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

April 30, 1974

29th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L036 - Tue 30 Apr 1974 / Mar 30 avr 1974

ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

METRO TORONTO HOSPITAL DISPUTE

METRO TORONTO HOSPITAL DISPUTE

HOUSING ACTION PROGRAMME POLICY

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR PORTUGUESE, ITALIAN CHILDREN

TEACHER CONDITIONS OF WORK

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

QUARRY OPERATIONS IN PARKS

LEMOINE POINT

CLOSING OF PELHAM SECONDARY SCHOOL

ALLEGED SEEPAGE OF POLLUTANTS INTO DETROIT RIVER

ROUTE OF PETROLEUM PIPELINE

CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN

COST DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN ONTARIO

HAMILTON BAY PROPERTY

BOOKMAKING AND DRUG TRAFFICKING IN INDUSTRIAL PLANTS

OTDC POSITION FILLED BY US CITIZEN

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT OF NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES

FOUR-LANE HIGHWAYS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

DISPUTE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALDIMAND-NORFOLK ACT

THIRD READING

HEALTH DISCIPLINES ACT, 1974 (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to the House today, 64 Young Voyageurs from Thunder Bay from the Agnew H. Johnson School, with their principal, Mr. George Randall, and their escorts. They are the first of a group of over 100 from this one school, and we welcome them to Toronto, sir.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House, students from St. Martin’s Separate School in Mississauga, their staff and those who are with them -- some 120 students from grade 8. I ask members to join with me in welcoming them.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, if I may. Yesterday in the second reading debate on the Land Speculation Tax Act, the point was made by myself and several other members that it was difficult or almost impossible to properly debate that statute without having some idea of the amendments that the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) was going to present. The Minister of Revenue refused to tell us what those amendments might be; he said there were three fields under consideration. He is quoted in today’s Star as saying that there are at least 13 amendments that he proposes to introduce.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the privileges of myself and all the members of the House have been seriously infringed upon because he won’t tell us what is going on during debate but he discussed it with the news media.

Some hon. members: Right. Right.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Government by headlines, as usual.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Where was the member yesterday?

Mr. Roy: I was here. I didn’t see the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Did the member get on television in Sudbury?

Mr. Roy: I didn’t see the Premier --

Mr. Speaker: I haven’t seen the newspaper articles to which the hon. member for Downsview refers. I am not at all sure of the import of what he says, based upon his remarks. So far I don’t see any privilege that has been abused. I will, however, read the newspaper

article and determine if in fact there is any privilege that should have been conferred upon this Legislature that was not so conferred. I will refer back to the hon. members as soon as I’ve had an opportunity.

Statements by the ministry.

ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to announce the establishment of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens under the chairmanship of Miss Hope Holmested of Richmond Hill. Miss Holmested and a number of the council members are with us today in the Speaker’s gallery and I should like to welcome them to the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, too seldom do we acknowledge the debt we owe to senior citizens. Were it not for their foresight, their industry and their imagination, Ontario would not be the thriving province it is today. Their independent outlook, their self-reliance are a lesson to us all. Such characteristics are the foundation of a strong society and are qualities that will never be outdated. What we have today is built on the efforts of those who have gone before, just as what we do today will be the plateau on which future generations will build their lives.

The majority of our 678,000 citizens over 65 are self-supporting, living within their community and still actively contributing to its life. But a number of factors -- inflation, small pensions, fixed incomes and special health needs, among others -- make it essential to provide community assistance of one kind or another to enhance the quality of their lives. This government has recognized those special needs and has initiated many programmes to meet them and to alleviate hardship. Some programmes are universal and apply to all senior citizens, others apply to a select number and still others are available at the option of each individual. If I may, I would like to highlight a few.

First, the recent budget announced new steps to increase the financial independence of senior citizens through the guaranteed annual income system, GAINS, which assures an income of at least $50 per week for single persons or $100 per week for married couples. About 280,000 or 40 per cent of those over 65 will receive their first GAINS cheques starting July 1, 1974. Mr. Speaker, no other province in Canada provides a better income security programme to its elderly.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): That’s questionable.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): The minister is abusing the rules of the House. This isn’t a statement; it is a speech she is making now.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: In addition to GAINS, the Treasurer (Mr. White) announced the enrichment of Ontario’s tax credits to reduce the cost of housing to those in need in this age group. The property credit was doubled from $90 to $180 and the pensioner credit was increased from $100 to $110. Further, sales taxes were removed from a number of articles in common use --

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): This is ridiculous.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Tell us about the number of senior citizens’ housing units the government is building this year.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Taken together, these measures will help Ontario’s elderly citizens to enjoy a good standard of living during their retirement years.

Mr. Lewis: Tell us about those between 60 and 65 years of age.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: In the health care area, Ontario exempts all people over 65 years from OHIP payments. Beginning in September, it will provide free prescriptions for GIS pensioners --

Mr. Lewis: Tell us why there is no cost-of-living allowance built into the new GAINS programme.

Mr. Singer: The hon. minister left out page 7.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: This is an abuse of the House.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- and now provides basic nursing home care to those in need.

Mr. Lewis: Take a full-page advertisement in the Globe and Mail.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Activity programmes within the nursing homes are provincially supported with the object of making life in these homes more satisfying.

Mr. Lewis: This is the prelude.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: In addition, comfort allowances payable to persons in charitable and municipal homes for the aged have been raised to $35 per month.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): But not all of them.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: More recently the government’s focus has widened to include the development of health services to permit older people to remain in their own homes as long as possible. Under this programme, visiting homemakers and nurses enable many to remain at home and independent of community facilities.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): It sounds like a prorogation speech.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Senior citizens’ housing is another major area of government activity, and 24,000 people over 65 live in senior citizen housing on rent-geared-to-income arrangements. A substantial number are also accommodated in homes for the aged, some provided by the municipality, others by voluntary organizations. The province makes substantial financial contributions to their support.

Mr. Singer: Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is not within the rules applying to a ministerial statement?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Although the burdens of property taxation, health care costs and housing possibly represent the main concerns of most elderly people, we recognize that, like the rest of us, elderly people have many interests --

Mr. Singer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn’t think the member for Downsview was deputy leader any more.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, surely this is not within the rules of what is contemplated by a ministerial statement. The hon. member has every opportunity to join in the debates. Ministerial statements surely have to be directed to announcements of policy made by ministers. This is a review of what has gone on for some time. It is ridiculous.

Mr. Lewis: The member is just against the aged.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He doesn’t want to talk about the senior citizens.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: He doesn’t like senior citizens. That is what is wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There were certainly some comments made by the hon. minister which would represent ministerial policy and I detected those statements right at the beginning of the comments made by the hon. minister. I am not aware of any rules that would forbid her from making such a statement. She may therefore continue.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, she is nicer looking than the rest of them anyway.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Although the burdens of property taxation, health care costs and housing probably represent the main concerns of most elderly people, we recognize that, like the rest of us, elderly people have many interests beyond the basic necessities of life. In an attempt to make the amenities more readily available to senior citizens, we have eliminated or reduced rates for the use of transportation, cultural and other facilities. Programmes organized under the Elderly Persons Centres Act, such as meals on wheels, friendly visiting, recreation services and special transportation services also contribute to an active, independent life.

Mr. Martel: Most of them don’t get transportation allowances.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Other initiatives include total exemptions from succession duties on property passing on to a surviving spouse and for a once-in-a-lifetime gift of the family farm, thus facilitating estate planning and keeping family farms in operation. This important measure will do much to provide for the transfer of limited equity to survivors.

Mr. Roy: Who wrote that speech?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: These, Mr. Speaker, are some of the many considerable benefits available to our senior citizens. It is, I believe, an impressive list and one of which this government is proud. But the government is not content to regard these programmes as the ultimate either in extent or in the way in which the service is provided. It is with this in mind that the Advisory Council on Senior Citizens is being established.

The terms of reference of the council include: advising the government of Ontario, through the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, on matters pertaining to the well-being of the aged and aging persons, and to promote further the development and creation of opportunities for self-help for the aged, to their satisfaction and advantage as members of society as a whole --

Mr. Lewis: How about an attack on the New Horizons programme? It will fit in with the attack on the LIP grants.

Mr. Martel: After all the meetings the senior citizens had with the minister --

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): The member for Sudbury East must have got an LIP grant, because he is sure using it.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- to review current policies which have a bearing on aging and the economy, involving employment, preparation for retirement, income maintenance and health measures, services and facilities of government and otherwise, including education, programmes on housing, long-term care, and other related services.

The council will consist of a chairman and 18 members. I am pleased with the high level of expertise which will be brought to the council by its members. A number of the council members are themselves senior citizens. Many have helped in the formation of senior citizen groups across the province and others are professionals who have dedicated their lives to working with the elderly.

As I mentioned earlier, the chairman will be Miss Hope Holmested. Miss Holmested has had a long association with the Canadian Red Cross Society. She has been a board member of the Canadian Council on Social Development, chairman of the First Canadian Conference on Aging, 1966, and is with the

section on aging of the Ontario Welfare Council. Although now retired from most of these positions she is ready to serve her community once again as chairman of the Advisory Council on Senior Citizens. We welcome her to this new post.

We have kept the council’s terms of reference as general as possible. Like the councils on the status of women and on multiculturalism, the Council on Senior Citizens will be free to approach problems and make contacts with the community at large, as the members see fit --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): How many members from the north are on it?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- and, of course, it will be advising the government through me of changes which the government might wish to consider to meet changing needs and circumstances. Our goal is to provide the means by which all Ontario senior citizens can live a dignified and independent life.

Mr. Roy: Isn’t the minister glad that’s over with? We are sure happy it is over with.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): That should last her for another year.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister should listen to this one.

Interjection by an hon. member.

METRO TORONTO HOSPITAL DISPUTE

Hon. F. Guindon (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the hon. members that a tentative agreement has been reached in the dispute involving Metro Toronto hospitals and the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Now that’s important.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Ten years too late.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: The memorandum is being prepared for signatures and ratification purposes. As usual, details are not being released until the parties ratify the agreement.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: Way to go.

