Ontario Hansard — 12 April 1976 (30th Parliament, 3rd Session)

1976-04-12

Ontario — Debates (Hansard)

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

April 12, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

UNITED ASBESTOS PLANT

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

UNITED ASBESTOS PLANT

LAND FREEZE APPEALS

DISPENSING FEES

SALE OF FIREARMS

ERC CHAIRMAN’S APPOINTMENT

STATEMENTS BY FORMER TREASURER

RENT INCREASES

HIRING OF CANADIAN PERSONNEL BY UNIVERSITIES

NON-RETURNABLE CONTAINERS

KIRKLAND LAKE AREA BUILDING FREEZE

LAND USE

COMMERCIAL FISHING REGULATIONS

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

TOWNSHIP OF BOSANQUET ACT

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ACT

TOWNSHIP OF WEST CARLETON ACT

WELLAND-PORT COLBORNE AIRPORT ACT

INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL LIBRARIANS OF ONTARIO ACT

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

DOVERCOURT BAPTIST FOUNDATION ACT

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

SUCCESSION DUTY AMENDMENT ACT

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME AMENDMENT ACT

CENTRAL ALGOMA BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE ACT

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR: ABORTION REFERRAL REGISTRATION ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

UNITED ASBESTOS PLANT

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, members of the Legislature will recall that about two weeks ago, accompanied by my deputy minister and a number of senior civil servants from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Natural Resources, I made a surprise visit to the United Asbestos plant at Matachewan. At that time, we did a very careful examination of the plant itself. Surveys were taken of the air quality.

We had indications from previous samples that the levels of asbestos in the air were at an unacceptable level. We gave instructions to the plant at that particular time that the 50-odd men who were working in the mill there, must wear masks and that smoking was prohibited as of that moment on. Since that time and that particular moment, you’ll recall, Mr. Speaker, I indicated that a regular surveillance would be undertaken by the Ministry of Health and my own ministry.

You are aware, sir, as other members of the Legislature are, that there are 180-odd jobs there and that the economic base for the town of Matachewan is closely connected to this particular asbestos development. However, the health of the miners and the workers in our mines and in the industries of this province are far more important to this government.

The tests reported to me this morning following a sample survey taken last week indicate things are getting progressively worse. In fact, the report reaching me just about two hours ago indicates the levels are unacceptable. There is an increase in the amount of fibre in the air.

Therefore, an instruction has gone out as of about an hour ago, on the instruction of my deputy minister and staff and in consultation with the Ministry of Health, that the mine cease operations immediately -- that the operators close up, they clean up, and they seal up before starting up. I also indicated to the mine and will be indicating to the mine officials that the mining division of my particular ministry will be available to assist and to advise the company in its technical problems to resolve the situation and, of course, to meet the health standards that have been set by the Ministry of Health.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as mentioned in this House a few days ago by the acting Minister of Health (B. Stephenson), and concurrent with a commitment made by the Minister of Health, the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), I was pleased to have an opportunity to review most carefully the appeal briefs submitted with respect to the scheduled closure of Clinton Public Hospital, Durham Memorial Hospital, Willett Hospital in Paris and Doctors Hospital in Toronto.

In terms of local community interest and convenience, the briefs made what must be considered meaningful cases for a careful consideration both by the Ministry of Health and the government as a whole.

The role of the local provincial members of the Legislature, of all political affiliations, is, I believe, also worthy of note with respect to the re-evaluation. In most cases, the local member worked diligently with the local hospital board and concerned groups in the development of the brief and the appeal.

The decision to reduce duplicated active treatment hospital beds and orient our system of health service delivery toward both an improvement of quality and a more appropriate allocation of health resources, is a policy decision which remains in the best long-term interest of the people of Ontario. The degree of dedication which the hon. Minister of Health applied to implementing this commitment in a fair, humane and frank fashion, is a tribute not only to his skill and ongoing capacity as an elected public servant, but to his humanity and sense of concern as an individual.

The decisions which I am announcing now have, of course, been reviewed most carefully by the acting Minister of Health and by the Minister of Health himself.

With respect to Willett Hospital in Paris, it will cease operating as an acute general hospital on June 1. It will, however, remain open as an ambulatory care centre, with full primary care capacity, accommodating physicians’ offices, laboratory and minor surgical facilities, and radiological facilities. The Willett Hospital will also be permitted to provide chronic care service at its present chronic care capacity, awaiting the report of the local committee looking into the long-term-care needs of the community.

Clinton Public Hospital will also close as an acute treatment facility on June 1. In recognition of the specific local concerns made clear during the appeal procedure, Clinton Public Hospital will be allowed to maintain the status of an ambulatory primary care facility after June 1, with x-ray, lab, and minor surgical capacity -- along with physicians’ offices on the premises.

At Durham Memorial, the full ambulatory care status will also apply after June 1, when it too will cease operation as an acute treatment facility.

