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

April 14, 1977

30th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L011 - Thu 14 Apr 1977 / Jeu 14 avr 1977

LAND SPECULATION TAX EXEMPTION

ESSEX COUNTY FRENCH SCHOOL

POINT OF ORDER

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

DISMISSAL OF MALE NURSE

METRO CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

BARRIE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL

OHC OCCUPANCY POLICY

LAND SPECULATION TAX EXEMPTION

POINTS OF ORDER

FOREST FIRES

LINCOLN PLACE NURSING HOME

PAN-AM GAMES

LAKE ERIE CONTAMINATION

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

ONTARIO MALLEABLE IRON

PROVINCIAL CREDIT RATING

HEALTH CARE COSTS

MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENT

UNITED ASBESTOS PLANT

BROWNDALE

INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL

AID TO THE THIRD WORLD

REPORTS

MOTIONS

ESSEX COUNTY FRENCH-LANGUAGE SECONDARY SCHOOL ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

PATIENTS’ RIGHTS ACT

POINT OF ORDER

PROCEDURE FOR PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

NATURAL DEATH ACT

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

LAND SPECULATION TAX EXEMPTION

Hon. Mr. Welch: A few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, following the decision of the public accounts committee to recommend to the House that the committee be relieved of its scrutiny of the exemption under the land speculation tax provided to Ronto Development and that a select committee be appointed to continue that work, there were some discussions among the usual channels of the parties in the House concerning the implications such an additional committee would have on the management of the assembly’s work load.

The rather elaborate but very clear timetables agreed to by the parties earlier this week and now posted indicate the concerns we have had about making the new rules and structures work for members on all sides. Earlier, in fact, the House passed a motion supporting the enhancement of the role of standing committees by the avoidance of appointment of additional select committees wherever possible.

Since the House reconvened, and despite peripheral questioning of the Minister of Revenue (Mrs. Scrivener), there has been no direct question or response dealing with the government’s official reaction to the dormant report of the former public accounts committee.

Mr. Nixon: The questions were direct. The answers were peripheral.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Obviously our difficulty with that report stems from its failure either to acknowledge the all-party agreement on committee structures or to provide a means of examining the issue in a fair and balanced way, something which a judicial inquiry would indeed do.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) and I had been prepared to say in the House, had the matter been raised directly, that such a judicial inquiry would not be inappropriate. Today I am announcing that such a judicial inquiry will be held, to commence as soon as a justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario can be freed from other duties; and so the name of the judge should be known in a few days and announced to the House.

In addition, the terms of reference for the inquiry will specify that the justice complete the inquiry within 30 days of commencement, and will also specify that there be an inquiry into the granting of an exemption to Ronto Development under the provisions of The Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974, and particularly whether or not any undue or in- appropriate influence was brought to bear from any source on the decision to grant that exemption.

Mr. Speaker, our position has been and remains that the government has nothing to fear or to hide in this matter, and that such an inquiry is the appropriate forum for a full, objective and non-partisan resolution of this particular matter.

Earlier today, the opposition House leader put to the new public accounts committee a motion calling for such an inquiry, and I understand the motion was supported by all committee members present.

Mr. Sargent: With qualification.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I gather that the concerns for management of House business have by now been appreciated by some members opposite who made and supported the proposal for a select committee earlier.

ESSEX COUNTY FRENCH SCHOOL

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I will this afternoon be introducing legislation designed to ensure the construction of a French-language secondary school in Essex county.

The events leading to this legislation have unfolded over, of course, a long period of time. The high feelings and strong emotions that have been generating during the course of public discussion about this school are well known, and I think there is no need for me to dwell at length upon them here today.

It is worth remembering, however, that it was as long ago as 1969 that the French language advisory committee of the Essex County Board of Education first recommended that a school be provided, and that this recommendation has been put forward consistently since that time. Further, the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario recommended in 1974 that the school be built.

Regrettably, however, we have come to a point where it is abundantly clear that the Essex County Board of Education has no intention of proceeding with the project of its own volition, now or in the foreseeable future.

This is why the legislation which we are introducing today has become necessary. We proceed with a sense of disappointment that legislation is required at all. It had been our earnest hope, indeed our expectation, that the board of education would itself have taken the initiative to build a secondary school for the French-speaking young people in its constituency, especially in view of the strong recommendations which have been made urging such a course of action.

However, Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of this legislation we recognize our responsibility, and we are proceeding with a firm sense of resolve and determination. As the Premier said in this Legislature last week, this province’s commitment to our French-speaking citizens -- to their educational language and social rights -- is not to be diminished, regardless of events elsewhere in the nation.

This commitment is tied to our belief in an open, diverse and pluralistic society, strengthened by the vitality of our two founding peoples, and enriched by the presence of a multicultural milieu.

It perhaps could be viewed as ironic that this legislation affects an area of the province where there has been a French presence and tradition stretching back through most of our history.

This legislation that I am presenting today is simple and direct. It deems that the board of education has passed a resolution to construct a school to accommodate 750 French-speaking secondary school students and it directs the board to proceed, within 30 days, to select a site and to appoint an architect and other persons required for the purposes of constructing the school. The Act further directs that the board shall proceed forthwith to have the school built, following the normal procedures which affect all school construction projects in this province.

The Act further provides that if the board fails to proceed in the manner directed in the bill, the government itself can proceed to have the school built. However, it is our sincere wish and expectation that the school board will move ahead, expeditiously and in good faith, to follow the wish of this Legislature and demonstrate a positive sense of leadership, which can be the starting point for a return to harmonious relations throughout Essex county.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. Lewis: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Apart from expressing accord with the minister’s statement, may I draw to your attention, sir -- and to that of the minister and thank him for it -- the first very full compendium we have received, as required under the new orders of the House, as background information from the minister. It is much appreciated; I hope it becomes practice.

Mr. Riddell: You guys are really getting into bed over there.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that’s part of the new rules we are operating under; thank you very much.

Mr. S. Smith: They’ve had seven years to collect this information.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring the assembly up to date on the actions I have taken, as Minister of Health, to safeguard the psychiatric health care rights of Ontario residents.

This is a broad mandate, but I am hopeful that it will be possible to release a discussion paper containing the council’s findings and recommendations for general public discussions by March 31, 1978.

This, I must make clear, is in addition to the review I asked the council, last month, to undertake of The Mental Health Act, with specific reference to the rights of involuntary patients, the right of a patient to receive or to refuse treatment, the confidentiality of patient information, special requirements applying to minors, responsibilities of non-medical staff, management of patients’ or of former patients’ estates, possible immunity of a psychiatric facility and its staff from liability in respect to injury or damage caused by a patient.

This is a major undertaking, as the assembly will realize. It would be unrealistic to expect the government to be in a position to submit legislative proposals for a complete revision of The Mental Health Act in less than two years. Nevertheless, two years is a long time. Accordingly, I intend to introduce, for the assembly’s approval, proposals for interim changes on specific aspects of The Mental Health Act where and when these appear to be matters of urgency.

I think it will be clear from what I’ve said that I recognize room for improvement exists in our present mental health services. Nevertheless, I think it would be appropriate to remind members of the considerable progress made over the past 15 to 20 years.

Previously, mental health services were almost exclusively confined to a comparatively small number of psychiatric hospitals in Ontario. Over that period, however, we have been successful in having the services made more widely available in general hospitals across the province. By doing so we have moved these services much more fully into the main stream of health services generally. Having gone from psychiatric hospitals to general hospitals, we are now looking at community-based services involving workshops, living arrangements, counselling and rehabilitation services.

A considerable number of agencies and groups have parts to play in community-based mental health programmes. These include the Canadian Mental Health Association, social service agencies, public health departments at the municipal level and the police, as well as the psychiatric units of local general hospitals. I foresee, in fact, that an increasing proportion of our future effort in mental health care will be in the area of community-based services.

[2:15]

To speak specifically now of Metropolitan Toronto, an up-to-date assessment of the mental health services in Metro has been undertaken by a task force on psychiatric care in co-operation with the Canadian Mental Health Association. This report should be available early this summer.

An attempt will be made in this report to identify the total mental health care system in Metro Toronto, both in its formal and informal approaches, and also to identify whatever gaps appear to exist in these services and to make recommendations.

The task force preparing the report is made up of mental health professionals, representatives of social agencies, and representatives of citizens’ groups and individuals who have been meeting to discuss their concerns and perceptions of mental health services.

Mr. Foulds: When are you going to do something in Thunder Bay?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The House will also be aware that criticism has been levelled at the physical facilities at Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital and Whitby Psychiatric Hospital. Having personally inspected the Whitby hospital shortly after becoming Minister of Health, I have to confirm that many of the older buildings at both hospitals are inadequate for modern types of treatment.

However, since the Queen Street Mental Health Centre is now in the final stages of complete rebuilding and renovation, 15 consulting firms have been invited by my ministry to submit proposals for a role study and master programme development applying to all three facilities -- Lakeshore, Whitby and Queen Street.

This study is to cover clinical services, teaching and research requirements, and all the necessary support services. Further, this study will outline the relationship that should be established among these three hospitals, as well as their inter-relationship with the psychiatric units of general hospitals in their respective catchment areas.

The submissions we have received have already been reduced to a short list now being considered by an internal steering committee, and I expect to announce the successful proposal later this month.

I would ask the assembly to regard this statement as a progress report. I believe, however, that the actions I have outlined will leave no doubt that I share the view that mental health care represents an aspect of the province’s total health care system needing careful attention at all times.

Mr. Foulds: When are you going to do northwestern Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

DISMISSAL OF MALE NURSE

Mr. Lewis: A question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Health, if I may. Has he directed the administrator of the Etobicoke General Hospital that he would wish him to reinstate Mr. Honsberger, the nurse who commented on the waste and maladministration, in his mind, of the hospital, within the context that the minister does not wish people in the health sector to be punitively dealt with when they feel, in the public interest, they should bring such matters to public attention?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it clear in response to questions put to me in recent days by various media and particular groups that certainly I want people involved in the health care system to feel free to state their concerns. I would hope that, in the first instance, the hospital boards and administrators would operate their institutions in such a way that they would be receptive to those concerns, and where agreement exists on the need for amendments to procedures or whatever, that action will be taken there.

As far as my own office is concerned, I’ve again tried to make it clear that my door is open -- however you want to take that figurative expression -- and we’ll always see to it that we follow up on any complaints or concerns. I have no authority, as the member knows, under The Hospitals Act, to order a reinstatement. Mr. Honsberger is an employee -- a former employee at this point -- of the Etobicoke General Hospital. Staff in the ministry were in touch this morning with the administrator, who indicated he felt he had other reasons than the one indicated in the letter, but I am satisfied that Mr.