An hon. member: Beautiful.

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

METRO TORONTO HOSPITAL DISPUTE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask of the Minister of Labour, even though he has said that he does not want to give any further information about the tentative agreement until the parties are fully notified, is there any lesson that has been learned by the administration in the last two weeks? Or does it simply verify the contention, which is apparent in the way the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) and the Premier have handled this matter, that they would let it go right down to the wire to apply the maximum amount of pressure rather than have the discussions at a time when negotiations can be, let’s say, more valuable for both sides concerned?

Mr. Jessiman: Better to listen and learn.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t want to comment on this. I think really the negotiators on both sides have been sincere and have been negotiating in good faith. There is no question that at the beginning they needed some technical assistance which was provided from our ministry.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, if it had been up to his ministry we would have a strike tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: I think the hon. member is most unfair.

Mr. Lewis: That is what would have happened had it been up to the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): If they listened to the member there would have been.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: I think on last Friday, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): That is what the member for Scarborough West wanted. He wanted a strike.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Last Friday, our ministry presented a proposal which was, I think, very fair and equitable.

Mr. Lewis: His ministry was asking for all of this. Don’t let him tell us about his ministry.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: As far as I am concerned as Minister of Labour, I am certainly pleased to see that we have a tentative agreement.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware that as far as the community is concerned there has been and still is the greatest amount of sympathy and support for the hospital workers’ contention, and that the view of the community is that they have had the greatest patience with the government, which in fact has been irresponsible in delaying the positions which have evidently finally let to the settlement? Is the Minister of Labour satisfied with the circumstances like that?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that we have already expressed our views on this -- the former Minister of Labour, the former Minister of Health and the present one, as well as the present Minister of Labour -- months ago.

Mr. Roy: They tried to stop it?

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I may Mr. Speaker: Since the free collective bargaining process has worked with the threat of a strike at the end of it, does the minister not now see that this is the way to deal in the hospital sector? And will he therefore not consider repudiating -- removing from the statute books -- the Hospital Disputes Arbitration Act?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, there are no doubt, and we have said it before, some provisions with which we are not too happy because of how long it takes to give the award. However, it is the policy of this government and this ministry that in a public sector such as hospitals the right to strike should not be given.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr. Speaker, a question of the minister: Will the agreement that was reached today for the hospitals in the Toronto area now be made mandatory across the province? Will the minister give consideration to the other hospitals that are perhaps at the bargaining table now, so that there will be similar across-the-board agreements throughout Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: I am sure that the boards who are negotiating will certainly see what this award is going to be and I imagine this will have influence across the province as well.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that this matter has been cleared up, is the minister in a position to make himself aware of the factors in the Hamilton case regarding interns in the hospitals and the impending strike in that particular dispute?

Mr. Speaker: It seems like a new question, really. I’ll recognize the hon. member when it is time for the individual. Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

HOUSING ACTION PROGRAMME POLICY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the member for Peel North if he can explain or elaborate upon the comments of David Strachan, the Peel regional co-ordinator of the housing action programme, that the programme will be called off in the Mississauga area if the city council insists on providing such frills as parks and libraries for the new communities designed under the housing action programme? Is it the Premier’s intention that the housing action policy in his own community and elsewhere, in fact, brings forward communities without libraries and parks, which surely in this day and age should not be designated as frills?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that question would be more properly addressed to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman).

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put it to the Premier that the housing action programme was a new policy announcement that came indirectly from him and that surely in his private capacity as a member he must have some interest in this matter as well. The Minister of Housing isn’t here, although I must say he usually is. Surely there is some more useful answer the Premier can give.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Brant wishes a long dissertation, I’d be delighted to give it to him.

Mr. Roy: No thanks, no thanks.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now that he has asked, I shall presume to do so. The housing action programme is being developed by the province in co-operation with the municipalities to cut some of the red tape and some of the existing procedures to expedite the registration of lots and thus the construction of houses. There are some aspects, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: As parks and libraries in the community?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do the members opposite want an answer or don’t they?

An hon. member: No.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right, then let me give an answer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is the matter with the Premier?

Mr. Roy: Does he need a raise in pay to do his job?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are some aspects where the total deal with the municipalities may not be finalized. As to the question of what the contribution should be -- say for capital construction of schools where we have to solve this for the municipalities, and the question of other things such as parks and libraries, which will be part of the total development over a period of time -- it may be that in some municipalities we won’t be able to settle them finally before other aspects of the programme can move ahead.

The House, Mr. Speaker, and the member for Downsview, who is a great expert in these fields, know full well of the total commitment of this government to a library service. We have debated this on many occasions. We shall continue to support the development of libraries, but at this precise moment our priority was to get registration of plans of subdivision so we can build houses. It is true that certain traditional routes to get these things done --

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Not in Sudbury.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- will be expedited, including discussions within the ministries of this government. Otherwise, we will continue to face a housing problem. I would say to the hon. member for Brant there is no question the people in Mississauga will have without doubt all the proper amenities that have been the situation as far as development is concerned in that municipality, which happen to be really rather excellent in any event.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would then like to ask the Premier a supplementary on two matters. It is clear then that the housing action programme is going to go forward with the inclusion of the standard community amenities, such as parks and libraries, and that the coordinator is surely exceeding any instruction or authority that would be given to him? Is that right?

Mr. Lewis: No, no it is not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the programme will go ahead. It may be that the exact geographic determination of the library or the site, the question of allocation or five per cent dedication, may not be finalized in time to get plans of registration through. As far as having these facilities available, the housing action programme does not in any way inhibit this; it is a question of priority and the timing.

Mr. Speaker: Does the leader of the NDP have a supplementary?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, as I understand it there were some trade-offs, obviously, in early subdivision approval in getting houses on the market -- although nothing as yet has happened. But why is the Premier prepared to contemplate by way of trade-off something as distressing and as socially destructive as parkland recreational facilities and libraries, which is now being talked about in all of these municipalities, not just Mississauga?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about geographic location, by and large, and the finalization of this may come after registration. I’m not saying whether it will or not; some of them will be able to go ahead, I’m sure, without. All I’m saying is that at this moment in order to get housing moving on a greater scale than at the moment, certain other policies will take a little longer to sort out. I’m relatively aware of the situation in Mississauga. Mississauga has developed a very excellent library service and our housing programme will not in any way limit it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, will you permit a further supplementary on this? Can the Premier also guarantee, since he is concerned with reducing the time lag in the application followed by the approval of subdivisions, that the Treasurer’s promise of a 60-day decision is going to be fulfilled, even though that announcement is now many months old and the applications are not returned to the municipalities in anything like 60 days?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall exactly what the Treasurer said but we are saying here that for our internal purposes, as among or between the ministries who have some responsibility for official plan amendments and subdivision registrations, we will be cutting the time very substantially. Quite frankly, we will be doing some things which, if we had the normal length of time without the very real need for housing, we might take longer in sorting out; these will be done internally.

What I cannot guarantee the member for Brant, no one can, is the length of time and the degree of co-operation from the municipalities. I must say, Mr. Speaker, in the last very few days I have been quite encouraged by the response I have had from some of the municipal leaders in their desire to move ahead with these objectives as well.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): I’d like to ask the Premier, in connection with the trade-offs he indicated that the parkland might have to wait as far as its location is concerned; does this mean the land will be designated as registered lots and the parkland will come in later after the registered lots are delineated? This might lead us back to the point where parkland might be swamp or side hill, this sort of thing, which used to obtain in some municipalities of this province.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think there is any danger of that happening whatsoever. I would also say there are some areas -- I would think I could be relatively confident of this -- where the parkland dedication is already part of the proposed plan of subdivision. I’m not so sure about library sites because library sites usually go beyond a particular plan of subdivision. I really think we are discussing something which is not a problem and is relatively academic.

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR PORTUGUESE, ITALIAN CHILDREN

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A question of the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker: Is he concerning himself with the complaints which have come from the Portuguese and the Italian communities of Metropolitan Toronto that an unwarrantedly large percentage of their children are being directed into something other than academic education? Has he undertaken some review of what their percentages are and does he intend to enter into this controversy in any way?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, of course, this is a complaint which is very commonly put at gatherings which discuss this. What the validity of it is I am not sure; I have asked our people to give me another report. I know I have heard it mentioned before. Sometimes when one starts to look into it one finds that it isn’t quite as it is made out to be.

The opportunities in the Toronto system for children of Italian and Portuguese or, indeed, any extraction, I think are excellent. They have a lot of good programmes and I don’t think the children from these families are being forced into these programmes to the extent the newspapers sometimes picture it. Certainly I have asked our people to take a look at it again and we’ll discuss it with the board.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Surely the old Robarts style of streaming is a thing of the past and these decisions are left with the young people, but would the minister not feel that under these circumstances the parents ought to have a better opportunity to indicate the educational future of the young people before they make a commitment that will lead them into something which will not, let’s say, give them an opportunity for language and other cultural types of education which particularly the parents want?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Most certainly the young people and their parents are now very involved in picking their courses, but of course they --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They must make the decision. It’s more than involvement.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They have to make the decisions themselves, certainly. They make the decisions, along with the school.

But there is an interesting aspect to that story I read in the paper. It had to do with the request for languages, for Portuguese and Italian, I believe in grades 9 and 10 and in some cases in the senior grades of the school, which of course is now possible if there is a demand from the community for this. It seems to me the paper indicated, and I haven’t checked this out, that while the parents wanted this course the children, when asked if they wished the course, had not indicated any interest in it. This is one of the problems we find in this particular area.

The aspirations and desires of the parents as opposed to those of their children in the school system are sometimes slightly different.

As the hon. member knows, for instance, insofar as languages are concerned, if the community wishes and the Toronto board wishes to institute those programmes, it can institute programmes in secondary schools in Portuguese and in Italian, programmes which will help preserve the cultural heritage and background of those racial groups.