Similarly, here in Toronto, Mr. Speaker, Doctors Hospital will also move from being an acute treatment hospital on June 1. It will, however, be allowed to provide its particular service to the ethnic and core community of the city as an ambulatory care facility with laboratory, minor surgery and x-ray capacity. Doctors’ offices will also continue to be located in the hospital, as is the case in the other institutions I have mentioned.

In all cases, these community ambulatory facilities will be linked by ambulance to hospitals nearby. The important role played within the communities by each of these facilities will continue in every sense, excepting the acute active treatment function. In all cases the commitment of this government to find opportunities for those personnel who may be displaced will manifest itself in three concrete ways.

The government will negotiate transfer costs for those who find opportunity elsewhere in this province. The government continues to seek new opportunities through working groups, such as the Evans committee now working on the placement of staff members of Doctors Hospital. The government will expect neighbouring hospitals to be responsive with respect to clinic and admitting rights for physicians displaced by a hospital closing.

Similarly, officials of the Ministry of Health will begin to work immediately to organize each of the four institutions for the transition to primary care and emergency services during the wind-down period. The ministry will ensure the full transfer of any and all caseloads before the June 1 date.

The government heard the appeals in good faith. The decisions announced today are consistent with both the broad policy goals of the government with respect to health service improvements and the need for government to remain sensitive to local concerns and needs which are very often very particular indeed. I am pleased, as Premier, to be associated with these decisions and to associate my government with the fundamental sensitivity and fairness I believe they represent.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Ms. Sandeman: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: On March 18 I brought to your attention an incident during which several of my constituents and those of other members were unable to gain access to us and you promised to check into that. Would you be able to give us any reason for what happened on that day?

Mr. Speaker: I did inquire and I found nothing particularly irregular. There was a large crowd outside, if the hon. member will recall. There were two or three groups and, as quickly as possible, the people were accommodated. I am not sure whether your people were with the larger group or came individually. It was the larger group which was dealt with. They were taken into each of the caucus offices, because that was the arrangement under which they were to meet.

I am sorry if your people were individuals rather than part of the group, but I can tell you the staff was busy getting the larger group either directly to the members or to the caucus offices respectively. If they weren’t part of the group, your people should have been allowed in without any question and that instruction, of course, is very clear to the security staff. There is no question about that.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Without in any way questioning what you have said, surely when a member of the assembly raises an important point of privilege with respect to the access to him or her of his or her constituents, it is important that the Speaker consult with the member as to what exactly did take place in the circumstances and submit a formal report to the assembly, rather than the Speaker’s having to ho asked just what the situation was and then giving a totally inadequate reply, with great respect.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much for your advice. I probably was negligent in that. It was my understanding, though, that the group was a part of the larger group and I have just determined now that that was not true. If I transgressed, I am sorry and I will not let that happen again.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Lewis: On a point of privilege -- rather unrelated and very brief, Mr. Speaker, if I may: As one of the people who was in the lockup for the budget through until 8 o’clock, when only with difficulty were we allowed to escape at all, I would like the Speaker to take a look at the behaviour that was accorded the manager of the media studio, Mr.

Andrew StuParick, who was in the lockup, left at 7:30 p.m. -- a privilege given to no one else; media representatives or politicians in that lockup -- and wandered about freely for fully half an hour prior to the budget with all of the information which had been shared through the course of the day. In no sense did he use it inappropriately, but clearly it called into question the very special status accorded this one person in comparison or contrast with all those who otherwise participated.

Since this is the second time that members of the media and the Legislature have been concerned about the privileged position of those who run the media studio, I would ask the Speaker to take a good look at it and report to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

[2:15]

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, may I please reply to the statement or request just made by the Leader of the Opposition? It is just this, that Mr. StuParick is sworn.

Mr. Lewis: Whether Mr. StuParick swears or not is irrelevant, but I must say, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Singer: Four-letter words or longer?

Mr. Lewis: -- to the point of privilege I raised, the members of the media are also forced to sign a statement saying they will not reveal the information until 8 o’clock. The assumption, therefore, is that somehow Mr. Andrew StuParick is more honourable in his behaviour. He may be as honourable. He is certainly not more so.

Mr. Norton: The member for Scarborough West has already established how he can be trusted with confidential information.

Mr. Lewis: Can I ask a question now? Now is a bad time to feel unhappy about it, Keith.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition with his questions please.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Lewis: A question first, if I may, of the Premier: Can he indicate, in relation to the hospital announcement which he made, (

a) how many employees these ambulatory care units at Willet, Clinton and Durham are likely to involve; (

b) will Willett be allowed to extend beyond -- I guess it must have had chronic care beds for around 25 or 26 when it was closed down -- will it be able to extend beyond that if the Brant county study suggests it should; and (

c) since the Premier is allowing Doctors Hospital to do minor surgery, will he allow it a small acute patient unit as part of the redefinition?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, while I have met personally with all of these groups and have some degree of technical knowledge, apart from the general principles that have been established, I would suggest that perhaps the more specific information would be handled by the acting Minister of Health who, I think, could answer more precisely, if that would be appropriate.

Mr. Lewis: Can I refer that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: Did the minister recall -- I am sorry that I didn’t do that --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I remember all but the first question.