Honsberger has available to him a grievance procedure to follow due to their collective agreement.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the minister not realize that if the administrator of the hospital is able to get away with this punitive firing in a letter he himself sets out, based on statements in violation of some hospital directive, press code, or whatever else it may be described as, then nurses all over the province who may legitimately want to bring to public attention concerns they have about hospital administration, such as the ONA has now done, will feel strait-jacketed, will feel that there will be punitive actions taken against them?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, let me also again repeat something I have said a number of times since the ONA brief came out.

One of my concerns about that brief when it was initially published was that they were not specific. As you know -- I am sure you have read it, Mr. Speaker, as most members have by now -- they talked about a problem in northwestern Ontario, a problem in eastern Ontario, without being specific. And that was a criticism I had of it; I said I want to know where those problems are.

Mr. Deans: Now you know.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t want names of people -- the informants, if you will -- but I want to know, because I think really that it begs the validity of the whole report unless we know, unless they are prepared to tell us. There is no reason why, through the ONA, I need to have the names of nurses or nurses’ aides or RNAs or whomever so long as they are prepared to work with us in a co-operative spirit. Now I repeat, Mr. Honsberger was not an employee and is not an employee of my ministry. I have no authority to order a reinstatement.

Mr. Lewis: You closed hospitals, I remind you, without authority. You can reinstate a man.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Well, I didn’t realize the member had also become a Supreme Court justice.

Mr. Mackenzie: That doesn’t help very much.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: But I am satisfied that the gentleman in question does have sufficient grievance procedures available to him.

Mr. Philip: I wonder if the minister would not agree that the grievance procedure could likely take as much as six months; that two other nurses are presently, at this very moment possibly, before their hospital boards or before their hospital administration on a similar kind of problem; and is it not time that the minister took some specific action to ensure professionals in the health field, when they are speaking out as professionals -- as members of professional organizations -- that punitive action will not be taken against them?

Mr. Cassidy: You are the Pontius Pilate of the health field.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Pardon me, if you would just listen for once.

Interjection.

Now I do not know that it would take six months; I would be very concerned that it should not take six months. I would hope that it could be dealt with as soon as possible, and I will follow up on that.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary: Notwithstanding the fact that the minister may not have the legal authority to dictate to the boards of health or to hospitals that such pervasive activities not be considered, would he not consider it his moral obligation to write to the boards of health and to the hospitals and indicate, as the Minister of Health for the province of Ontario, that this kind of situation disturbs him greatly?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, let me inform the member that the boards of health do not run the hospitals. They are boards of those particular corporations.

Mr. S. Smith: He didn’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have already indicated that we have in fact this morning been in touch with that particular corporation to follow up on the press reports. So that, yes, our interest and our concern about it has already been conveyed.

METRO CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Treasurer, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Given the general state of unemployment, and given the Treasurer’s previous intermittent interventions with the Ontario Municipal Board on other matters, would he be prepared to convene a meeting among the Ontario Municipal Board members and all of the mayors of the various municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto, to bring to bear the pressure of the provincial government, or the good offices of the provincial government, to free for immediate construction two projects: one, the series of housing projects which have been discussed before in this Legislature, part of Metroplan, and the other, the construction of the light rapid transit line through Scarborough; which two projects together would amount to something like 6,500 man-years of work immediately available?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I would not. The Ontario Municipal Board reports to this Legislature through the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the question might properly be put to the Attorney General.

Mr. Lewis: He has answered it.

Mr. Nixon: That’s what you said last week when we asked the question.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Attorney General has already indicated that he has been in touch with the chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board on the former matter. It seems to me that the council of Metropolitan Toronto in its constituent parts will, in their own good time, make up their mind whether they want or don’t want some form of rapid transit, and at that point the Ontario Municipal Board will become involved. I don’t think they have any involvement in it at this moment.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the minister not feel, given the present economic circumstances, that either he -- or perhaps I should have directed it right to the Premier -- should perhaps intervene, when the project will eventually proceed anyway? The jobs could be available now; these roadblocks make very little sense in the context of the unemployment figures.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am not aware of any roadblock in the construction of the rapid rail, other than that Metropolitan Toronto have not yet decided to do it. I don’t see it as part of my job, frankly, to tell Metropolitan Toronto what they should or should not do. The Leader of the Opposition may see it that way over there, we don’t on this side.

Mr. Sargent: How about the Spadina Expressway?

Mr. Hodgson: Respect your leader, Eddie.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What was that?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamilton West has the floor.

Mr. Sargent: Have you told them about the Spadina Expressway, Bill?

BARRIE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL

Mr. S. Smith: Now that the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker, has decided he will no longer tell Metro Toronto what to do, perhaps he could say something about the plan for the south of Barrie.

Is the Treasurer aware of the existence of a report, submitted by the major developer to the south of Barrie, in which there is illustrated a land-use plan very similar, almost identical, to the land-use plan submitted by the city of Barrie in their annexation report? And is the Treasurer aware that the report of the developer had as its engineering consultant the same firm that in fact produced the Barrie annexation report?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The answer to both questions is no, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bullbrook: And yet you intervened.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, now that the Treasurer has heard this, would he care to comment on the Barrie annexation study, on page 90, where they suggest that because the developers employed consultants to advise on the suitability of lands to be developed, that the Barrie annexation study recommends that that major land assembly in itself is excellent evidence as to why the annexation should take place, on precisely those lands? Does he have any comment at all on that particular aspect of the annexation report?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: Are you going to continue to let the developers do the planning, just like they did in Norfolk --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: Let the developers do the planning.

Mr. S. Smith: I have another supplementary.

Mr. Good: You are really involved there, Darcy. Why are you promoting the annexation then?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: There will be another royal commission there.

Mr. S. Smith: Since the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) has still not seen fit to let us have the letter that went from his food lands division to the Treasurer’s department, even though he has that letter, would the Treasurer kindly table the letter in question, regarding the use of agricultural land south of Barrie?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary to the provincial Treasurer, since his letter to the OMB was based upon and included a projected population figure of 125,000 by the year 2011, and since that time the new study, Ontario’s Changing Population, is projecting a figure of 50,600 by the year 2001 -- a discrepancy, now, of 75,000 in his own reports -- why is he prepared to allow this kind of annexation to proceed, on false premises, chewing up at least 9,000 acres of prime agricultural land in the process?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I don’t necessarily, nor have we accepted this policy. I presume the member is referring to -- I think it is the Barnard report.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We haven’t studied that, nor has it been accepted, on this side of the House at any rate, as some sort of manna from heaven.

Mr. Lewis: Well, the government commissioned it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But if in fact it is, we still would say --

Mr. Foulds: Manna from McKeough.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- that whatever growth there is to be in this province -- and we happen to think that there will be some growth in this province and we are going to do our best --

Mr. Lewis: You sure do, all in one place; not in the north, not in the east, but always here.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, not always in Metropolitan Toronto; some of it will be in Barrie, whether the member likes it or not.

Mr. Lewis: Well by way of supplementary, to be specific --

Mr. Speaker: No, that was a final supplementary.

[2:30]

OHC OCCUPANCY POLICY

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Housing: Has it always been the policy of the OHC to evict people once their children grow up and they no longer, therefore, qualified as having dependants? Has this been a policy over the years or is it something new?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that never has been the policy, and it is not the policy at this time to evict tenants once their children have grown up.

Mr. Lewis: It’s to evict them before they grow up.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Some people never grow up.

Mr. Reid: Why are they all in one spot?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The policy is, that if a family is --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We’d probably evict the member for Grey-Bruce just on general principle.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. minister just ignore the interjections?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. The policy is that if a family is occupying a unit in a family housing project, if it is a single parent, and if the children of that single parent have grown up and left home, then we would look at the eligibility of that particular tenant in that facility. If they are under the age of 60 and in good health and are employable, then they may well be asked to find accommodation elsewhere so that that particular facility would be available for someone with children who would qualify to occupy the premises.

It is not the policy to evict when the children have reached a certain age or are no longer in school, as was suggested quite erroneously in the

article in the Toronto Star today.

Mr. Bain: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister tell us then why the Timiskaming Ontario Housing authority evicts people who, when some of their children have left home, they say no longer qualify for the present unit they’re in, and they are told to leave without any attempt to find another unit, even though the people still have other children at home?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I can’t comment with any degree of authority on what may be happening in that particular area, but I can say in general that what we try to do is make sure that we are not over-housing the tenants in the facilities.

If a family is in a project where it requires three bedrooms, and as a result of a change in the makeup of the family perhaps it requires only two bedrooms, then we would attempt to relocate the people, if possible within an Ontario Housing project, into a smaller facility that would meet their needs, and house someone in the larger facility who could use that accommodation. To say that they’re simply evicted, I find a bit strange. I’ve never had that proposal suggested to me before. We try to relocate them in a smaller unit.

Mr. Bain: It happens.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister, therefore, clear up the matter that was raised in the Toronto Star with regard to Mrs. Pitney and her family, and the statement made by one Laura Plescia, according to this report an information officer with OHC, who said that the Pitneys were being evicted and the lease wasn’t being renewed, and who pointed out that there are a great number of families with young children who need accommodation more than a single person who has no young children, or children attending school. That seems to contradict the point the minister just made.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, again I cannot be responsible for what has appeared in the article. I have not spoken to that particular officer to know whether or not those were the words that she, in fact, used. However, I just simply reiterate that it is not the intention nor the policy of Ontario Housing to simply evict people.

I can take the time, if it is desirable, to comment upon the situation that was reported in the paper. I won’t go into too great detail, but in general the understanding was that we were talking about a hypothetical situation that did, in fact, involve this particular tenant. In this particular case, the understanding that we had -- when I say we, I mean OHC -- was that the two sons were going to leave the project and that, in fact, the lady would be a single tenant in this particular unit, and she was advised, as I understand it, that she may not be eligible to be a tenant as a result of her particular circumstances, her age, her health and the possibility of her being able to work.

At the same time, it’s my understanding that the tenant advised OHC officials that she was going to be leaving anyway, that she was getting married. The circumstances apparently changed, why, I don’t know. But she is now not going to get married and, as a result, she will be remaining in that unit. She has not received an eviction notice. I understand as well that my officials will be contacting the individual who wrote the story in the Star to attempt to clear up this, I think, unfortunate misunderstanding.