TEACHER CONDITIONS OF WORK

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have another question of the Minister of Education. Is he aware that the salary negotiations between the teachers and the Peel Board of Education have been suspended because the board refuses to recognize the right of the teachers to negotiate conditions of work? Since this very matter was brought before the Legislature in the York settlement, would the minister not feel it would be necessary that boards accept conditions of work as a negotiable item?

I have said it many times. I think it applies across the province, but there is no law that says this has to be done at this time.

Now I am not personally aware there has been a breakdown in the Peel county negotiations.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the matter is of such concern and will obviously come to a head with this round of negotiations, which are already broken off in Peel, would the minister not consider a letter to the school boards, formally signed by him, expressing that view, which is supported at least by the two opposition parties although I don’t believe it is thoroughly supported by the minister’s backers; then at least the minister’s view would be put before the boards?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh I will think of some way, Mr. Speaker, to make sure the board is aware of my views; if they are not already aware of them, which I am pretty sure they are.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. Lewis: To the Premier: Does the Premier recall that within January a commitment was made to provide locations and numbers for 35,000 additional serviced lots in Ontario? On April 9 last the Minister of Housing indicated he would have a statement on the Ontario housing action programme within two to three weeks. When are we going to get a considered statement of government policy in the production of homes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, just as soon as possible.

Mr. Lewis: Right. May I ask the Premier, is he perhaps concerned that the cost of homes in the Metropolitan Toronto area jumped by another $3,000 to over $54,000 on the average sale in the month of April, and that his administration is reaching new heights in the inflationary spiral in housing? Can the Premier not give us some more specific answer as soon as possible?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the cost of homes in Metro has gone up again.

Mr. Lewis: Right. May I ask, by way of supplementary, is the Minister of Housing perhaps driven almost to distraction by the trade-offs he is now entering into with developers, with municipalities, none of which has led anywhere in concrete terms; and does the Premier ever expect to have a specific announcement to make to the House?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Housing has not been driven to distraction. Yes, we propose to have an announcement to make to the House.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: He will be. We will do it at some point. We will try. He hasn’t been here for two days. He is driven somewhere.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Members opposite will try and they will not succeed.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Maybe he went to Paris too.

QUARRY OPERATIONS IN PARKS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Natural Resources, has he informed his executive director of the division of mines that mining in provincial parks for gravel pit and quarry operations is perhaps undesirable, since his executive director has now indicated that when we run out of sand and stone, provincial parks may become a quarry operation?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes Mr. Speaker, I must say my executive director is very much aware of government policy and that there will never be any mining in provincial parks in the Province of Ontario. I believe he was only commenting on an aggregate study that is going to be released by this government in the very near future.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And no logging?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It indicates there is a severe shortage in southern Ontario. This report gives some indication we should be going in that direction, but I can assure members it is government policy that we will not.

Mr. Lewis: So that when the executive director of the mines branch said it was possible there may be no other recourse than to mine in the provincial parks -- “It’s a very explosive issue, we have got to find a new approach,” meaning the use of the parks -- the minister is quite clearly repudiating that?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Exactly.

Mr. Lewis: Okay, may I ask by way of another --

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce has a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: I’m sorry.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): In regard to the pits and quarries in the Bruce, the small operators cannot afford a survey or fencing; is the minister going to put them out of business?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, under the Act, of course, they must comply with the regulations which stipulate they must provide us with rehabilitation of site plans. Of course, these are prepared by an engineer and there is no way we can circumvent that.

Mr. Sargent: I told them to keep on going so the minister can charge me too.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We can do that, too.

Mr. Sargent: I bet he will.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East with a supplementary.

Mr. Martel: Regarding pits and quarries, when does the government intend to make the Pits and Quarries Control Act applicable to northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as early as possible.

Mr. Martel: We have been told that for two years.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

LEMOINE POINT

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the minister where do we stand on the negotiations for the acquisition of Lemoine Point as a provincial park?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have a report at the present time but I will get one for the member.

CLOSING OF PELHAM SECONDARY SCHOOL

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. A question, if I may, of the Minister of Education: Since, as I understand it, the committee of concerned citizens involved in the Pelham school dispute proceeded on good faith from what they determined to be the minister’s suggestion to get a petition of some 2,434 signatures to seek a review of the situation from the Niagara South Board of Education jointly with the Lincoln Board of Education, does the minister not think that it might be legitimate to approach those boards for a review, perhaps not a reversal but at least for a review, given the extent of community concern?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I approached the Niagara South Board of Education and asked for a review of the matter, something which, I might say, didn’t particularly meet with the full favour of the Niagara South board. Both the Premier and I, after a meeting with the people toward the beginning of the year in Hamilton, agreed we would do what we could to have another hearing held or at least bring those people together with the Niagara South board. This we did.

I sat in on the meeting and both the concerned parents and the Niagara South board, I thought, in a very clear and informative way, presented their sidles and their stories. The decision of the Niagara South board, as I understand it, was still the same decision. The only glimmer of hope which appeared at that meeting for the Pelham people was the idea that perhaps the boundary between the Niagara South board and the Lincoln board could be shifted. If this were done, there would be a change in attendance areas and so forth and Pelham might then, as I understand it, become a viable school in the Lincoln county school system.

To this point in time neither the Niagara South board nor the Lincoln board has approached me with any proposal that the boundary be changed. Basically, if one believes in the local autonomy of those boards, it’s up to them to come to some determination and then come to us and ask that those changes be made. To this point in time, nobody has come to suggest we look at the boundary changes.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask, by way of supplementary, since the petition followed the meeting the minister describes -- I concede it taking place, obviously -- and since the petition directed itself to the change of boundary involving the Lincoln board, doesn’t he think it’s legitimate enough, when a community is fighting so hard to save its school with its staff, that the minister might intervene not to direct the boards to do something but to request the boards that the boundary view be examined, given the possibility that it makes good sense in educational terms over the next few years?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would have assumed, Mr. Speaker, that is, in fact, what I did at the meeting I had with the boards at that time. The Lincoln board, naturally, wasn’t there.

I am meeting the Lincoln board here next Monday, I believe, and I wall probably discuss it with them at that time. But I am sure the Niagara South board certainly could not be under any other

interpretation than I had suggested at the meeting that perhaps this is a solution; it obviously wasn’t picked up by the Niagara South board.

Mr. Lewis: No, no. I agree.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment has the answer to a question asked previously.

ALLEGED SEEPAGE OF POLLUTANTS INTO DETROIT RIVER

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Yesterday the hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside and subsequently the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville asked me about the present status of the industrial waste disposal by Wyandotte Chemical Corp. on Fighting Island in the Detroit River. I have discussed this matter with my officials and have been advised there have been no recent complaints that they are aware of concerning seepage of waste to the Detroit River resulting from this operation. If the hon. members are aware of any complaints I will have them investigated immediately by regional staff.

Officials of my ministry maintain a continuing surveillance of this operation but, as the hon. members are aware. Fighting Island has been privately owned by Wyandotte Chemical Corp. for many years. Permission to lay the waste pipeline on the bed of the Detroit River between the international boundary and Fighting Island was granted by issuance of a licence of occupation in 1936 by the then Department of Lands and Forests.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary? Yes.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Could the minister indicate when the last inspection or monitoring was made of the island?

Hon. W. Newman: I can’t give the hon. member the exact date. I have a lot of material here if the hon. member would like to have a look at it afterwards.

Mr. Roy: The minister doesn’t know that?

Mr. Speaker: Another supplementary?

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Is the minister not concerned that the licence of occupation is costing only some $276 a year? And should he not review the termination of the agreement so that American liquid wastes would not be dumped on a Canadian island in the middle of the Detroit River?

Hon. W. Newman: Well, this is a privately owned island, as the hon. member is well aware, and this operation has been going on for some time. We are constantly monitoring it and we are working very closely at all times with our counterparts on the other side, and through the IJC, on any of these particular matters that come up.

Mr. Sargent: Is the minister going to separate them?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy has the answer to a question asked previously.

ROUTE OF PETROLEUM PIPELINE

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, yesterday there were questions asked of the Premier about the intervention of the Province of Ontario before the National Energy Board, concerning the interprovincial pipeline. The intervention was filed today and I have copies if anyone wants them. I won’t table them, but I do have copies.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George is next.

CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is he aware of the fact that in Nova Scotia that government has declared areas as areas of need for the provision of services, such as the HELP services in St. James Town, and to obviate the necessity of individual needs tests? Is the government prepared to adopt that policy for this province?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the

article to which the hon. member refers.

Mr. Roy: Is the minister aware who is in power there?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: With reference to the matter of the Canada Assistance Plan, there are some ongoing meetings with the federal government on this very important area of the needs test -- and there will be a meeting some time within the next week or two.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: If in fact on investigation of this matter the minister ascertains that the power is already available to this province, would he give consideration to endorsing this policy for the people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. We are always willing to get as much money as we can out of the plan.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay is next.

COST DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Does the minister recall his entering into a debate on April 24, 1972, in this House, on a private member’s resolution calling for a commission of inquiry, and saying specifically:

They are not going to come [that is, people from southern to northern Ontario] until they can come and live with the same cost, the same pricing and the same benefits that are being enjoyed by people in other parts of the province?

Does he recall also that he said:

There seems to be something desperately wrong when freight rates can be that far apart between communities similar distances apart within the one province?

And does he recall saying:

I think there is a need indeed for someone to look at what is wrong with the differences in freight rates and the differences in pricing?

If he still recalls saying those things, and if he was sincere at that time, what does he propose to do about it now that he is the Minister of Transportation and Communications?

Mr. Deans: Good question.

Mr. Roy: The minister could tell them he’s got a bad memory.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall the specific date of the comment --

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Breithaupt: Misquoted.

Mr. Roy: He was misquoted.

