Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t think I can be any more explicit than I have been during debates in this Legislature and at other times. Indeed just last week in the city of Brantford, in talking to the secondary school teachers they asked me that question. I replied that I thought terms and conditions of employment should be negotiable. They noted this and said they would inform the Brant county board.

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.

Our staff will continue to maintain surveillance of this operation, and if in fact it is apparent that there is a deterioration of the facility, I will certainly review the terms and conditions of the licence of occupation with my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, under whose authority the licence was issued.

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 answer. There must be an adequate answer to it, and I think there must be a fairly definitive one. I hope that when the minister answers and speaks on this bill he will deal with it in a direct and forthright way and not leave it up in the air to be solved by some kind of regulation which may not be adequate when you are dealing with a significant warning by a group of experts in the field such as the ophthalmologists.

Mr. Speaker, my other remarks on particular sections of the bill we can leave until the time when we are in the standing committee. I want to simply say to the minister how delighted I was to know he is sending this out to the standing committee so that a number of these matters can be aired with public representation and not just the input of the members of the assembly and committee of the whole House.

I must reiterate that those reasons -- which were set out in much greater detail and with much greater comprehensiveness and expertise by my colleague the member for Parkdale -- are the substance of the basic reasons why we in the party are opposed to this bill on second reading and why we will vote against it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): We in this party intend to support the principle of the bill, although we are not satisfied with it in all of its particulars and we feel it has a very deep-seated flaw in the approach that the minister has been persuaded to take in the composition of the Health Disciplines Board and its specific responsibilities.

My colleague from Downsview has done a considerable study on this matter as, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware. We agree wholeheartedly with the contention that he put before you earlier today that such a board must have its hearings in public where the circumstances particularly will permit it. There has to be the right of reasons being made available when the board reaches its decision. There are a whole list of inadequacies in the establishment of this as a board that will serve the public, and particularly those members of the public who feel that an injustice has been done by one of the health disciplines for which the board has responsibility.

It is regrettable that when a substantial departure is being made after a good deal of research and contemplation, and in fact delay, that the board cannot be established with greater powers that would permit it to command a good deal more confidence in the community.

I have been very sorry that there has been this delay in bringing forward the bill. I also feel that the minister is being very timorous in the way he has approached the recommendations in the Mustard report of the Health Planning Task Force,

I just want to spend a moment in that connection. When the report was tabled. Dr. Mustard had specific recommendations -- for example for establishing an implementation committee without delay. But the minister said that although the cover of the report is orange he considers it green -- whatever that significance is -- and essentially he has put it on the shelf to gather a little dust, because he does not want to move forward, specifically with the recommendations pertaining to a change in the administration at the regional level, that has been suggested.

I want to deal with an area of personal interest; and that is the scope set out for the various areas in this bill, particularly as they deal with the allied health professionals. We have been talking about this now for five or six years in the Legislature as it pertained to the responsibilities of optometrists, dentists, dental therapists -- as they are now legally designated -- or the denturists; who continue to practice against the laws of the Province of Ontario even though it is expected that with a reasonable change of opinion those laws will be set straight.

I don’t intend to make my denturists speech. You and the minister know my views, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister and I see eye to eye on this if the reports of his statements to those people from the dental profession and the denturists are to be believed. I simply look forward to the day when he and his cabinet colleagues can persuade his caucus -- the Conservative caucus -- of the reasonableness of changing a law that was entered into with inadequate study and is seen to be, in my view, unenforceable.

I did want to say something about the optometrists, since the scope of that profession has been the subject of the minister’s discussions with ophthalmologists, optometrists, the Ontario Medical Association in general, and other members of the community.

I well recall the startled reaction from the ophthalmologists when, by way of letter, the minister indicated he was thinking of removing from them the right of examining patients except by referral. In other words, that the optometrists would in fact be the first con- tact with the eye profession, if you might call it that, or by referral from a medical doctor.

As a matter of fact the story never really was fully revealed, other than that the ophthalmologists seemed to be electrified to the extent that they contacted the private members in their own area and forcefully indicated that they did not want to be deprived of this right to deal directly and without referral. They even went so far, as a provincial organization, as to invite the members of the Legislature to a small repast, at which time they could express their views collectively and directly to us, which they did very forcefully indeed.

Now there seems to be another controversy and that has to do with the scope of optometry and the submissions by the OMA reflecting the views of the ophthalmologists that the optometrists should not have the right to use any drugs whatsoever in the eye for the assistance of their examination procedures. I’ve read the briefs from the optometrists and ophthalmologists carefully, and I must say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I agree with the principle the minister has put forward, that the optometrists should have the right to use certain carefully restricted drugs for purposes of examination.

I would also agree that the minister’s statement so far has been inadequate, or insufficient, to satisfy either me or, I’m sure, the members of the OMA, specifically the ophthalmologists, that the restrictions are going to be sufficient for them to at least give their approval, or let’s say to express their agreement. I doubt if the ophthalmologists would express their agreement to the use of even distilled water, but that’s another matter.

Some members of the OMA who have spoken to me did not have an objection until the bill was brought down. As a matter of fact, there was some indication that since other jurisdictions had permitted optometrists to use some of these drugs -- I should have a proper name for them and I think it is in my notes. What do you call them?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Topical anaesthetics.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Topical anaesthetics. Do those dilate the pupil?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Those are mydriatics.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, let’s say topical anaesthetics and mydriatics are the drugs to which I’m referring, and I personally believe the optometrists should have the legal right to use them.