On the second question regarding Willett Hospital, we must await the long-term-care study for the Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk area and when that study is available to us, which I imagine will be late summer or early fall, we shall know what the bed requirement is for chronic beds in that area. If there is an increased requirement in that area, it will most certainly be considered but at the moment it will be the same number of chronic care beds which it has at the present time.

The answer to the third question, regarding the minor surgical units at Doctors Hospital, is no.

Mr. Lewis: The first part was about employment; how many people will be involved?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, I believe --

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: -- the member for Brantford --

Mr. Lewis: Can the minister answer the first part of the question?

Mr. Speaker: Is there any further answer?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am sorry but I cannot give definitive figures at the moment. This is one of the areas we are working on.

Mr. Riddell: A supplementary: As Clinton Hospital is the only one outside of London which has a dialysis unit, will it be allowed to continue the use of that dialysis unit?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, since an inpatient dialysis unit requires inpatient beds, the dialysis unit for inpatients will have to be moved. It is to be hoped that we will be able to develop an outpatient dialysis capability as well; at least, I should say, a home capability.

Mr. Makarchuk: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: Is the minister aware that the chronic care study committee has indicated to the Ministry of Health that at this time there is a need for something between 55 and 57 chronic beds which could be utilized and which could be put into the Willett Hospital?

Hon. B. Stephenson: At the moment I gather that although this figure has been stated, this is not exact. The long-term study which is being done, I think will be reporting within a reasonable period of time. Certainly if there is emergency need for chronic care beds, some beds might be utilized for that, but I think the future of that hospital depends upon the results of that long-term study.

Mr. Makarchuk: One additional supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Makarchuk: If a definite need is demonstrated immediately, is the minister prepared to relent and allow the extra beds which may become available in the Paris hospital to be used for chronic care?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, we are always prepared to be reasonable and to assess the situation as it arises

Mr. Lewis: A related but perhaps separate question: Now that the minister has worked this out with such care and precision, I assume she can give to the Legislature today the changed estimates of cost saving which are involved for Willett, Durham, Clinton and Doctors hospitals, given the inclusion of ambulatory and other facilities?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows very specifically, that is impossible --

Mr. Lewis: Why?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- because the decisions regarding the eventual status of the four hospitals mentioned have not been totally decided. It will depend upon the input from the local people first before we can, in fact, establish what the savings will be. We can certainly, within a short period of time, give the members the wind-down costs for the institutions as active treatment hospitals. The cost of providing the services which are being suggested and have been suggested to the people in the area is something which we cannot estimate until they tell us what they hope to do with our cooperation.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, could I try it again; take another run at it? How can, specifically, a system of ambulatory care services be provided in these hospitals without having made an estimate, service by service, of the costs to the government if these things should proceed, as the minister surely knows they will? And why won’t the minister share those figures with us, now that she has made the announcement?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, since the funding mechanism is different, for one thing, since we do not as yet know the scope of the services which will be provided in each of the places --

Mr. Lewis: She is just too embarrassed to show how little money the government is saving.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Oh, that is not the answer at all, Mr. Speaker. There will be, in fact, a shift from active treatment care -- which is what we have been hoping to achieve -- to ambulatory care, which will provide more services for more people more economically than can be provided through the active treatment mechanism.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: This ambulatory care which will be operated at these hospitals, is this intended to be in the form of physicians’ private practices, who will now locate within the hospitals, or is it to be billed on a yearly budget as part of a hospital service? How will the billing actually take place? Will OHIP be billing this through private physicians, or is this a service to be organized centrally?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that is a decision which will be made when, in fact, the local group and the group from the Ministry of Health --

Mr. Lewis: This is too much. Just too much.

Mr. Reid: Did you make this up on your way here? What do all those planners do?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We will allow a supplementary. The member for Bellwoods.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, how many supplementaries? Is this a debate?

Mr. McClellan: Since the minister is obviously waiting to finalize plans until she has had input from the local communities, is she prepared in the case of Doctors Hospital to pursue the suggestion that was made, I believe in the brief, that a community task force be established to consist of hospital, community, ministry and city representatives to have a look at the overall health needs in the community service by Doctors Hospital?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is our intention.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary; the member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: In addition to the role outlined for Clinton Public Hospital, has the ministry done any study with respect to a possible role for that hospital insofar as a chronic hospital is concerned?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker.

UNITED ASBESTOS PLANT

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, to the Minister of Natural Resources, applauding the decision that was made and that he announced today: Can he indicate to the House whether he will attempt to waive the waiting period for unemployment insurance to which the workers at Matachewan would normally be entitled; and whether, if that period can’t be waived, he will negotiate, with the company, continued payment for the workers during what one hopes will be the cleanup rather than permanent close-down, or, alternatively, the difference in income between unemployment insurance and what their wages would otherwise have been had the company conformed to government directives in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as I’m sure the hon. member is aware, the unemployment insurance aspect, of course, is of a federal nature; it is something that we don’t get involved in. I’ve asked my staff, when they do meet with the company itself, that the aspect of continued wages is one area that they look at very carefully.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Might the minister use the exceptional powers of a provincial government to speak to the Unemployment Insurance Commission about this exceptional situation, and might he also report to the House the results of his discussions over wages?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: On behalf of the workers in Matachewan, I would be glad to assist in every way possible. I will certainly follow up the Leader of the Opposition’s suggestion.

