it would have been an intrusion on College St.

Mr. McClellan: Point of privilege.

Mr. Grossman: There they were --

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the hon. member for Bellwoods has a point of privilege. Would you state it please?

Mr. McClellan: if I understand the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick to say that the member for Bellwoods was involved in attempts to curb the expansion of Doctors Hospital, then that is simply not true. I may have misunderstood the member, but I’d like a clarification.

Hon. Mr. Welch: He didn’t say that.

Mr. Grossman: I know the member is excited. I said his friends on Toronto city council did that; and they don’t deny it because they can’t. I didn’t say the member was involved. In fact, he was never seen or heard of at Doctors Hospital until a couple of months ago when he was elected. So I certainly couldn’t accuse him of that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will continue.

Mr. Foulds: As a matter of fact, nobody has seen or heard of you.

Mr. Grossman: Instead of rolling their troops in to help a threatened group defend itself and prove what I feel to be a very provable case against the closure of the Doctors Hospital, they rolled in instead to collect some support for the NDP. There they were at the meetings organized in downtown Toronto by their NDP friends in the communities. They were saying; “Listen fellows, I know you’re threatened, but what you’ve got to do is join the Clinton hospital and Durham hospital and the Bobcaygeon hospital and fight the entire programme.”

Now, those of us in downtown Toronto, we’re not experts on the Durham hospital. The other hospitals have very adequate representation and their members will speak for them. They’ll be looked after. We are looking after the Doctors Hospital. We are not looking after the Progressive Conservative Party; that’s obvious. But no, what kind of support did we get! Boy, it really hurts, doesn’t it!

Mr. Foulds: Watch what you are doing with that finger.

Mr. Davidson: Just your own riding.

Mr. Grossman: That’s okay.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Grossman: What kind of support did we get from the party of the people? The party that is the only one, it says, that is supposed to care about people. They rolled in and they had so much support for those people that they started to hand out “Coalition Against Cutback” buttons, and say: “Come on, we’ll march on Queen’s Park to support Clinton and Durham and Bobcaygeon. Take your very good Doctors Hospital argument and help us fight the government on the whole programme.”

Mr. Davidson: We will be there.

Mr. Grossman: We don’t need that kind of support in downtown Toronto. We need people who will come in and help us analyse the facts and figures, who will help us prove the argument --

Mr. Ferrier: You present your case over tea and crumpets.

Mr. Grossman: -- in downtown Toronto about the importance of that hospital; we don’t need the NDP rolling in to try and scoop up votes with a group of threatened people.

Mr. Moffatt: You certainly don’t.

Mr. Grossman: It’s the old group. Not only do they roll in and say, “Only the NDP will help you.”

Mr. Laughren: Another paranoid Grossman.

Mr. Grossman: Instead of hanging around looking at figures, helping us sign petitions, what did they do? They ran to Queen’s Park --

Mr. Warner: You lack all logic.

Mr. Grossman: -- and they printed up a delightful little press release talking about Frank Miller spreading death throughout downtown Toronto. That’s what they said in their press release.

Mr. Laughren: Do you see faces in the crowd too?

Mr. Grossman: That’s great stuff. That’s certainly going to help keep the hospital open since it wasn’t a press release issued by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis), I wonder if he really thinks so little of the minister that he would accuse him of spreading death throughout downtown Toronto? Or were you fellows just playing politics? Can we write it off to that? I suppose we can.

Mr. Laughren: Never.

Mr. Foulds: What is your accusation?

Mr. Grossman: We look on it a little more seriously. I took my argument up with facts and figures and will continue to take it up with facts and figures.

Mr. Warner: Are you going to save it?

Mr. Grossman: To compound the felony, they can’t just say, “We disagree with the government’s decision on the Doctors Hospital.” No, no; that is never enough for the socialists in downtown Toronto. They have to go one step further. They have to go in and tell everyone that the decision was not made in spite of the fact that there is an immigrant population but because of the fact there is an immigrant population. Well, that’s right I Do you think it is true? Stand up and say it. Stand up and be counted. Who said it’s true?

Ms. Gigantes: Who said it?

Mr. McClellan: I don’t deny saying that at all.

Mr. Grossman: He said it is true.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. There are far too many interjections; and will the member on his feet direct his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Makarchuk: I think this is rather provocative.

Mr. Grossman: Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, as they are so proud to call themselves, tramped around downtown Toronto looking to assemble votes for themselves. I want to tell you, at every meeting that we have been at in the community in downtown Toronto, the staff of the hospital, the doctors --

Mr. McClellan: Are you closing Doctors Hospital? You are closing Doctors Hospital.