LAND SPECULATION TAX EXEMPTION

Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Premier. With regard to the Ronto inquiry, is it the Premier’s intention to place before the Legislature the terms of reference to be followed in the inquiry in order that they can receive perusal by and approval of the Legislature before the inquiry commences?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is the normal custom that a matter of this kind is determined by government. While I welcome the initiative of the standing committee and the very substantial change in approach, which I personally support, of moving from a select committee to what I think is a far more appropriate form, I would say with respect to the House leader of the New Democratic Party that I certainly have no objections at all to our House leader discussing with him and with the House leader for the third party the proposed terms of reference.

But I suggest with respect that we are talking here about something that is fundamental to the discharge of the responsibilities of government in this province --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and that the Lieutenant Governor in Council will pass an order in council which will establish the terms of reference. After this is done, if some members opposite have reservations and if they wish to express either disappointment or, I would expect, very frankly, rather total support to the wording of the terms of reference, they will have opportunities to do this. But I do point out to the House leader, and I’m not attempting to be controversial, that this surely --

An hon. member: Or provocative.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no.

Mr. Makarchuk: Stop weaselling.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the hon. member for Brantford, if he is asking me, that the cabinet of this province will advise the Lieutenant Governor to sign an order in council which is part of our responsibility. It’s as simple as that. So there’s your answer. That’s the way it should be done.

Mr. Lewis: Why do you say that?

Mr. Breithaupt: Without being provocative, as a supplementary, would it be possible to have those terms of reference made available before the order in council is passed so that if there are some reasonable changes that may come forward, they could be accommodated rather than have an order passed which might then not be fully satisfactory to all members?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’d be quite prepared to have our House leader discuss that in that we have had some suggested thoughts for a period of time.

Mr. Peterson: Give a few more supportive thoughts to the answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the hon. member is available -- and I must discuss it with our House leader -- tomorrow morning at, say, 9 o’clock, and if the House leader for the New Democratic Party is available, perhaps the three of them could have a look at this. I would like to get the order in council passed forthwith because we are more anxious perhaps than some members opposite, who want to go the select committee route and have this prolonged for weeks and weeks on end, to see this matter finally disposed of.

POINTS OF ORDER

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, just before the comments of the Premier go by, Mr. Speaker, I’m sure you should be informed that the resolution to which he referred had a specific clause indicating that the select committee should be established without delay and that it should have only six weeks to accommodate its purpose. I thought that that should be set clear before the point passed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a point of order, just so that there is no misunderstanding of what I said, I said week after week, which could include six weeks. I would think a judicial inquiry --

Interjections.

Mr. Ruston: You’re playing with words now.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- would take substantially less time. I would point out to the hon. member who, I understand, was responsible for the initial recommendations --

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

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- in the select committee report that that recommendation was contrary to the general expressed intent of the new procedures we’re to adopt in this House, that is, to avoid select committees if at all possible.

Mr. Good: You’re sure avoiding them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I suggest that the route that has now been suggested, which we totally support, makes a great deal of sense and -- it may come as a surprise to the Leader of the Opposition -- we’re ready.

Mr. Lewis: Ready for what?

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is getting into a debate. Is there a further point of order?

The hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: On a further point that the hon. Premier brought before us in his reference a moment ago, I’m sure he is aware that the agreement with reference to committees was that select committees should not be used except in matters of some importance. We happen to think this is a matter of importance whether he does or not.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Who is the leader over there?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. former leader of the Liberal Party is opposed to having this form of inquiry, why doesn’t he say so?

An hon. member: There’s a better way.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He is the present leader, not the former leader.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, this is becoming a debate. It’s out of order.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in response to the statement made by the Premier -- I was going to say your leader, excuse me -- by the Premier, who indicated that if I was opposed to this I should say so. Of course I think a royal commission is a good idea. I believe a select committee would be preferable, since this House referred it to the standing committee on public accounts. Surely that is the way that it should be dealt with.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is strictly a difference of opinion.

Mr. Makarchuk: I have a supplementary question of the Premier. I may not have heard the statement correctly but the way that the statement was read in the House, as I understood it, no reference was made in the statement to where the justice will have the power to investigate the payment of $400,000 for undetermined services to one Mr. Ernest Goodman, as well as payments to consultants by the name of Hiram Walker, as well as payments to a fellow by the name of Reimer.

Mr. Speaker: Your question is?

Mr. Makarchuk: Are these matters going to be included in the terms of reference which will be investigated?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think this can get into a prolonged debate.

Mr. Makarchuk: Yes or no?

Mr. Nixon: You are aching for a debate on this. Let’s have a debate on it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. Premier answer this question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s quite obvious you people have decided not to.

Mr. Nixon: Why have you ignored that resolution for two weeks?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’ve been asked a question by the hon. member as to why we have ignored the resolution. As a matter of fact, that public accounts committee report really hasn’t been before the House.

Mr. Nixon: It is printed in Order Paper No. 1.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. You’ve changed your minds again. In answer to his question, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Nixon: It is in Votes and Proceedings of the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Flip-flop Nixon. You’re a bigger flip-flop than your leader.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I would anticipate the terms of reference will be such that the public interests will be well served. I will not get into a word-by-word analysis of what may be in that order in council, but I can assure the members of this House, and my experience has been, that these terms of reference give the commissioner adequate power to do what needs to be done.

Mr. MacDonald: Not always.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: Recognizing, rightly or wrongly, that we’re burdened with the Premier’s government and that he has the right to govern --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We are burdened with you.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- in view of the fact that the traditional response isn’t totally acceptable, and if I may say, in view of the fact that the terms of reference are totally deficient as far as one member is concerned --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a supplementary question?

Mr. Bullbrook: -- is there any possibility of the Premier’s broadening the traditional function of not taking it just to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, but giving this whole House, in this minority situation, an opportunity to discuss openly the terms of reference, which are so important to us all?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would only say to the hon. member for Sarnia, my experience here has been that he has never been reluctant to express his point of view on any significant issue; --

Mr. Bullbrook: Give us the opportunity.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- on sometimes insignificant issues he has not been reluctant to express his point of view. I’m just saying, and I’m not attempting to be difficult, that this is a responsibility the government must discharge. I have gone this far in suggesting that our House leader would be quite prepared to discuss with the House leader of the New Democratic Party, the eminent counsel --

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s not good enough.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- learned in the law, House leader of the third party in this House, the proposed terms of reference.

Mr. Breithaupt: What a nasty thing to say.

Mr. Nixon: The first two engineered the thing in the committee. They should be able to deal with the terms of reference.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have total confidence in his ability to express the point of view of the member for Sarnia, and I think, in terms of the traditional responsibilities of government, I have gone a fair piece.

FOREST FIRES

Mr. Reid: Maybe I can heat this debate up, Mr. Speaker, by asking the Minister of Natural Resources if he can give us a full report on what his ministry is doing in regard to the danger of extreme forest fires in northern Ontario this spring. Can he tell us specifically what steps he has taken, how many extra people will be involved in fire crews and what liaison he has had with the municipalities and their fire-fighting equipment in this regard?

[12:45]

Mr. Conway: He’s got Leo flying the skies.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make a statement tomorrow morning on that.

Mr. Reid: By way of supplementary, if I may, can I ask the minister if he is considering using high school students of perhaps grades 11, 12 and 13, particularly those who have indicated by their year’s performance that they will be passing their year, as emergency firefighters in this situation?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I will make a statement tomorrow. One thing I can assure the member is that we have $7 million more allocated to advance fire protection this year so that there will be more people trained, more equipment ready and more people in place than in previous years. The number of people used to fight fires depends upon the actual occurrence, as I am sure the member knows. At that time, I believe we have been quite willing to use people as we could get them to supplement the already trained staff. That certainly wouldn’t exclude the young people the member mentioned.

Mr. Foulds: Do I take it that the statement tomorrow morning will include answers to the questions I raised about this matter last Thursday with the member’s colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle), and in the statement could the minister indicate what contingency plans he has for possible travel bans in the area?

Hon. F. S. Miller: There is no reference to that in the statement at the present moment. I think I adequately answered the question the member raised last week, which prompted me, in fact, to prepare a statement.

LINCOLN PLACE NURSING HOME

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, last week the member for Oakwood asked me if I was aware that since May 1976, staff of my ministry knew of complaints concerning charging practices to residents in Lincoln Place Nursing Home, yet had done nothing about it. Specifically, the member asked if I was aware the senior citizens in Lincoln Place Nursing Home were being charged for services they did not receive. Further, the member asked if I would investigate the situation and ensure the residents of the home were reimbursed.

I have investigated the situation and must thank the member for drawing it to my attention. It appears that through a misunderstanding the matter was not adequately addressed when first discovered by ministry staff in May, 1976. I can assure the member I will do everything possible to see this does not happen again.

A nursing inspector’s report has confirmed a $10-a-month charge for marking, mending and ironing of residents’ clothes was being applied to all residents, not just those who used the service. The report also indicated a monthly telephone charge of $2.15 was also being applied to all residents, except for those who had their own phones and those who were bedridden.

I can advise the member that on March 31 a letter was sent to the home to say that effective immediately these general billings to residents must cease, and that all charges to residents must be accompanied by itemized statements. The letter also stated that care must be taken to bill only those residents using these services. Furthermore, the fiscal resources branch of my ministry is today sending people to the home to determine as best we can the extent of any overcharges that may have been made to residents.

I can assure the member that if there have been overcharges to residents, I will insist the residents be reimbursed by the home.

Mr. Grande: Would the minister investigate other private nursing homes to see whether that kind of thing that happened at Lincoln Place is happening also at those homes?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, all homes are regularly inspected by three types of inspectors: those looking at nursing services, those looking at the physical care -- we call them environmental inspectors, if you will -- and fiscal. I can check and see if this is in fact the kind of thing that is covered in the inspection. It should be, because it is certainly covered in the regulations, as to what authority nursing homes have for additional charges.

PAN-AM GAMES

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. I am not sure if he is still in the chamber.

Mr. Conway: Send Segal out, it might be interesting.

Mr. Breithaupt: There’s the possibility of an answer.

Mr. Mackenzie: To the Premier: The mayor of the city of Hamilton has indicated that the province of Ontario, as approved by the cabinet, has committed better than $17 million to the Pan-Am Games in Hamilton, based on a cost of some $50 million to $55 million. I want to know if this is a firm commitment; I want to know if the province will increase its commitment in the event that the costs for the 1983 project escalate; and I want to know to what extent the province would increase its commitment to the city of Hamilton.