I suppose, having worn eyeglasses almost since I can remember, and having had some personal experience with the professional advice and treatment of ophthalmologists and optometrists, I can say that I have a great deal of confidence in both these classes of professionals and would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that about 60 per cent of the people of the province do not have ready access to ophthalmologists. I think we should also understand that the high level of professional attainments of the ophthalmologists, in my view, should be reserved for perhaps more important examinations and treatments other than simply the refraction that is necessary in order to prescribe spectacles or eyeglasses to correct problems of vision.

l was interested to read the report of the Committee on the Healing Arts which states, on page 251, recommendation 127:

That the Optometry Act be amended to permit the use by optometrists of drugs needed for diagnostic purposes provided that the undergraduate programmes in the use and effect of such drugs are instituted and that optometrists now practising who wish to use drugs meet the requirements of a postgraduate course to be offered by the School of Optometry.

There have been other recommendations, including the federal royal commission report that was written by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall some years ago that made a similar general recommendation.

Other jurisdictions have permitted optometrists to use these restricted drugs. The United Kingdom for one, Pennsylvania quite recently and Rhode Island before that; and it seems to be more and more accepted that optometrists, as long as their training is specified and accepted, have this right and its very great responsibility.

I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, the booklet setting out the course presented to the students at the School of Optometry, the Faculty of Science, University of Waterloo, which as you know prescribes a five-year course for optometry.

If I have any criticism, it seems to me that in five years a person interested in this profession might very well have taken a medical degree, if he or she could have obtained admittance to a medical school. A superficial examination of the curriculum will show that in year five a course in ocular pharmacology is presented, two lectures a week. I don’t believe it’s for the full term, but the description indicates that it is a part of the formal training, that by the way gives the graduates of the course a doctoral degree in optometry.

I notice in passing that nothing in this bill prohibits the allied health professionals from using the term “doctor.” I would assume that since these graduates have a doctoral degree from a recognized provincially-assisted university the question as to whether they are going to be known as doctors or not would be settled by the omission from the bill of any specific requirement in that regard. That will please a great many optometrists and annoy a great many medical doctors. I have no objection to this. As a matter of fact, being a patient of an optometrist myself, and recognizing the fact that he has a doctoral degree, I usually refer to him with that title and I don’t think it’s anything other than a recognition of his attainments.

The argument, that there may very well be a confusion in the minds of certain people that the optometrist is in fact not a medical practitioner and therefore does not have either the abilities or the responsibilities to treat a wider range of ailments, may be valid, but after all educational procedures now extending to five years warrant the kind of recognition that the bill tacitly permits.

I feel, however, that the bill could have included a section that by law requires the optometrist to report any pathological circumstances to a medical practitioner or make some indication to the patient of the presence of these pathological indications. Perhaps this is not necessary; surely it would be almost unimaginable that any information such as this that came to the attention of the optometrist would not be so reported; but there are other instances where such a requirement is a part of the enactment and it is perhaps something that we should give some consideration to.

I wanted really to make my position clear in this regard, because there has been perhaps an exaggeration of the threat and danger to the public health or the individual wellbeing in the provisions of this statute which does extend these powers to use certain restricted drugs to optometrists.

The good doctor from High Park added to this probably more than any other spokesman for the OMA when he indicated that some people will lose their vision and some people will lose their lives. I hope that this is an exaggeration, because there have been medical opinions expressed in less extreme terms than that. I realize that the opthalmologists and the Ontario Medical Association in general do feel a heavy and almost corporate responsibility in this regard. We have seen the dentists bringing forward their strong, and to them valid objections to extending even the right to fit dentures to a group that does not have their full professional, and I suppose paramedical training.

I have a strong prejudice myself, in no way against doctors, but certainly strongly in favour of those people who are generally referred to as paramedicals, or more properly allied health professionals. As long as their course of instruction comes under the approval and supervision of the Ministry of Health and their methods of practice have their scope carefully outlined in legislation, such as the bill that we are dealing with today, it might be easy for a prejudiced person to feel that the medical practitioners and the dentists were unnecessarily protective of their prerogatives in this regard. I don’t feel that, but it might possibly be for segments of the community to respond to their strong objections to any expansion of the scope of these allied health professionals in that way. That, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, would be my feeling of support where the ministry brings forward as a matter of policy the type of expansion in scope that I have indicated, where there is a full administrative review of this scope and where it is carefully set out by statute with all of the safeguards that can be brought to bear through the powers of the Legislature and the undoubted administrative powers of the Ministry of Health with their uncounted and uncountable experts, supervisors and general factotum.

Hon. Mr. Miller: That’s me.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is the general factotum? All right, that may be.

I was interested as well in the comments made by the member for Riverdale in the application of this bill to optometric services, lets say by Eaton’s and Simpsons and other large companies. I personally have an objection to that. I think it detracts to some extent from the professional safeguards that one might otherwise expect. It obviously becomes the kind of money-making operation that the shoe counter and the candy counter and the women’s dress counter are. In my view it does not add to the confidence that the people might otherwise have in a professional service. I don’t intend even to offer an amendment to the bill in that regard, although some of my colleagues might be interested in it.

It tends to bring back the whole problem that the fitting of eyeglasses has been subjected to when my colleague, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), brought to public attention the fact that the Ophthalmic Dispensers Board seemed to be dominated by Imperial Optical, however good its services. For many years I was fitted with glasses from that company. I have no doubt that there might even be a connection with that company and the glasses I wear right now. Maybe that accounts for some of my political myopia. I thought I’d say that before the minister did. It seems to me the stronger the professional aspects that can be brought to bear through legislation, the better.

Just in closing my remarks, I am quite enthusiastically in support of the concept of the bill, that is to use the powers of the Legislature to define carefully the scope of practice of these allied health professionals. That is the only way we are going to come to grips with the problems that have always arisen with chiropractors and other groups, where without a carefully definition there are going to be those few irresponsible practitioners who tend to go beyond the limits that one would normally think would be set professionally and by the internal procedures of an association of professionals. Obviously we cannot depend on that and it is our job in the Legislature to establish that scope.