LAND FREEZE APPEALS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the hon. Minister of Housing, if I may: What exactly does he have in mind by way of amending legislation to deal with the court’s decision on the various land freezes around Ontario, apparently having had the provincial legislation declared illegal or inapplicable as it involved the Orangeville decision? Where does the retroactivity enter, if it does, or does the minister intend to apply new freezes or new orders across the province to the areas that might now be subject to litigation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The intention is that an amendment will be introduced that would strengthen that particular

section of the Act so that the situation we have experienced, as the result of the court case involving the Orangeville property, would not recur, and that existing orders would, in fact, be valid as they now exist on the various parts of the province.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, can the minister explain how he makes the previous orders valid retroactively, and what he might do with the many, many applications which, I gather, are now pending to challenge the law, in light of the amendment which he wants to bring in? I just don’t understand the process. When is the minister bringing it in?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: First of all, I don’t know that we can say there are a number of applications pending.

Mr. Lewis: I have heard of a number of cases that are coming up.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member has a distinct advantage. I have not heard of those particular pending applications.

Mr. MacDonald: Did you read the morning Sun?

Mr. Makarchuk: We will put you on the mailing list for the brown paper bags.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You people don’t even support it.

Mr. Lewis: It is the procedure that you use.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: With the greatest respect, the member for Brantford receives an awful lot of material in brown paper bags.

Mr. Martel: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I read the Sun but --

Mr. Godfrey: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the land use in the area surrounding the Pickering airport was frozen in 1972 without the appropriate hearing, will the minister no lift the order and allow natural justice for the property holders in that area?

Hon. Mt. Davis: And you people talk about agricultural land going out of production.

Mr. Martel: You call it rough justice.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As far as I am concerned, the decision that was made concerning the property at Orangeville was an isolated decision. I do not intend to lift any of the orders at this time, including those on the area the hon. member is referring to. The matter that was before the court was one case. It dealt with the matters that were before the court as they involved that particular application, and I do not consider that particular decision to apply universally across the province in all areas where there are ministerial orders.

Mr. Godfrey: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary.

Mr. Godfrey: I would like to ask the minister why he imposed the freeze in the first place, inasmuch as all of the things he wanted to do could have been done by regulation under the Aeronautics Act,

part I, clause 6. I would like to ask if he realized that he was pulling federal chestnuts out of the fire by his freezing order.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m not going to debate the merits of the particular federal Act to which the hon. member is referring. But I do believe that particular Act covers only the heights of buildings and does not indeed cover the other areas within the noise cone that would have been developed had the airport continued to be constructed.

Mr. Godfrey: I would be happy to send the minister a copy of the Act.

Mr. Speaker: I announced this as a final supplementary, but we haven’t had one from that section, so we’ll allow this one from the member for York Centre.

Mr. Stong: In light of the reasoning that applied to the Orangeville decision and its applicability toward the province, whether the minister regards it as being applicable or not, what does he intend to do with respect to the Langstaff area, which has been under a freeze and where people have been unable to move because of that freeze? Is the minister considering compensation or lifting the freeze in that area?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker.

DISPENSING FEES

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the acting Minister of Health: What steps is she taking to ensure that the 30-day limit on the supply of free drugs to senior citizens will be extended and that pharmacists will be stopped from multiplying their dispensing fees?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, if a physician writes a prescription for a period longer than 30 days, the pharmacist is supposed to fill that prescription. It depends on the way in which the prescription is written. We shall most certainly inform physicians of their responsibilities in this area, and pharmacists of their responsibility as well.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: Is the minister aware of the contract the government enters into with the pharmacies, paragraph 5 of it, which points out that in special circumstances, when more than a month’s supply of a drug is to be dispensed for eligible persons -- such as when a person is travelling outside the province -- the pharmacist is entitled to reimbursement of an increased amount of that paid to the pharmacy? In other words, if he dispenses six months’ supply of drugs to a person who is leaving, he is entitled to charge six times the dispensing fee. If that is not the case, would the minister kindly explain what paragraph 5 means?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge he is entitled to an increase in the dispensing fee, but not to the level of six times or three times or four times.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: Precisely what is the increase and on what criterion is that to be based?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look up the regulation they’re under to know the exact amount which is permitted.

Mr. Ziemba: A supplementary of the acting Minister of Health: Now that the minister has discovered the invoice in triplicate when it comes to private labs billing OHIP, would the minister perhaps consider using the same type of invoice in triplicate for pharmacies billing OHIP, to get away from delayed billings which the customer doesn’t find out about in the event they leave the country? There have been cases in which billings have been submitted in a customer’s name. Why involve those people in the OHIP billing?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been placed, I believe.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there is a method of checking prescriptions and the dispensing of prescriptions now which I think is reasonably accurate and reasonably good. It does involve some accurate information which is given to the subscriber as well.

