Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

ARBITRATION AWARD FOR CSAO

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce that the public service arbitration board has issued an award on employee benefits for employees in the public service bargaining unit represented by the Civil Service Association of Ontario.

The arbitration board consisted of His Honour Judge J. C. Anderson, of Belleville, the chairman; Kenneth W. Preston of Willowdale, representing the employer; and Donald H. Taylor of Toronto, representing the employees.

The parties will meet shortly to work out the details of an agreement which will encompass the benefits provided by the award, the highlights of which are as follows:

1. There will be a greatly improved extended health plan which will combine the present semi-private hospital and extended health plans. Under the new plan, there will no longer be deductible amounts to be paid by the employee and there will be co-insurance on drugs only. The employee will pay 10 per cent of the cost of prescription drugs and the plan will pay the balance. The government will pay 100 per cent of the premium for the new plan whereas the employee pays the full cost of the existing plan.

2. The government will pay 100 per cent of the premium for basic life insurance instead of 75 per cent as at present. The amount of basic insurance will continue to be 75 per cent of salary but there will now be a minimum coverage of $7,500.

3. The benefit level under the long-term income protection plan will be increased from 50 per cent to 66 2/3 per cent of gross salary and the government will pay 75 per cent of the premium instead of 66 2/3 per cent as at present.

4. The vacation plan will be changed to provide five weeks of vacation after 25 years of service. This will replace the present arrangement which provides five weeks after 29 years of service.

5. Another notable feature of the award is that it sets out the terms of reference for a joint union-management insurance benefits review committee which had been under discussion by the parties. Included in the terms of reference will be:

(a) the development of the specifications of the group insurance plans which will be sent out to public tender as soon as the specifications can be drawn up;

(b) consideration by the committee of the tenders submitted by individual companies with the understanding that the successful company may reinsure as may be necessary;

(c) a recommendation to the government on the selection of the carrier; and

(d) periodic review of experience under the insurance plans.

The revised plans will be implemented when the tendering process has been completed. However, improved cost-sharing arrangements on the existing basic life and extended health and hospital coverage will take effect in July. The expiry date of the new agreement will be Sept. 30, 1975.

Similar benefits will be made available to public servants who are excluded from the bargaining unit.

GAINS

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, later this morning I will be introducing legislation to provide a guaranteed annual income for the elderly, the disabled and the blind citizens of Ontario commencing July 1. Through GAINS, which will become the cornerstone of our income security system, we will take a significant step in providing for the dignity and security of more than 300,000 of our pensioners and disabled citizens.

When the tax credit system is brought under provincial administrative control on Jan. 1, 1976, it will be meshed with GAINS and Ontario will lead the world in providing adequate minimum incomes for all people in need.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): The world?

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): I don’t believe that.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): What makes him stop at the world? A man like the Treasurer, barely mortal, shouldn’t stop at the world.

Hon. Mr. White: Prime Minister Edward Heath broached the idea 14 months ago and said the UK was first in the world but in point of fact we started in 1969 and it was only last week when Mr. David Lewis caught up with us.

Mr. Lewis: This government is still behind BC, let alone the world. It is still behind BC. In British Columbia it went up to $229 a month yesterday.

Hon. Mr. White: The federal NDP leader finally caught on to the advantages of credit a week or two ago.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): They were taking it from our convention of 10 years ago.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): The government is becoming a bowl of hogwash.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order please.

Hon. Mr. White: In addition to GAINS, we will also provide prescribed drugs without charge to more than 548,000 needy, disabled or elderly citizens beginning in September.

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer is too much.

Hon. Mr. White: GAINS will provide a minimum income of $2,600 for single persons 65 years of age and over and for every blind or disabled person receiving provincial social assistance. For an elderly, blind or disabled married couple, the guaranteed income is $5,200, where both qualify.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Never mind; the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) loves the Treasurer.

Mr. MacDonald: He is just repeating his budget speech.

Hon. Mr. White: These two programmes will provide an additional $95 million to those citizens whose standards of living are severely eroded by the effects of inflation.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister going to tie it into the cost of living? Is he going to index it?

Hon. Mr. White: The legislation which I am introducing will be administered by the Ministry of Revenue.

Benefits for the blind and disabled will be authorized through amendments to the regulations under the Family Benefits Act and will be administered by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The drug benefit programme will involve an extension of existing benefits and it will be administered by the Ministry of Health.

I know that members of the House will be anxious to encourage and assist constituents to participate in these programmes and my three colleagues have arranged to supply members with background material and detailed information on the programmes.

Advertisements will inform citizens of these benefits commencing at once. Members will notice that information and assistance is available by telephone, free of charge from anywhere in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw particular attention to some elements of these programmes in order to avoid confusion or delays for recipients.

The great majority of the elderly who are entitled to GAINS are already receiving the federal guaranteed income supplement. Beginning in July they will automatically receive GAINS cheques which will raise their incomes up to the guaranteed levels. They do not need to apply for it.

Similarly, the blind and disabled who are at present receiving family benefits will automatically receive the increased benefits under the Family Benefits Act.

The drug benefit will also automatically embrace those who receive the guaranteed income supplement, GAINS or provincial family benefits. Eligibility certificates will be sent to GIS and GAINS recipients beginning in September. Family benefits recipients will receive their drug cards in the form of a stub attached to their monthly family benefits cheque.

In addition, there are about 10,000 elderly persons ineligible for the federal supplement who will become eligible for the Ontario GAINS. For example, Ontario residents over 65 who have lived in Canada for the past five years are likely to be eligible for GAINS. If they are not now receiving family benefits, they must apply specifically for GAINS. There are also a number of blind and disabled residents who will become eligible for assistance with the introduction of GAINS. The ministries are trying to reach these two groups by a variety of means and we would appreciate any assistance members can give to this end.

It is obvious that GAINS and the development of a universal guaranteed income system for those in need create an anomaly with respect to those persons in long-term care institutions who are already being supported financially by the province. It would be inequitable and unreasonable to add full GAINS benefits to the large public outlays now benefitting these institutional residents. We considered the possibility of withholding GAINS for those who are institutionalized, but to do so, while creating equity between those who are institutionalized and those who are not, would deny the principle of universality and would effectively deny some of our people opportunities to make responsible decisions on their own behalf. This government has already made it clear that it does not believe that individuals should have to give up their independence and become institutionalized in order to receive health and social services.

As a first step in implementing this policy, it has been decided that the present charge of $4.50 per day will be increased to $5.45 in institutions operating under the extended care programme. This means that the comfort allowance of the extended care residents will remain at $51. Other needy residents of homes for the aged and charitable institutions will receive an increase in their comfort allowance from $35 to $43.

Mr. Speaker, I know that all members of the House support these programmes which were among the innovations of my budget to offset the impact of inflation on groups of citizens who are being particularly affected by it. But, more than that, it is an historic step toward a guaranteed annual income for those in need in this beautiful Province of Ontario. GAINS is a landmark in the social progress of Ontario, and I am happy to introduce this legislation today. We will be bringing this legislation forward quickly, and I look for the support and co-operation of all members for a speedy passage. The three operating ministers and officials will assist me in the standing committee on social development when this important measure is considered. Thank you.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, if I may just for a moment take the time of the House, I would like to introduce a very important group of visitors to the chamber, a group of 36 grade 8 students from Sioux Lookout Sacred Heart Separate School. They are visiting Toronto with the assistance of the young travellers’ programme, supplemented by the extra assistance that they have raised in their own community. They are led by three capable northern teachers. Miss Ann Chabot, Molly Brown and Gerry Pinkess. I am sure the members will want to welcome them.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, as well I have the opportunity of introducing to you some 36 grade 8 students from Monsignor Gleason School in the city of Kitchener. They are visiting and are in your east gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed to the oral question period I should like to inform the House that I have received the resignation of Fernand Guindon, Esquire, as member for the electoral district of Stormont, effective today.

Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION BOARD PENSIONS

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if he would not think it appropriate in view of the statement made by the Treasurer in introducing the GAINS programme, if he made a similar statement that would reflect government policy on the payment of pensions to the injured workmen who are coming to Queen’s Park today to further their cause.

Would the minister now be prepared to say more specifically what plans the government has to bring the pensions payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Board legislation somewhere into line with the substantial problems that pensioners are facing with increases in the cost of living?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the matter is on my desk. It has been on there for a number of weeks. I think I have absorbed it pretty well now and hope to have it before cabinet very shortly. I hope it will receive cabinet approval.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the minister has been expressing these hopes since his appointment just a couple of weeks ago and his predecessor was expressing similar hopes for so long, can we be assured of an announcement before the House rises within the next two weeks, or is there some possibility that this may drag on and be a matter for consideration once more at the session that resumes in the fall? Can he further indicate specifically that his proposal, which is gathering dust on his desk, calls for the establishment of some sort of an indexing procedure or will the change of payments always be associated with a political decision, indicating that the province leads the world and associated with the kind of Progressive Conservative largesse which in many minds does not add to the responsibility of the long-range solution?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, let me first assure the hon. Leader of the Opposition that it is not gathering any dust on my desk. If it were, I’m sure that any dust would be off it by the time I meet the delegation that I expect to meet about 10:45 this morning. I am going down to meet them. No, I can’t say that it will be in any way tied in with indexing. We have a proposal which I’ve gone over. I like it and I’ll be trying to support that before the cabinet. I can’t promise members that there will be any statement before the House adjourns before the summer, but I hope there may be and, if not, it will be shortly afterwards.

Mr. MacDonald: They always have difficulty with the cabinet.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Has the minister rejected the concept of indexing?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think at the present time, yes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a shame.

Mr. Lewis: That is just indefensible.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Supplementary: Surely the minister isn’t telling us that there is the possibility that the people who are currently receiving grossly inadequate pensions, as a result of disabilities and the loss of spouses and the like, may have to wait until the fall of this year before there will be an upgrading of their pensions? Surely he recognizes his predecessor has been promising this since last spring.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that this does not require any action of the House.

Mr. Lewis: No, but by way of supplementary, since the government has raised the minimum wage, has indicated improvements pending for the Civil Service Association, and has even raised the family benefits allowances, why is it that those on workmen’s compensation are always the last to receive any increase in pensions, and then the government sets it at a fixed level and refuses to tie it to the cost of living?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, as to the problem involved, as members know, the record of the Workmen’s Compensation Board has been that it has always been charged to industry. So far, the public purse through the consolidated revenue fund has not picked up the expense of the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Why should it?

Mr. Lewis: It shouldn’t.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Maybe it shouldn’t, but then we get into this problem of whether present employees should pay for past responsibilities.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s not true. They pay in their taxes every day.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I know it. It is hard for management to separate the various pockets.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): What is the problem? The man was hurt in 1951 and he gets the damages for the rest of his life.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, that’s not the principle I’m referring to.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question should be directed in proper order and the minister should answer it in proper order.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: There is the problem of the group that will be paying for increasing past pensions. In other words, the injury may have taken place 10 or 15 years ago. The government recognizes its responsibility to bring these people up to date.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): He is a new minister.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: But should the cost of that be levied against the present industries, the present employers, or should it be levied against the public purse? Surely it is not entirely justified to charge that to the present employers --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Take it out of the public purse.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- when we are looking at past responsibilities.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister should pay the just pension first and decide where it comes from later.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. The minister should pay the pension and then decide.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, after having said all that, I welcome the pressure that the opposition is presently putting upon me.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Deans: I have been asking this for a year.

Mr. Speaker: All right, one more supplementary.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): Does the minister recognize that there is a whole group of people, those whose psychiatric disorders stem from the injuries, who are not covered under the Act, and will the minister do something to cover that particular group?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That, sir, I’ll have to investigate. It is not gathering dust on my desk: it’s not even there yet. But I will undertake to investigate it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Where is it gathering dust?

Mr. Deans: It was promised at the time the task force was set up.

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

PETROLEUM PRODUCT PRICE INCREASES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker. Since we all join in the concern over the cost-of-living increase announced just two or three days ago and we have heard about it so frequently from people at the federal level, can the Treasurer indicate if there has been any revision of policy statements made in the last few weeks and if the province is now considering taking some action to contain, if not roll back, the cost of petroleum products, which have been dealt with by other provincial jurisdictions?

Without repeating the arguments in favour of one action or the other, can the Treasurer indicate that this province, along with others, is giving some further consideration to government policy so that we can at least have some moderation of these prices in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. White: The Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) may want to comment on this.

Mr. Lewis: I doubt it.

Mr. Deans: He is too busy reading the paper.

Hon. Mr. White: Dealing with the general problem, our hope and expectation is that Mr. Stanfield will form the government --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: With 18 per cent of the vote?

Hon. Mr. White: -- and come to grips with inflation, in contrast to the incumbents, who seem to care nothing about it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Now that the Treasurer has risen to his usual level of assistance for the consumers of this province, can he indicate if there is any policy that this government is considering? This is well within its powers and responsibility, and the responsibility is not given any additional sheen and lustre by the ridiculous comments the Treasurer has made this morning.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, I’d like to go on with another question --

Mr. Lewis: May I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? Has the Treasurer noticed that the Province of Nova Scotia has just brought in legislation within the last 24 hours, I believe, giving authority to their petroleum prices review board, not just to review the prices as they are set, but specifically to roll them back? Does not the Treasurer think that Ontario should intervene in a similar fashion, since we are now the only affected province in Canada that refuses to defend the consumers involved?

Mr. Breithaupt: The government is not leading the world on this one.

Hon. Mr. White: That question should be directed to the Minister of Energy.

Some hon. members: No, no.

Mr. Lewis: The minister shirks his responsibility all the time.

Hon. Mr. White: This is a matter of controlling prices in a particular area, and the question should be directed to the Minister of Energy.

I think it’s fair to point out that the other provinces that have found it possible to subsidize the consumer in one way or another are using moneys collected by the federal government from Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Nonsense!

Mr. Lewis: That’s nuts!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is an absolutely irresponsible statement. Does the Treasurer deny that he has a budget of $8 billion, collected from the taxpayers of this province, not in their capacity as citizens of Canada, but as residents of the province, and that it is his responsibility to see that the financial policy is for the benefit of our consumers?

Hon. Mr. White: I don’t mind reciting the dozen or so provisions of the Ontario budget which are intended to alleviate the effects of inflation on our less prosperous citizens --

Mr. Lewis: That was before the increase.

Hon. Mr. White: If that’s the question, Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the budget statement here, and I will go through the appropriate sections.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s not the question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is absolutely a waste of time to try to elicit any information or any rational discussion from the Treasurer.

Interjection by an hon. member.

STORE HOURS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is it possible that government policy regarding store hour legislation on a provincial basis can be announced before the House rises, if we do rise in the next week or two, since some of the municipalities such as Etobicoke obviously have got sick of waiting and the storekeepers and others have got to the point where the application of the provincial law has become almost a fiasco?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I am not seized with that responsibility. The responsibility is that of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr), which he undertook at the time he was the policy field secretary.

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t the minister see who is seized with it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have no knowledge of the particular policy that the government is going to invoke. I just can’t help the leader.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: It would appear to a person outside the cabinet that it would be in his ministry that the effects probably would be most carefully reviewed and that the business community and the consumers would tend to turn to him rather than the Solicitor General, even though he has travelled about the province extensively seeking views. Unfortunately, since that time he has indicated no policy. Is the minister saying that the policy must be made by the Solicitor General and that his ministry will have no input?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, I am not saying that at all. I am saying the policy would be determined by cabinet after hearing the recommendations of the Solicitor General, who has travelled throughout the province hearing representations and receiving briefs.