I would like to think, Mr. Speaker, that our limit is in that neighbourhood. I can’t pin it down to, say $17 million or $17.5 million, I think it is still too early to determine that, but roughly within that amount of money, that that would be our limit; and I would be optimistic that it can be accomplished for that amount, including, then, the federal and the municipal share.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: I want to be sure, because this is a matter of some debate in the city of Hamilton right now. My understanding of what you’ve said is that if we’re not able to meet that control requirement -- and this is what’s concerning the citizens of Hamilton -- that this government’s commitment is only to $17 million or $17.5 million.

Mr. Conway: Ask the Attorney General.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it can be kept within that measure of control. For instance, on the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton, my best recollection, again, is that they are pretty well on target with respect to budget. I see no reason why this can’t be accomplished for the Pan-Am Games in Hamilton. So for me to say yes, if it’s up 10 per cent we will raise ours by 10 per cent, human nature being what it is that then encourages it; so I’m saying no. We’re going to stand firm with our commitment, and if the other two participants do the same my guess is we can build a very adequate plant within that dollar amount.

LAKE ERIE CONTAMINATION

Mr. Mancini: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment: Is the minister aware of the spill that occurred in Lake Erie and was detected last Friday, stretching approximately six miles from Point Pelee to Leamington? Can the minister tell us what was the cause of that spill?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the spill. There is some difficulty in pinpointing exactly what the cause is. There are a number of assumptions. The main one seems to be that it is from some type of commercial vessel and that it may have been laying there for some months; since the ice has moved away from the area it is now obvious and is seen by the people in that area. There was some possibility that the Leamington sewage treatment plant may have been responsible. My officials assure me that is not the cause of the trouble.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: I would like to know from the minister if his ministry is involved in the clean-up operation; and is the ministry going to monitor for any environmental effects which might take place from this spill?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are involved with the federal Ministry of Transport. I believe there is also some US involvement here, as well, in the cleanup and retention of that spill; and of course we will be monitoring it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Treasurer has the answer to a question asked previously.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, on April 5 I indicated with respect to a point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition that I would be tabling a compendium of background information regarding the move of OHIP to Kingston, and the head office of the Ministry of Revenue to Oshawa. I have today filed that with the clerk, together with a three-page covering memo.

ONTARIO MALLEABLE IRON

Mr. Moffatt: I have a question of the Minister of Labour: I would like to ask the minister, given the fact that the employees at Ontario Malleable Iron in Oshawa were locked out for well over a year and the company then ceased operation. Those employees have now been denied unemployment insurance benefits. Is there anything that the Labour ministry can do to aid those employees?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The Ministry of Labour has been involved with investigating the possible solutions to some of the problems which have been raised by this close-down of the plant. At this point of time I unfortunately don’t have any very positive answers which I can provide for the member, because that investigation is going on at the present moment.

Mr. Moffatt: Would it be possible that the minister could use her good offices to request special assistance from the Unemployment Insurance Commission to those employees who have, through no fault of their own, been disqualified from receiving benefits because they have not worked, by nature of the lockout, for the qualifying period?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I think that request has already been made, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, before my question, I know you would like to recognize that today is the birthday of the hon. member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Conway: It is also the anniversary of the Titanic.

Mr. Speaker: Now the question.

PROVINCIAL CREDIT RATING

Mr. Sargent: A question of the Premier: I would like to ask the Premier -- anticipating the answer -- if an emergency situation would arise, does he have enough confidence in our credit rating to immediately go to the bond markets to raise some $300 million to $500 million?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not April 1, is it? Is he recognizing somebody else’s birthday, or what? Do I have confidence in the credit of this province? Yes, I have great confidence in the credit of this province.

Mr. Sargent: In view of the fact that I, along with about eight million other people in Ontario, feel that this government belongs to the people, not to the Conservative Party, and in view of the fact that hundreds of thousands of our people are desperately looking for jobs, I am asking the Premier to provide leadership, to tell us why he can’t go to the bond market and get an issue of some $300 to $500 million and do a crash programme to provide jobs in this province.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This government is quite concerned about the employment situation in this province. One reason we have developed the credit rating we have -- which the hon. member has come to recognize as being significant very recently -- I can recall some of his observations about who cares whether we have a triple-A rating or not. Not too many months ago he made light of it --

Mr. Sargent: You haven’t changed a bit.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- well, the hon. member has, thank heavens. He has now changed his mind; that it is important. And one reason it is as important as it is is because we have handled the affairs of this province, due to some very excellent Treasurers, in a way that has given us this rating.

Mr. Ruston: A deficit for five years.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are anxious to deal with this problem, but I say with respect, going and borrowing $500 million at this moment doesn’t really appear to be a logical answer to the present situation. And we might not have the credit rating.

Mr. Sweeney: You did it in 1975.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We didn’t borrow in 1975.

Mr. Sweeney: Giveaway programmes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, we didn’t.

Mr. Sargent: In view of the fact that we have hundreds of vacant plants in this province and there’s a desperate need for housing, why can’t the government do a crash programme on housing in this province to put people to work?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m delighted to have that question. We had a great programme to stimulate housing. We had a great programme to stimulate the automotive industry. Those people opposite pooh-poohed it. Then voted against it. They went around this province -- and today is once again like --

Mr. Breithaupt: No new cars were built.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- you know, the great conversion that’s taking place. Today they would support that kind of thing. I think it’s tremendous.

Mr. S. Smith: It stimulated some voters for you.

Mr. Nixon: You voted $600 million that election. Money for everybody.

HEALTH CARE COSTS

Mr. Dukszta: A question to the Minister of Health: In the context of the latest revelation of waste in hospitals, is the minister aware that one of the large unnecessary costs comes from the common practice in some hospitals in Ontario of routinely x-raying the opposite and unaffected limb where there has been trauma or injury to one limb in a child under the age of 16, whether or not there is a positive indication for the need for such an x-ray? If the minister is aware, what were the costs in 1976, or the current cost if it is known, of this practice to the taxpayer?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware that that procedure is, in fact, carried out in every instance. I don’t know if the member is in fact suggesting that it is carried out in every instance. I’ll take it as notice and look into it, but it seems to me from what he said, it sounds like a judgemental thing again in a treatment situation.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary: How frequently does the minister review the standards of practice in technologically intensive medicine, in view of the minister’s answer to my question during the last session regarding the cost of medical services, which indicates a growing trend toward channelling taxpayers’ funds for technologically intensive medicine? How long has the minister been aware of this and similar practices, and is the minister prepared to reduce the abuse of the cost of technologically intensive medicine?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the member is well aware that there are a number of initiatives under way in the Ministry of Health -- be it through local district health councils, be it through study or work under way, for instance, with my fiscal resources branch, with input from the Ontario Hospital Association, whatever it is -- and we are constantly trying to find ways to pare unnecessary costs in the health care system.

I’m well aware, though, as a layman, not as a health professional, that in many instances what we’re talking about is a judgement by the health professional as to what is necessary in the interests of his patient. Certainly nothing -- nothing -- that we are doing is intended to put a crimp on the judgement of the professional, but rather to try to, where possible, pinpoint unnecessary expenses and do away with them and to work with the professions.

Mr. Dukszta: Final supplementary: I was not speaking as a professional, I was speaking in many respects like a chartered accountant to point out certain costs. Let me ask whether the minister would be prepared to introduce what his sister government in Alberta, a Tory government, has introduced in terms of controlling these costs on a capital cost recovery basis, or does he know what that is?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It sounds like we’re going to exchange “did you know whats.”

An hon. member: Do you?

Mr. Dukszta: No, no.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t seen that specific action out of the province of Alberta. Perhaps I can send the member some information on what’s been done in the state of New York.

MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENT

Mr. Peterson: To the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: Since a complete data base was not compiled before the Blair commission proposals and before the Blair commission started looking at budget paper E, was there in fact a data base developed with a specific impact on various communities, and if there was, is the Treasurer prepared to table that and reveal those specific impact studies to the people of this province?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The studies were prepared on the basis of budget paper E and, of course, all those are now undergoing revision by assessment on the basis of the Blair commission. Consideration will be given to the request made by the member.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Is the Treasurer prepared to reveal specifically the impact on each community of the proposals? Is he prepared to make that public, for public discussion, prior to implementing the new system, whenever that will be -- and, as a little tiny supplementary, when will that be?

An hon. member: Too late.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the statement which we made at the time of the release of the Blair commission indicated that those figures would be made available, yes.

Mr. Good: Supplementary: Does the Treasurer expect anyone to properly study, or get a proper evaluation of, the impact of the market value assessment without a counterproposal as to what changes there might be in government grant structures that would flow from the changes in taxation on assessments?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, those matters are being worked on at the moment.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That was a final supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: Could the Treasurer tell the Minister of Revenue (Mrs. Scrivener) what is going on?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: It is called studied indifference.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Study yes -- indifference no.

UNITED ASBESTOS PLANT

Mr. Bain: In the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources I would like to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Could he inquire and find out when the Ministry of Natural Resources will be completing an economic and engineering study of the viability of the mine and mill at United Asbestos? This study was discussed at a meeting between the Premier, the leader of the official opposition, the Minister of Natural Resources and myself on March 15.

Could he find out when the report will be completed or, if it has been completed already, when it will be made public and tabled in this House? Could he also indicate to the Minister of Natural Resources that we are all in favour of a private company -- everyone in this House is in favour of a private company taking over the mine and mill and reopening it? But what will the minister be prepared to do if this does not materialize?

Mr. S. Smith: Surely not free enterprise.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He is starting to squirm.

Mr. Reid: Jack Stokes --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Bain: Will the government be prepared to make a commitment to the people of Matachewan and to the people of all of the north that if a private company doesn’t purchase the mine and mill within, say, two months, the government will form a joint venture company with the creditors, and reopen the mine?

Hon. Mr. Davis: And you are going to be general manager like Elie is at Inco?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Like the hon. member for Timiskaming, I know we are all very interested in seeing that the mine continues to operate. I understand that a meeting was held very recently with the Minister of Natural Resources. I did not attend that meeting, and I would be pleased to have the minister, or myself, report in the very near future on this important matter.

Mr. Bain: Supplementary: Could the minister also at that time make some indication that if a private company is not willing to open it up within the near future, a commitment will be made on the part of the government that either the government will work with a private company to get it reopened, or the government will form a joint venture company -- something on the lines of Texasgulf -- and reopen the mine?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I think that was part of the original question.