An hon. member: He said the whole thing.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, no. If all of the squirrels will keep quiet just a moment and let me finish --

Mr. Lewis: The minister should tell them he’s not responsible for remarks in his previous incarnation.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t recall the specific date, but it certainly sounds like comments that I would have made then and now. And what do I intend to do about it? Everything in my power to straighten it out.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary? Yes.

Mr. Stokes: If that is the case, why doesn’t the minister just raise freight rates in northeastern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member hasn’t taken the time, similar to his leader, to look at what was proposed in the announcement that was made in Timmins that he is referring to.

We recognized at that time that the programme that had been developed as an experiment was not working satisfactorily. We have changed that experiment and we have reduced the freight rates on a great number of articles, by as much as a 60 per cent reduction on commodities where there will be a direct saving to the consumer. The increases that were being proposed were those within the realm of control of the Province of Ontario in the Highway 11 corridor. The amounts have not been determined as yet and they are only being increased when it can be proven by the carriers that it is to their financial difficulty if they do not get these increases.

Mr. Martel: The government’s corporate friends wouldn’t reduce prices.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did I hear “supplementary”? The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: Why doesn’t the government put him back on the beat? They should put him back on the beat.

Mr. Reid: Why doesn’t the government do the same thing with gasoline prices as it is doing with those freight rates?

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Good question.

Mr. Reid: Anyway, will the minister recommend to his colleagues that to equalize the cost of living in northern Ontario vis-à-vis southern Ontario, there be some arrangement made in the provincial income tax to give the people in northern Ontario a tax credit, if you will, Mr. Speaker, to equalize the cost of living in the two parts of the province?

Mr. Deacon: Very good idea.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the lack of communication that was exhibited between the Liberals of Ontario and the Liberals of Canada is evidenced again here. The hon. member should ask his brother about income tax.

Mr. Reid: I take it that means the government won’t do anything?

An hon. member: As usual.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: That is a washout

Mr. Lewis: These relatives are a real embarrassment.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce has a supplementary? Did the hon. member for Sudbury say “supplementary”?

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Well, then, I will call him in his turn. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: I was talking to my advisers here. Was the minister talking about the freight rates on trucking?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): What did the member for York-Forest Hill (Mr. Givens) tell him?

Mr. Sargent: What is the minister doing about the meeting with the Highway Transportation Board to set up freight rates controlled by the people, not by the trucking companies? When is he going to be on to that one?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have already had several meetings on that very matter. I will be very happy to report to the hon. member and the other members of this House when that matter has been discussed in more detail.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: There have been five supplementaries which are sufficient.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: When did the minister have the meeting?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mr. Sargent: The minister knows he is bluffing.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister without Portfolio): If it is like the other advice members opposite have been getting, it is probably wrong again.

HAMILTON BAY PROPERTY

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources: Will the minister provide for public meetings or hearings in the Hamilton-Wentworth region during his study of the outdoor recreational facilities in connection with the Allarco and Lax Brothers property so that interested recreational, conservation and other community organizations and individuals may make presentations?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly would entertain that proposal. As you know, we are undertaking a very intensive study of the Hamilton area to assess the recreational potential and the requirements for recreational land in that particular city dealing with those two main pieces of property. The study team will be going in there very, very shortly. Hopefully, the study will be completed in about three months and we will invite public participation.

Mr. Deans: The member should have been here last Friday, when I asked about it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East is next. Supplementary? Then the hon. member for Hamilton East.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): When he undertakes the study in Hamilton, raised by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, would the minister investigate the legality of the sale of the Lax property from the harbour commission to the Lax Brothers at the time it took place and up to the options that are now held on the property? Would he undertake to investigate with the federal government the legality of the acquiring of that property by Lax Brothers?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think this would be a responsibility of the study team, but certainly I’ll take the member’s suggestion under consideration and have a look at it.

Mr. Deans: Well, a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth has a supplementary.

Mr. Deans: Surely, the determination of the ownership and the propriety of the legality of the ownership is, in fact, something that has to be taken into consideration by the study team in order to determine the fair market value in the event that the government intends to purchase it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the study team will be looking at the recreational possibilities and the need for recreational land in that particular area. We’re not going into detail as to the cost of land and who it belongs to and the various aspects. That will be the next step.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

BOOKMAKING AND DRUG TRAFFICKING IN INDUSTRIAL PLANTS

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, that was a wise decision. Mr. Speaker, I have a question --

Mr. Sargent: Because he’s French, that’s why.

Mr. Roy: Yes, that’s right. The minority group.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not a question of the Speaker’s wisdom.

Mr. Roy: I wonder if the Solicitor General might advise, first of all, whether he’s aware; secondly, if he plans to investigate the fact that there is bookmaking going on in large industries in southern Ontario and it has become rampant; thirdly, whether he is aware of the fact that many workers are becoming victimized to the extent of $1,000 a year? These in-plant bookies apparently extend credit to their victims until they get in too deep and then the victims must steal or deprive their families to pay up. Is he aware of this?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this in some of the larger plants. I realize there are plants in Ontario where there is some bookmaking activity. The plant foreman, the plant superintendent, those people in charge of the plant do their utmost, of course, to stop this practice. The local police and the provincial police are aware that it goes on and every effort is made to stop it. We think we are obtaining some success in minimizing this activity.

Mr. Roy: If I might ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister advise whether he is aware, as well, of trafficking in drugs going on in some of these plants; secondly, whether he might advise the House whether, in fact, as suspected by many of these people, that it’s organized crime that is backing some of these in-plant bookies?

Mr. Singer: The minister is not aware of this.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware that there is trafficking of drugs in these plants. I am not aware that there is organized trafficking of drugs.

Mr. Roy: Is the minister going to look into it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I would assume that drugs are being used by some of the employees in the plants, but I’m not aware of any trafficking or organized trafficking going on. I’m sorry, I don’t recall the last part of the member’s question.

Mr. Sargent: Organized crime.

Mr. Roy: Organized crime.

Mr. Lewis: Syndicated crime.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I could answer the question by saying that organized crime is involved in bookmaking and drug trafficking.

Mr. MacDonald: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury is next.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I think that there are just a few moments left and one or two supplementaries are sufficient. The hon. member for Sudbury.

OTDC POSITION FILLED BY US CITIZEN

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is it true that an American citizen from the US Department of Transportation is being appointed vice-president of the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. as research and development director?

Mr. Reid: The minister never heard of it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: An American citizen? Would the member repeat the question please? I think I have the answer, but I want to make sure of the question.

Mr. Germa: Is it true, Mr. Minister, that an American citizen from the US Department of Transportation is being appointed vice-president in charge of research and development of the Ontario Transportation Development Corp.?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, it is true that an American citizen is being appointed at the present time. Whether he’s from that particular department, I don’t know.

Mr. Germa: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could I ask the minister what kind of bait he had to put out in the way of salary and fringe benefits in order to entice this person here?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t out doing any fishing in that particular case. That would be a matter that would have been handled by the Ontario Development Corp., and not by the minister.

Mr. Breithaupt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise us as to what particular or peculiar qualifications this individual may have; and as to what Canadians, or others, applied for this position?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Haggerty: If the application is available.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I cannot at this moment. I can bring the information for the member. I do not know, if it’s the particular position I am thinking of, that a considerable amount of expertise which would not have been available elsewhere was available from this particular gentleman.

Mr. Sargent: The minister needs all the help he can get.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia. The supplementaries have been sufficient with just a few moments remaining.

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT OF NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES

Mr. Bullbrook: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question I’d like to direct to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Could he advise what studies were undertaken, as a result of his policy direction, by the Ministry of the Environment into the ecological impact of the development of the nuclear power facilities on Lake Huron; and, if none, why not?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can’t advise the hon. member because insofar as I know, certainly for the period of time I’ve been there, it has not come to my attention. If there has been such a study made or ordered --

Mr. Reid: What has come to his attention?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- I’d be glad to advise the member.

Mr. Bullbrook: Am I correct in my assumption from the minister’s response that it has been of no concern to him or his predecessor, as the person responsible for the development of policy in the resources development field and the protection of the environment in the Province of Ontario, that no studies of any kind were done by the Ministry of the Environment either in connection with the development of the corridors or, more importantly, the impact on the Great Lakes of the development of the facilities themselves?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would say, Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is the member has no reason to come to that conclusion.

Mr. Bullbrook: As one last final supplementary --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- do I understand that we have his undertaking that there were such studies and he will bring them to our attention?

Mr. Lewis: What is he talking about?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, that’s not what I said.

Mr. Roy: Well, say something.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I didn’t say there were such studies. I said I am not familiar as to whether or not there were such studies and I am not going to give --

Mr. Bullbrook: He hasn’t done anything at all. That is what the secretariats are all about.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And I am not going to give --

Mr. Bullbrook: That is a typical example of the secretariats. They do nothing. They do nothing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- the member a glib answer to it. There are many reports which we are studying at the present time.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: He doesn’t even know anything about the administration study.

Mr. Stokes: That’s true.

Mr. Bullbrook: There are no ecological studies at all in connection with the whole policy, the whole development of energy. No studies at all; no environmental studies.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are catching up on a backlog of --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Reid: He doesn’t know.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt is next.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Reid: The minister can sit down. He’s not going to answer anyway.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’ll answer it in a truthful manner and that’s what I’ve done.

Mr. Singer: He doesn’t know.

Mr. Reid: He doesn’t know; that is the answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s what I’ve done. There were a lot of studies which went on before my taking over this position.

Mr. Bullbrook: That policy business is a charade.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. MacDonald: Is the minister reading them?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’m reading them; we are studying them and we are catching up on some of those things with which I am not familiar. As soon as I have the answer to the member’s question, I’ll give it to him.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is he going to do some studies after the plants are built? Is that it?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Bullbrook: The whole secretariats are a charade and the government knows it.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister is a Barry Goldwater. He does nothing on --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: In view of the fact that the minister indicated in Sudbury at the weekend that he was --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would start again; I couldn’t hear a word he said.