Mr. MacDonald: When is he going to quit travelling and make up his mind?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Insofar as the ultimate carriage of the legislation is concerned, it might well be within the purview of my ministry, but I have not been so advised as of the present time.

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

HOUSING MORTGAGE FUND

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a question of the provincial Treasurer: Given that the recent CMHC figures on housing show a quite calamitous drop in starts in urban Ontario for the month of May -- down nine per cent from last year, which will destroy the stated announcement of the Ministry of Housing a week or two ago, and the attribution of the reason for this being the interest rate -- is the Treasurer now ready to consider the establishment of a major mortgage fund in the Province of Ontario, using the Ontario Savings Office as the vehicle, with interest rates at a level of 6 per cent to 8 per cent -- we would prefer 6 per cent -- achieved either by way of tax credit or by way of legislative edict by the government?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of these circumstances. A number of options are under active consideration, and government policy will be announced in due course.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Is the Treasurer saying then that he is going to take some serious step to intervene into the housing crisis in a way that will free money in large amounts at low interest rates for would-be house purchasers, who are now systematically excluded by both federal and provincial policy?

Hon. Mr. White: Sir, I am saying no more and no less than my previous words would indicate. Government policy will be known in due course.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: What recourse is there for the consumer house purchaser in Ontario, who is now precluded from purchasing any house -- with housing starts declining, with very unhappy predictions for the marketplace, and with the whole housing policy in a shambles around the Treasurer? When will he intervene to provide some protection?

Hon. Mr. White: The citizens’ option is to vote Conservative and to avail themselves of the tax credit that Mr. Stanfield announced.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s absolutely ridiculous. The Treasurer is an embarrassment to the House.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: It’s a good thing that he is resigning.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the Treasurer quit? He is absolutely irresponsible.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. White: The member doesn’t even understand what he’s saying.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Rather than use Canada Pension Plan funds in order to reduce Ontario’s public debt, will the minister take that money -- which has been raised from taxpayers -- and use it to finance housing in the Province of Ontario, in order to help offset the decline in housing starts?

Hon. Mr. White: A number of options are under active consideration and government policy will be made known in due course.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): The Treasurer sounds like a broken record.

Mr. Cassidy: It is rather like the Tories and the anti-inflation policy.

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

Mr. Lewis: Between the Treasurer and Bob Stanfield, there won’t be a Tory left in Ontario.

Mr. Stokes: The Treasurer is completely bankrupt.

Mr. Lewis: He has a genius for alienating Ontario. Keep at it; keep at it.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Treasurer is self-destructive.

Hon. Mr. White: Who is over there, and who is over here?

Mr. Lewis: That’s a temporary situation; temporary for only 30 years now.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. White: If the NDP were in power, I would double my majority.

Mr. Lewis: What is the Treasurer talking about? He was frantic, panic-stricken last time --

Mr. Speaker: Order please, order.

Mr. Lewis: That’s why he is not running again.

May I ask the Minister of the Environment --

Hon. Mr. White: That’s not bad -- 11,383 plurality.

Mr. MacDonald: Any man who is copping out can’t run his flag up any mast.

Mr. Breithaupt: Funny how some figures stick in one’s mind.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He’s got those numbers tattooed on his eyelids.

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Interjections by hon. members.

ELORA GORGE

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of the Environment, is he prepared to undertake an environmental impact study of the entire Elora Gorge area in order to resolve the controversy, once and for all, about the building of the bridge across the gorge?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, that is not within the ambit of our ministry. I believe it is up to Wellington county council to decide where the bridge is going to go. They have the authority to hire their own environmental people, if they so wish, to study the matter.

Mr. Lewis: I understand that. By way of supplementary: The chief planners in the adjacent regional municipality have indicated that they think the bridge would be a mistake, and that it has serious implications for regional transportation in that part of the province, and since the minister is about to bring in legislation on environmental impact studies, does he not think that this is a project worthy of his ministry’s assessment?

Hon. W. Newman: Not at this point in time.

Mr. Lewis: Well, so much for environmental studies.

May I ask -- oh, the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) isn’t here.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): He has not been for a long time.

DISPUTE AT BORDEN CO. LTD.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Labour: Has the strike at the Borden’s plant in Belmont been brought to his attention as yet?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they had a meeting yesterday on it. I know there have been some rough incidents there; but there was a meeting yesterday and meetings are continuing.

STRIKE AT FORT FRANCES CLINIC

Mr. Lewis: On a related labour matter: Can the minister make any report to the House about the progress in the negotiations on the Fort Frances medical clinic problem?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, all I can say about the Fort Frances medical matter at the present time, is that there is a meeting set for June 17. I know there was a report in this morning’s paper in connection with an incident that happened, I think, a week ago. I have not received any police report on it, so I do not know whether that was connected or rose out of the strike situation or not -- I have no evidence that it did. But, as a result of that, one of my staff went out there this week and the meeting is set for the 17th.

UNION GAS AND FIRESTONE DISPUTES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Perhaps the minister could bring us up to date; is there any further announcement on the Union Gas situation?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: All I can say there, again, is that I think they are making progress and that meetings are continuing to date.

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

Mr. Lewis: What about Firestone? Now that the minister is giving this résumé of his activity -- what about Firestone?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): They are making progress.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am afraid that the report there is the same. You will see that the ministry is at least working. There are meetings going on there today, as well. The cost of living has been the issue, and I think there is some progress in regard to that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And the cost of living is going up.

COST OF LIVING INCREASES

Mr. Lewis: All right, I want to ask one last question of the Treasurer; eliciting, I am sure, a similar response -- but why not give him the opportunity? Given the food price component of the cost of living jump in the month of May, will the provincial Treasurer launch the kind of investigation into the possibility of price fixing and administer prices in the supermarket industry, which my colleague from Wentworth and others have been calling for, and which the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations does not feel is within his purview?

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, if we put a freeze on the price of butter here in Ontario, not having any power over tariffs and interprovincial trade and such like, it will simply mean no butter here in Ontario. That’s why we have supported the federal Conservative policy to apply a 90-day pause to prices and income.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Farm products?

Mr. MacDonald: The minister didn’t start to support that until only three weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. White: It shall not be done on a provincial basis.

Mr. Breithaupt: The farmers will love that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: I want to ask the minister, since he raised that, does he think there is any element of fairness, justice or equity in freezing wages at intolerably low levels and freezing prices at intolerably high levels? And, how can he legitimize that kind of injustice for the consumers of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. White: No, sir, I don’t think that would be fair but I think --

Mr. Lewis: That is what the minister would be doing.

Hon. Mr. White: -- a 90-day pause --

Mr. Lewis: A 90-day pause!

Hon Mr. White: -- with zero inflation is worth a try.

Mr. Lewis: The minister just repudiated Stanfield by saying it would be.

Mr. Cassidy: Frozen bananas.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Although the Treasurer may not choose to answer me or anybody on a question like this, does he not understand that in the policy of his federal leader -- which he says he adheres to so strongly -- the flexibility involved in that does not apply to a freeze on the foodstuffs from the farm; and how can he, therefore, imply that the election of a Conservative government in Ottawa is going to have any effect on the prices of foodstuffs?

Mr. Lewis: Is it because he doesn’t understand?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is it that the minister doesn’t understand?

Hon. Mr. White: I have understood from the published reports that there will be no freeze on the products up to the farm gate.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister doesn’t know any more about the policy than Stanfield does.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is it that the minister is as simple as he implies others are?

Mr. Lewis: No, but the Treasurer is not simple; he is just a menace.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the Treasurer is so enthusiastic about his federal leader’s policy, and since nobody else seems to know, can he tell this House what would happen under a federal Tory government after the 90-day pause -- or has he any more ideas than anybody else?