BROWNDALE

Mr. Eakins: To the Minister of Health: Will the minister tell the House why it has apparently taken so long for his ministry to approve the Browndale budget for this year? Does this delay have anything to do with the OPP investigation?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I spoke with the director of the children’s mental health services branch on this about 10 days to two weeks ago. They are, in fact, proceeding very well in finalizing that budget. Certainly, the investigation by my colleague the Attorney General and by the OPP is still going on; you may have questions about that which you should direct to my colleague.

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary: I just want to ask the minister, is he aware that the lack of decision on his part has caused labour negotiations which have been going on since last year to bog down; and when will he approve the budget so that financial matters can be discussed in these negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on; your leader wants to close them all out.

Mr. S. Smith: The only people suffering now, Bill, are the employees who can’t get a contract.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, Mr. Speaker, that suggestion has not been made to me but I will bring that up with the director of the branch.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why don’t you people get together?

Mr. S. Smith: John Brown isn’t suffering.

INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of the Environment. If I may steal a leaf from the member for Sarnia, I ask this question on behalf of myself and the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson).

Mr. Bullbrook: Is this about Komoka?

Mr. Lewis: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: Oh, good.

Mr. Lewis: Why has he allowed levels of anxiety to reach such significant proportions in Lambton county among the Federation of Agriculture, the council members and many people in the community over the possible reopening of an abandoned oil well for the purpose of disposing of millions of gallons of toxic industrial waste, which I gather is currently under negotiation between his ministry and the owner of that well, whose certificate of approval the minister terminated in 1974?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: There is no plan at the present time to renew that certificate. There has been some discussion between a private company, Tricil, which is in the waste disposal business, and the operator of the disposal well in the Lambton area regarding pre-treatment at the Tricil plant with a possibility of disposing of the residue in the Thompson well, for example. The minister, of course, has not indicated any approval to that.

I am not sure what rumours are spreading around the township of Enniskillen or in Lambton --

Mr. Lewis: Wild ones.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I have made it plain to the local member --

Mr. S. Smith: You gave him a good round figure.

Mr. Reid: He is stopping up the well himself.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- that there is no change in the status as far as our ministry is concerned. There has been no application to Mr. Thompson. So nothing is changed as far as we are concerned.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Is the minister prepared to guarantee that before any change is contemplated -- and certainly the community, having seen the correspondence between the minister and the local member, is a little apprehensive; and the minister can understand why if he thinks back to the letter he wrote -- is the minister prepared to guarantee that nothing will occur without (

a) initial consultation with the community and (

b) a hearing under

section 33(

a) of The Environmental Protection Act?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I would answer yes to both of those questions --

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- but I want to say a little more --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I just happened to reread that letter, and there is no reason they could have any apprehension or to conclude from that letter that we are going to approve that particular application.

Mr. Lewis: You don’t say you won’t.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We are quite emphatic that the township will be advised if there is any change in the status of that well and that there would be a hearing.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: How can the minister even contemplate putting more toxic wastes into those wells when the figures of his own ministry indicate that some of the existing wells which have been used in this way have been losing pressure over the years, which means there has to have been seepage around the well into surrounding lands and waters? How can he even contemplate doing this again?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The hon. member, of course, is using the same type of scare tactic that he used last fall when this particular problem was a subject of discussion in this House.

Mr. S. Smith: I am scared.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We have no evidence within our ministry that those existing wells which he is talking about have contaminated ground water.

Mr. S. Smith: They have lost pressure; you know that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The question is whether or not they have contaminated ground water.

Mr. S. Smith: Where has it gone if it has lost pressure?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: If there is no ground water in the area -- in fact, we have dug wells in that particular area to monitor that, so we are satisfied that there is no contamination of ground water.

Mr. S. Smith: Where is it going?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As far as considering the opening of another well is concerned --

Mr. Lewis: What about Buttermilk Creek?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- as the hon. member knows, there is a great deal of concern about the disposal of industrial liquid waste in this province and it is important to have safe disposal sites. We are concerned about certain clandestine dumping that is going on. Who knows? That may have caused the problem that the hon. member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Burr) asked a question about earlier. We are concerned that we have safe disposal sites. That is why we are looking at every possible disposal area that may be available in the province.

AID TO THE THIRD WORLD

Mr. Good: A question of the Premier regarding provincial aid for developing countries. Since it is now almost a year since his government indicated that no funds would be made available for international development, and since the 40 churches and secular agencies have now given the Premier a critique of the Hilliard report, would he now consider their alternative that a grant be made to the Ontario Council for International Co-operation so that they, in turn, could apportion this grant out to the agencies working in world relief and development?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I had a very excellent meeting with representatives of the organizations and the churches some few days ago. The presentation was somewhat different from the one that was made a year ago. It did contain some of their thoughts about Mr. Hilliard’s report, but it also came forward with, I think, six suggested ideas.

I told the group that made the presentation that the first suggestion it made and the second, I thought, would be acceptable to the government -- that would be some great areas of co-operation and communication as between government, the various churches and other organizations. Then they had three alternatives as to how we might participate, if a matter of policy were involved.

I did point out to them, and I restate it to the hon. member, that it’s not just the money involved, and I made that very clear to them, but it is a matter of principle as to whether or not the provinces should be that directly involved in what is normally, for most countries, a matter for the national or the federal government.

I also indicated to them that we would support a greater involvement by CIDA, not only in terms of amount but in CIDA giving to the independent organizations a greater portion of that budget for allocation in those projects to which they have attached priority. I said to them we would re-evaluate their more recent proposals, and that it would take us, I think I told them two or three weeks -- which I think is a fair length of time to see whether or not some policy decision might be entertained.

They did recite to us the policy of one or two provinces. I think Alberta has some involvement in the programme but it does have certain strings attached, I think I’m right in this, in that it relates to either surpluses or products that are produced within the province of Alberta, and I won’t be critical of that.

I did re-emphasize to them, because there is a principle involved here, that it’s important, I think in terms of this country and in terms of the effectiveness of these organizations, that to the extent possible it be done on a national basis rather than having necessarily individual provinces involved. We have not closed our mind to it. I sensed they thought it was a constructive meeting -- certainly we did -- and I did indicate to them we would get back to them in two or three weeks.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.

Petitions.

REPORTS

Mr. Germa from the standing public accounts committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows:

Your committee recommends to the Legislature that a commission be appointed, under The Public Inquiries Act, from the Court of Appeal of the province of Ontario to inquire into and make recommendations upon all matters related to the government’s exemption of Ronto Development Corporation from land speculation tax, made by regulation on April 14, 1976.

Your committee further recommends that the terms of reference for this inquiry be placed before the Legislature for approval within 10 days.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I got the impression when the government House leader was announcing to the House that he would be setting up a judicial inquiry to look into the Ronto matter that he was aware this motion was going to be presented. Certainly the committee is not disturbed that the government saw fit to take action prior to the report being tabled. I would, however, point out to the government that there were two recommendations contained in the motion which was just presented, and one was that the terms of reference should be brought to this Legislature for consideration before the order in council was issued.

I am a little disturbed. The committee spent some considerable time analysing and determining whether the judicial inquiry route would be successful in accomplishing a resolution to this problem. The committee was of the impression that the quality of the inquiry, of course, will be determined by the terms of reference as presented to this Legislature. For that, I am a little disillusioned that the government didn’t see fit to take into considerations both recommendations.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the motion?

Mr. Speaker: I think I should put it before the House first of all. Mr. Germa has presented the report and moved its adoption.

Mr. Bullbrook: I attempted before, during the question period, which is all too restrictive, to voice my own personal concern in connection with the terms of reference. Now the history of this: The Premier is absolutely correct in voicing the traditional aspect in matters of this nature. On royal commissions, judicial inquiries, unless under the particular statute, it’s totally the prerogative of government, through the Lieutenant Governor in Council, to develop the terms of reference and advise the commissioner, or the inquiry officer, what those terms of reference are.

The background of this -- and I want to convey this, if I may, to the Premier though the Speaker -- I think personally through correspondence that he and I have had over the last few months, he recognizes, I hope, on my part a total understanding of the function of government, the function of the legislative process, the function of appointed people. So I support, generally, what he says, that the terms of reference should be, to a great extent, the prerogative of the government.

However there is a different situation here. We are in a minority situation. The Premier is the first one to constantly tell the people in Ontario that minority government can work; and it works though one equation only, and that is reciprocal co-operation in this House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bullbrook: Hear, hear.

Now what happened was this: There was a motion, as I understand it, for the appointment of a select committee. Many in this party agreed with the motion, that there should be a select committee.

If I might be permitted to just digress for a moment, I totally disassociate myself from the attitude of the government House leader that there is something necessarily unduly partisan in a select committee; quite the contrary. My recent experience with the select committee on company law has been exactly the opposite, it almost reminded me of the days of the private bills committee. There was nothing partisan about it at all. I believe that the majority of members of this House have attempted, in that context of a minority government, to deal in a fairly nonpartisan fashion, and would have attempted to deal in a fairly nonpartisan fashion in this matter so important to us all.

Mr. Nixon: Just like they did with the Hydro building. Remember that one?

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, we tried there.

Mr. Nixon: A select committee was all right then. You had a majority, remember.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Bullbrook: But be that as it may, we’ve apparently come to a conclusion that all parties will subscribe to the judicial inquiry process. So be it; I, for one, will support that.

But the terms of reference, as slightly elicited from the government House leader, in effect, Mr. Speaker, talk only of the judicial inquiry looking into wrongdoing with respect to that matter. This whole matter of Ronto, that whole exercise of judgement, although it is a governmental and ministerial judgement, in the context of a minority government situation I say to those on this side of the House: Although we don’t want to precipitate anything unduly on this matter, let’s hope that minority government could work, don’t give up our rights with respect to this one, it’s too darn important.

If we’re going to permit them to draft terms of reference solely restricted to the question of wrongdoing, I can tell members right now that we’re going to absolutely fetter that inquiry officer. Members are not going to do what they intended to do at the public accounts committee to begin with, and that is to analyse the expenditure of government funds, or unilateral ministerial judgements which are wrong and costing the taxpayers millions of dollars.

I say this to you, Mr. Speaker, the motion just made by the chairman of the public accounts committee is entirely appropriate when he talks about 10 days for us to have the terms of reference, and we should be able to debate those terms of reference in this assembly. I say this to you, sir, in closing, as much as we admire the personal integrity and ability of the various House leaders of the parties, that’s not good enough. It can’t be good enough. It doesn’t in any way demean their collective activity, or what they do for all of us.