FOUR-LANE HIGHWAYS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Laughren: To the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the minister indicated in Sudbury on the weekend that he was planning four-lane highways across northern Ontario, would he please be more specific and indicate what kind of time-frame he was thinking about? Further, does he intend to speed up the present rate which consists of five years of feasibility studies and 10 miles of highway, then another five years of feasibility studies and another 10 miles of highway?

Mr. Roy: What was he doing in Sudbury on the weekend?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I’ll answer the question of the member for Ottawa East first. I was in Sudbury on the weekend standing at the airport watching --

Mr. MacDonald: Out of order.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East did not ask a question. The member for Nickel Belt asked a question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- the aircraft arrive, that’s what I was doing.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Ottawa jets.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- with the Prime Minister and five cabinet ministers to attend a political meeting.

An hon. member: It was our money.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Ottawa jets.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I would hope --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Has the minister cashed those cheques of his yet?

Mr. Breithaupt: They have learned in a good league.

Mr. Lewis: He was at the Royal York at 2 o’clock this morning; I will vouch for that.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

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

Mr. Speaker: All right, I’ll listen to it.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order before one of the ministers leaves --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Pardon? I am sorry; are we still on question period? I am sorry.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: All right.

Mr. Stokes: I particularly watched the time when the lengthy ministerial statements concluded and I definitely saw the time was 2:17; we have 45 minutes for question period which would bring it to 3:02.

Mr. Speaker: I must say to the hon. member that ministerial statements have nothing whatsoever to do with the question period. The time for oral questions has expired according to my time.

Mr. Stokes: That’s right. My point of order is that I can tell the time and the ministerial statements were completed at 2:17.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. member for Thunder Bay is going to be so picayune, I will extend the question period for two minutes.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: But not for a Liberal.

Mr. Speaker: The last question was by a member of the New Democratic Party. The hon. member for Downsview.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

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

An hon. member: What a great spot.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

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

Mr. MacDonald: Order, order; point of order.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Labour?

Mr. Speaker: Order! Point of order.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transportation and Communications had started to answer my question when you declared the question period was now ended. It was extended so that he could finish answering my question. He hasn’t answered it yet, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: He talked about aircraft in Sudbury rather than four-lane highways in the north. Answer the question.

Mr. Stokes: What is the ministry going to do about four-lane hghways?

Mr. Lewis: This is not to facilitate the hon. member for Downsview; answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: There are 30 seconds left.

Mr. Lewis: This is a sham and a fraud.

DISPUTE OF INTERNS AND RESIDENTS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour: Has the Minister of Labour been asked to intervene, or has it been suggested he take a look at the situation involving interns and residents who are now threatening a strike in Hamilton hospitals, Toronto hospitals and in other places? Has he consulted with the Minister of Health, who promised to look into this matter when I questioned him on April 22 last?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, this matter has already been raised here today. However, I should like to tell the hon. member --

Mr. Singer: It hasn’t been raised at all.

Mr. Breithaupt: It was out of order.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Yes; the member from Hamilton referred to it. Of course for one thing, these people do not belong to any union; as the member knows they are not unionized.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: In any event, any assistance we can give in this matter we are always glad to do so.

Mr. Singer: Is the minister not familiar with the letter written by the Minister of Health suggesting that the Labour ministry do get into the picture?

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may, because I would feel remiss if I didn’t; and I suppose it follows logically from this discussion of a potential strike in Hamilton. As one who was fairly close in the last couple of days to the negotiations that took place in Toronto, I want to congratulate the Minister of Health for his involvement in this dispute and what he did in terms of the settlement. I think that should be known in the House as much as the alleged involvement of the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Taylor of the standing administration of justice committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Attorney General be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975:

Ministry of Attorney General

Law Officer of the Crown ... $ 1,600,000

Administrative Services ... 17,965,000

Guardian and Trustee Services ... 3,016,500

Crown Legal Services ... 8,265,000

Legislative Counsel Services ... 386,500

Courts Administration ... 40,931,000

Administrative Tribunals ... 4,208,500

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Mr. Laughren moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Crown Employees Collecting Bargaining Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, this bill would remove from the present Act certain exclusive functions of the employer; and would also recognize the right of civil servants in the Province of Ontario to free and collective bargaining, including the right to strike.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Good bill.

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

Mrs. Campbell moves first reading of bill intituled.

An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the amendment provides for mandatory landlord and tenant review boards in municipalities with populations of over 50,000 persons. These boards would have the power to determine the amount of rents and to order tenants removed from premises for non-payment of rent or wilful damage to premises.

Mr. Cassidy: There has been a much better bill on the order paper for a year, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the same thing.

Mr. Roy: The hon. member can withdraw his bill now.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALDIMAND-NORFOLK ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves second reading of Bill 23,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk Act, 1973.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Another full-scale debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, my comments on this bill will be brief. The only matter of principle in it allows the continuation of the matters that were before the former land division committees and committees of adjustment in the regional area. I believe we have now amended nearly all of the Acts with reject to that and perhaps the minister can advise if this is the last Act to be amended.

It would appear to me it would be worthwhile for us to know that all of these continuing applications will therefore be regularized in the various regional municipalities so that there will be no question in the future as to any difficulties which might arise. We will of course support the amendments.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment briefly on the bill. I will not raise great issues of principle about Haldimand-Norfolk on this particular bill; I merely comment that I think at some point in this Legislature we should have a statement by the ministry about the way in which the planning of the province is going forward for Haldimand-Norfolk in view of the fact that so much of the responsibility is still a provincial responsibility and has not been delegated to the local level.

This particular bill, which dissolves the local committees of adjustment, may be felt more forcefully by many people there than some of the activities the province is engaged in which are of much more longstanding importance.

I would only point out finally that it amuses me, to say the least, that the government cannot even bring in this bill before April 1, since the bill directs that the new regional government was to create its land division committee by April 1 under a bill that didn’t receive first reading until April 4. We will support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Any further comments on Bill 243 before the minister responds?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member for Kitchener, it is my understanding this will be the last regional bill we’ll have to enact with regard to the land division committees being able to handle the applications that weren’t dealt with before the implementation of regional municipalities.

As far as the planning and development of the region is concerned, that is a matter which I believe the member for Ottawa Centre should know shouldn’t be discussed in this particular bill, but will be discussed at greater length at another time.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister permit one question Mr. Speaker? When is that time? Does the minister intend to make a statement about planning in Haldimand-Norfolk in the near future?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I can’t advise the member at this particular time as to a specific date, but what I will do is inform the Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. White) as to the member’s concern and hopefully he will be in touch with him in the near future.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion.

Bill 23,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk Act, 1973.

Clerk of the House: The sixth order; resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 22, the Health Disciplines Act, 1974.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES ACT, 1974 (CONTINUED)

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak only on one aspect of this bill. Everything has been covered very well by my colleague, the member for Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta). However, there is some additional material that has been made available to me since he spoke and I would like to take this opportunity of adding a few comments to his remarks.

I want to refer specifically to the matter involving the optometrists and the controversy between themselves and the ophthalmologists. I hope I can have the minister’s attention just for a few moments.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Shulman: When the minister is through with what he is doing -- we’ve lots of time.

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): I am sorry, I was reading the paper.

Mr. Shulman: Okay. There has been considerable discussion as to whether optometrists should be given the right to use drugs. The minister hasn’t made himself quite clear. I understood his most recent position was they were to be allowed to use drugs for tonometry only. Is that where the minister stands?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes.

Mr. Shulman: Well I want to speak on that, because there has been considerable confusion on this subject and some discussion of what is going on in England -- and I now have the facts of what is going on in England.

I am sure the minister is not aware that the optometrists this past week sent out a new fee schedule. If he is aware of it, he should stomp on their toes very quickly -- because they are presuming that he is going to give them a lot of things which I don’t believe he intends to give them.

In this fee

schedule they have included the following items: Gonioscopy, which involves the uses of topical anaesthetic; electroretinography, which uses topical anaesthetic and dilating drops; and fungus photography, which uses dilating drops.

Now none of those things are included under tonometry. Either they know something the minister doesn’t or else they are presuming they are able to put further pressure upon him.

I trust that those three items, which have nothing to do with tonometry, will produce some comment from the minister.

To come to tonometry itself, I think the minister has made an error. In all respects, Mr. Speaker, I would like him to reconsider this.

Tonometry -- for the benefit of the one or two members in the House who are not medical men -- is a simple screen mechanism for determining whether people are suffering or are developing a very serious eye condition called glaucoma. I don’t think anyone will dispute that optometrists should be allowed the privilege of doing this screening procedure as a public health measure.

However, what has been overlooked -- and the reason it was overlooked is because it became available after this whole controversy began -- is that there is a machine which involves no drugs, no dangers and which is available both to optometrists and to ophthalmologists. It is a machine which does the tonometry just by blowing a little blast of air at the eye, with no risks and no drugs involved.

Now I respectfully suggest to the minister that with that machine available, why take the added risks? And if there is any question of the risks, I have some dozen of cases here in front of me of where catastrophes did occur in the use of drugs in the eye.

The Ontario Medical Association did a survey of some dozen different physicians here in the city asking them for examples. There was one patient at the Branson Hospital and one drop of local anaesthetic went into the eye. The patient went into deep shock. Fortunately, the patient was already on the table and there were physicians available to save the person’s life. It is an extremely dangerous procedure to put drugs in patient’s eyes unless you have a team there that are competent to handle the complications that may arise.

What the minister is doing is playing the numbers game. That numbers game is going to rebound. Whether it is one person in 100 or one person in 500 or one person in 1,000, does he really want, in a screening procedure, to knock off that odd person? Is he going to be happy when he gets the first death in an optometrist’s office; or the sixth or the tenth?

There has been some comment made about what is going on in England. The suggestion was made that optometrists were allowed to use drugs in England. I have the facts here.

There are no optometrists as such in England. There are sight-testing opticians, who are the equivalent to what an optometrist is here, and they are not allowed to use drugs in commercial practice. They are allowed to use drugs only in hospitals where the optician is part of the team; in other words where there is medical help available to handle the problem.