Hon. Mr. White: The 90-day pause is intended to give the new government an opportunity to reduce their expenditures by $450 million --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Will the minister decide what he is going to do?

Mr. Lewis: There is not going to be a Tory government. Relax.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and to enable the new government to bring the money supply under control, which increased at an annual rate of 35 per cent in the first three months of this year, and to contemplate changes in tariffs and other direct controls -- perhaps including minimum down payments.

Mr. Martel: Is the minister going federal, by any chance?

Hon. Mr. White: That is the reason for the 90-day pause.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Just like an albatross.

Mr. Stokes: “Calamity John”.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister buy a car that wouldn’t run for 90 days?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Leader of the Opposition has no further questions, the hon. Minister of the Environment has the answers to questions asked previously.

Mr. Singer: Why doesn’t the Treasurer get on the hustings?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Nobody wants him. He is like the Premier (Mr. Davis). The Tory candidates say, “Don’t send him.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

STUDY OF VINYL CHLORIDE

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, with reference to questions from the members for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr) and Scarborough West regarding polyvinyl chloride manufacturers and users in Ontario:

In April, 1974, the air resources branch of my ministry initiated a study of vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride as a potential hazard in the vicinity of plants producing, handling or using this material. There are two principal producers of the material in Ontario -- namely, Dow Chemical Co. in Sarnia and B. F. Goodrich in the Niagara Falls area. There are many users of the product.

Investigations are under way to determine the number and names of all the companies which use the product. The best methods of measuring levels in the air are being determined and surveys will be made at each of the potential sources of the contaminant.

My ministry will continue to work with the Ministry of Health in the investigation of this matter.

I know how widely read the hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside is and if he has any further information on vinyl chlorides or polyvinyl chlorides, I would certainly appreciate hearing from him.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister have further answers to another question?

FORD MOTOR CO.

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor-Walkerville asked me a question the other day. I was diverted and I didn’t really answer his question; I’d like to answer it at this time if it is all right.

It is regarding Ford Motor Co. in the Windsor area. Early in 1972, with the co-operation of the ministry, the Ford Motor Co. in Windsor replaced two low exhaust stacks with higher stacks at a cost of $450,000. This resulted in the abatement of offensive odours from that source but it became evident that there were other sources which had been masked by the stronger odour problem from the low stacks.

In August, 1973, the company submitted a programme to the ministry, outlining what they believed was necessary to abate pollution resulting from the remaining sources. The ministry subsequently conducted a comprehensive survey in order to ascertain the exact sources which required attention and accordingly the programme was expanded and subsequently approved in March, 1974. It is anticipated that the work required to obtain full compliance with this programme will be completed by May, 1975.

In the course of the implementation of this programme, we anticipate that the odour problems which have been offensive to the area residents will be significantly reduced.

A minor delay of approximately three months has been encountered due to late delivery of steel components. Nevertheless, these delays will not result in a delay of the completion of the overall programme.

The total cost of the work required in this programme is estimated to be $1,600,000. From 1966 to the end of 1974, the company will have spent in excess of $13 million for all environmental control programmes.

Mr. Speaker, in 1973, my ministry received 50 complaints from residents in the area. So far this year, we have received 12 complaints. We anticipate that the measures defined in the programme will significantly improve the air quality in the area.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that many residents refused to complain because of the lack of action on the part of the ministry? Would the minister consider asking the Ford Motor Co. to put up a bond to show their good faith that they will complete the project within the stated time?

Hon. W. Newman: I’ll take that under consideration.

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

EXEMPTION OF RESOURCE LANDS FROM LAND SPECULATION TAX

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On May 21 the hon. member for Scarborough West asked a question with respect to a certain sale of lands by Inco. The member asked:

“Now that it’s been revealed that Inco is selling land, which it bought for $1 an acre, at an average price of $5,500 to $7,500 an acre, does that not seem to the minister to be the kind of speculation that would permit the inclusion of resource land in his bill?”

I answered that I wasn’t familiar with the situation but that I would look into it.

Mr. Speaker, I’m advised that to qualify for the exemption from the speculation tax granted in respect of Canadian resource property, the principal value of these particular lots would have to depend on their mineral resource content.

The sale of the land in question is of surface rights only and it is therefore reasonable, I believe, to conclude the principal value of the land is dependent upon its use for residential purposes. Such being the case the lands are not included in the definition of Canadian resources property and are therefore designated lands within the provisions of the Land Speculation Tax Act.

However, I’m advised that although as noted by the hon. member for Scarborough West the selling price is substantially higher than the original acquisition cost, it is not higher than the fair market value as at April 9, 1974, and therefore no speculation tax would be payable on those transactions.

Mr. MacDonald: Boy! How the friends get away with it.

Mr. Lewis: It must be nice to be Inco.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

INQUIRY INTO CONDUCT OF OHC OFFICIALS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Could the Attorney General advise us if any progress whatsoever has been made into the investigation of the conduct of certain senior officials of Ontario Housing, which resulted from the information laid before His Honour Judge Waisberg, bearing in mind that the information was put there last fall and there still has been no apparent action taken?

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been some progress made. The investigation is not yet completed but we do expect that the third phase of the investigation will be completed before too long, following which certain determinations will be made with respect to following up on the results of that investigation.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, bearing in mind the investigation apparently has been going on for seven months, how long does it take to investigate? Or do we need an investigation to investigate the investigation?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, no, we don’t. I’m quite satisfied that the investigation has been quite extensive and that the time that has transpired has been very necessary to make sure that we have in fact covered all the relevant matters to be taken into account.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Did the minister indicate that the third phase was going to be completed soon?

Hon. Mr. Welch: What I am getting at is that the investigation was divided into three parts, and they are well into the third part or third phase. I was advised as recently as yesterday that they were well into that, and that they expect to be finished with that before too long, following which they will make certain determinations.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Can the minister indicate whether the phases were groups of people, territories, or levels of depredation? What were the phases?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I have no further comment with respect to the investigation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

MABEL BAGG

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Attorney General. We had a little colloquy in the wings yesterday about this question; he comes well armed, I trust.

What is his ministry prepared to do about the case of Mabel Bagg, a woman of 85 years of age who until the last day or two has been held at Golden Age Home as mentally incompetent and for whom 2,000 of her fellow bingo players at the Kingsway Club have petitioned that she be leased into the custody and care of a good friend of hers and who claim that she can’t be mentally incompetent, as they play bingo with her every night of the week?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have no comment as to the level of competency necessary to play bingo --

Mr. Singer: The Treasurer doesn’t do that very well either.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s higher than some of the ministers’. Remember that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I know that the hon. member would appreciate that that determination was made according to certain medical standards. The public trustee is, of course, in charge as a statutory committee under the Mental Health Act. The lady in question is presently back in hospital receiving some treatment; and certainly, following some further medical determination as to when she may be released, the concern and interest of others will be taken into account as to what is in her best interests with respect to her room and boarding.

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

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary; the hon. member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: In view of the fact that woman is very aged and her friends are willing to look after her, in simple humanity wouldn’t it be easier just to release her to the friends and not to put her into a home where she doesn’t want to go?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would think the ultimate determination is what is in the best interests of the lady in question. I think we would have to get some advice; a Dr. Fitzgerald has taken some interest in her. She is in hospital now, taking medical treatment; when she will be ready to be discharged, I don’t know.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the public trustee is simply managing her affairs. Certainly, I think it is to the credit of some of the people who have taken an interest in this case, that they are prepared to provide that type of personal attention for her. So I appreciate the fact that it has been raised.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

TAX ON ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Revenue. With respect to the retail sales tax and the application of the three per cent tax for accommodation for transients of less than 31 days, can the minister advise us if that tax is in fact charged for the accommodation for children who are going to summer camps? If so, will the minister not make an exception to this matter so that the Province of Ontario is not collecting this tax for the sending of children to summer camps?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, the tax of three per cent that is applied on summer camps that provide food as well as lodging is, in our opinion, an extremely reasonable tax. It works out at substantially less than the tax which would otherwise be chargeable. I might point out to the hon. member that church camps and others operated by charitable organizations are, under the Retail Sales Tax Act, now completely exempt.