Mr. Grossman: -- and the nurses have been talking about the tactics we will use in proving the ministry’s decision to be wrong. We know we can do it with facts and figures.

Mr. McClellan: Why don’t you do it with your own minister who is closing Doctors Hospital.

Mr. Grossman: Save your heckling for the meetings downtown; it goes over well there.

Mr. Deans: You are missing a great chance to present your facts and figures to the minister.

Mr. Grossman: We do it with facts and figures. At all those meetings, while some of us were on the podium explaining how we were going to make the presentation and seeking for some assistance in making the presentation to the ministry, our friends in the back were handing out leaflets; running through the back sowing the seeds of prejudice and hatred throughout the back. “They did it,” they say, “because you are immigrants.”

Mr. Laughren: Subversion you mean?

Mr. Warner: You will be disappointed with the by-election.

Mr. Grossman: When their turn to speak came up, when the member for Parkdale took the microphone -- he was parachuted in to try and help collect votes in St. Andrew-St. Patrick -- there he was saying: “This is why we have to bring them down. The restraint programme across the board has to be thrown out. Come on and help us defeat the government.” I was saying: “Come on and help us reopen the hospital.” And to their everlasting credit the public meetings even the one started, run and controlled by their NDP friends throughout downtown Toronto, rejected the pleas of the NDP.

Mr. Laughren: The paranoids are chasing you, Larry.

Mr. Grossman: That’s the way you help the Doctors Hospital? You don’t help them. Her Majesty’s loyal opposition says to the threatened minority: “Come on and help us defeat the government. We are not so sure we are going to come down and help you reopen the hospitals. We want your help up here at Queen’s Park.”

Interjections.

Mr. Deans: That’s nonsense.

Mr. Grossman: They rejected it and quite properly.

Ms. Gigantes: What do you know about it?

Mr. Grossman: That’s the way it is. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to tell you what I know about it. I have lived through a lot of elections in downtown Toronto. I know their tactics.

Mr. Foulds: Did you find this speech in the wastepaper basket of the Minister of Correctional Services?

Mr. Grossman: One of the reform aldermen, who has been fighting the expansion of the hospitals and now wears a “Support Doctors Hospital” badge, was the NDP candidate, the Waffle candidate, in 1971 in St. Andrew-St. Patrick. So we have lived with that type of NDP tactic. In that election, I think the allegation was that the Tories had so many canvassers because they were all on government payrolls. I mean how else could we get all those canvassers? Only the NDP has canvassers. Only the NDP knocks on doors three and four times. They can’t understand it.

Mr. Warner: Is this a confession?

Mr. Grossman: We are used to it. That’s how I know what happens in downtown Toronto.

Mr. Deans: I wouldn’t worry about getting into it.

Mr. Grossman: So there you go. That’s how we get the trade union vote in downtown Toronto. The sort of irresponsibility that they have been festering in the heart of this city among threatened people is political garbage.

Mr. Laughren: Use the word subversion. Did the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) write this speech for him?

Mr. Grossman: Some of your supporters consistently fought that hospital. I am convinced, and I hope, that the NDP’s tawdry performance in this tragic episode --

Mr. Makarchuk: The only riding of sanity in downtown Toronto.

Mr. Foulds: Do you feel that you are unsanitary?

Mr. Reid: Did the Minister of Correctional Services have the first choice of which speech to give?

Mr. Grossman: Yes, but he gave it outside the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Grossman: It is the usual stuff, Mr. Speaker. Her Majesty’s loyal opposition sees these people as votes and defines a means of manipulating them to achieve power in Ontario rather than to reopen their hospital; but we will carry on the fight for the Doctors Hospital anyway.

Mr. Deans: That is nonsense. Even you don’t believe that. I don’t know how you can say that.

Mr. Grossman: There is no better witness than I and I certainly believe it. I might add that all those who were at some of the public meetings organized by all the NDP friends down there not only believe it but rejected it. They had their opportunity. I must tell you, at one of the meetings there was handed out --

Mr. Kerrio: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order.

Mr. Kerrio: I am wondering if the member is certain of his direction when he suggests that --

Mr. Kennedy: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Kerrio: Just a moment, just hear this. I wonder, when he refers to the NDP, if he shouldn’t, in fact, be referring to it more specifically. If he is directing those remarks to the NDP, they are the official opposition; we are all members of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition on this side.