SALE OF FIREARMS

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Minister of Natural Resources: In view of the general feelings which have been expressed by the government with regard to gun control, how does the minister condone the auction of seized firearms run by his ministry, including the sale to a 12-year-old -- or to the father of a 12-year-old -- of a pellet gun? Surely he has some views about this which we would like to hear, on whether the government should be condoning this and be a purveyor of firearms in this day and age and in this particular method?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, under the Fish and Game Act,

section 87 I believe, as I’m sure the member is aware, we have discretionary authority either to return or to dispose of the guns or the seized items in question after they have been used for evidence in the courts. This is done, in many cases, through an auction sale. I certainly wasn’t aware that a 12-year-old or his father had been at an auction sale and purchased one of these guns. It certainly is something this government does not condone. I’ll certainly check into it and follow it up further.

Mr. Lewis: No, he didn’t say that.

Mr. Reid: I wonder if the minister could explain the comments attributed to him in the papers some two weeks ago, that he used his discretion to return some firearms which his officers had seized, to some people. I gather it was on the basis that it would cause them hardship? Can he explain how he arrived at those decisions? A lot of people I know are a little upset about this.

Mr. Yakabuski: That’s not supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, under subsection 2 of

section 87 of the Fish and Game Act, this is a discretionary power given to the ministry. In many cases it is a hardship and in this case it was.

Mr. Reid: Are they all in the Kenora area?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would say that the return of firearms is done right across this province. As I look around this Legislature, I can tell the member there are members sitting in this Legislature today who have personally called me on behalf of their constituents --

Mr. Singer: What has that got to do with it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- asking that this discretionary power be used and I have used it.

Mr. McNeil: Most of them sit on the other side.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Some who have called me are smiling at me right now.

Mr. Reid: I am not.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that in many cases when the conservation officers do make an arrest and confiscate equipment such as aircraft and cars, these are all returned so that there is no hardship imposed on those individuals once they have paid their penalty in the courts.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If the minister finds the exercise of discretionary ministerial power abhorrent, why doesn’t he remove it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated publicly that this is one area we are looking at very carefully.

Mr. Deans: You don’t have to use it.

An hon. member: It is not that abhorrent.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I certainly think it is something that is worth looking at.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The supplementary got away from the original question and we allowed it. I think we should get on with new questions. If you wish to ask new questions later, that will be line. The member for Hamilton West.

ERC CHAIRMAN’S APPOINTMENT

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells): In view of the heavy burden on the Education Relations Commission and the important job that it has to perform now, with many of the disputes in existence, can the Premier in fact condone the appointment of its chairman as the chairman of an arbitration board in British Columbia?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite delighted to discuss this with the Minister of Education to see just exactly what time is involved with respect to the chairman of the Education Relations Commission. I acknowledge that they are busy, and I am delighted to hear the leader of the Liberal Party acknowledge that they are busy, and by and large have solved the majority of the problems in negotiations across the province --

Mr. S. Smith: We have nothing against them; we just want to be sure they can do their job.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- even though we are left with three or four rather contentious ones. I would be relatively sure, but I will check this with the minister, that whatever other undertakings the chairman has taken on would not affect his responsibilities here, but I will confirm that with the minister.

Mr. Shore: Will it affect his salary at all?

STATEMENTS BY FORMER TREASURER

Mr. S. Smith: A further question of the Premier: Does the Premier endorse the opinions of the former Treasurer, Mr. White, the former member for London South, that there will be no action by the government to preserve farmland until there is broader support for such policy, and this broader support must be forthcoming from churches and similar organizations? Does the Premier endorse that particular point of view?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think what the former Treasurer was saying, and I didn’t have the pleasure of listening to the --

Mr. Reid: You used to have to interpret when he was here too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- very excellent discussion that took place -- in fact, just thinking about those discussions Saturday, I understand the leader of the Liberal Party nearly entered those discussions himself; he came in the wrong door or something. I told some people who told me about this that he would have been very welcome and might have learned something about the matter if he had stayed.

Mr. Breithaupt: Just before they disbanded.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think what the former Treasurer was pointing out is one of the difficulties facing government with respect to land use. The former Treasurer was himself involved in the discussions over a period of years. However, I don’t think he really said the government wasn’t doing anything, because the fact is government is doing a great deal.

Mr. Good: You are watering it down.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the fact, in spite of what I read editorially in one of Toronto’s foremost newspapers, is that in terms of the preservation of farmland and in terms of land-use control, if anything there are members of the general public who have made it very clear to some of hon. member’s colleagues that this government has been doing too much. While I think we have to weigh this in the balance -- and I look at the member for London North (Mr. Shore) as being one of those members --

Mr. MacDonald: You are backing off.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: So is your friend, the member for Durham West (Mr. Godfrey).

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- in terms of land-use control we intend to move ahead with the proper planning programme for this province. If the leader of the Liberal Party is suggesting an overall freeze on all agricultural land, I wish he would get up and say so.