Mr. MacDonald: A supplementary question: Do I conclude after the minister’s assurance to me yesterday that he would review this, that his conclusion is “No, this really is a good tax”?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think it is fair to say I consider the tax reasonable in the circumstances. It is a moderated tax substantially below the tax which would be charged on food if one looked at the taxes charged in restaurants. If one calculates a 50 per cent figure -- let’s say the daily rate at a camp is roughly 50 per cent for accommodation and other supervisory facilities and the other 50 per cent is for food. Perhaps it is closer to 60 per cent for food but if one takes it at 50 per cent -- therefore being on the generous side because food taxes can run at 10 per cent if a meal is over $4 -- if one assumes, and this seems to be fairly close statistically, that 50 per cent of the cost of food is derived through the dinner meal; 30 per cent through lunch and 20 per cent for breakfast, on that basis there would be tax chargeable at least on the supper.

Mr. MacDonald: That is nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Meen: On that basis the total effective tax for accommodation and for food, if it were charged at the normal rate, would work out at about six per cent. We have taken a figure of three per cent, which we consider to be very reasonable in the circumstances.

Mr. MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Forgetting for the moment the tedious rationalization on the tax, does the minister not consider it would be wise to fulfil his rhetoric about giving children an opportunity to get to the Canadian outlands and so on by removing the tax particularly since it applies to the children whose families can’t send them for more than 31 days? If they send them for more than 31 days because they have the money, there is no tax.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that these are decisions the government has to make from time to time --

Mr. MacDonald: And makes them wrong.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- and perhaps the Treasurer in some subsequent budget would want to determine whether this class was exempt. It is certainly not something which would be considered at this time.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: What a Tory the minister is. What an unremitting, unrelenting Tory the minister is.

Mr. Cassidy: Ontario will be well rid of him.

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

Mr. Breithaupt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister advise the House in due course -- to use the Treasurer’s phrase -- the amount of money raised by this tax? Would the minister not consider that, in this particular circumstance just as in the relief sale situation, the province really should reconsider its attempt to collect tax in these particular matters?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I think I would be in a position to determine the amount of tax recovered in this quarter. I will certainly determine whether that is available and if so make it available to the hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Perhaps the minister could take it up with the Treasurer?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur, I think, is next.

CITY OF THE LAKEHEAD ACT

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister with Portfolio associated with the Treasury. Do I understand correctly that he is planning to bring in, either later today or early next week, amendments to the City of the Lakehead Act?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am bringing it in today.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I might: In view of the overwhelming support in Thunder Bay for a true ward system -- some 80 per cent of 1,400 submissions -- do the minister’s amendments include the implementation of a true ward system in the city of Thunder Bay for the coming December elections?

Mr. Breithaupt: Why doesn’t the hon. member wait for the bill?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I couldn’t hear all of the question but I will be introducing the bill today. It does deal with representation by ward system. Maybe we could wait until the bill is before the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron.

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Energy. Can the minister confirm the allegations of two commissioners of the Kingston Utilities Commission that part of the construction of the Lennox generating plant was torn down when a decision was made to use oil instead of coal? Can the minister further confirm that Hydro’s assistant general manager, Donald Ireland, advised the commissioners that the plant would not be converted from coal to oil after the decision had been made?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, I saw that story in the press. I am afraid I have no further details. I will be glad to get them for the member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

LEAD HAZARD FROM ELECTRIC KETTLES

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding electric kettles. Has the minister made any progress in persuading manufacturers to recall electric kettles now declared unsafe?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I have no way of measuring whether I have been successful or not. Bearing in mind my innate modesty, I wouldn’t like to say that I have been successful in all areas.

Mr. Breithaupt: Did the minister get his own changed?

Hon. Mr. Clement: But I understand, and only by word of mouth, that some of the companies are, in fact, developing policies right now to accept kettles back and replace them. I cannot verify that. I will be in a position to verify that later on next week but I can’t today. It’s hearsay as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Burr: Supplementary: Does the minister realize that, if the matter is not pressed, these policies might wither on the vine of the manufacturers?

Mr. Lewis: Or simply boil over.

Mr. MacDonald: Or evaporate.

Mr. Burr: If this happens, there will be a huge market for electric kettles for the manufacturers which they themselves will have created by their inadequate products in the first place.

Mr. Deans: That is known as free enterprise.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that I have no legislation available which can compel them to do this, I have urged the industry through the media to consider and, if at all possible, to do this. But, again, I’m not familiar with the cost implications or whether it can be handled or whether as a matter of public relations the companies would consider going this step or not. I indicated last week I hoped they would, but it’s easy for me to suggest that they take this step. I am not aware of the cost implications.

As I said earlier, I understand some of them have been taking this step. I can’t verify that and I don’t hold that out as gospel until I get that information confirmed.

Mr. Stokes: That is planned obsolescence.

Mr. Speaker: I think, in view of the fact there are only a few moments left, that we have had enough supplementaries. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

CARNIVAL RIDE SAFETY

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In view of the fact that carnival ride accidents continue and that just last Tuesday of this week two people were injured on a ride on Bob-Lo Island, just off Amherstburg in the Detroit River, is the minister considering including in legislation concerning a uniform building code a section that would control and regulate carnival ride safety?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not considering that in the Ontario Building Code. At the present time, I am advised that various municipalities have by-laws dealing with this particular matter.

Probably one of the greatest policing systems with relation to carnival rides is conducted by the insurance industry which will not insure a ride unless they have done the usual safety inspections. In addition, most municipalities, or the major ones, will not allow a carnival or a ride to be erected within the municipality unless proof of substantial insurance coverage has been filed with the municipality. I was not aware of the matter to which the member refers near Amherstburg some few days ago until he mentioned it this morning.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

LIFE INSURANCE PRICES HANDBOOK

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: I wonder if he is aware of the need of the publication of a prices handbook as far as life insurance is concerned, so that the public can be protected from insurance companies which are ripping them off. Is he also aware that certain jurisdictions have already published such a prices handbook so that people can make comparisons when purchasing life insurance?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, there has been a publication available in this province. It used to cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2 annually. It’s by Stone and Cox and that information is contained in that publication.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITY FOR BLACK CREEK AREA

Mr. Deacon: A question of the Minister of Natural Resources: When does the minister plan to establish a conservation authority on the flood-prone Black River area near Orillia, in view of the fact that again this year there was flooding in that area which caused serious problems for the septic tank systems in the area of the Black and Head Rivers?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that we do not initiate the setting up of the conservation authority. That must come from the respective municipalities in the area.

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

PITS AND QUARRIES CONTROL ACT

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of Natural Resources: Is the minister going to introduce, before the adjournment, amendments to the Pits and Quarries Control Act which would encompass northern Ontario under the purview of the Act?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, it would not require a change in the Pits and Quarries Control Act to bring in the area to which the hon. member refers. We are looking at the situation and we’re working actively on it and I’m hopeful we’ll have some decision within the next few months.

Mr. Lewis: Still not high enough for most of them.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The amendments to the Pits and Quarries Control Act will come in the fall.

Mr. Lewis: They will? That is just the beginning.

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

FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, Mr. Speaker: Is she aware of the request made by the Status of Women council that there be a provincial government statement of policy on birth control in family planning services? Does the government intend to ensure that every public health unit in the province provides family planning services on the scale, say, of the successful efforts in Ottawa?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, yes, we are aware of that and it is under consideration.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister say when a statement will be made and what the government’s stand is?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot.

Mr. Lewis: But she could put together 20 or 30 pages and read it to us one day. She can give us another exercise in futility some afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre.