I want to say that the concept is good and we are prepared to support it on that basis. We have some doubts, strongly stated by my colleague, the member for Downsview, about the powers that have been granted to the Health Disciplines Board and we will be offering amendments in that regard. I hope the minister, still being a reasonable man and not having had his feet and his mind set in ministerial cement as yet, will consider them, because we believe that board can be strengthened in its ability to serve the cause of justice, and particularly the cause of the individuals in this province who feel that otherwise justice would not be done.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a number of points about the bill, particularly in relation to nursing. I have to apologize to the minister because certain information that I have raised in the Legislature I had not sent to him up until now. It’s something that has been on my agenda, particularly in relation to temporary nursing agencies. I will raise some of this material in the Legislature. I intend to send the material to the minister at the soonest opportunity and I apologize for the delay.

I want to talk about nursing because I don’t think that a number of problems I have come into contact with in the relationships between the profession and the College of Nurses; the public and the College of Nurses; and the College of Nurses and certain commercial agencies active in the nursing field, are adequately dealt with in this particular field. I think in addition there is a very serious weakness in the whole structure of the discipline provisions of the College of Nurses. It may affect other health disciplines as well, but since this is the area on which I have some information I would prefer to talk about nursing alone. I would recommend to the minister, though, that he and his people inquire into the disciplinary situation in other health professions as well to see whether there is some- thing comparable to this particular situation.

If I can talk about discipline first, it’s clear that the various colleges, including the College of Nurses, are being given an enormous responsibility to apply professional standards, to ensure that every registered member of their college is practising within the limits of professional requirements and to protect the public against malpractice. However, that protection against malpractice in the case of nursing rests on a very slender foundation.

It rests on a slender foundation because disciplinary complaints are only brought to the attention of the college by a complainant. When one gets down to it, one finds in a typical year there are very few complaints which have been registered with the College of Nurses. In fact, the number of complaints registered with the college has been something of the order of fewer than 100 per year against all the nurses in the province. I believe there are something like 80,000 trained nurses in the province, although considerably fewer are actually registered at any particular time.

My figures indicate that about a third of the complaints come from the hospitals; about a third come from nursing registries, presumably mainly the non-profit ones sponsored by the nurses themselves; and the remainder come from other sources. The police are a substantial source of the remainder of the complaints, but there are very few complaints which come directly from the public.

These are handled by administrative means; and when one gets to the existence of the present complaints committee, one finds that no more than maybe six or eight or nine complaints are actually dealt with by the complaints committee in the course of a year. In other words, the other complaints are handled in an informal way or are fobbed off; God knows what happens to them.

Maybe they are dealt with quite satisfactorily but the comments of the member for Riverdale, I think, are very well taken if one applies them to the particular situation in the nursing profession. Clearly, the very elaborate means of handling complaints and applying discipline and using the agency of the Health Disciplines Board is pretty ineffective if only a tenth of a very small number of complaints ever reach the first stage of that process, which is the complaints committee of the College of Nurses.

According to the information I have, only three or four nurses were actually struck from the roles -- in other words were actually disciplined -- over the course of a typical year. These figures are averages, of course, for the last three or four years. I don’t know the figures for the most recent year.

I think it’s clear that the College of Nurses is not nearly as tough as, say the College of Physicians and Surgeons. It may also be that it’s more difficult to pin down responsibility in the case of a nurse than it is in the case of a doctor or someone else, but I am not convinced about that particular argument. I am really not convinced.

It seems to me there’s another set of facts which may also fit the situation and which may be fairly worrisome and that’s the following. As the minister knows, many nurses in the province are employees. They work for a hospital or they work for a public health unit. They have a professional job as employees. If their standards start to slip or if they start to take to drink or if there is some suspicion of drugs or something like that, the tendency, it seems to me, has been that the nurse is quietly let go from that particular institution or employer. There may even be a little quiet chat with the superintendent, a nursing sister, a director of nursing, or it may be even just another friend on the floor at the same level, who says: “Look, you are not hacking it. Why don’t you go off and do something else?” But there is nothing to stop that nurse coming back into nursing at another point, because normally action of a disciplinary kind is not taken.

What happens then is that the nurse quite possibly slips down the ladder from her prestige job to a less prestigious job; maybe she lands up working for a nursing home operator who is trying to meet the regulations at the least possible cost; maybe she lands up working for a temporary care agency which is not particularly worried about the credentials as long as she has an RN after her name.

Now, the College of Nurses has, to say the least, not been assiduous about its disciplinary review, about raising the consciousness about the possibility of discipline. It does not publicize, in the same way as the College of Physicians, the results of its disciplinary actions; I think that the actions of the College of Physicians are themselves wanting, but nevertheless at least the public is aware through publicity that if you think you are being mucked about with by your doctor you can put in a complaint.

I think the minister is aware of the fact that for the ordinary individual -- a patient, or the relative of a patient, or a former patient -- it is difficult anyway to raise a complaint and to file a complaint and to do it in written form. It’s more difficult when you have to go through the number of stages which are provided for in this particular bill. And it’s more difficult too when the College of Nurses, the body governing in this particular situation, makes no effort to make it known that this disciplinary provision exists.

What I am saying is that that is a very slender kind of basis on which to base the authority of the College of Nurses over people who are already registered. A nurse could keep paying her $6 a year for registration, not practise for 30 years, and at the end of that time could walk into a hospital or a nursing home or someplace else that wanted a nurse and would be legally entitled to practise.

I checked it out in the case of my own mother who is retired and who has not practised as a nurse since about 1943. By accident she is qualified in British Columbia and has never been registered in Ontario. Had she registered in Ontario when we came here in the 1940s she would now, after 30 years and despite some very serious illness, be entitled to work as a registered nurse in the Province of Ontario.

In addition Mr. Speaker, I’m told that while the College of Nurses is pretty tough -- and I’ll talk about this in a minute -- with people who come in from outside the province and seek registration in the Province of Ontario -- in fact it’s arbitrarily tough in certain instances as the minister may be aware, and I will make him aware in a minute -- the hospitals which are the major employers of nurses are not very careful in some cases, are incautious in other cases and are downright careless in others, about vetting the qualifications of people who come to work for them as RN’s.