We think we can find a solution. We are in the process, and it has been working, of preserving by and large the prime agricultural land in this province. What the former Treasurer was pointing out is the area of contradiction. There is no question about it, when we get into some municipalities -- and I can refer to my own -- there are still some farmers in the great riding of the city of Brampton, where the official plan considerations are suggesting that that land be frozen in perpetuity as agricultural land, who are saying, “We are opposed to that.

Why should we undergo economic disadvantage for the benefit of the urban dwellers if they are not prepared to pay the proper price for food?” and so on.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is a contradiction, Mr. Speaker. I think one needs only to look at some of the determinations made in the past two or three years to recognize that this government not only is conscious of the problem, but we are dealing with it and will continue to do so,

Mr. Cassidy: He really didn’t say much.

Mrs. Campbell: It is a convoluted answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member should just say the is going to freeze it and --

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Would the Premier, in view of the statement he has made about unwillingness to put financial hardship on people who now own agricultural land, and in view of his position -- and the former Treasurer apparently is expressing the same view that the Premier holds about this -- would the Premier please tell us precisely what possible options this government is thinking of adopting with regard to compensating people whose land might be frozen?

Furthermore, could he tell us by what means we are going to be able to measure when sufficient public demand has come through via the churches and via the other organizations that the government will finally feel compelled to move? How shall we measure this precise response from the population?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t like to appear to be in disagreement with my former colleague -- because, as I say, I wasn’t there when he offered his observations -- but I know we have discussed this issue, many of us, for a period of time. I think we have found ways and means of dealing relatively well with the problem.

Mr. Reid: When are you going to tell the rest of us?

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the leader of the Liberal Party is saying simply this, that everybody whose land is zoned for agricultural purposes or recreational purposes, or for something other than future development, is to be compensated out of the public purse --

Mr. Ruston: Are you asking a question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- then I would suggest he talk to the member for London North (Mr. Shore) or the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) -- anybody who knows anything about the economic factors concerned -- and then he would know there wouldn’t be enough money, even if he were to establish his own mint, which may be one of his policies, to undertake a programme of that kind.

Mr. S. Smith: No compensation, eh?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would also make it abundantly clear, in my brief answer to his question, that this government is prepared to protect and is protecting agricultural land; but we also are not going to prejudice the farmers of this province in the process, because we think we can work it out over a period of time in a way satisfactory to both.

Mr. Singer: You don’t believe it.

Mr. Reid: You think you can have it both ways.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If he is saying to us, as part of his policy, that he is going to freeze all agricultural land in the Province of Ontario, he’s lost 20 seats right here and now.

Mr. Ruston: The Premier lost more than that last time.

Mr. Reid: Now we know what motivates you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the hon. member has had a couple of supplementaries. Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have a supplementary?

Mr. S. Smith: Is this what his policy consists of -- neither freeze, nor compensation, nor planning?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition with a supplementary question.

Mr. Lewis: As one who has something fewer than 20 agricultural seats to lose, I thought I might ask a supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: Pure words.

An hon. member: Got lots to gain, though.

Mr. Lewis: Leaving aside the compensation argument, which I concede is a difficult one, does the Premier have any specific legislative undertaking which he expects to introduce this session that will flow from the tabling of the document last Thursday; any Act of the Legislature pertaining to agricultural land and its protection? Or will it simply be left to the outlines of that farm land document?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think we are contemplating any further legislation which would in fact, as the Leader of the Opposition I think is suggesting --

Mr. Lewis: That’s what you should have called it.

Mr. S. Smith: Eight pounds of paper; pure words.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They’re suggesting that there be a form of legislative freeze on farm land --

Mr. Singer: That’s what John White said.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I have to say the government is not contemplating a legislative freeze. What the government is doing and will continue to do is in terms of official plan amendments, in terms of the planning documentation on the parkway belt and the Escarpment. I should point out that both the parkway belt and the Escarpment contain several thousands of acres of agricultural land which are now under control, a move which members of the Liberal Party campaigned actively against in their great desire to maintain agricultural land. Of course, they wanted the Escarpment totally eliminated in the process.

Mr. S. Smith: Why don’t you say something truthful during one part of your speech?

Interjections.

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Davis: I look at one or two members across there --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, you guys did it and you know it and you can’t have it both ways.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You can’t have it both ways; it is one of the very difficult issues.

An hon. member: Got to get a little high.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what you should have called it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we do not contemplate legislation. We contemplate working through the existing zoning regulations, through official plans, through the planning documents that are there. I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition that in terms of planning. In terms of urban growth, in terms of controlling in a reasonable way the great pressures that have existed in this province --

Mr. S. Smith: We just sit back and watch.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- compared to any other jurisdiction in North America, this province has done a much better job than any other single area he can mention to me.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Anywhere on this continent, they don’t compare to us here; and you know it.

Mr. S. Smith: Let the megalopolis come.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Hamilton West have further questions? All right.

The hon. Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has the answer to a question asked earlier.