NORTH PICKERING DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Deacon: Another question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development: In connection with the inquiry into the expropriation of the North Pickering site, under section 25, will the minister table the terms of the inquiry which will be held in that situation? Does that come under her? Not at all?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside. There are about 60 seconds left.

CONSERVATION OF ENERGY USED IN HEATING

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Energy: Regarding the statement recently made by Mr. Rounthwaite, the immediate past president of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, that 72 per cent of the energy consumed in heating human shelter in North America is wasted, what is the minister doing to reduce this amount of waste?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am not aware of the particular statement which Mr. Rounthwaite has made. We met with him on a couple of occasions and the architects association has been most helpful. We are developing an ongoing conservation of energy programme in which certainly the waste of heat in not only homes but factories and commercial establishments is very much to the fore. Obviously, where the biggest impact can be made, over a period of time, is in new buildings and there are a number of interesting proposals there, proposals of various kinds of total energy utilization.

Particularly, Ontario Hydro and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and our own ministry have been making representations, and I think effective ones, with the full support of the architects and others, that the National Building Code updating will have higher standards in terms of insulation and the conservation of energy.

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

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 32 grade 8 students from St. Joseph’s Island Central Public School; the person in charge is Mr. Wells; also Mrs. Wallace and Mrs. Edie. I would like the members to welcome them at this time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Where are they?

Mr. Singer: They don’t seem to be here.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

COUNTY OF OXFORD ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to restructure the County of Oxford.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I advised the House that I would introduce legislation to provide for the restructuring of the county of Oxford. This bill has been requested by the county council and the council of Woodstock and Ingersoll and incorporates their views on the restructuring.

As requested by the area councils, I will introduce amendments at the appropriate time to deal with the representation on the area councils and allow a warden to maintain a seat on the council of the area he represents. This, of course, will reduce the size of the county council by one member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate when he wants to proceed with second reading of this bill?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to proceed with it on Tuesday, if possible.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh boy.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Further to the point of order, has the minister made arrangements to have the bill distributed in Oxford county and has he made any arrangements to get the views of those people concerned?

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): By Tuesday?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have arranged that the bill will be distributed to every council in Oxford and my staff will be down there Monday and Tuesday to discuss any matter which is of any concern to them, and bring it back. The committee of the whole House will then deal with any amendments as are mentioned here.

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

Mr. Speaker: I have permitted the out-of-order point of order by the leader of the Liberal Party. I suppose I should for the leader of the new Democratic Party.

Mr. Lewis: Why was that out of order?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would explain why that was out of order?

Mr. Speaker: Because there was nothing in the proceedings which was not in order.

Mr. Lewis: That may be, but a point of order which requests clarification and asks a question is also in order.

Mr. Speaker: A member may rise on a point of clarification. If the minister is agreeable to provide it, fine, but it’s not a point of order.

Mr. Lewis: All right, I didn’t know there was a point of clarification. I appreciate your precedent-setting innovation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No precedent-setting at all. It has often been done.

Mr. Lewis: Right. I rise on a point, if I may -- which is damnably uncomfortable and, therefore, I shall proceed -- I want to know why it is necessary to engage in the affront to Oxford, which is obviously implied, and to the Legislature, by introducing a bill on Friday and ramming it through on Tuesday in the end-of-session war of attrition which he always engages in. What kind of a step is this for local government? Why can’t the minister wait a week or two?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Because the boss told him to do it that way.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, apparently the hon. member wasn’t here --

Mr. Lewis: I wasn’t.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- when I made my statement yesterday.

Mr. Lewis: I read the minister’s statement.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: This has been something which has been discussed for four years at the local level.

Mr. Lewis: They haven’t seen the bill.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It has been requested recently by the area councils. I don’t wish to get into a debate with the member at this time, nor do I think it’s proper.

Mr. Martel: Do them properly then.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: May I comment on the point of order?

Mr. Speaker: No, the entire debate is out of order. It is not a point of clarification, nor a point of order.

Mr. Deans: On a point of order -- on a different point which has nothing to do with what is being discussed, if you don’t mind.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): What does the member want to do, resign?

Mr. Speaker: I will hear the point of order.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. At the moment there are two estimates slated to be before --

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order, how many estimates are before any committee or in the House. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Deans: But it is a point of order! How can we conduct the business if --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will please be seated. I have ruled it is not a point of order.

Mr. Deans: I challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Those in favour of the Speaker’s ruling will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

The Speaker’s ruling is sustained.

Mr. Deans: I don’t believe this.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is out of order and I warn him to obey the rulings of the Chair.

Interjection by an hon. member.

GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to ensure a Guaranteed Annual Income to Ontario Residents 65 Years of Age and Over.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISES ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Municipal Franchises Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for disputes regarding the transmission of gas to go before the Ontario Energy Board.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for new arrangements for representation from the City of Waterloo on the council of the regional municipality of Waterloo.

CITY OF THE LAKEHEAD ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the City of the Lakehead Act, 1968-1969.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: How long has the Treasurer been in the House? When was he elected? Was it 1963 or 1967?

Hon. Mr. White: In 1959.

Mr. Lewis: He can only take 15 years, eh?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, this bill changes the name of the municipal corporation of the city of Thunder Bay to conform with the decision of the voters in that municipality. It also covers arrangements for their 1974 elections, which will be held on the same ward basis as the previous elections. It also continues the authority of council to provide mill rate reductions in the rural wards of Mclntyre and Neebing to reflect the lower levels of municipal services available there. At the appropriate time I will be amending the bill to allow the city of Thunder Bay to tax certain lands to be leased by the Canadian Lakehead Exhibition for commercial purposes.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, does the minister have any idea when that appropriate time for his suggested amendment will be?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, depending on the pleasure of the House, I would suggest it might be Tuesday evening or Thursday. I don’t know.

Mr. Foulds: He said in his statement, Mr. Speaker, that he intended to bring an amendment to allow the city to tax the Lakehead Exhibition grounds. Is that an amendment to the bill that he has now filed?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: So he has not yet published it? Could I find out when he expects to bring that in? Tuesday evening as well?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give a definite time. The committee of the whole House will have to deal with it. I would suggest that second reading might be on Tuesday evening, and it would then go into committee of the whole House and I’ll introduce the amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: We have waited this long and the minister still has to change the bill at the last minute.

HEALTH INSURANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Hon. Mr. Miller, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the bill contains a number of minor amendments that the minister wanted placed before the House, and I am sure they will all be self-explanatory.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Hon. Mr. Miller, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Public Health Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the same applies to this bill.

Mr. Lewis: Boy, the government is engaging in abuse of the House. Why couldn’t these bills have been ready three or four weeks ago? Why do they do this at the end of every session?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Timiskaming is a disgrace to this House.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The seventh order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 70, the Denture Therapist Act, 1974.

DENTURE THERAPISTS ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, the aspect of this bill that interests me most is the assurance that the oral health of customers is being protected.

As you will recall, for several months the denturists insisted upon having a certificate of oral health signed by a doctor or a dentist. However, this practice was ended when the dental association officials persuaded the medical association officials to write a letter to physicians telling them that they were not qualified to assess the oral health of a person. Apparently a sufficient number of the physicians agreed with this delimitation of their own expertise and, as a result, very few physicians then were willing to sign certificates of oral health and, of course, even fewer dentists were doing it.

In Alberta, a certificate of oral health was required before denturists could function, but there, too, the dentists would not co-operate, despite their claims of great concern for the health of patients or customers. And eventually this requirement has been rescinded in Alberta.

So the minister, I have concluded, is right in not going the certificate route. The only sensible solution, in my opinion, is to give the denturists or dental therapists -- whatever they are going to be called -- the proper training to enable them to recognize any abnormalities or symptoms of disease in the mouth. In such a case the denturist would refer the customer to a dentist or a physician.