That is really what the minister should do here. No one questions the situation in which there is medical help available. If there is a team set up or a clinic set up or a hospital set up, by all means let the optometrist or the optician or the technician put the drops in the eye. But if that optician or that optometrist is alone, where there is no help available, you are going to have death, Mr. Speaker.

I think the government is playing a numbers game for which there is no need, and is going to lose a few lives for which there is no need; because it just isn’t required. If they want to do the screening procedures, let them do it with the air puff tonometer.

And for goodness sake, let the minister talk to them about this fee

schedule of theirs in which they presume they have powers -- perhaps they have, and we will find out -- in which they presume they are going to be able to do things that the minister says they are not to do.

I am not going to press this any further, I think it has all been discussed in some detail by other members of the House. I am just inviting the minister to reconsider the matter. I think he has made an error but it is not too late to repent. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself particularly to the whole question of disciplinary procedures.

I hope I could have the Minister of Health with me. Perhaps I will pause until he is free.

I want to direct myself particularly to the disciplinary provisions that are set out in this Act, and which seem to feature a large part of the introduction of this bill. They are really overblown in the advance statements of the minister, and when read carefully are no more meaningful than the procedures that presently exist in the Province of Ontario. What they talked about when they brought the bill in was the establishment of a Health Discipline Board. That is dealt with in

section 6 of the bill where the board is established.

With the makeup of the board perhaps there can be some technical arguments. The powers given to the board in

section 7 are that they are to conduct hearings and to perform duties that are assigned under this or any other Act and make an annual report.

Up until that point it really sounds very fascinating, Mr. Speaker, until you get down to some of the more meaningful parts of

section 8 of the statute and you find that when the board has made a review it makes a report about each decision. I wonder if it has occurred to the minister that it is a part of natural justice that reasons be given for decisions; and since there is no requirement in the statute that reasons be given, the odds are probably 99 per cent in favour and one per cent against a situation in which any decisions being brought down will be -- I have just had a note, Mr.

Speaker, and I am going to interrupt and ask you if you think there is a quorum; and particularly to note that while this important debate is going on there are two hon. members of the Conservative Party here, one minister and one hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We will check and see if there is a quorum or not, first of all.

Clerk of the House: There are 14 hon. members present, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There is not a quorum then.

Mr. Speaker ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, there is a quorum present.

Mr. Speaker: Since there is a quorum, the member for Downsview may proceed.

Mr. Singer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you perhaps know, sir, it’s not usually my wont to count noses in the House, but I think it is particularly degrading to the parliamentary process when a bill as important as this one can be before the House and it doesn’t behove any more than two government members to be present.

Mr. Breithaupt: When I spoke, there was only one.

Mr. Singer: However, let me continue.

I was beginning to talk about the disciplinary proceedings as set forward in the Act and to tell the minister some of the things I think are wrong with them.

The first point I had dealt with was the question of a direction in the statute to this board to give reasons for the decisions they make. I was beginning to make the point, Mr. Speaker, that if the minister or his draftsmen or advisers were at all familiar with any of the matters dealt with by Mr. McRuer in his report to the Legislature, they would know his emphasis was on natural justice.

What is surprising to me, Mr. Speaker, with those reports before us and with so much legislation stemming from those reports, is that when we have an apparently all-embracing statute such as the Health Disciplines Act, no one apparently has paid any attention to the recommendations about natural justice as put forward by Mr. McRuer.

Then in

section 8(2) there is no requirement that the complainant be present when the board holds a hearing. I would think he should have a right to be present. I don’t see that he is entitled to be represented by counsel, and I think that should be written in. There’s also the question of an appeal from a board that may be very arbitrary in its nature and in its approach, and there doesn’t appear to be any appeal procedure provided at all.

Also, there is the question of the record which this board can summon from the sub-boards in the various disciplines, and whether or not the complainant is entitled or should be entitled to have a look at that record. After all, Mr. Speaker, the complainant is the person who is being affected. And if the complainant is not going to be allowed to look at the record -- and believe me, if the statute doesn’t say the complainant is going to have access to the record, the complainant is not going to have it -- then what is the purpose of setting these things out and making such a big fuss about them?

Then I wonder what power the board is really given, because surely if there is some purpose in this there should be some ability granted to the board by statute to award damages or to order rectification, and there is certainly no mention of anything like this. I see the department solicitor is nodding at me. I am quarrelling with the very concept that the minister puts forward, because he is preserving the so-called right to the complainant to go before the courts of Ontario and to argue in the painful and difficult way against medical or dental or any other of the health disciplinary fields where negligence is alleged.

And this is wrong. This is wrong for a variety of reasons that I have enunciated and which many members of this House have enunciated over the years. The minister brings this forward with flags flying and banners flapping in the wind, saying this is something new and something different; and it’s more of the same old nonsense.

All the government has done is interpose another board that can hold meetings in camera; that doesn’t entitle a complainant to come before it; that doesn’t allow the complainant to go there with counsel; that doesn’t allow the complainant to have access to the record; and, in due course, if you’re lucky, you’ll get a letter saying: “We accept your complaint” or, “We reject it” -- period, end, and that’s it.

If you don’t like it then you can start all over again and go through the court procedure.

Well I have a private member’s bill on the order paper, Mr. Speaker, which sets up an alternative; and if the minister hasn’t already read it, I commend it to his immediate attention. Hopefully it will be debated soon. The one hour private members’ debate is a little frustrating in its content, because rarely does a minister come forward and take

part in that debate or give us any idea of what his ministerial views are. Perhaps we will hear some of them later today or later during the concurrence of this report.

I say, Mr. Speaker, deliberately and with as much conviction as I can summon, that these sections 8, 9 and 10 and all the nonsense about setting up the board, is a meaningless bunch of paper designed to present an appearance of something that isn’t happening. All that really has been done is to set up another administrative board which apparently is going to salve somebody’s conscience but is not going to help complainants.

The board may review decisions made by the various complaints committees, and then Mr. Speaker, if you will turn with me to

section 58, you’ll see what the complaint committee is given power to do:

The complaints committee shall consider and investigate complaints made by members of the public or members of the college regarding the conduct or actions of any member of the college, but no action shall be taken by the committee under subsection 2 unless ... a written complaint has been filed and that the committee has examined.

Again, the complaints committee, in which this board sits on review, does not have to hear the complaint. They have to have a piece of paper from the complainant and they will meet in camera.

The complainant again is not entitled to look at the records that come before this complaints committee. He is not entitled to be represented by counsel. He is not entitled to have reasons for the disposition of the complaint.

The committee in accordance with the information it receives [not after it’s had a hearing] may ... direct that the matter be referred in whole or in part to the discipline committee or the executive committee for the purposes of

section 62.

Well if it is a matter of discipline or executive committee, perhaps that should be dealt with in a different way. But surely the complainant -- the most obvious complainant envisaged by this Act; the one we are talking about in most instances -- is the individual citizen who feels he has a grievance. If the individual citizen who feels that he has a grievance isn’t given the opportunity to appear; to know what the facts are from the documents, which he usually can’t get at; if he hasn’t the opportunity to be represented by counsel; what is the use of the procedure?

Looking at what the complaints committee may do, one has to go back again to what the board may do. The board may intervene where the complaints committee hasn’t done very much and ask the complaints committee if it’s not going to do something -- and the thing can get bounced backward and forward for what would appear to be an indefinite period before the complainant gets a decision from the complaints committee or the board.

But they’re being very good, Mr. Speaker. They are allowing a limitation period of two years, so that if the complainant has got nowhere by these secret meetings -- if in fact they do take place -- he has been unable to obtain the information, if he’s had the difficulty that many people have faced in trying to come to grips with the great array of legal talent and with the great medical reluctance to make documents and records available, he has the great privilege of trying to fight his way through the courts in connection with a matter of this sort.

I say very simply, Mr. Speaker, that these procedures, as set out in the Act, are quite useless. The creation of the board achieves no useful purpose. The minister seems content to say that he is solving the question by creating yet another administrative body, only this one he cloaks with anonymity. He gives them the power to sit in camera. He gives them the power to make decisions and review matters without telling anybody the basis on which they’re doing it. He gives them the power to exclude the very persons affected. And he says: “This is new and important; this is an advance procedure for dealing with medical complaints.”

I say, Mr. Speaker, that the longer we go on in this Legislature the more we have to wonder if we ever make any progress. I would ask the minister to take those particular sections back to the drawing board and establish a procedure whereby the rights of complainants, at least, are respected.

Take a look at McRuer. Take a look at what he says about natural justice. Take a look at what should be the rights of individuals -- the right to be defended by counsel, the right to get records, the right to have reasons for decisions, the appeal procedures and so forth -- and seriously investigate whether or not in fact he hasn’t moved a step backward instead of a step forward.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with

part II of this Act, which has to do with dentistry and its implications in connection with the denturist squabble, which has permeated this province for the last several years.

We all know that past attempts at resolving this issue have really not succeeded in accomplishing anything more than confusing the total electorate, not to mention those people who have been making a living in the practice of manufacturing full denture plates.

I see that the Royal College of Dental Surgeons is left intact and that there is provision for very limited lay participation on the board of governors of the dental college. However, it does not relieve the public of this sort of incestuous body, which has been controlling the delivery of these services for many years.

The Act goes on to espouse the provision which was passed earlier in this House that would provide that certain dentists in certain communities would be encouraged to deliver false teeth at a price of $180. We know from past experience that this has not resolved the problem, and yet the government persists in rewriting something that is already redundant.

We’ve already had the experience of the past few months, and the horror stories that are coming out of this legislation are innumerable. I’m surprised that this brand-new minister would go ahead and include within this Act something that has already proven to be not workable.

Recently, even the Premier of this province (Mr. Davis) in a radio programme on April 28, making reference to the low-cost denture programme, said it has not worked effectively. He said that on a recent CHUM radio programme. If the Premier of the province himself condemns the low-cost denture programme I see no reason for it to be perpetuated in this new Health Disciplines Act.