Mr. Lewis: It won’t fly, Orville, it won’t fly; but it sounds good.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s what they said to Orville, but it flew.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Look -- order, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: This is becoming a general debate and we’ve taken up 80 minutes --

Mr. Singer: Because you let the answers go on forever.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The supplementaries got far away from the original question, as I recall it. Order.

Mr. S. Smith: That was a speech; it was not an answer. It was a bad speech, but it was a speech.

Mr. Kerrio: They haven’t got an answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that 30 minutes have gone past, we’ll give the hon. member a chance to come back at a new question in a few moments. The hon. minister.

RENT INCREASES

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition on April 5, 1976, concerning the rent dilemma at 118 Overbrook Place where notices of rent increases were not given 90 days in advance as required under the Landlord and Tenant Act and the rent review officer claimed jurisdiction in those hearings.

A notice of application for judicial review has been served on my ministry as well as on the Ministry of the Attorney General as a result of another case, not unlike the case referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. I expect the question will be settled in the Supreme Court of Ontario. The hearing of this application should establish whether the rent review officer does have jurisdiction to hold a hearing and to make an order under such circumstances.

I further understand that the rent review officer’s position was taken because of the provision in the Landlord and Tenant Act which suggests the 90-day notice is subject to the provisions of the Rent Review Act, which does not contain that provision.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for -- all right, the member for Ottawa Centre; was this your question?

Mr. Singer: Make up your own mind.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary to this answer by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: In the meantime, is the minister prepared to give instructions to the rent review administration that when comparable cases come before it the rent decisions will take effect at the legal time under the Landlord and Tenant Act, rather than at an earlier date?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, there is no such discretion given to us in the Act. The only time this would arise is in those cases where the applications were filed before Feb. 29, which is the date specified in the Rent Review Act. So anything after that, we would have to assume, will have the normal 90 days.

Mr. Singer: Provided you get a rent review officer who does what the Act says, which is too much to expect.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

HIRING OF CANADIAN PERSONNEL BY UNIVERSITIES

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities: In a letter which I received from the president of Trent University, he makes the following statement:

“In closing, may I emphasize that these moves are made necessary by all-party political pressure and are being taken in an attempt to ward off a legislated quota system or something very close to it.”

This is to his faculty.

“If in fact the universities make some improvement in the number of Canadians they’re hiring, is it the government’s intention to not introduce legislation to guarantee adequate hiring of Canadian personnel?”

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I believe some time ago I made a commitment to the hon member, specifically on this item, that I would reply in detail during the session of the Legislature and I fully intend to complete that commitment. I’m wondering if the member might share with me a copy of that letter so I could share those thoughts with him?

NON-RETURNABLE CONTAINERS

Mr. Peterson: To the Minister of the Environment: Could he tell us what his official ministry position is with respect to municipal bylaws pertaining to non-returnable containers?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We have no objection to any municipal bylaw being implemented that is valid and upheld in the event it is contested in any way.

Mr. Singer: There is no bylaw that is upheld.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister can’t be doing this. I don’t believe this.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: They are a great testing ground; they really are. But we would hope --

Mr. Bullbrook: Well it has not been upheld; read the paper.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I know that. He didn’t ask me about London. He just asked a general question.

Mr. Singer: It is like the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) then. When the Supreme Court tells a rent review officer he is wrong, he is wrong.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As I was saying, in the case of any municipality that passes a bylaw that is valid in dealing with that subject, we have no objections to it. However, we would hope that it would be more effective if it was done on a province-wide basis under our own legislation.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Could the minister tell me why a lawyer, Julian Polika, from the Attorney General’s ministry, appeared before Mr. Justice Sam Hughes in chambers last week representing the ministry and said the ministry’s position was against the bylaw? Can the minister tell me why that happened?

Mr. Singer: Oh that’s those fellows. We don’t believe that, that is the Attorney General’s office. Who pays any attention to them?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The hon. member will have to ask that gentleman. He didn’t represent my ministry.

Mr. Peterson: Who did he represent?

Mr. Singer: They don’t talk to each other anymore.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I can’t hear the hon. member.

Mr. Peterson: If he doesn’t represent the Ministry of the Environment, why is the Ministry of the Attorney General, that is the government, against the municipal bylaws?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As far as I am aware, government is not against such a municipal bylaw.

Mr. Bullbrook: Supplementary: Does the hon. minister not realize that the courts have now said there is no power under that municipal bylaw? If the government is true to its purpose as a government, will it bring in general legislation or won’t it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I realize that Mr. Speaker. I wasn’t unaware of the decision in London.

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

Hon. Mr. Kerr: All I am saying is if a municipality through its powers passed such a bylaw that is valid and upheld, we have no objection to it.

Mr. Singer: If another court were to decide differently you will like that one too. Is that what you mean?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We also agree with the suggestion that it would be better on a province-wide basis; we agree with that.

Mr. Bullbrook: Why don’t you do it?

Mrs. Campbell: Do it.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Natural Resources has the answer to a question asked previously.

KIRKLAND LAKE AREA BUILDING FREEZE

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, on April 6, the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Bain) asked the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Irvine), in my absence, a question regarding a building freeze in the Kirkland Lake area.

