Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce another school from the great riding of Algoma, 28 students from Wawa, and the teacher in charge, Mrs. Rose Leclerc, and also the chaperons and bus driver. I wish the members would give them a welcome. They are in the west gallery, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to join with me in greeting some 40 grades 7 and 8 students from Ignace Public School who have travelled some 1,200 miles by bus to be in the galleries today. I would ask the House to greet them.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and to the House, 36 students from Kinmount Public School in the village of Kinmount, under the direction of Mrs. Isobel Austin. Would you welcome them, please?

Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour at this time, to present to the hon. members of this Legislature 33 grade 8 students from Fonthill, in that part of the regional municipality of Niagara known as part of the banana belt. I would appreciate your giving them a word of welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

SENIOR CITIZENS’ WEEK

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in acknowledging Senior Citizens’ Week which began yesterday and continues until next Saturday. In recognition of this special week, I would like to welcome those guests in the Legislature today representing agencies concerned with senior citizens and aging.

This is the fourth consecutive year that the Province of Ontario has set aside a special week to focus attention on its elderly citizens. It is organized through the senior citizens’ bureau and district offices of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The theme this year is “Living every minute of it,” which emphasizes the capacity to enjoy life at any age. Although our modem society tends to designate 65 as the official age of retirement from the work force, this by no means indicates retirement from life. Retirement years should, in fact, mean the beginning of a new and equally rewarding lifestyle.

Within Ontario, special programmes and opportunities for the elderly are expanding every year. The emphasis is on local support services which enable many more senior citizens to remain within their own homes and communities.

In addition to programmes and services to meet physical needs, increasing importance is being placed on creating opportunities for meaningful activities and personal development. This year’s resource kit distributed by the Ministry of Community and Social Services contains an outline of some of these opportunities in the areas of employment, education, recreation, travel and volunteer programmes, such as Ontario’s Senior Volunteers in Service. Over 20,000 resource kits have already been distributed to senior citizens and individuals who work with the elderly.

In virtually every community a variety of activities will be taking place during this special week. I understand that many members have taken a personal interest in Senior Citizens’ Week and have been instrumental in distributing posters and resource kits to their constituents. With their continued participation and support, I am confident that this year’s special week will be the most successful ever.

In keeping with this year’s theme, I would like to praise the work of the senior citizens’ clubs throughout the province. Through them, thousands of senior citizens get together to “live every minute of it.” As a recognition of their role, special “action age” grants of up to $400 per club will be given this year to celebrate the theme of enjoying the retirement years.

There are over 400 senior citizens’ clubs and groups that we estimate could qualify for this special grant and I would like to encourage all interested clubs to contact the nearest district office of the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services to find out how to apply.

By assisting these clubs, Ontario would like to recognize senior citizens and praise them for their present and past contributions to this province.

NORTHERN COMMUNITIES ACT

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Port- folio): Mr. Speaker, later today I will introduce the Northern Communities Act. This legislation, which was promised in the Speech from the Throne, is the culmination of our search for a form of local government that will meet the unique needs of the residents of northern Ontario.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Which, by no coincidence, took until the last week of the session; sure. He has done it again.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is the focus of a programme we are developing to provide residents of small northern communities with both a vehicle for meaningful political expression and an opportunity to obtain the services and benefits of urban life which we in southern Ontario take for granted.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): We will be sitting in August.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. This is the most unwieldy cabinet I have ever seen.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Specifically, Mr. Speaker, the Northern Communities Act will allow residents of small communities in unorganized territories to organize themselves and elect councils that will be able to set budgets, levy taxes and share in provincial grants.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Why couldn’t we have had this two months ago?

Mr. Lawlor: Why don’t the ministers organize themselves? Why don’t they set good examples?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The councils will have authority to provide for sewer and water services, sidewalks, garbage collection and disposal, fire protection, street lighting, parks, community centres, programmes of recreation and the regulation of trailers, trailer camps, trailer parks, tourist camps, motels, air harbours and landing grounds, as well as the control of dogs and other animals.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Did the minister say we are going to be able to have air up there?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In many cases, the services and activities will be provided by the province under contract to the community council. However, the council will set the local priorities and make decisions.