I think as long as the delivery of dental services to the people of Ontario is left in the control of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons, this kind of thing is going to persist. I think these people have a vested interest in controlling the manufacture of false teeth and until such time as they are relieved of this control we are not going to go anywhere.

We know there have been private bills introduced, not only by me but by the leader of the Liberal Party too, and I can support either one of them. They would allow a denturist to deal directly with the public but, lo and behold, it states here that the Denture Therapists Act of 1972 shall persist. We know that the people who have qualified under the Denture Therapists Act are having difficulty in gaining employment. The whole problem of supplying ourselves with false teeth is not being resolved by the introduction of this bill and I would like the record to show that for this reason alone I have to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, there are two or three things which worry me about the major omissions in this bill. As my colleague from Downsview said, the discipline provisions were intended to protect the public and yet there are so many deficiencies which he brought up; I wanted to bring out one or two others which concern me, particularly with regard to the makeup of the discipline committee.

I would presume, although it doesn’t say so here, that the minister would set out conditions whereby these hearings are held in the evening and held in the location where the problem has arisen so the public involved doesn’t have to travel great distances or give up time during normal working hours to attend any of these hearings. This in itself causes a great deal of difficulty to those who want to get their case brought before the discipline committee, or want to bring a case before the committee to see if something can’t be done to correct something.

We also have such a shortage of public appointees, those appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Each is just one member of the panel of five or more and yet we have a quorum that one person must always be there. In the case of the optometrists, the public appointee is only one person out of five, I think, on the discipline committee. What if that person is ill? Does that mean the whole thing has to be put off? Should we not have provision for more representatives to be appointed to these discipline committees to be sure, in principle, that in all cases it is possible for those hearings to be held without delay and with more flexibility?

It seems to me there isn’t adequate representation or flexibility provided to ensure there is no need for delay because of the illness of one individual. In all cases the Act spells out that a quorum shall consist of three or five, whatever it might be, but it must have at least one member appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I would like to be sure that we do provide for flexibility and that these committees can hold hearings in other parts of the province, which will not be held up because one person, a member appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, is unable to be present.

I would ask the minister to check into that and bring in amendments which would increase the number of representatives on the discipline committees to help forestall such an event.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I have four or five comments I want to make on the bill.

The major concern that I have about the bill is the evolution which has taken place in this health board that is established by the bill, during the period of time from its original conception in the report of the Committee on the Healing Arts and through the proposals with respect to the Health Disciplines Act, which were tabled about a year ago for study and observation by interested persons, and the result as it appears in the bill which is before us.

The transposition is significant. The powers which are set out in

section 3 of the bill with respect to the duty of the minister and his responsibilities are taken almost word for word from the legislative proposals except that in the legislative proposals, which were tabled a year ago, the health board was charged with those duties and responsibilities. In particular, the former Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. Welch), when he tabled the legislative proposals, refers to the unique decision which has been made with respect to the board, and I quote from his statement which he made at that time, which was on June 28, 1972:

Of particular interest is the establishment of a Health Disciplines Board. It is proposed that this board will be composed of no more than seven lay persons, not members of any of the health disciplines, and it will represent the public interest. It will be given substantial authority over all the health disciplines and will be responsible for ensuring that the health disciplines are effectively regulated and co-ordinated. The board will also act as an appeal board on registration matters. An applicant who has been refused registration may appeal this decision ... and the board is also being empowered to review complaints.

Well when this minister introduced Bill 22, which is being considered by us today, he had, of course, no particular comment to make on the substantive change which took place during the period from June, 1972, until April 2 of this year when he introduced this particular bill. He refers to the fact that the bill as presented by him is the result of public discussions or other discussions which took place over a period of many months with interested groups, including the public. He went on:

This Act, Mr. Speaker, ensures that the activities of health disciplines are effectively regulated and co-ordinated in the public interest. [But of course this time it is by the minister.] It also ensures that appropriate standards of practice are developed and maintained and that rights of individuals to services provided by health disciplines of their choice are safeguarded. [But again by the minister.] The legislation now before us embodies some changes from earlier proposals. All of these changes have resulted from information and advice gained through public discussion.

He then goes on to speak about the limited responsibilities then conferred upon the Health Disciplines Board.

Well, that is a substantial change in the conception of the governing body which was to be established with respect to the health disciplines, and I think that we need a very clear statement -- and not the very indirect statement made by the minister in introducing this bill -- as to why it is considered that those responsibilities which were to be imposed upon the health board have been now, word for word for practical purposes, taken by the minister and removed from the health board.

There is substantial emasculation of the health board.

I need only refer very briefly to the original conception of the Health Disciplines Board as set forth in the first volume of the Committee on the Healing Arts, where the various recommendations are related as to the function which was to be carried on by this particular board. There are some very detailed statements.

But the main overriding governing body was also to be provided by the board with respect to this co-ordination function, with respect to the interface relationships between the various health disciplines, with respect to the need to make certain that the public and the individual person seeking a service were adequately serviced by the health disciplines.

It seems to me that is a very fundamental change in the conception of the board’s function and has resulted in the substantial emasculation of what we had considered to be the purpose to be served by the board.

In our discussions in the caucus there was, I may say quite frankly, an endeavour to find the reasons behind the decision of the minister to make this change. It requires explanation. It cannot go unanswered on the second reading of the bill. It is one of the principal reasons why we in this caucus for other reasons which were detailed at great length by my colleague the member for Parkdale, are going to oppose the bill.

I suppose it can be said quite frankly that we consider, certainly I consider that until such time as such a body is given the responsibility for the co-ordination of the health disciplines in the provision of health services and the question of the basic policies are left with the minister as well as the responsibility overall for the administration of the Act; that until that is done we are not going to solve the basic problem we face in the field of the provision of a broad range of medical services and paramedical services, simply because of the entrenched position in a favoured place of the medical profession and of the dental profession.

As a lawyer, I have to give consideration always to what I would think or feel if a similar restructuring was made with respect to the legal profession.

I think that while there hasn’t been the development, due to the extreme monopoly position given the Law Society of Upper Canada, there hasn’t been the development of the kind of paralegal services in the way in which they have developed in the field of the provision of health services, nevertheless I would think that one of these days the extreme monopoly position of the legal profession is going to have to be substantially watered down and a number of paralegal facilities provided in order to provide services which can efficiently be provided by other specialist groups to the public.

I would think that will only come about in the way in which the public interest will be served if, in fact, a similar board -- similar in conception to the kind of board as set out in the legislative proposals with respect to the Health Disciplines Act -- is established for the legal profession.

And in answering that question it seemed to me that the same considerations apply very much so far as my thinking is concerned, and shared to a considerable extent by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus, that the health board as set out in the original proposals is by far the soundest method to deal with the basic problem which relates to the long-term predominant position and continuing dominant position of the medical profession and of the dental profession in the field of the provision of this broad range of service.

We are not going to be able, in the Province of Ontario -- and it’s trite to say so -- to provide the kind of range of medical services that is required by continuing the undue domination of that whole field of services by the two traditional professions. I have similarly stated my own particular view with respect to the domination of the provision of legal services in the Province of Ontario by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

It therefore seems to me that the minister, on the second reading of this bill and in answer to it, must explain in some substance and detail why it was necessary to transpose from the responsibilities of the health board to the minister the essential gut relationship that was to be established as set out in the legislative proposals. When he takes that away, he leaves a very emasculated health board. It is severely emasculated, because when he takes away the overall co-ordinating function as set out in

section 3, now given to the minister, and leaves it only with the complaints function and the question of appeals for purposes of registration, then he has given the board very little power.

The board doesn’t have the kind of powers that it should get. I believe, even in the limited field of dealing with complaints and in the limited field of dealing with appeals from refusals to register, that the very limited functions which are given to the board indicate quite clearly that the minister wishes to continue the domination of the professions with respect to the answering of complaints.

The reason I say that is that the board, after reviewing or investigation of a complaint, may:

Confirm the decision, if any, made by the complaints committee;

Make such recommendations to the complaints committee as the board considers appropriate; or

Require the complaints committee to take such action or proceedings as the committee is authorized to undertake under the applicable part of the Act.

Anyone reading that from the strict point of view of a lawyer looking at the jurisdiction of the board with respect to the complaints committee, can see that that is a severely curtailed power.

The normal provision with respect to a board vested with appellate jurisdiction, such as the complaints committee with respect to complaints and with respect to registration, is that the board itself should have power to confirm, reverse, alter or vary and substitute its opinion for the opinion of the lower body. That is the normal and traditional appellate jurisdiction. When, in this Act, the minister curtails that appellate jurisdiction by setting out the three powers which I have quoted verbatim horn the Act with respect to complaints, then members can see very clearly even in the emasculated form as it appears in this Act, the board itself has a very severely limited jurisdiction.

Everyone knows that even the power to require the complaints committee to take certain actions or proceedings is limited to the kind of thing which it is authorized to undertake under the applicable part of the Act. That very phraseology does not provide for the decision with respect to the complaint to be made by anybody other than the basic professional body.

I want the minister to understand that he is retaining within the professions the ultimate question of the nature of the solution of the problem raised by the complaint. I am simply suggesting to the minister that this board, with respect to the limited jurisdiction about complaints and about registration, must be given the power to confirm, to reverse, to vary or amend, and to substitute its opinion for the opinion of the board with the lower jurisdiction.

It would appear to me that at least in those fields, if an amendment such as that were made, then the board itself would have some kind of appellate jurisdiction. And I think it’s very essential that it have that kind of appellate jurisdiction.

The other aspect -- and I put it in by the way -- is that the procedure as set out here, subject to the flaws which were referred to by my colleague the member for Downsview and by the member for York Centre, is in fact an important procedure for serious complaints. It is much too elaborate and much too cumbersome with respect to a whole range of complaints which may develop, but which a particular citizen is not prepared to pursue through such an elaborate procedure.