I have not got direct evidence of this but I have it on very excellent authority that hospitals are inclined to accept the word of nurses when they come in that they are qualified. I understand there are a significant number of hospitals in the province that do not, as a practice, either get the qualifications of all nurses who apply for jobs or check them on a sample basis or on a selective basis when they have reason to presume there may be something that deserves checking out.

That, it seems to me, is a serious weakness. And it’s a weakness which the College of Nurses should be aware of. It means that there is not a continual vetting of nurses’ qualifications and competence. If the woman or the male nurse doesn’t work out after a month or two, they get shunted off to some place where they can’t do too much harm and then they get shunted right out of the hospital. Then they go and they find themselves work elsewhere.

This is pretty important because in fact the work that a nurse does isn’t applying tender, loving care, as the minister is aware. The amount of intravenous solution that is given -- the metering and monitoring of that, for example -- or the amount or dosage of drug being administered by a nurse can kill or cure a patient. One mistake can cost a life. It’s a serious business and therefore the question of professional competence is very much to be worried about.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the College of Nurses apparently has, under the present regulations, an authority of some sort over the registries of nurses which exist in the province, both the non-profit ones which are co-operatives and the commercial registries. The minister is aware there is a large number of graduate nurses who are finding employment with these registries at sub-normal rates of pay but who, in the situations where they are working, often carry out all the responsibilities of an RN. It appears they may have to work under the supervision, whatever that means, of an RN, but in practice they function as fully qualified registered nurses with virtually all the authority and responsibility of an RN. That’s what the hospitals do and that’s what the nursing registries have them do.

The vetting of qualifications by these nursing registries is totally inadequate. I have cases in my files here of people who have simply phoned up and said: “Hi, I’m a nurse; I’d like to get a job. I was trained in ( -- )” and then they name some obscure country. The answer on the phone is, “Why don’t you come down and we’ll get you out tomorrow?”

There is the case, the minister may recall it, of Betty Lee who was then writing for the Globe and Mail. She walked into a Toronto hospital, I think, and got herself hired as a nurse despite the lack of any qualifications here in the province.

The examination results of graduate nurses are often wanting. That is, they are often seriously deficient in a number of different subjects, according to the examinations of the National League of Nurses, but the standards required by the College of Nurses are, to say the least, not very demanding. Nevertheless they have had failure rates among graduate nurses as high as 60 and 70 per cent in certain cases. The failure rates are particularly high with nurses who have qualified in certain countries and who have come to Canada to try to work.

In the case of underdeveloped countries it may be that the wage the nurses can receive as graduates, without registration, is sufficiently elevated by contrast to their home country that there is no incentive for them to try to reach a qualification they can’t get because of inadequate training in their homeland. So we have the situation of a kind of nursing proletariat which is tolerated in this province.

I wonder what people of the province would say if doctors trained anywhere in the world were permitted to practise in this province on a sort of a loose fraternal arrangement with some other fellow. Suppose they went into practice with somebody who’s a qualified doctor in Ontario, took up an office at the other end of the corridor and practised to all intents and purposes, as though they were GPs or specialists, despite the fact that their credentials had never been vetted in this province. That would clearly be unacceptable and yet that is the position as far as nurses who are graduate nurses here in the province are concerned.

That’s one side of the picture, Mr. Speaker. The other side of the picture is that when it comes to protecting something -- I don’t know whether it’s the economic status of nurses or whether it’s a kind of exaggerated view of the standards of nursing in the Province of Ontario -- and applying these to foreign applicants for registration in the province, the College of Nurses has proved to be vindictive, arbitrary and irrational in its decisions. It has proved to be very difficult to work with.

This is a situation of which the minister became aware when he was parliamentary secretary to the Ministry of Health, eight or 10 months ago; it is a situation which, unfortunately, continues. I had thought that by the end of the year we had pretty much ironed out the situation; that most of the people with whom I was in contact, and others were in contact, who were seeking permission to write the exams of the National League of Nurses and to become qualified as RN’s in this province, were well on the way.

You can imagine my surprise, then, to find out of 106 people in one group -- the Association of Nurses Educated Abroad which had been trying for six months or more to get action from the College of Nurses and which had welcomed the revision of policies by the College of Nurses last September -- of 106 people with whom they were in contact at the end of January or in early February, only 18 had become eligible for registration or had been given permission to write examinations in June, 1974. The apparently deliberate efforts of the College of Nurses to put people off has continued, and the mistreatment of people with exceptional qualifications has continued as well.

Frankly, I think that the credibility of the College of Nurses in coming down so hard on nurses educated abroad is dangerous and unjustified. It is dangerous because it encourages people to remain in a graduate status, rather than getting their registered status; and that means we have people practising as nurses in the province who just aren’t qualified, or aren’t known to be qualified, by any standards we have here in the province.

It is unjustified because of the exceptionally low-standard of qualification that is set for nurses who are educated in the two-year course in Ontario nursing schools. When our nursing graduates write the National League of Nursing exams set by the Canadian Association of Nurses, Mr. Speaker, they are required to get a passing mark of only 325 out of 700. It is a multiple-choice examination. As I understand it, you can’t help by the laws of chance getting somewhere around a 25 per cent mark; that is about 175 marks. And in order to pass the exams, all you need is 325 -- which is something less than 50 per cent.

We are saying that on the multiple choice, people who are qualified to nurse in Ontario need know less than half the questions that are put to them on the standard nursing exam. The standard that is applied to applicants from abroad is slightly higher, 350. That is the standard that is applied in most other provinces -- and it seems to me that standard too, is shockingly low and ought to be raised.