Until now, communities which lack the population and economic base to support full municipal status have been denied the benefits of incorporation, including grants made by many ministries for a variety of local services.

Mr. Speaker, we will be dealing with another aspect of the problem when we amend the Municipal Act to reduce the minimum population for townships from 1,000 to 500 so that the Municipal Board will be able to deal with the restructuring of improvement districts into townships with fully elected councils.

We are also looking at better ways to direct growth and development in the unorganized territories without applying solutions designed for the needs of southern Ontario.

During the summer and fall, Mr. Speaker, we will discuss this Act with residents in the north, and I expect we will see the first of these new communities incorporated by Jan. 1, 1976.

READMISSIONS TO ONTARIO HOSPITALS

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, for the information of members of the House, I am tabling a report on readmission rates to psychiatric hospitals. You may remember that a question about this was raised by the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell). At that time I replied that it had not been government policy to release these figures, but said I would review the matter.

It has been decided to make these figures available, and in future they will be produced on a quarterly basis. I believe these figures should be read with an understanding of the manner in which they have been compiled, Mr. Speaker. The statistics include as readmissions to psychiatric services, all patients who have received such service in the past, even though the previous admission may have been 10 or 12 years ago and the readmission is the first time during that period that further assistance has been required.

Also, these readmission figures reflect the increasing trend to outpatient services. Our objective being to move the patient out of hospital and back into the community as quickly as possible, visits to outpatient services by patients discharged from psychiatric hospitals are, for statistical purposes, indicated as readmissions.

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

STORMONT BY-ELECTION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Premier a question pertaining to the vacancy in the Legislature, relating to the resignation of the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Guindon). Is the Premier aware that the provisions of the Legislative Assembly Act permit a writ to be issued for a by-election under the circumstances of resignation only during the period of time when the House is not in session? And during the past year, is he aware that the House was not in session for those few minutes between the prorogation speech from His Honour and the new Speech from the Throne opening the current session on March 5?

Will the Premier undertake some action so that we can move toward the filling of the Stormont seat without delay -- hopefully with a by-election this fall -- so that we can get this settled before the Legislation might adjourn for its summer recess some time this week, next week or the week after?

Mr. Reid: We’re ready for the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly interested in this matter and I have been giving it consideration.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Does the Premier mean that he may be considering an amendment to the Act that we could have before us at this session, or could he solve it by some other procedure?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am considering two or three possibilities.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Perhaps the Premier would tell us what they are? This is public business. Surely there is nothing secret about that?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): I am sorry, I don’t understand. Perhaps the Premier could clarify it for me. I assumed that he could call a by-election in Stormont some time during the summer months, effective in October or November. Is that not so?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It just can’t be called at all.

Mr. Lewis: Well, that’s very convenient, isn’t it?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Op- position.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Why doesn’t the Premier prorogue the House?

Mr. Cassidy: Will he have a by-election?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Op- position.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask a further supplementary. Does the Premier mean to imply, by his rather coy response to the question, that he is prepared to take action so that there will be a by-election this fall? Surely the Premier is not contemplating the possibility of postponing it later than September or October?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I just said that I’m considering several possibilities.

Mr. Lewis: Would the Premier mind consulting with us about the date before he goes ahead? We have a convention.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Labour Day.

Mr. Deans: Is the Premier waiting to make sure that the former minister gets elected federally?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Op- position.

DAYCARE SERVICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, pertaining to the daycare issue. Can the minister report to the House what other reports were made available to her -- other than the secret cabinet interministerial report that the minister refuses to table -- which resulted, or at least affected in any way, the statement of policy she delivered to the House a week or so ago, on which there has been such a strong negative response from many parts of the community?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, to begin with, this is not a secret report.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Make it public.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: It was distributed to the social policy field. It is a confidential report.

Mr. Lewis: Now, there is a distinction.

Mr. Reid: Transfer her to the Ministry of Education.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: There were many people who were consulted before the final decision was made and before the --

Mr. Lewis: Call it private disclosure.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- final policy was decided upon. There was a paper initiated by the National Social Development Council. Many well-known people in day care worked on that report and many of the recommendations in that report are identical to the ones that came out in the policy of the social policy field on day care.