It seems to me there should be some parallel, informal method of settling complaints by way of written submissions to the board if the parties to it agree, so that there is an informal and rapid and relatively less ponderous method of satisfying complaints of an important but relatively minor nature, as distinct from the whole range of serious complaints that may arise.

I think my remarks really relate to the complaints area rather than to the registration area insofar as that latter remark is concerned, because questions of appeals from registration decisions are, of course, always of immense importance to the person who is taking the course of proceeding by way of the appeal.

The third matter which concerns me greatly is that the minister explained that when he was introducing this particular bill he was only introducing at this time the particular legislation dealing with the five major health disciplines. Why that would be so, why he could not have introduced the omnibus legislation covering all of the various fields which are set out in an appendix to the statement originally made by the then Provincial Secretary for Social Development relating to the other fields which we are going to have to deal with at a later time, is, it would appear to me, a relatively specious argument because it certainly could have been done.

I took the opportunity when the bill was being considered to set out for my own convenience the correlative sections of the bill with respect to each of the professions. And of course the basic structure as accepted by the government for each of the disciplines -- that is the structure with respect to its governance, the governing body, the

definitions, the qualifications and requirements for membership, the provisions with respect to the council of the governing body, the powers of the minister with respect to the particular health disciplines, the regulations, the bylaws, the licences to practise, the committees; all of those various headings have their common clause in each of the parts dealing with the particular health discipline.

For example, membership is dealt with, insofar as dentistry is concerned, in

section 22; insofar as medicine is concerned in

section 47; insofar as nursing is concerned in

section 71; insofar as optometry is concerned in

section 93; insofar as pharmacy is concerned in

section 119.

I am quite certain that the form of the structure of the governance of each of those disciplines is going to be substantially repeated in the other disciplines as those parts come before the assembly. I simply say that for any overall view it seems to me to be ridiculous, without more adequate explanation, why we are given this bill after all this period of time in such a piecemeal form. I can’t understand why it can’t be done all at once and why it wasn’t done all at once.

The third area, is again related to this question of the domination of the traditional professions. And I say that in no denigrating sense, I simply say it in a sense that we must provide more flexibility and more interrelationship between the health disciplines in order to provide adequate health services to the people of the province.

My concern is with respect to the

definitions of the particular disciplines.

If my memory serves me correctly we have an almost precise definition of the field of the discipline of optometry. As far as I could see we had no definition with respect to the field of pharmacy and no definition with respect to the field of nursing. We have a definition with respect to dentistry which is a sort of combination. It means what a dentist usually does in the practice of his profession and includes and sets out, in relatively precise terms, a delimitation to give an indication of the nature of the field which falls within the area of the dental field.

Of course, when we come to the prima donna profession, the medical profession, the minister simply has in the definition that medicine includes obstetrics and surgery. It’s not a definition at all, but in its broad phraseology of what’s involved in the practice of medicine one can simply see that the domination of the field by the medical profession is part and parcel of the ministry’s outlook toward the way in which this difficult problem of co-ordination and inter-relationship and service provision to people throughout the province is to be carried out.

I certainly suggest to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that those are very defective. It is extremely difficult even for the minister, who has now taken unto himself the various duties and responsibilities to which I referred earlier, to co-ordinate those health disciplines if he does not have better guidelines as to the scope and field of the various disciplines. It doesn’t seem to me to make sense that he does not make some effort to define the field of the discipline of nursing or the field of the discipline of pharmacy.

It doesn’t seem to me to make sense that he leaves the field of medicine subject, for practical purposes, to no definition; because any lay person would have assumed that it included the field of obstetrics and surgery. For practical purposes, he leaves it wide open to whatever the traditional field of medicine has been as it has developed over a very long period of time.

The model, as I see it, should be a model somewhat along the lines of the definition with respect to the discipline of dentistry. That is, one defines the particular field in a broad sense but specifies it as including, in some detail, various areas which are covered within that particular discipline. That definition appeals to me; and it seems to my mind that the ministry should have been capable of coming up with some correlative type of definition with respect to the other areas which are included in the bill.

I find it extremely difficult to decide, when one comes to this area, whether or not a person not otherwise authorized to practice in a particular discipline is, in fact, engaged in carrying on

an act which falls within those

definitions, when the

definitions in their various ways of statement with respect to each of the disciplines are so wanting in some degree of exactitude and some degree of guidance.

I’m not suggesting for a single moment that one can be rigid with respect to

definitions so that one compartmentalizes the health disciplines. That isn’t the purpose. What one wants is the kind of definition and the kind of statement with respect to each of the disciplines which will allow for a reasonable degree of judgement in the interrelationships and in the areas in which there must, of necessity, be a certain degree of overlapping.

Mr. Speaker, those are the principle matters that are of concern to me in the bill. There is a further specific matter which we will undoubtedly deal with in the committee and which will be subject to representations when the matter goes out before the standing committee on social development. That is the question with respect to the extent to which retail merchants are to be allowed to have an optical service in their particular stores.

As I understand it -- I have no special knowledge; I’m only talking about what I am told, but I have taken some effort to confirm it -- I understand that having gone to an ophthalmologist and had one’s eyes tested, if one then goes down to have the prescription filled in the T. Eaton Co. department store and goes to the optical place there to get a pair of glasses, one is in fact dealing with Imperial Optical. There is no sign saying one is dealing with Imperial Optical; one thinks one is dealing with the T. Eaton Co. and one is not.

I understand that the same is true with respect to the Robert Simpson Co. It is not Imperial Optical but an American firm, as I understand it, which presumably by contractual arrangement with the Robert Simpson Co., has the right to establish its place in the Robert Simpson store and to provide that service.

They are separate and distinct businesses. One is not dealing with the Robert Simpson Co. or the T. Eaton Co. when one goes into their stores and gets a prescription filled.

Similarly, there are situations in which an optometrist carries on his practice under his individual name because, as I understand it, there is no provision for a corporation to carry on the business of optometry other than the strange exception which the minister has set out and to which I referred earlier.

But I understand that in the case of an optometrist who is practising his individual trade in a particular location and has built up a business and a reasonable amount of goodwill, it would not be unusual for him to sell out a 50 per cent interest in his business to Imperial Optical and to continue to carry on his business as an optometrist under his own individual name. People dealing with him to obtain glasses and the other services the optometrist provides do not realize and are not told that in fact there is a silent partner, Imperial Optical, in that business.

Again, I’m not speaking in denigrating terms. It is a common business practice for an individual who is limited in the way in which he can carry on his business to realize a 50 per cent interest in his business and thereby obtain the capital that allows him to do certain other things during the course of his lifetime. In most urban centres in this day and age, of course, there is little, if any, goodwill now attached to the individual optometrist if and when he dies and his estate tries to sell off something called his business and the goodwill in connection with it.

It is quite a legitimate business operation to realize 50 per cent interest, probably in cash or in some way in which it could be used for investment in other fields.

That again is not duping the public. The individual optometrist continues to carry on the business, he shares the profit 50-50 and there are other arrangements by which he is tied to Imperial Optical. But what happens when one deals with him is that one does not know that one is dealing with a tied house.

I think that the ramifications of that particular

section of the bill, dealing with retail merchants having this kind of outlet and the kind of a business arrangement made by optometrists that result in the monopoly operation or semi-monopoly operation of Imperial Optical being extended, are ones that require much better care and attention than has been evident simply by providing that this particular part of the bill dealing with optometry,

part 5, does not apply to the method of carrying on business which I have described at the optical services divisions of the T. Eaton Co. and the Robert Simpson Co.

I assume I am correct. If I am not correct, perhaps the minister has the correct information. Certainly it is a well considered, accepted account of what, in fact, takes place if you deal with the Robert Simpson Co. or the T. Eaton Co. It is also well known that if, in the instance which I have used, an optometrist has sold off 50 per cent of the goodwill of his business, there is no way when you deal with him that you know that you are dealing with a silent partner who is Imperial Optical and which is part of the overall monopoly.

I must say that I made some effort to acquaint myself as a layman on this vexed question of the use of drugs by optometrists for optometric purposes simply by having one or two discussions with people in the fields whose judgement I tend to respect.

I am inclined to accept the view expressed by my colleague, the member for High Park, that this is not a statistical game; that the person who suffers the serious side effects of the drug which is used for testing purposes, whatever the particular drug is -- side effects which require immediate attention in most instances and are, as I understand it, quite frightening, both to the person who suffers them and to anyone who observes it -- deserves to have, if it is possible to do so, the provision of immediate attention so that no untoward fatality takes place.

Statistically it probably doesn’t matter. People are going to die from one thing or another. But certainly statistics must give way to the individual patient who may suffer that particular untoward event, which could be avoided if in fact a qualified medical practitioner who could deal with the aftereffects were immediately present.

My understanding is that even at the Waterloo College the number of hours which the optometrists in their training spend in field-related to drugs is extremely low. It is extremely low compared to the nursing profession, extremely low in comparison to the dental profession; and of course, minuscule with respect to the time spent in the study of the effects of drugs by the medical profession in the course of attending their schools.

I don’t presume to speak with the authority with which my colleague the member for High Park, or my colleague the member for Parkdale speak about it. I do say that I incline to the view that the medical profession, the ophthalmologists, are in fact, insofar as they are able to distinguish self-interest from the public interest -- the problem we all have because we all would like to identify the public interest with our self- interest -- but to the extent they can disengage themselves from it they are saying to the minister that in the public interest they have a very real professional concern.

I don’t think for a moment it is related to their desire to maintain monopoly in the field, because my guess is that optometrists and ophthalmologists and so on are doing quite well economically.

There comes about, of course, the continuous problem that my colleague the member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes) and my other colleagues from northern Ontario raise. That is, what about the areas where there is no ophthalmologist present, what do you do? Is the optometrist to be denied this facility for testing people’s eyes?

I don’t know. I don’t think the minister’s short statement is an adequate an