This bill does not permit partials to be supplied by the denturists. This is a mistake that the government insists on making. Other members have spoken about it and I shall not dwell upon it any further.

But when the minister first introduced Bill 70 he assured me that repairs for partial dentures by denturists, without reference to a dentist, would be permitted. The denturists could legally deal directly with the public for this purpose -- the repair of partials. When the parliamentary assistant replies, I should appreciate an assurance that this is still the intention of the ministry.

The trend in Canada is to let denturists make partials and it is a pity that Ontario is not among the leaders in this respect, because the sooner this controversy is resolved, by allowing the denturists to make both partials and complete dentures, the sooner the ill-feeling will subside, however slowly.

It is my concern, Mr. Speaker, that the denturists be given the proper training in recognizing good and poor oral health, and as I said the sooner this is done, the better.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Etobicoke.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to join in this debate to oppose the bill as presented by the ministry. I won’t take the time of the House to go into the history of the advances and the retreats and backflips of the government in this particular situation. I think the time has come really for the shadow boxing to end, because Ontario should put itself into position where it is the same as most other provinces and, to my way of thinking, it should allow denturists to treat the public without the restrictions as proposed in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, as you may know, some time ago there were arrests, and the actual trials of some of these denturists have not been held as yet. I’m going to touch on that later. But it appears to me that, if nothing else, the government -- because it has brought in this bill -- should dismiss the charges that are outstanding now, because there is no sense in pursuing these gentlemen who, after all, were doing what they felt was best for the community and what, by the way Mr. Speaker, most of the community agrees with.

I want to take a moment to tell the House, Mr. Speaker about my particular concern. When the minister introduced the bill he mentioned that as far as he was concerned that he was going to make certain that the bill was enforced and that the clause with reference to partials was strictly adhered to. That means we are going to have more of these raids by the gentlemen in blue. I think this is one of the things which has caused more ill feeling in this province than anything that I can think of for the moment.

In Etobicoke there is a lady named Mrs. Sangster who lives in my riding, on Widdicombe Hill. I thought the House might be interested in knowing that on last New Year’s Eve, this lady had a denture and the tooth came out in the front. She tried all afternoon at the hospital, dentists, the dental college and different places to see if she could find a dentist to get this thing fixed, and she had no luck.

She had been scheduled to attend a New Year’s party on Dec. 31, 1973. She phoned her hostess and told her that because of the tooth that was missing she would not be able to attend. This hostess told her that she had been driving along the Queensway that very day and she noticed a denture clinic called, I believe, the Parklawn denture clinic. I think it is a Mr. Pilarski who runs it. This lady went there late on New Year’s Eve, around 6 o’clock, as this gentleman was just going out. True to the tradition of denturists, he turned around and looked after her tooth for her. She was so pleased with the service, Mr. Speaker, that she asked him about getting a new denture made.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I don’t think there is a quorum.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, while the Clerk takes count.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, there are 17 members present.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Etobicoke proceed.

Mr. Braithwaite: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was speaking of the case of Mrs. Sangster. I was talking about the question of police raids. I think that I was at the point where I said this lady had a tooth put into her denture so that she would be able to attend a New Year’s party.

But before she left the denturist’s office, Mr. Speaker, she was so pleased with his attention and with the job he had done, that she discussed the making of another denture with him and an appointment was made for, I believe it was to be the next Wednesday after New Year’s, at the Parkway denture clinic.

She attended that Wednesday. While she was there that day, Mr. Speaker, it just happened, she wrote me: “That not one, not two, not three, but four big policemen came in and raided the joint.”

Being a very law abiding person, she was sitting there and couldn’t believe what happened. Under pressure from the police, Mr. Speaker, she was forced to give her name and address and they forced her to admit to them that she was there to have work done, etc. All in all, it was a very shabby performance.

Now I’ve brought this matter to the attention of the House before, Mr. Speaker. But what I am concerned about today in discussing this bill is that if this kind of police intervention is going to be required in the future to enforce the terms of the bill, it seems this government is going to make itself even more unpopular than it is now. And as far as I can see, Mr. Speaker, nothing can be gained.

I would urge the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), Mr. Speaker, to invoke a grandfather clause to allow the existing denturists to take an examination which would be fairly given and which would be equitably marked, so that they may all qualify to deal with the public. If this is not entirely possible, Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why those who could not pass a very fair test could not be upgraded so that they could pass.

In other words, those who are presently in the profession of denturism should be allowed to continue. This is my opinion, Mr. Speaker. And I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that there have been very many letters, telegrams, telephone calls and personal visits to me by people in Etobicoke. I can say without doubt that I speak for the people of Etobicoke when I say that denturists should be allowed to deal directly with the public.

As far as new entrants into the profession are concerned, Mr. Speaker, I can see no reason why these people shouldn’t take some sort of a course as proposed. But when they are finished, it is my contention they, too, should be allowed to deal with the public. If the government is concerned on the matter of health, I don’t see what objection anybody would have or could have to a doctor or a dentist providing an oral certificate of good health.

All in all, my conclusion is that the time has come for this shadow boxing, as I’ve called it, to end. So many people have spoken to this government and told it that they would prefer, they would insist, that the denturists be allowed to deal directly with the public without the intervention of dentists. I think this government should start, even at this late date, to listen to the people who will be voting in a year or so.

Mr. Speaker, I can say from personal experience that I have attended at the Kingsway denture clinic. I have had work done on my own mouth and I can say without a doubt that the work has been on the highest level. The attention given me has been as good, if not better, than what could be found in any dentist’s office. All in all, my experience has been shared by many of my constituents.

So Mr. Speaker, I would join my colleagues in opposing this bill and in urging the government to allow denturists to deal directly with the public.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I want to speak just briefly about one aspect of this bill, which is certainly novel and unusual so far as any of the health disciplines are concerned, and that is, that while the assembly has been engaged in debating the Health Disciplines Act, dealing with doctors and dentists and the nursing profession and the optometrists, and that’s been in committee for a considerable period of time, this is the first time, to my knowledge, that a bill has been brought into the assembly which has a definition of professional incompetence in it.

What concerns me about it is why the government should choose the denture therapists as the first body of persons practising a particular field of specialty in which to introduce a definition of incompetence. I don’t think that the denture therapists are any more subject to being competent or incompetent than the doctors or, indeed, my own profession, the lawyers.

I’m very much concerned that if the government is serious about imposing a test of competence, the government must be certain that it imposes that test on each and every one of the health discipline professions, and on other professions within the Province of Ontario. I do not think there is anything which allows the government to single out the denture therapists.

I can’t tell whether the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health is listening or not listening; but on a Friday morning, if he doesn’t mind, I’d just as soon have his attention to what I’m saying.

My concern is with the definition of incompetence and competence which is in the bill, and the ramifications of that with respect to the government’s policy in all of the professions. I expect the parliamentary assistant, in the absence of the Minister of Health, to deal with this question when he speaks at the close of this debate on second reading.

The Act says:

“‘Incompetence’ means the display of a lack of knowledge, skill or judgement in the professional care of a patient or disregard for the welfare of a patient of a nature or to an extent that demonstrates that the denture therapist is unfit to continue in the practice of denture therapy or the practice of supervised denture therapy.”

Changing the term “denture therapist” to “an appropriate profession,” it would seem to me that that kind of definition is applicable to each and every profession in the Province of Ontario. The government then provides further on in the bill that the disciplines committee will have the authority to deal with this question of incompetence.