Mr. Grossman: Well, I can understand the member’s desire not to be associated with Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, but I would have been happier had Her Majesty’s second opposition supported the Doctors Hospital rather than having its leader say: “I think there is a supportable case for closing the Doctors Hospital

Mr. Angus: If they had supported it, you would have accused them of going after votes.

Mr. Grossman: I would give you a little more attention, but I can always spot my enemies very clearly. It is the fellows in the NDP who suddenly want to be my friends that I can’t back. I can’t take that.

Mr. Deans: Don’t you dare accuse us of that.

Mr. Grossman: I could find a hell of a lot better -- a heck of a lot better -- bedfellows. Even my friend the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) I would rather have as a bedfellow.

Mr. Foulds: I’d get up on that on a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Grossman: Not as much as I would like to have his predecessor; but certainly under no circumstances the NDP. You can relax now, boys.

Simply put, the restraint programme is proper and appropriate. When I oppose it as strongly as I do in one, and only one, of its specifics, I am not just saying: “Do it; but do it to someone else, not me.”

[4:15]

Mr. McClellan: That’s exactly what you said.

Ms. Gigantes: That’s exactly what you said, do it to Durham.

Mr. Wildman: Why are you seconding this government’s Throne Speech?

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, that’s precisely what I did not say. I said specifically --

Mr. Makarchuk: He is provocative, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Tell us which ones should be closed. Give us your list.

Mr. Grossman: You can go back to your offices, the cameras are off; just relax. If you’ll relax, I’ll go on to the rest of my speech and leave you alone.

Mr. Ruston: We thought you were finished.

Mr. Laughren: Which ones would you close?

Mr. Grossman: What I’m saying is do it where it actually saves money.

Mr. Warner: Where?

Mr. Grossman: Do it where there is no enormous counter-weighing social cost.

Mr. Warner: Name one.

Mr. Grossman: Your constituency office is a waste of money. I want to assure the members of this assembly that my objection to one specific is not political posturing done for the sake of my constituents.

Mr. Shore: Is that why you’re resigning?

Mr. Grossman: Sure I’m aware of the situation because it’s in my riding; but I am, as I have stated, equally aware of the situation because I formerly served on the board of that very fine hospital.

Mr. Warner: Try visiting the others.

Mr. Grossman: I can -- well they’ve got members and I hope they’re as effective as I am.

Mr. Bain: I hope not I

Mr. Grossman: I know you do. I can say, without bowing to anyone, that it is certainly a time which tests the mettle and responsibility of all members of this Legislature.

Mr. Deans: Officially.

Mr. Grossman: It is a time that tests the opposition -- Her Majesty’s loyal opposition -- as much as it tests the government. It tests their seriousness, if any; it tests their ability to sacrifice their own desires to seize the reins of office and pits those desires against their responsibilities as members of this assembly and as representatives of the taxpayers of this province.

Mr. Deans: You are the only person I’ve ever heard who had support offered to him and who rejected it.

Mr. Grossman: You should have stopped there: I’m the only person you’ve ever listened to.

Mr. Foulds: Don’t flatter yourself.

Mr. Deans: I doubt that.

Mr. Grossman: I doubt it, too; frankly, I doubt it. I might add, in closing, that my riding will surely hear its share of being asked to tighten the belt on many programmes and projects.

Mr. Foulds: And bite the bullet.

Mr. Grossman: My riding, I hope, will agree to do as all taxpayers will be asked to do, in one form or another, over the next period of time.

As the government undertakes a reassessment of its priorities it does so with quality of government, not quantity, as its model -- certainly not one of the NDP models -- and with job security, employment stability, economic stability and the maintenance of our high level of human and social services as chief among its goals.

The economic goals are subject to assessment, review and measurement; the social goals are harder. Purchased with raw dollars they are implemented and tested only through understanding, devotion of purpose, commitment, spirit and a belief in the equity and equality of the system.

Daycare centres are not like highways. Children’s aid societies are not hobbies for the rich.

Mr. Warner: Tell that to the Treasurer.

Mr. Grossman: Medical treatment facilities are not placebos. Community centres are not just gymnasia; and multicultural programmes are not token bows to immigrants. The whole package -- all of these social, really human goals -- is more than just a goal. They are needs; they are essential. They are the source of our strength today and the kernel of our prosperity tomorrow.

Mr. Laughren: Now for the bad news.

Mr. Grossman: If we apply ourselves to the provision of those items -- quality not quantity -- and at the same time keep the economy one in which price, wage, jobs and employment security and stability are the cornerstones, then our province can be the healthy province it is today; healthy both in financial terms and, equally important, social terms.