We each have a right, nay a duty, to be able to get up on our feet here and discuss those terms of reference. I for one attempted, as vigorously as I could, to point out to all members of the House that although it is traditionally the function of government, of their own initiative, and unilaterally without consultation, to go ahead and make appointments and to structure the appointments and develop the terms of reference, if we’re going to make this minority government work -- because it can work -- then let’s have the legislative process involved in that.

It’s not asking too much of the Premier to do that, because the Premier, in response to the various points of order by my colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, did say “vote against it”; twice he said “vote against it.” This is the question I’m putting: How is he going to vote against it? How do we vote against the terms of reference that he has developed himself?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Through a motion.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is this what he is talking about? This motion today?

Mr. Nixon: This motion has the terms in it?

Mr. Bullbrook: This motion has no terms in it; and that’s the problem that I, as one member, face.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You weren’t even there for any of the discussions in the public accounts committee.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia has the floor.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am not a member of the public accounts committee; and I’m not voicing my concern in the context of being a member or otherwise of the public accounts committee. I’m trying to point out that voting against or for this motion doesn’t answer the very question that burdens me.

Mr. Nixon: That’s right.

Mr. Bullbrook: Nobody knows the terms of reference.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, at the time we considered whether or not a public inquiry would be a suitable method of dealing with the Ronto affair, we in the NDP caucus gave a great deal of consideration as to whether or not it would be better suited to be dealt with in a standing committee of the Legislature or a select committee of the Legislature. We decided that it was appropriate that it should go to a public inquiry. We decided that on the basis of a feeling that those doing the inquiring would only be able to come to satisfactory conclusions if the terms of reference were suitable.

In the matter of Ronto, the matter of the government’s decision to exempt Ronto from the payment of tax has been before the Legislature for some long period of time. The standing committee on public accounts had it before them for a long period of time, and it really now is a matter before the Legislature and not just simply a matter before the government.

While I would always be happy to sit down with the other House leaders and chat about the terms of reference, I feel much like the member for Sarnia who just stated that, “I wouldn’t want to take upon myself the responsibility for determining whether or not the terms of reference put forward by the government were suitable in terms of dealing with the entire matter of the exemption granted.”

To begin with, it isn’t a matter of looking into whether there was wrongdoing or not. It’s a matter of trying to determine whether or not all of the information necessary was available, and the terms of reference have to make it clear that that is the purpose of the inquiry. The terms of reference also have to make it clear that it’s not simply a matter of determining whether the amounts of money which may well have been paid had the tax been applied ought now to be paid, but whether there were other moneys paid to other persons, or groups of individuals, which may or may not have influenced the decision of government.

I don’t know how the government intends to draw its terms of reference. I recognize, as one speaks of it, the traditional right of the government to govern, and I don’t very often make any inroads into that traditional right, but I do frankly feel that if the terms of reference are drawn sufficiently broadly to allow the commissioner to look into all matters related, and if the terms of reference in specific draw his or her attention to matters which are of particular attention and to which specific attention must be paid, then of course the terms of reference could receive the concurrence of the House and the inquiry would serve the purpose which we all intend it to serve.

[3:30]

I worry, now, about the possibility of the terms being drawn restrictively, even inadvertently; and I don’t quite understand why we couldn’t have had those terms of reference laid before the Legislature in order that the members, who are now all involved, could have had the opportunity to review those and to make some recommendation to the government, which could, if it wished, have chosen to ignore them.

If the government felt and could argue sufficiently strongly that the suggested changes were in some way or another reducing the function and capacity of either the government or the public inquiry, then that argument would have stood up under public scrutiny and the public would have supported the government’s position.

I feel that we are getting into a hornet’s nest over very little and that it would have been much better if the government had simply accepted the fact that it was being asked by the public accounts committee, in a unanimous decision supported by all parties, that the terms of reference be placed before the Legislature before such time as the appointment of the commissioner, that it concur with that and agree that that is a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances, given the amount of legislative debate that has already taken place around the issue, and trust to the Legislature, as it has to in all other matters, to make a reasonable judgement about what constitutes sensible terms of reference.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I may say to the Premier that his bedmate in this situation, the official opposition, in presenting it to the committee this morning, made it conditional that they would vote for this on the fact that we would have a say in the terms of reference. It was fully understood -- that was our vote -- that the public accounts committee would have a say in the terms of reference and other things such as the framework and guidelines of the inquiry.

It was modified from the select committee, for reasons I won’t get into here now, but the facts are that that was the condition of the vote this morning. I think the House leader beat the gun bringing that in before the chairman (Mr. Germa) brought his motion in, but that was our understanding this morning and all parties voted for that.

I may be wrong, I don’t know, but I know that we thought at that time that everything was conditional on us having a say on the terms of reference. If that is not the case, I think we should very seriously study what we are talking about.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to this question very briefly. I am not a member of the public accounts committee and my knowledge, except for one or two occasions, is based entirely on the discussions I have had with my colleagues from the New Democratic Party caucus who sat on that committee. I have, however, been closely associated with the member for Brantford (Mr.

Makarchuk) since he first raised this matter in August of last year about the propriety of the exemption which was granted, and I would say to the Premier and I would say to the House leader that the question was not in anything but a very minor and secondary way the question of undue influence or impropriety or anything related to that.

Mr. Nixon: That’s exactly right.

Mr. Renwick: The basic question and the fundamental question which was raised --

Mr. Nixon: Was whether you should exempt them.

Mr. Renwick: -- by the Ronto matter was, and may I try to phrase this in an effort to be helpful to solve the dilemma which has been presented to the House by the failure to have a proper debate about it, the key question which was raised throughout the whole of the discussion of Ronto, both in this House and in the public accounts committee, would in my judgement run something like this: Would the then minister, properly advised and fully informed, have granted the exemption which he did?

It would appear to me that that is the primary question; and if I understood what the House leader for the government was saying today, the terms of reference as indicated in the statement he made would not have covered that question. From that question, and very much as a secondary one, might very well flow the question as to whether or not there was any undue influence or impropriety or favouritism or whatever you wish to call that, but that is very much a far distant secondary question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on a point or order, so there is no misunderstanding, the House leader did not read the terms of reference to the House. He said, very simply, that there would be a judicial inquiry, that it would include, amongst other things -- I haven’t even read his statement. What I was saying in reply to the hon. member for Brantford was that we would have terms of reference. My experience has always been that these terms of reference are sufficiently broad to accommodate the interest of the public, which I assume is the interest of the members of this House.

I don’t want to prolong this debate, and there are some things I could say in almost a partisan sense --

Mr. Deans: Well, don’t.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What I understand the House leader for the New Democratic Party is saying is -- and I ask for clarification -- that he would like an opportunity --

Mr. MacDonald: Enter the debate.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m just asking for a little information that might --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Premier rose on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right, I’ll ask the question after. I’ll let the member for Riverdale put it. But I just want to make it clear the government has not set out the terms of reference. I don’t want any misunderstanding.

Mr. Renwick: I do appreciate the opportunity to conclude my remarks, with the leave of the Premier. I did not intend to say that the House leader for the government specified, specifically, the terms of reference of the committee; but he did indicate the general framework, in which his thinking was directed, about those terms of reference. In the statement which he made, he did not address his attention to what I believe to be the key question.

I say to the Premier and to the House leader of the government, is it not acceptable that, whatever the actual language may turn out to be, something in the nature of the statement which I have made is the question which should be asked of the royal commission? Namely, would the then minister, properly advised and fully informed, have granted the exemption he did?

Mr. Lewis: Do you object to that as part of the inquiry?

Mr. Nixon: The House leader for the Liberal Party made an excellent suggestion, I believe, which he hasn’t been able to act upon. He indicated that one way to proceed in this matter would be for this debate to adjourn and be left adjourned until such time as the terms of reference are placed before us. Then we could resume the debate and there might then possibly be an occasion to express approval or disapproval of the terms. I thought that suggestion was a good one.

On the other hand, the debate has proceeded and I believe it is an important one -- I, certainly, believe it is. With your permission, sir, I would like to contribute my views.

Mr. Ferrier: He doesn’t want to be upstaged.

Mr. Nixon: I do believe that an important point has been made in that the reference to the public accounts committee was not to find out what Eddie Goodman was doing in all this business, but specifically for the public accounts committee to review the decision to exempt Ronto from the payment of the tax. One of the very significant resolutions that was before the committee for a long time, and might very well have been acted upon, was to recommend that the House instruct the government to remove that exemption; in other words, to collect the tax.

I was a member of the committee -- at least for one of its meetings -- and we were looking at the matter not as a great political scandal -- although, in fact, it might be -- but as a matter of accounting for public funds, and that exemption in particular.

Certainly on that basis I felt, and still feel -- although I have no particular objection to the royal commission -- that it was a matter for the public accounts committee; and when it became too burdensome and elaborate for the public accounts committee -- obviously demanding the presence of proper counsel and other assistance for the committee -- I felt that a select committee should be empowered to continue the investigation on that line.

Personally, I felt that if the results of the investigation were similar to the information already provided to us by the auditor, then the resolution calling on this House to instruct the government -- if such a motion is in order -- to go out and collect $500,000 or $2 million would have been a proper result rather than some other approach.

My own feeling is that a royal commission is used under these circumstances when there is a cloud over the reputation of an individual or where there is some indication of malfeasance. Surely, in this instance, it is the judgement of the government in granting the exemption. Certainly if you’re going to have a full review of the situation there are other collateral matters, to which the member for Brantford has already referred, such as the payment of commissions, and the additional exemptions to a former member of the racing commission.

It makes a very interesting tale indeed and surely the royal commissioner will have to go into that. I think our prime interest is the fact that the government has exempted Ronto from the payment of $500,000 in tax. We even feel it should be $2 million in tax, and that that is why it was referred to the standing committee and why the standing committee moved to have it referred to a select committee.

The suggestion by the House leader for the Liberal Party that there be an adjournment of this debate until we have a look at the terms of reference is a good one. I might also say I don’t think there have been many occasions in the past where it was felt that the terms of reference of royal commissions were unduly restrictive. I do recall one occasion when some complaint was expressed in the House following the establishment of the terms and the government of the day was good enough to amend and expand the terms themselves.