It’s set out in section 11 of the bill that there are two aspects of the problem; one, professional misconduct, which is defined, and which I set to one side because I think professional misconduct lends itself to each of the professions and I think is applicable in each of the professions as they presently exist. But it provides that:

“The discipline committee shall,

“(a) when so directed by the board, executive committee or complaints committee, hear and determine allegations of professional misconduct or incompetence against any licensee; (2) In the case of hearings into allegations of professional misconduct or incompetence, the discipline committee shall,

“(a) consider the allegations ... [And so on and so forth]

“(b) determine whether upon the evidence and the facts so ascertained the allegations have been proved;

“(c) determine whether in respect of the allegations so proved the licensee is guilty of professional misconduct or incompetence;

“(d) determine the penalty to be imposed as hereinafter provided in cases in which it finds the licensee guilty of professional misconduct or of incompetence ... (4) The discipline committee may find a licensee to be incompetent if in its opinion he has displayed in his professional care of a patient a lack of knowledge, skill or judgement or disregard for the welfare of the patient of a nature or to an extent that demonstrates he is unfit to continue in practice.”

I just cannot conceive what was in the mind of the government when it introduces that kind of test in this profession and yet we have before us the Health Disciplines Act dealing with other professions -- I may refer to them as the elitist professions in the health field -- and have no such definition of incompetence. It seems to me passing strange that the government singles out this particular area of specialty to introduce the conception of incompetence in professional practice.

I want a clear statement from the parliamentary assistant. I want a straightforward statement as to whether he intends, or the ministry intends, to amend the Health Disciplines Act as it presently is before the committee to provide for the inclusion in the Health Disciplines Act as it deals with doctors, dentists, optometrists, nurses -- and whatever the fifth profession is that is covered in that bill -- whether or not they are going to include the same kind of test and the same kind of authority for the discipline committees which are set up under each of those professional bodies.

I just simply cannot understand why the denture therapists are singled out for this particular treatment, unless the government is determined to amend the provisions of the Health Disciplines Act related to each and every one of the other health disciplines and in due course, any other profession which is recognized and granted a status in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to address themselves to this bill?

If not, the hon. parliamentary assistant.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): Mr. Speaker, it is our opinion that the Denture Therapists Act, 1974, provides an appropriate and reasonable level of health care to all the citizenry.

It doesn’t go as far as the opposition wishes. However, we are satisfied that it achieves the dual purpose of safeguarding the oral health of the citizenry and at the same time allowing the citizenry access to denture therapists.

It was important to ensure this oral hygiene for the public. We are satisfied that the skill and competence required of a registered denture therapist who has successfully completed the examinations that we have laid out in the prescribed courses is sufficiently adequate to safeguard the public.

He will be allowed, however, to apply prosthetic appliances or to fix or repair prosthetic appliances for adentulous arches. That is where the arch or the mouth in this particular case has no live teeth.

Except under supervision, the denture therapists, of course, will not be allowed to install or fix partials. The member for Brant, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon), last evening put the reasons very well as to why partials should not be allowed. He indicated there was a grave danger to those living teeth which remain in the gums; to attach partials to live teeth would likely require things like x-rays, drilling equipment and the like. X-rays, of course, are not machines allowed to denture therapists.

I think it would be very easy, Mr. Speaker, to see denture therapists, if the scope of denture therapy were expanded beyond what is included in Bill 70, very quickly proceeding into the area of x-ray machinery and drilling equipment in order to attach these prosthetic appliances properly to live teeth. That primarily is the reason we have decided it would not be appropriate for partials to be included as part of the scope of denture therapists.

The Leader of the Opposition concluded that the scope should be enlarged to include partial plates for the same reasons. The basic difference here is we concluded that denture therapists should not be allowed to include partial as part of their scope. It is a complex piece of mechanical work to fit a partial in order to provide the proper anchorage. It requires a skill beyond what is now contemplated and beyond what we are testing denture therapists for under Bill 246. It is generally something that approaches the domain of dentistry and it seems useless to have two particular disciplines practising in precisely the same area.

Questions were raised last evening about the denture therapy appeal board. That board will be one and the same as the health disciplines board, which in itself is an appeal body. Of course, Bill 22, the Health Disciplines Act, has not been passed as yet but it is the intention to have the same composition on the denture therapist appeal board as will be on the health disciplines board. The Denture Therapists Act will not be proclaimed until after the August examination which have been announced by the minister.

As to the question of whether or not there are two classes of people who will be eligible for membership on the governing board of denture therapists, there are at present 137 people who have taken the examinations under Bill 246 in the past year or so. In the August examination there will be another group which will enlarge that 137 figure. All of those people will be eligible for appointment once the bill is proclaimed.

As to the August examination, it is fair to say that a significant amount of interest has been shown in it, Mr. Speaker. We understand or we know of about 103 denturists, if I can use the word, in the province. It is said by the denturists’ society that they have upwards of 150 to 200 people. In any case, over 100 applications had been requested and sent out for the August examination which would suggest to me that we will have a very large body from which to select the six persons to be appointed to the governing board of denture therapists.

The question of repairs raised by the member for Sandwich-Riverside is covered by section 1(m), the defining section, which requires supervision where partials are to be repaired. In the case of a fully adentulous arch, it would be covered by the section immediately preceding that, section (1).

On the question of incompetence raised by the member for Riverdale, the section quoted in Bill 70, which is section 1(h) in the definition section, has been picked up, by and large, from the words in the Health Disciplines Act and has been covered in every part of the Health Disciplines Act, in Bill 22. In fact, it can be found in section 60, subsection 4, on page 40 of the Health Disciplines Act and is covered in the dentistry part of the Health Disciplines Act under section 37, subsection 4, which is found on page 22. I will just read that:

“The disciplines committee may find a member to be incompetent if in its opinion he has displayed in his professional care of a patient a lack of knowledge, skill or judgement or disregard for the welfare of the patient of a nature or to an extent that demonstrates he is unfit to continue in practice.”

That is in section 37(4), found on page 22 of the Health Disciplines Act, Bill 22. It is covering all of the, as the member calls them, elitist professions, so we are really not introducing new subject matter. While the definition of incompetence in the Denture Therapists Act has been tailored for denture therapists, by and large, it accomplishes the same purposes as indicated in the portions of the Health Disciplines Act relative to incompetence, namely, section 37(4) of the dentistry portion, section 60(4) of the medicine section and in the other parts of the Act for every other discipline in its particular case; and that includes pharmacy, optometry and nursing as well as dentistry and medicine.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation represents, as the Leader of the Opposition indicated last night, a step forward. Perhaps it is not sufficiently far for some members of the opposition to accept. However it is as far as we are prepared to go. Those are my comments.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 70.

The House divided on the motion for second reading of Bill 70, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes	Nays
Allan Bales Beckett Bernier Birch Brunelle Carruthers Clement Davis Downer Drea Gilbertson Hamilton Handleman Havrot Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton) Hodgson (York North) Irvine Jessiman Kennedy MacBeth Maeck Meen Morningstar Newman (Ontario South) Nixon (Dovercourt) Rowe Scrivener Timbrell Turner Villeneuve Walker Wardle Welch White Winkler-36.	Braithwaite Breithaupt Burr Campbell Deacon Deans Gaunt Germa Good Haggerty Lawlor MacDonald Martel Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Nixon (Brant) Renwick Ruston Singer Spence Stokes Worton-21.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 36, the “nays” are 21.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the bill will be going to committee of the whole House.

Agreed.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will proceed with the considerations that we had before us today -- namely Bill 71; and then we will deal with committee of the whole House. Following that, we will introduce the GAINS legislation.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Just before the adjournment motion is put, I would ask the minister if he could inform us whether he intends to deal with the Health Disciplines Act and the GAINS bill that was introduced today by the Treasurer (Mr. White) before the social development committee; or whether we might be able, over the weekend, to come up with another committee that could deal with the GAINS legislation?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, as I understand, and as I have said so many times in this House, I do not interfere with the affairs of the committees. I understand they will direct their own affairs, and that that has already been considered.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. It is customary at the hour of adjournment to ask questions of the House leader as to what the programme might be. It is out of order to do so otherwise, that is at other times.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1:10 o’clock, p.m.