But when you look at the qualifications of people who have been seeking to get entry to nursing -- particularly the ones who have been educated in Britain -- it just boggles the mind the treatment that they have had from the College of Nurses. One asks oneself what on earth is it that this college is trying to protect if the nursing programmes in the province are such that people can’t even get what is normally considered to be a passing mark.

Take a woman named Dorothy Thomson, who is now working as a graduate nurse in Belleville because she has only just been accepted for the examinations in June. She had a grade 13 education in Scotland; three years training as a sick children’s nurse; first prize in anatomy at the Aberdeen Royal Hospital, an excellent institution; first prize in her final class; 2½ more years training at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary for a registered general nurse; first prize in general training in her class; a prize winner somewhere along the way in anatomy, and in physiology; sat her obstetrics examination in Nova Scotia; charge nurse and hospital supervisor in various hospitals in Nova Scotia.

In September, 1972, she moved to Ontario with her husband and applied to the College of Nurses of Ontario for registration, giving them the transcript and the other information that they would normally require. She received a letter back from them, saying: “We find that you don’t have the academic requirements necessary for admission into nursing in this province.’ In other words, go back to high school. “We also find that you are deficient in the areas of social and biological sciences, and pediatric nursing.” This particular woman had taken three years as a sick children’s nurse. When she went down to talk to the college they said: “Oh no, we didn’t mean pediatrics, we meant psychiatric nursing.” And they changed that requirement.

She pointed out to them she had had biology in her high school, that she had been a prizewinner in anatomy and physiology -- but they refused to relent on the question of biological sciences. Eventually they sent her a letter saying they would waive the requirement for high school, and that if she would take the course in sociology, and a course in psychology at Loyalist College, and if she would then enrol in a school of nursing and complete a course in psychiatric nursing, then they would consider that she could come forward for the exams.

Some of those regulations have changed Mr. Speaker, but the latest round -- I think I have it here -- from the College of Nurses was that in October, 1973, with the new requirement, they finally decided she would be eligible for the examination. They still refused to recognize that she had written her obstetrics examination in Nova Scotia and she had written the examination which they required of her. The whole tone of the letter was to leave her still in the dark.

I’ll quote one sentence. “As part of the requirement for registration at the nurse level in this province you must pass our provincial registration examination.” But she had gone through so many hoops at this point that she was not aware -- and had to find out from the college -- whether this was the final hoop or whether there were not other requirements she would have to meet. Ninety days’ notice was required before she could sit the exam. Since the letter came on Oct. 10, she was too late for the January exams and is now sitting the examination in June.

The college is a very curious body, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of cases I can communicate to the minister in which when I have phoned up and asked about a particular case, that particular case has been resolved very quickly. It is wrong that a professional college should have to work in that particular way and that it should respond purely to pressure. It is wrong that it should not have been actively seeking that make-up courses be made available for foreign-trained nurses if they did need obstetrics or psychiatry, one particular course. It has not been active in that particular direction.

What is particularly wrong in the case of the British nurses is that the college has made an enormous song and dance about transcripts for their particular course of study in their particular hospital. The minister is probably aware that in Britain there is a state curriculum and people have to write examinations to become a State Registered Nurse. To write those exams they must pass a course from a nursing school which is approved by the college of nurses of Britain or whatever that equivalent body is called.

Moreover, the British standards are known to be high and moreover, in Canada, the College of Nurses quite rightly insists on safe practice being proved. That is that there be some practice in Ontario or other jurisdiction by which it is shown that the nurse can practice well. There is the writing of these four examinations on top of the completion of all the requirements for a certificate from another country.

Nevertheless, any number of these applicants from Britain have been hassled unmercifully because the college insisted on transcripts that fitted North American standards. Unfortunately for the applicants the British programme mixes theory and practice much more intimately than is done in Ontario and the British nursing schools simply don’t understand the credit system, the unit system and all the various other fripperies we are so inured to in our North American system of education.

The British hospitals couldn’t deliver the information to the College of Nurses in the form it wanted to have it. The consequence was that letter followed letter back and forth and the college exploited every opportunity for delay in order to try to turn off these applicants. One assumes, Mr. Speaker, the reason it sought to turn them off was that it was trying to protect Ontario-trained nurses from competition from abroad. I can’t think of any other reason.

I don’t think that is a way in which this thing should be applied. We have immigration regulations. As it happens those rules now make it difficult for nurses to come into the country. That is the point at which Ontario and Canadian nurses should be protected if there is a danger of oversupply and if there is a threat or too great a foreign immigration.

The question of registration should not be the means used to stop foreigners, particularly when many foreign-trained nurses have just happened to come with their kids and families because they and their husbands decided it would be a good thing to come to Canada. In this particular case, the nurse’s decision -- the housewife’s decision -- was, in a sense, secondary to the husband’s decision to come here. He was offered a good job. She came as well. She wanted to practise and contribute to Canadian society. She found she needed to because the cost of living was so high. She was blocked by the College of Nurses, which apparently was trying to keep out sweet young things, male and female, who might have wanted to come over straight after graduation.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): That’s a quick recovery.

Mr. Cassidy: There are male nurses, I would point out Mr. Speaker, although the ones that I have been in contact with are generally female nurses.

I don’t understand why the College of Nurses could not have simply said: “Okay we accept the state registration from Britain and we accept certain qualifications from Germany, from France, perhaps from Italy, from Holland, from Australia, possibly from Jamaica and other countries that follow the British standards; and then we will apply our screening which is the safe practice requirement and the examination requirement.

That would have been a reasonable kind of step to take. But no; applicants have been delayed for as long as three and four years, Mr. Speaker. I have one case of a woman named Mrs. Wilma Elaine Skeete, a West Indian who was trained in Britain and who to my view meets the requirements to come and sit the Ontario exams. However, every step that has been taken has been taken by the college in order to discourage Mrs. Skeete from getting registered. She has been trying for about 3% years. Eventually I think that the college told her that she might work as a registered nursing assistant.