For the information of the member: On Nov. 27, 1975, an interministerial meeting was held to discuss the purpose and objectives for maintaining the Swastika restricted area order. It was attended by representatives from the Ministries of the Environment, Agriculture and Food, Transportation and Communications, and Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental affairs. Ontario Hydro and the Timiskaming health unit were also represented.

Among other things discussed at the meeting, such as province-wide policies, guidelines and regulations being appropriate, it was concluded from various inputs that the growth rate in the townships of Lebel, Marquis, McElroy, Boston, Marter, Otto and Pacaud was no greater than in other similar areas that were not under a restricted area order. Since this was the case, it was recommended that the restricted area order he rescinded.

My ministry does not wish to take steps to rescind the order until such time as other ministries, such as Housing, and Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, have had the opportunity to develop rural development control policies for the area. It is proposed that a study team be established involving the three ministries concerned.

The municipality of Kirkland Lake is applying to the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Interprovincial Affairs for assistance to expand its planning area, which would take in the townships now under the Swastika restricted area order.

Mr. Speaker: We will allow the member for Timiskaming a supplementary since he asked the question.

Mr. Bain: Is the minister contemplating setting up a committee that would involve citizens from these separate townships? They are perfectly happy to work in conjunction with officials from his ministry and others: is the minister going to involve them in coming up with a plan to replace the freeze?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, it has been policy to involve the public to as great an extent as possible. I might say we hope this policy would not take longer than six months.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York South.

Mrs. Campbell: He asked a question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for York South.

LAND USE

Mr. MacDonald: I have a question of the Premier: In view of the Premier’s earlier statement this afternoon on agricultural land use, how does he reconcile that with the following statement:

“Ontario is moving towards tough controls on southern Ontario land that will prevent farmers from using their property for anything but agricultural uses ... Farmers are demanding that areas must be designated for the preservation of agricultural industry just to ensure the basic food supply.”

Since those are quotes from the Premier in a speech in Maxwell under the sponsorship of the Grey County Federation of Agriculture, how does he reconcile that with his complete reversal in the statement earlier this day?

Mr. S. Smith: Same with the mortgage subsidies; very easy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recall that speech very well.

Mr. MacDonald: I’ll bet you do.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are wasting valuable time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I recall the question this afternoon, and I think my recollection is reasonably accurate, I was asked by the hon. member’s leader a question as to whether or not we plan legislation -- and the answer to that is no. In terms of existing policy, in terms of existing legislation, there is no question we can maintain the vast majority of agricultural land in this province and we intend to do so.

Mr. MacDonald: All the parties say no.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Haldimand-Norfolk.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, they are wrong. The legislation is there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Haldimand-Norfolk.

COMMERCIAL FISHING REGULATIONS

Mr. G. I. Miller: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources: In view of the fact his ministry is enforcing the regulations on fishing in Lake Erie, is be aware it could create a hardship for some of the small fishing operators who have been fishing for many years on the lake?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware of, I suppose the laxity maybe, in some of the controls we should have been applying on Lake Erie. I am sure he is well aware of the situation of the fish population in that particular lake. In fact, there is a real concern regarding the perch population and the pickerel population in Lake Erie, and the fishermen are concerned as we are. The restrictive measures we have taken will have some economic impact on a short term, but I can assure the hon. member if we get the co-operation of the commercial fishermen in that particular lake they can be assured long-term activity with regard to commercial fishing.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the ministry prepared to support these fishermen, who could be forced out of business?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, we don’t think anybody will be forced out of the commercial fishing industry. There may be certain cutbacks and there may be a short period of readjustment, but we don’t expect anybody will be put out of work.

Mr. Reid: Is John Smith not writing your speeches?

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary. The member for Brantford.

Mr. Makarchuk: To the same minister: In view of the fact the fishermen will have to acquire different mesh nets, which would take some time and certainly would involve an outlay of money, would the minister be prepared to adjust the July 1 date in order to give the fishermen time to acquire the necessary equipment so they would not catch the smaller-sized perch?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, in our discussions with the commercial fishing industry, we arrived at this July 1 date. It was an extension of the normal time given. I have to say to the hon. member that if it’s brought to my attention there is hardship being imposed upon these commercial fishermen, then I would be prepared to reconsider a longer period of time.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Grossman: A question for the acting Minister of Health -- to return to Doctors Hospital for a moment: I wonder what arrangements might be anticipated for those doctors who, say, have surgery scheduled for the middle of June or middle of July? What can they tell their patients in the next two or three clays?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, any physician who has not, within the next few days, had an application to other hospitals in the area accepted should, I think, apply immediately to the Evans committee, which is patiently awaiting applications from the physicians of Doctors Hospital, or any other hospital in the Province of Ontario where there is a closure of beds. The committee is prepared to deal with applications of those who wish to be transferred to other institutions.

Mr. Shore: Are they eligible for unemployment insurance?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener presented the report of the Public Service Superannuation Board for the year ending March 31, 1975.

[3:00]

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.