Mr. Cassidy: But the key ones differ; they differ so much.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: I hope the minister will not be too timid about defending what may in fact, be an indefensible stand. Would she undertake to table the papers and recommendations, other than the confidential -- some people might call it secret -- cabinet document so that those people who are so deeply concerned with this and so irate about the statement of government policy, will at least have the benefit of knowing some of the background that led to the statement of policy that we had a few days ago?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to table some of those reports that are available to anyone who wants them at this moment, but I would like to remind the hon. member that there are a lot of people in this province who are not irate --

An hon. member: They’re happy.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- people who feel that this very flexible new approach to providing very badly needed daycare services in this province is very acceptable and that the ones we are hearing from are those who have particular vested interests.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Shame, shame! A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Why does the minister draw attention to the Canadian Council on Social Development document in the House today, when it was specifically that document whose primary recommendations were violated in her statement -- the recommendations relating to qualifications for staff, the recommendations relating to ratios and the recommendations relating to personnel? It was that document that she repudiated. Why does she use it now?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I’m not repudiating it. I’m just simply stating that some of the recommendations in that report are those that we used. Naturally there are some that we didn’t.

Mr. Lewis: The inconsequential ones. Yes, I should say so.

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

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question of the minister. Can she comment on the fact that those who appear to support the policy statement are basically the Mini-Skools operation which is an operation for profit in the field?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, Mr. Speaker, I’m not in a position to answer that because I haven’t heard from the Mini-Skools people.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary then: What are these vested interests? Would the minister like to name them now that she has let it slip or let it out? Would she like to name the vested interests, the integrity of whose submissions she impugns? What are those vested interests that are opposed to her daycare legislation, other than the co-operative, parent-led and municipal daycare field? Who are they?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the hon. member is very aware of the lobbying that has been going on by those who are involved in early childhood education. They are the ones who have decided that day care must be based on educational opportunities by professional people.

Mr. Lewis: No, it is much broader than that.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: We agree that this is very acceptable but we also agree that it isn’t practical. If we’re to provide daycare centres for the many hundreds of working mothers who need it at this time, then we have to be flexible. That’s what we are talking about.

Mr. Cassidy: This government is against children of every age. They are against children.

Mr. Lewis: It’s not day care.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): The hon. member is a phoney baloney.

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

MINI-SKOOLS LTD.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have another question of the same minister. Actually it’s on the same subject since Mini-Skools Ltd. was mentioned by my colleague. Is the Mini-Skools corporation one of the groups that does approve of the new policy and is that the same corporation that is headed by a former Minister of Education of a Conservative administration in one of the western provinces? Is that the same corporation that is financed by one of the major insurance companies as a profit-making enterprise? And is that the same corporation which, in fact, was licensed on

24-hour intervals during a period in 1973?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a great deal more information than I have about Mini-Skools.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): As usual.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Would the minister then care to get the information for me, since it is of great concern to many people, about the status of Mini-Skools in this province and the provision of day care on a private, profit-making basis?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to get that information for the hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Since the question of the role of Mini-Skools and its numbers has been raised with the minister, privately and publicly, on a number of occasions in the last number of weeks, I don’t understand her lack of knowledge. Has the outfit not been dealt with or looked into be- fore now? Is she saying this is the first time for her secretariat?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, Mr. Speaker, I didn’t say that. I said the hon. leader of the Liberal Party had a great deal more information about the organization of the Mini-Skools than I have.

Mr. Lewis: Much of it is in Hansard; much of it was in committee.

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

BROWNDALE’S ARRANGEMENTS WITH MINISTRY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I should probably ask the same minister if she is prepared, on a policy basis, to table the financial dealings and contractual arrangements with Browndale National and/or Browndale Ontario which, according to a Globe and Mail report, is doing business with the Ministry of Health to the extent of $6.5 million for the provision of care and assistance for emotionally disturbed children in this province and many other groups as well.

An hon. member: It should be investigated.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be more properly directed to the Minister of Health.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would so direct it.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the article in the Globe and Mail elaborated a number of points about the method of financing and the operation of the Browndale homes. There are many things to be taken into account. Within the last year the ministry has put Browndale on a per diem, per patient basis. The average daily rate is certainly nowhere near the maximum we pay for such operations.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is that rate, $59?