At one point, the college was saying to applicants that it would not permit them to qualify as RNAs because the discipline of mind needed was different. They had to work under instructions from an RN. This was regardless of the fact that the regulations themselves said that any person who was registered as a nurse in a foreign jurisdiction could automatically qualify as an RNA within the Province of Ontario. The college was not even applying its own regulations.

It is curious, when the Association of Nurses Educated Abroad renewed its pressure on the college this spring, that suddenly it was all click, click, click, and things started to happen again. Suddenly of the 60 or 80 people who were waiting for decisions from the college, about 30 found they were being admitted to the June examination. Suddenly the college said that the 90-day delay for applying for the examination was being waived at this time and they would hold places open for anybody who could show almost up to examination day that they could be qualified to write the exams. The history all the way through has been that the college has responded to pressure, but that it has not been willing to give these foreign applicants a fair shake.

When I look at the bill, Mr. Speaker, I find that the bill says that anybody who is refused registration by a college -- this is in the general section of the bill -- may appeal to the Health Disciplines Board. But the relevant section says that the appeal goes forward with the written documentation, presumably the documentation which has been submitted to the particular college and to the registration board of that particular college.

In the case of the nurses there will be only one outsider and nine nurses on the registration board, which is pretty heavily biased in favour of the profession. It may be biased in favour of the bureaucrats of the College of Nurses, who I may say have not been at all helpful in their dealing with nurses and whose powers of communication have been wanting, have been inadequate and have been grossly insulting in certain cases.

Now there is no way by which an applicant for registration before the College of Nurses can go personally before the Health Disciplines Board in order to lodge the appeal. There is no way, apparently, by which a group can go, such as this Association of Nurses Educated Abroad, who are seeking action on a communal basis because they confront not an individual problem but a common problem of discrimination. They cannot go as a group; and this kind of access appears to be denied, unless the minister intervenes. I’m aware that power is there for the minister to order an inquiry by the Health Disciplines Board and I welcome that particular part of it; but it seems to me that these rights should not be on a grace and favour basis.

Let me just talk briefly and finally, Mr. Speaker, about the ripoff of nurses which is condoned by the ministry, both through its powers over the College of Nurses and through its funding of public hospitals in the province. The ceilings on hospital expenditure are one of the reasons hospitals employ so many graduate nurses. The major source of graduate nurses has been through commercial registries such as Upjohn and Comcare. In the case of Comcare, a group which I know of in Ottawa and which is active in other cities, the organization is taking at least 25 per cent, and often more, off the top of nurses’ wages. For somebody working part-time that will amount easily to $1,000 or more a year. The rates of pay which are left to nurses are grossly inadequate.

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows about the settlement that has been reached in the case of hospital cleaners and persons like that. I want to read to him, and to put on the record, the record for a woman named Sheila Wise, a registered nurse who lives on Lascelles Blvd. in Toronto. There has been a small increase since, but last December she was working with Comcare as a nurse, doing home care. The gross rate she was receiving was $3.04 an hour. And when one looks at the pay slip, Mr. Speaker, it shows 48 hours of work in the week of Nov. 23 and a gross pay of $148 for that period of time. After deductions, which amounted to $29.80, her net pay was $119.03 for 48 hours. In other words, she received about $2.20 an hour in take-home pay for a 48-hour week -- and no overtime either.

That’s exploitation, Mr. Speaker, and that is what has been happening with the hospital workers. We find here that a registered nurse, who is qualified and has professional responsibilities, was at that time receiving far less than even a hospital cleaner would have been receiving.

When one looks at the other side of it, though, Mr. Speaker, here is the charge sheet from a person in Ottawa who hired a home care nurse for seven days. For two days this person had a registered nurse at a rate of $35 a day, for a total of $70. The $35 a day compares with the $24.48 a day that was being received by Comcare registered nurses, $10 or more was being taken off the top by Comcare in order to fatten its profits.

Then for five days she had an RNA for $135. The total bill was $205 for a week of care.

But Comcare is just as ungentle with its patients as it is with its workers, because in this particular case, 28 days after the bill was incurred, an invoice came in from Comcare for $205 for the services which were rendered at the current rate. Then Comcare had the temerity to charge 10 per cent or $20.50 of interest for one month when, in my book, the bill wasn’t even overdue. That’s an interest rate of 120 per cent a year.

Comcare has sent out a circular to hospitals in Ottawa, in which it offers registered nurses, RNAs, nursing attendants, nurses’ aides and those kinds of people. The major people provided by Comcare, however, are not, RNs but graduate nurses. This is a piece of deception, a bait-and-switch tactic is in evidence here, because Comcare will substitute a graduate nurse, who possibly just came off the plane and quite possibly could never pass Ontario requirements, and they will be charged in at perhaps $3 a day less than the rate for a fully qualified registered nurse.

Comcare advertises a registered nurse but often supplies a graduate nurse. And the hospitals, which are anxious to save a few bucks, go along with that and let the judgement of Comcare or the commercial registry, supersede their own as far as qualifications of nurses are concerned.

In the case of Comcare, at one point they had a 23-year-old RN making decisions as to who should be hired and who should be sent where and who shouldn’t be. That compares with the normal hospital requirements that their personnel directors should be university-trained nurses with broad experience in handling nursing personnel.

Clearly they had some real deficiencies there and the College of Nurses has not been active there at all.

Comcare itself puts out publicity to people who want to nurse. Among other things, it says specifically to them that there is “no fee to pay,” when in fact the fee they pay is a minimum of about $10 a day. It is taken off the top before they actually see any pay.