Surely that is their prerogative and a procedure which precedent has already seen established. I hope members of the House will have a chance to express their views on the terms of reference by their debate and by their vote, and I think there is a quite clear and easily understood procedure whereby that might come about.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, as the seconder of the motion that is before the House at the moment --

Mr. Nixon: You are the man who took the message to the committee.

Mr. Drea: I want to draw your attention to one very basic fact: There were no conditions in that motion. The mover of the motion this morning very courteously supplied me with a written copy of the resolution. There were some people -- some members, I may say, of that committee, but not of my party and not of the official opposition party -- who seemed mystified as to what the rules of the House were. They asked for certain information. Certain information was supplied to them by a member of the committee -- not of my party -- on a voluntary basis. If, on that basis, the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr.

Sargent) was so confused that he thought there were conditions in a written motion, then Mr. Speaker I say to you when we get into a debate that that motion contains six or seven lines and it is very clear and it very concise.

The particular time designation in there is of 10 days. It was my understanding that because of the difficulties of the committee in coming to grips with the finality of the situation -- not the merits of it but the finality of it -- that the 10 days was a period of time during which the government would have to take a position on the matter.

As a matter of fact, if the tapes were to be replayed from this morning, there is a very clear indication that if the government did not take a position on this particular motion, the committee might very well have to try to suggest another vehicle, or indeed go back to the select committee route. That is the impact of the last two lines of the resolution, that the terms of reference -- in other words -- there would be a commissioner -- would be placed before the Legislature within 10 days.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, had I interpreted those last two lines as a committee directing the government on what it was going to do, I would not have seconded it.

Mr. Conway: Are you changing your mind?

Mr. Drea: The intent of the motion that has been brought before the House this afternoon and which was passed unanimously -- even though there were three members who were mystified, confused or what have you, in the end they came around -- was to bring to finality --

Mr. Nixon: They are not used to the Tories and the NDP being in bed together. One of you has cold feet.

Mr. Drea: -- the question of the tax exemption to Ronto. This was considered to be the most expedient, the most fair and the most efficient vehicle to bring about finality one way or the other. That is all it was.

[3:45]

Mr. Sargent: Point of order, point of order.

Mr. Drea: For those who say that they were confused and there were conditions, I am prepared to have the tapes played back, because there was no confusion and there were no conditions.

Mr. Nixon: It has nothing to do with the royal commission anyway.

Mr. Sargent: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member makes reference to “three members who were confused.”

Mr. Conway: Burn the tapes, Frank.

An hon. member: It is you, Eddie.

An hon. member: Frank Drea, Frank Drea and Frank Drea.

Mr. Sargent: The three members who were “confused,” as he says, were not in bed with the government. The Liberal Party goes straight down the line and we were not party to the NDP and the government making a deal.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member does not have a point of order. The hon. member for Scarborough Centre will continue.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That just adds to your confusion, Eddie.

Mr. Sargent: A deal has been made and we were not party to the deal they wanted to make.

An hon. member: You will be, next time.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to continue on --

An hon. member: Please don’t.

Mr. Drea: -- but I want to decry this mention of “a deal was made.” Let’s put it on the record.

Mr. Conway: You don’t look like Monty Hall.

Mr. Drea: The first time that I knew anything about the motion that the member for Wentworth North was making was when he had the courtesy this morning, just about a minute before public accounts started, to send me a typed photo copy of it. I had never seen it before, and indeed, I suppose if he had asked for my comments on it, I would have said I thought it was a first-class idea, but he did not. I seconded the motion purely on its merits, I am getting a little bit sick and tired --

Mr. Sargent: We know you are sick all right.

Mr. Drea: -- that every time there is a motion of any bipartisan nature in this House, there is some redneck who gets up and says a deal was made. There was no deal made.

Mr. Lewis: When the chips are down in this House it won’t be this party that will stand up and support you -- when the crunch comes next week.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, the discussions which have been held by the House leaders during the end portion of the question period concerning this matter have come, I think, to the conclusion that the terms of reference to which the report makes mention can be made available to all members of the House within a comparatively short time. The Premier, in his exchange today with various members asking questions on this subject, has suggested that those terms of reference may be available as early as tomorrow.

If such is the case, we will then have the opportunity to review those terms of reference, which may prove to be acceptable or may require some additional encouragement. I suggest that once those terms of reference are known, there will be an opportunity for us then to return to this debate, should that be necessary. We can then resolve the matter, since we are talking now in the absence of knowing what those terms will be.

MOTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that

section (

h) of clause 37 in the provisional standing orders as approved by the House on December 16, 1976, be amended by deleting the

section and substituting the following:

“(

h) No question will be put to the House before 5:50 p.m. The votes on all items not opposed at 5:50 p.m. shall be stacked and put forthwith. If a division is requested by five members, there will be a five-minute division bell, following which all questions will be put forthwith.”

Hon. Mr. Welch also moved that

section (

j) of clause 37 in the provisional standing orders as approved by the House on December 16, 1976, be amended by adding the following:

“and that all bills intended for debate be introduced at latest on the Tuesday of the second week previous to the week in which such bill is to be debated, and that notice of a motion intended to be debated be printed on the Tuesday of the second week previous to the week in which such motion is to be debated.”

Motions agreed to.

ESSEX COUNTY FRENCH-LANGUAGE SECONDARY SCHOOL ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 31,

An Act to require the Essex County Board of Education to provide a French-language secondary school.

Motion agreed to.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Stong moved first reading of Bill 32,

An Act to amend The Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, this bill defines hospital pharmacists and establishes a bargaining unit of hospital pharmacists as an appropriate unit for collective bargaining.

PATIENTS’ RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Dukszta moved first reading of Bill 33,

An Act respecting certain Rights of Patients receiving Health Care Services in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Dukszta: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to declare and protect certain rights of medical patients in Ontario. The bill is divided into three parts.

Part I of the bill is designed to protect the confidentiality of a patient’s medical record. The bill declares a general prohibition against disclosure of a medical record, but allows for some exceptions to ensure proper treatment and care of the patient. The patient also has a right to access to his own medical record. A person who violates these provisions may be found guilty of professional misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding.

Part II of the bill is designed to ensure that a patient is provided with adequate information about the proposed form of treatment before giving written consent to the treatment. This information must be provided to the patient in order for consent to be considered as informed consent. When enacted, this part will amend the existing procedure for providing written consent established by regulation under The Public Hospitals Act. It would also affect any other procedure where written consent is required.

Part III of the bill is designed to protect persons who are admitted to a psychiatric facility as involuntary patients under The Mental Health Act. This part amends that Act by creating additional review procedures to protect a person from being detained unnecessarily as an involuntary patient. In addition, the duration of a certificate of renewal is reduced to ensure that the patient is examined on a frequent and regular basis by an independent physician while he is detained as an involuntary patient.

Mr. Speaker: May I just suggest, and point out to the hon. member, that the explanation is supposed to be brief, explaining the principle; not filling or flushing it out too much. His explanation was slightly long.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. Stokes: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion that was just introduced amending standing orders would preclude the hon. member for Parkdale introducing that motion for debate two weeks from today. I think it is patently unfair.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I agree. It was quite clearly understood as a preparation for this -- and the clerk at the table perhaps hasn’t been clear on this -- that we were making an exception as far as the hon. member was concerned. It was because of the confusion with respect to the

interpretation that that amendment was put in; it was not to cover this particular one but subsequently.

Mr. Stokes: But my point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that it be made abundantly clear to all members of the House that that amendment to the standing order will prevail with the exception of this motion which precipitated the whole thing.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I appreciate that clarification and this opportunity; I thought I had made that point clear earlier.

PROCEDURE FOR PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR

Mr. Speaker: Before calling the orders of the day, it has been suggested that before the first private members’ period under the provisional rules, I should outline as clearly as possible what I understand to be the consensus of the House respecting the procedure to be followed.

My understanding is this: When the routine proceedings have been completed, the orders of the day are of course the two prescribed items of public business. The time from the commencement of such proceedings until 5:50 p.m. will be divided equally between the two orders. When debate on the first order has concluded, the Speaker will immediately call the second order for debate. When debate on both orders has been concluded, if no petition adverse to a vote has been filed in accordance with provisional order 37(f), the Speaker will put a question on the first order as follows:

“Shall there be a vote on this motion? Any members opposed to a vote must now rise.”

If 20 members rise, a vote is of course blocked. But if any less than 20 members stand, a vote will be ordered and stacked. The same procedure will then be followed with respect to the second order of the day. If votes on both the orders are blocked that, of course, ends the proceedings.

If, however, a vote is ordered with respect to either one or both of the orders, the Speaker will proceed in the usual way to call for the voice vote, the ayes and nays, and give his opinion as to whether the ayes or nays have it. If that opinion is accepted, the vote is so recorded.

If, however, five members stand in their places in the usual way to call for a recorded vote in either one or both cases, there will be a five-minute division bell after which the recorded vote or votes will be taken.

The time allotment for each member speaking will remain as heretofore with this exception: The mover may, if he wishes, reserve any part of his 20 minutes for a reply at the end of the debate. He must, however, advise the Speaker beforehand of his intention to do so and as to how many minutes he is so reserving.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch: Just before the orders of the day are called, I wish to table the answers to questions 1, 3, 4, 5, 16, 17 and 19 and the interim answers to questions 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 and 20 on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

NATURAL DEATH ACT

Mr. Maeck moved second reading of Bill 3,

An Act respecting the Withholding or Withdrawal of Treatment where Death is Inevitable.

Mr. Speaker: I will announce very shortly exactly when half-time is up for this particular order.

Mr. Moffatt: And then change ends?

Mr. Maeck: By luck of the ballot, Mr. Speaker, I have been chosen to present the first private member’s bill under the new rules passed by this House last December 16. These rules, as hon. members are aware, allow greater opportunity for private bills to become law in this province.

I am well aware of the honour falling to the member to present the first bill, but I am also mindful of the importance of the situation. Accordingly, I have chosen to bring forward for consideration a bill based on humanitarian principles which should commend themselves to all members.

If this bill is passed into law, it will not have widespread or general application; however, it will have great significance for many citizens in a time of anguish. I believe that a bill which has as its aim the alleviation of suffering is always worthy of favourable consideration.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by outlining the principles which lie behind the bill and which motivated me to bring it forward. Let me also attempt to make clear both what the bill intends to achieve and what it does not intend to achieve.

Some time ago it came to my attention that medical technology had advanced to the point where it is possible to keep a human being alive by artificial means when one or a number of that human’s vital functions have been irreversibly damaged by accident or disease. It is possible to prolong a patient’s life beyond the point where he or she would die naturally, but with no hope that the patient could ever recover.