We, on this side of the House, won’t permit Her Majesty’s loyal opposition or any opposition to paint this government as one which is trying to do anything but find more efficient dollars and spend them more efficiently. We will continue to see that they’re spent as extraordinarily humanely and with as much social benefit as has been the case in the past.

Mr. Laughren: What’s your view on the Ontario Economic Council?

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in seconding the motion for the adoption of the Speech from the Throne, I invite and expect my colleagues in the assembly to join me in scrutinizing the restraint programme, so that we can accomplish the double goal of restraint and progress without social or financial cost.

Mr. McClellan: Like your double talk.

Mr. Deans moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

KIRKLAND LAKE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved second reading of Bill 2,

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

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, Mr. Speaker, provided that my hon. colleague, the member for Sarnia, doesn’t object to my making an opening statement and then perhaps having a few words of rebuttal to close the debate.

Mr. Bullbrook: Not at all, not at all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Thank you. I like to get his assurance ahead of time.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 2 is

an Act respecting the Kirkland Lake Board of Education in the dispute between it and its secondary school teachers concerning the renewal of their contract which expired on Aug. 31, 1975. The purpose of the bill is to bring an end to this dispute which has been going on; and the part of the dispute that this bill brings to an end is the strike which has been in effect for 44 days, as of today.

I would like to review very briefly for the House some of the events that led np to the action that we are taking today. Negotiations started on April 9, 1975 -- about 11 months ago, and five months before the contract of the secondary school teachers employed by the Kirkland Lake board expired in August. Meetings were held, and as far as I can ascertain, and I certainly have no reason to believe to the contrary, negotiations continued in good faith.

Of course, as with other disputes, in the interval Bill 100 was passed by this House and became law and became operative in this province. As a result of that and since no contract was in effect on Aug. 31 -- or in effect Sept. 1, 1975, in fact -- the provisions of Bill 100 that provided for the appointment of a fact-finder took effect. On Sept. 11 a fact-finder, Mr. Grant Gillespie, was appointed to study, listen to comments about and make a report concerning that dispute. This report was presented and it was made public on Oct. 30.

Subsequent to the report being made public, and no negotiated settlement of the dispute being arrived at, the Education Relations Commission appointed Mr. Vic Pathe as a mediator, and he met with the parties on numerous occasions between Nov. 24 and Jan. 7, 1976, in an attempt to assist them to bring about a negotiated settlement.

However, no settlement was arrived at and on Jan. 12, 1976, after a vote, again under the ground rules provided for by Bill 100, a strike began of the secondary school teachers against the Kirkland Lake Board of Education. While that strike has been in effect, Mr. Pathe has continued to be available for mediation; and has indeed been meeting with the parties on certain occasions during the course of the strike, this at the direction of the Ontario Education Relations Commission.

That then brings up down to March; and as we moved into the month of March it began to appear that we had here an insoluble situation. On March 1, I received a letter from the director of education of the Kirkland Lake board, indicating that he and the board were very concerned for the programmes of the students under their jurisdiction. On March 3, I asked the Education Relations Commission, through a letter, to assess whether the students’ programmes in this jurisdiction were now in jeopardy.

As a result of that letter and the deliberations of the Education Relations Commission, it was decided to hold a public hearing in Kirkland Lake on March 6, last Saturday. At that time, the chairman of the commission, Mr. Owen Shime, held a hearing and listened to the parties concerned and to arguments concerning the pupils’ programmes and whether they were in jeopardy and indeed the whole matter of whether this dispute could be settled or was likely to be settled in the very near future through negotiations. In other words, could a mediated settlement be arrived at in a reasonably short length of time?

I think it is fair to say that the Education Relations Commission, as they reported to me, believed that there was not too much difference between the parties and that perhaps, with a little encouragement, the parties might arrive at a negotiated settlement.

As I’ve said many times in this House, and I will say it again, the preferable way to have these disputes settled, for all concerned, is through a negotiated settlement -- a settlement that is agreeable to both parties, that allows a spirit or atmosphere of the highest accord to be brought back to the schools where there have been certain feelings built up because of a strike and because of contract negotiations. So certainly a negotiated settlement is the preferable way to have a dispute such as this, and indeed all disputes, settled.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would permit a question so we can understand the chronology here. The minister mentioned that the ERC still felt a negotiated settlement could take place. At what time was that? Could he give us the latest date?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, after the hearing on Saturday, t