I think the minister should ask whether he is willing to tolerate a situation where professionally qualified nurses should get only $25 a day or $125 a week before deductions and less than that after a normal 45-hour week. I wonder whether he considers that to be adequate remuneration or whether he doesn’t consider that the situation of these professional registries, which have been seeking to corner the major part of the part-time temporary market, that is the hospitals, doesn’t deserve inquiry. He should consider whether the co-operative nursing registries shouldn’t be encouraged, and whether hospitals shouldn’t be told in no uncertain terms to stop patronizing these firms, many of which are American-owned, and do the work themselves; look after the co-operatives, work out other systems and sit down with the union in order to find means by which nurses can get full value for their professional services rather than being ripped off.

Mr. Speaker, these are a few of the concerns that I wanted to bring before the minister in relation to the College of Nurses. I would suggest that he look at these questions of discipline, of the registries, of the inadequate standards for Ontario-trained nurses, of arbitrary application of standards for foreign-trained nurses, and of the profusion, unchecked and even encouraged by current policy of the College of Nurses, of graduate nurses in the province. At the very least there is an awful lot for the minister to put his mind to when he gets down to applying this new Act.

If one can put it a bit more strongly, it raises in my mind some very real questions as to whether the College of Nurses deserves to have the responsibilities that it is being granted in this particular bill. I seriously question it. I sort of wonder whether they shouldn’t be taken under trusteeship for a year or two while they show cause that they are capable of running things on their own. It seems to me that the kind of way which they have got out of touch with their own profession and with the public indicates the dangers of this delegation of power to the self-governing professions, and that has been particularly strong in the case of nursing.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other hon. members who wish to speak before the minister?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief in summarizing the many comments made over some 5½ hours of debate by a number of hon. members. I think, though, that I should point out that this bill has not been rushed through the House. It has had a progression that started some years ago.

It started with a very thorough review of the various health disciplines and their roles in the Committee of the Healing Arts. That vast report was carefully scrutinized by the Ontario Council of Health. From these discussions and reviews came forward a set of guiding principles enunciated by a Minister of Health some years ago. A draft bill of legislation, basically created by the health disciplines themselves, was put forward as a discussion piece. This was followed by almost two full years of discussion with all the disciplines which wished to offer opinions, with the public and with members of our own ministry.

From all of this came the present bill. I repeat all this because I want to point out that sometimes one gets an almost schizophrenic reaction from the opposition that we have given little thought to this or are trying to ignore the feelings of the public. I agree that there is still need for more public discussion, and this is one of the reasons why we have committed ourselves to having second reading of this bill, at least the committee stage, handled in standing committee of the House, so that the public may appear before it and so that we may, in fact, con- sider amendments to any particular part.

I, for one, want to say that I am not unprepared to accept amendments to parts -- I want that understood -- from those people who have offered very thoughtful comments on it in the last few days, and from the health disciplines who’ve discussed the parts with me. However, I think we will have to depend on that committee’s judgement to determine which of the amendments should be accepted.

One of the more important points that’s been talked about by at least two or three members of the opposition, particularly those who have legal training, has been the question of the powers of the board in two areas: the review of complaints and disciplinary matters, and, secondly, the authority of the board itself. I only want to say at this time that I am seriously considering those points on the complaints procedures and want, to look at the thoughts expressed by the members opposite.

As far as the authority of the board in terms of the duties of the minister versus the duties of the board, as it was originally discussed, I think I would have to say that a great deal of examination of those rules has been given. We came to the conclusion, during the two years of discussion, that in fact the Minister of Health was responsible for the regulation and co-ordination of the health disciplines of the Province of Ontario and, therefore, the responsibility for those duties should be vested in him. Therefore, we took it upon ourselves to take those duties from the Health Disciplines Board and give them to the minister.

Secondly, there was a conflict in role that was discerned by a number of legal people in the sense that we were, in the first draft. giving the Health Disciplines Board both a regulation-making capability and an appeal function based on some of the regulations it wrote. In our opinion that type of conflict should not have existed in that one body. Therefore we separated the authorities.

A lot of discussion has been given to the use of allied health personnel other than the physician or the dentist. If I listened to some of the comments from the hon. members I would come to the conclusion that nothing but an ultraspecialist should be permitted to perform any function. Well, simply, that is not the purpose of the allied health people. It is to make the maximum use of people with the necessary minimum training.

If, in fact, we are going to have enough manpower and a control on costs, obviously one does not need a specialist to perform every function. Properly described, the scopes of practice of the allied health personnel will allow them to perform a useful role augmenting the functions of the more highly skilled people and, in some cases where they are primary care people, acting as the screen that directs those patients in need of more intensive care to the proper people.

A great deal of discussion has centred on the question of the use of drugs by optometrists. The members can begin to see why only five or six parts are here at this point in time. It’s easy to say we should wait until all 25 or 30 parts are ready, but we might be here forever if we waited until all were ready. I think it’s very important to deal with each as we can and to bring them to the House and to get them into effect.

We spent many, many, many months and hours of discussion, interchange of memos, and so on, attempting to get a common ground that both the ophthalmologists and the optometrists could agree upon. We did not get complete agreement. Certainly, we have modified the position. If we followed the advice of the Committee on the Healing Arts we would have granted the use of at least four drugs to the optometrists. We chose to give them the use of one drug, although we do not say that in statute. One of the reasons we chose to leave the statute the way it was was to have the flexibility necessary at any point in time to reconsider the use of drugs and the skills of the people using them.

By the way, I should point out the fact that the hon. member for High Park made some categorical statements, which is his way and his wont, on the fact that the dispensing optician -- what did he call him in here? He called him the optometric optician or some- thing -- in England could use drugs only in hospitals. Well, I don’t think he’s right, we’ve had a cable from Europe during the course of the afternoon telling us that in fact a whole series of drugs is permitted without supervision in England. This is the cable I got from the British Optical Association:

WE CAN CONFIRM THAT UK OPHTHALMIC OPTICIANS (OPTOMETRISTS) ARE PERMITTED TO OBTAIN APPROPRIATE OPHTHALMIC DRUGS FOR PRACTICE USE -- CYCLOPLEGICS MYDRIATICS, MIOTICS, LOCAL ANAESTHETICS, STAINING AGENTS, PROPHYLACTIC ANTI-INFECTIVE PREPARATIONS, DECONGESTANTS. FURTHER INFORMATION FOLLOWING.