In some instances the prolongation of life by artificial means gives added pain to the patient. But in all instances, however, it means added pain, anguish and concern for the patient’s family, attending medical personnel and the clergy. I must point out that I am not talking of a very large number of cases. Informed estimates conclude that fewer than two per cent of hospitalized patients reach the stage where artificial prolongation of life is a consideration. But for that two per cent, and for those concerned with their treatment, it is a serious problem.

It occurred to me that a mechanism could be devised to allow the alleviation of suffering for all concerned when death is close and inevitable.

In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest the passage of a natural death Act in the state of California, and saw that with certain modifications such legislation could be enacted here. Through the courtesy of the Attorney General of California I obtained a copy of their legislation, along with a fairly complete file of the arguments heard during its passage. It is important to note that the California legislation took over two years of drafting and amendments before it was signed into law by Governor Brown.

There are, of course, differences between the legal and legislative powers of California and Ontario. What I am presenting in this bill, however, are the best features of the California Act combined with what expert counsel indicated appropriate for Ontario. In other words, the ground for such legislation has been broken and many of the arguments regarding theology, morality, ethics and humanitarianism have already been heard.

By this I do not intend to say that there should be little or no debate on the bill. On the contrary, it is my expressed intention to direct this bill to the standing committee on social development should it receive second reading today. It would be my hope that that committee would hold extensive and comprehensive hearings on both the principles behind the bill and its specific provisions.

I would like to have all interested groups and members of the public make their views known on this legislation. We all have the right to consent or refuse to consent to medical treatment today. What this bill intends is that while patients would normally consent to such treatment when there is hope of recovery, they might wish to limit that consent when artificial means are contemplated to keep them alive beyond their time of natural death. That is to say that this anticipates those instances where artificial means serve only to prolong a death watch instead of leading to recovered health.

What this bill seeks is to allow a patient to meet his inevitable death with dignity and a degree of comfort.

There are three principles which underlie this proposed legislation. The first is that the individual should have the right to decide whether he or she is going to die a natural death where the possibility exists. I cannot stress enough that Bill 3 falls into the category of permissive legislation. No one would be compelled to limit his consent to have his life prolonged or sustained by artificial means. The proposed legislation would allow only those who wish to do so to indicate their desires on this question.

The working of the bill is such that only those who have reached the age of majority, who are in full control of their faculties and who are not under pressure from any source, can execute a directive for the guidance of their physician. It was my original intention that sane and healthy individuals could execute their directives before fatal illness or accident befell them. I anticipated citizens filling out directives in much the same manner as we fill out, or do not fill out, whatever the case may be, the consent forms on our driver’s licence under The Human Tissue Gift Act.

It is possible, however, that patients might wish to execute a directive at or near the time they are diagnosed as terminally ill. So provision has been made for both categories: sane and healthy, or sane and terminally ill. It is my hope that individuals who wish to would fill out the directive when they’re healthy. In this connection, hon. members will observe that there is provision for prompt and effective revocation of the directive should the patient change his mind. As well, legal directives will remain in effect for only five years.

Arising from the first principle is that responsibility for an agonizing decision will not fall on grieving members of the patient’s family. If a directive has been executed by the patient, family members will be relieved of a terrible burden at a time when they are already distraught. Attending members of the clergy are often troubled as well by the plight of the patient and the family. They, too, will be relieved if a directive has been executed beforehand.

The third benefit to arise from granting the individual right to limit heroic treatment is that medical personnel will be spared the responsibility of deciding to limit treatment. There will be no question of liability for any act done or omission made in good faith under the provisions of this bill. Attending physicians will simply be following the clear wishes of their patients when there is nothing to be done to restore life processes. It should be noted as well that in cases where terminally ill patients have not or cannot execute a directive the physician will carry out his responsibilities as he always has.

In sum, the intent of Bill 3 is to allow individuals to take it upon themselves to spare their families, clergy and medical attendants the agony of deciding whether to prolong suffering when death is inevitable.

Having stated the intention of the bill, let me go on to indicate what the bill does not intend. Here I want to be very specific, Mr. Speaker, because some questions have been raised despite the fact that the humanitarian objectives of the legislation are quite clear.

In the first place, the bill does not in any way make provision for euthanasia or mercy killing. It deals only with the circumstances surrounding a death that would occur in any event. Criminal activity which results in the taking of a life is dealt with under The Criminal Code of Canada and is a federal responsibility. Nonetheless, I stress as strongly as I can the fact that the specific provisions of Bill 3 do not allow the taking of a life. They deal with a death that would take place naturally and inevitably. Death is not to be hastened in any way.

Similarly, any death occurring naturally under the provisions of this bill cannot be considered a suicide, and such is specifically stated in the bill. Let me explain the safeguards that have been written into the bill. Anyone signing the directive must do so in the presence of two witnesses who cannot stand to benefit in any way from the death of the individual. Secondly, the existence of an irreversible and terminal condition must be diagnosed by two physicians who are not responsible for the care of the patient in question. In the case where two independent physicians cannot agree that a condition is terminal, the directive will not take effect.

Another safeguard has been drafted to guard against the taking of an innocent life. Provision has been made to nullify the effect of a directive when the patient in question is female and expecting a child.

What I have been endeavouring to explain are the basic humanitarian concerns which motivated me to bring this bill forward.

To repeat them once again, the aims of the legislation are: one, to allow an adult in clear control of his faculties to decide that his inevitable death will take place with as much dignity as possible; and two, that by allowing an individual to choose not to have his moment of death postponed by artificial means, he and he alone will absolve his family, clergy and physicians from having to make an agonizing decision.

This bill, I believe, has been drafted in such a way as to prevent any consideration of the taking of life. As a former police officer and member of our armed forces, I know only too well the awful reality of someone causing another to lose his life. What I am concerned with are those rare occasions when, by virtue of accident or disease, an individual’s death is certain and imminent as certified by the diagnosis of two qualified physicians. The situations I am talking about are those in which an individual might be kept clinically alive by artificial means for some period of time but who would have no hope of recovery.

May I now turn to some of the practical aspects of the bill? As various members are aware, I have canvassed a wide sector of religious, medical and community leaders concerning the principle of the proposed legislation. The response has been extremely positive, especially from those who have had to deal with terminal patients on a regular basis. It should be of interest to hon. members that what is proposed in this bill parallels much of what is already in practice.

The code of ethics of the Ontario Medical Association, for instance, has two clauses which bear on this matter, and they read as follows: “An ethical physician will allow death to occur with dignity and comfort when death of the body appears to be inevitable.” The second says: “An ethical physician may support the body when clinical death of the brain has occurred but need not prolong life by unusual or heroic means.”

The Ontario Medical Association is on record in supporting this code of ethics, so these statements are statements of the association’s policy. I know the OMA is in support of the principle of my bill and I look forward to hearing from its representatives should the bill get to the committee stage.

As I indicated, the mail and telephone calls I’ve received since it became known that I would be presenting this bill have been very positive. Well over 80 per cent of those who have communicated with me have indicated their support and many of the letters which indicated opposition to it were, I believe, based on a misunderstanding of the specific provisions as safeguards of the bill. This is understandable because they didn’t have an opportunity to see the actual wording of the bill until it was introduced and printed.

It is my sincere belief that virtually all original opponents of the bill can rest more easily now that the provisions and safeguards have been spelled out. Yet it would appear that the primary concern of those who indicated opposition to this bill was that it would promote euthanasia. As I hope I have made clear, it does not.

The taking of a life is a crime under The Criminal Code and the provisions of the bill do not alter that in any way. This bill deals with natural death, not unnatural death. Here I should also point out that I have specifically and deliberately left out any provision for delegation of authority for executing a directive. It is to be made by the individual and no one else. This is to further ensure that only the wishes of the patient will be recognized.

Another concern that has been expressed comes from doctors who wonder what will happen to patients who do not sign a directive.

Section 6 of the bill clearly states that physicians will carry on in their normal manner. The provisions of the bill will apply only to those who sign a directive.

In conclusion, I would like to share with the hon. members an example of what this bill is all about. Some time ago, I appeared on a radio show on London’s Station CFPL to talk about this particular bill. I wasn’t able to hear all the telephone calls that came in but the station’s programme manager wrote to tell me about them. In part he wrote:

“I think you would have been moved had you heard the call I received just before the programme signed off. A middle-aged man called to tell me he is a terminal cancer patient whose prognosis is very bleak. He said that not a day goes by that he does not pray for death to come swiftly since he suffers even with the administration of drugs. He supports very much your idea. His very moving conversation, I thought, showed us a side of the great moral question here that most of us cannot see clearly from our vantage point of good health.”

It should be readily apparent that the provisions of this bill, if enacted, cannot help this man at this time. No one has been able to shorten his life by any means, but once his death was imminent he could be allowed to die a natural death without prolonged suffering.

I have received many letters expressing equally moving and genuine sentiments. It is my hope, if this bill progresses through the legislative process to become law, it will serve to assist those citizens who are afflicted and distraught or who may become afflicted and distraught. The aim of this bill is to bring a measure of comfort in the face of awful reality.

I would like to conclude by asking support for this bill on second reading in order that the aims and objectives of it can be studied by the standing committee on social development. There may be amendments required to give full and fair meaning to the humanitarian objectives of this bill. There may be amendments required to give further protection against abuse. In any event, I strongly believe in the goodwill the bill has elicited and I look forward to hearing from hon. members who will take

part in the debate.

I understand that whatever time remains to me under my time allocation can be used in order to answer questions or make corrections or clarifications. I would be happy to use that time for these purposes.

[4:15]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Parkdale for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Dukszta: How many minutes, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No more than 10 minutes.

Mr. Dukszta: Fine. I actually will do it in seven and a half. It is exciting to participate in a debate in the best parliamentary tradition when a bill can be debated freely, voted upon I hope as freely, and in response only to the dictates of one’s own reason and conscience. It is also felicitous that Mr. Maeck’s bill presents us with a moral conundrum. I have talked about the bill with church fathers. I have read on the Quinlan ease. I have consulted with my good friend, the member for Downsview (Mr. di Santo), about the implication of Mr.

Maeck’s bill in the context of class analysis, but ultimately I have come to the realization that the bill affects me primarily in two ways -- first, as a physician, and second, as a human being.

First, as a physician, I play a specific role in society, a role which carries certain responsibilities, power and some privileges. Second, as a person, I can identify myself with a situation describ