I just wanted to have some kind of confirmation of that fact and I have it now.

Another issue that was misconstrued and touched upon very briefly by a couple of the members was the restriction of the right of prayer for healing. I’m sure many members in this House received many letters in the last few weeks from people who felt quite properly that we had withdrawn a right implied in the first draft of this legislation. This was not so, because those people who believe in the power of prayer to heal have been permitted to do so without being accused of practising medicine under the Drugless Practitioners Act for a number of years. This Act is still in force. In time it will become a part of the Health Disciplines Act, and I can assure the hon. members that it is our intention to enshrine the right now granted to the Christian Scientists and others to retain their right to practise by prayer if they see fit.

On the definitions, a lot of discussion centred upon our vagueness in some cases and our precision in others. We started out with at attempt to get a precise definition for medicine. From that, of course, sprang the problem I just alluded to, the problem of the Christian Scientists, because in order to get a precise definition of medicine we had to exclude people curing by prayer, and therefore we put the exclusion in. But we came to the conclusion that medicine as such was in fact undefinable; therefore, we left that undefined except in a most general sense and defined the parts of medicine that other allied health disciplines were allowed to practise rather than defining the whole. I think that explains the precision.

Let’s go on to pharmacy. The statement that we didn’t define pharmacy is true to some degree, but we defined “drug,” and a pharmacist is a person who dispenses a drug under certain conditions. If one looks at the definition of “drug,” one will see that in effect we have defined a pharmacist.

I would also like to try to scan the remarks that other people have made. I was impressed by the thoughtfulness of the member for Downsview’s approach to the legal problems and, as I said earlier, I intend to follow them. We’ve leaned very heavily on the McRuer principles. I often wonder how we spell McRuer and if it begins with the letter G, because we certainly put very heavy emphasis on any of the principles that have been enunciated by this gentleman, who has had a very profound effect upon Ontario law.

I think, though, that most of the comments made by the various speakers were on particular parts and are better suited for discussion later.

The member for Sudbury talked about the apparent attempt to exclude the denture therapist -- or the denturist, as he said -- from the present legislation. There would hardly be any use in delaying this particular piece of legislation until such time as a policy is or is not changed on the practice of denture therapy.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): The minister was going to announce that about three weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Therefore, this bill remains the way the present laws permit practice. And I can assure the hon. member that if any change is made it can and will be amended quite quickly.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What’s delaying that?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Really, the assistance of the hon. member.

Mr. Deacon: If the minister wants us to help with anything, we will.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, they can help me by shutting up.

Mr. Martel: Is that parliamentary language?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I’m sorry but I sat so close to the hon. member for Sudbury East for so long that some of it has rubbed off.

Mr. Martel: What rubbed off?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I realize the member is a teacher of English and some of those better phrases have kept popping up.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Did the minister get that settled this morning?

Hon. Mr. Miller: That was a strike.

Mr. Deans: That was not a strike.

Hon. Mr. Miller: That was a pseudo-strike.

An hon. member: That was a threatened illegal strike.

Hon. Mr. Miller: If members will bear with me for a second, one of the things, I suppose, I could say about the member for Ottawa Centre, if I got any message from him, is that he doesn’t like the College of Nurses. He also said something about the laws of chance and their effects. The laws of chance play strange tricks and he is an obvious example of them.

In any case, I can assure members that he has missed the point. The health disciplines bill was given its present types of appeal simply to assist the kinds of people he referred to today. I can assure him that is one of the more important points.

I appreciated the support I had from the Leader of the Opposition on this kind of thing. I believe we are taking very positive steps in allowing the individual who has been denied the right to practise an appeal mechanism over and above the college. If, in fact, any given college has been a bit restrictive in its registration practices in the past, it has been because there hasn’t been an appeal mechanism.

With an appeal mechanism, one wouldn’t have to take groups of applicants through because groups of applicants can’t be judged; the individual must be judged. Once the precedent is set, I can assure members that registration committees of colleges will be very prone to accept those people whose appeals would likely be granted.

I think it will eliminate the lands of practice he has alluded to or has alleged have existed. He knows also --

Mr. Martel: Why make such unkind remarks about him when he was right?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am not making any comment about his correct or incorrect approach. I think he realizes that as parliamentary assistant I worked quite hard with that college to get them to loosen up a bit.

Section 113 has been alluded to a number of times by speakers. That concerns the right of an optometrist and an optician to work in the same place of business; it’s the retail merchant clause.

One of the speakers, I believe it was the member for Riverdale, spoke at great length about being afraid that if one went to Eaton’s one was served by Imperial Optical instead of by Eaton’s. He has missed the point entirely of the question at issue and I think it is one issue we still have to give some thought to. The issue is simply, can an optometrist and an optician work in one place of business, at one time, for another master and still retain let’s say, his professional discretion?

I think, Mr. Speaker, those are all the points I would like to make on this bill at this point in time. I am sure we will have lots of very useful comments from the members opposite and from the disciplines themselves during the standing committee phase.

Motion agreed to: second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The bill is to go to standing committee.

Agreed.

Clerk of the House: The 17th order, House in committee of supply.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): What are we going to do in the committee of supply?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Give me a suggestion.

Mr. Deans: Let us adjourn and we will go to the dinner.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I sense a consensus that the House should adjourn and accordingly I will take that course.

For Thursday, I would like to say we will return to the consideration of the estimates of the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough).

Mr. Deans: Before the adjournment, is the minister able to give us an indication when we will return to the land speculation bill?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Monday.

Mr. Deans: Monday next?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes. On Thursday I will give him, hopefully, all of next week’s arrangements.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5:30 o’clock, p.m.