Hon. Mr. Miller: It’s $59.26 including all costs -- for day care and other types of care, for occupancy costs and so on. The highest rate, I believe, we are paying is somewhere in the range of $92 on a per diem basis to a private institution. But it’s very difficult to compare one operation with another because of the entirely different types of care being given to children suffering from different mental illnesses. Suffice it to say we have some 300 children being treated by the Browndale organization, many of whom have been rejected for treatment by other organizations in the province; our staff continue to watch the operation with interest and to this point they are satisfied with it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, with your permission: Is the minister prepared to table the contract and the financial negotiations over the last two to three years with Browndale? Could I ask further if there is any contemplation of the provision of these services on a public basis rather than through a private, although non-profit, organization?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Of course, children’s mental health services, Mr. Speaker, are provided on a public basis in a number of areas in the province, through a number of hospitals and other public organizations. It’s only, I believe, some four or five years since the Ministry of Health passed the Children’s Mental Health Act and started to unify the very disparate methods of treatment which were being given by many organizations, voluntary and otherwise. I don’t feel I would be able to table the information the member is asking for.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Would the figures indicate --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York South with a supplementary.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): A supplementary: Would the minister be able to indicate, what is the range of per diem costs in the public institutions which are treating children?

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): A red herring!

Mr. MacDonald: Not a red herring but relevant.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I can give that to the hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: What is it at Thistletown for example?

Hon. Mr. Miller: That’s a government-operated one on a non-profit basis. There is no use comparing it.

Mr. Lewis: What is the minister talking about? It’s the public sector.

Mr. Cassidy: What does it cost?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I think one could obtain that through the estimates. I don’t have it here.

Mr. Lewis: He doesn’t have Thistletown?

Hon. Mr. Miller: The lowest I see on the list here is $42.53 per day; the highest I see on the list is $92.77 per day.

Mr. Lewis: Those are not the public ones the minister was talking about, are they?

Mr. MacDonald: What would the median cost be?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I’d have to work that out for the hon. member. Even the straight daily costs are not necessarily comparable because they don’t always include the same types of service. Therefore, I think trying to average these at this point in time would be meaningless unless we looked at the age group being treated, how many of them were inpatients versus outpatients, and so on and so forth.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George had a supplementary, I believe.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Thistletown has been cut back in the amount that it requires and in view of the fact that the Clarke Institute has had to close its beds, does this mean that there is a new policy with this ministry that we will transfer children over to Browndale rather than keep them in the government facility?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, first of all, that is one of those great distortions of the truth.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is?

Hon. Mr. Miller: There was no such thing as the so-called cutback in Thistletown, only a reduction from their request to what we would give them. It happens that Thistletown got the greatest percentage increase in budget of any institution under my ministry this year. Period.

Mr. Lewis: Tell us about their per diem. How much over $100 a day is it? Tell us about Thistletown.

Mrs. Campbell: May I have the answer to my question, Mr. Speaker. Is there a new policy?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am asking myself.

Mr. Lewis: Okay, good.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I know he has probably had enough of this, but did the minister say there were 300 patients in the care of Browndale?

Hon. Mr. Miller: That is the approximate number.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And we are picking up $21,000 a year for each?

Hon. Mr. Miller: That could well be.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Who are the directors?

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Public enterprise is doing okay.

Hon. Mr. Miller: First of all, I think there were 314 at one point recently, but 300 is the basis upon which it is paid.

Let’s get one thing clear. I am interested in the quality of care and the cost of that care. Whether it is provided by a private person or a government agency is not of consequence to me. I am interested in the best care at the lowest possible cost.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the minister is concerned with the best care at the lowest --

Mr. Speaker: This is surely developing into a debate. In any event, the hon. member for Scarborough West is next.

Mr. Lewis: I wanted just to ask the minister this: Surely all the figures that relate to the various institutions, whether under the Children’s Mental Health Centres Act or whether a government operation as a psychiatric wing like Thistletown, are available to the members of the House through estimates and through discussion. Why then would the minister hesitate in dealing with them?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I didn’t believe I was really hesitating.

Mr. Lewis: They are all funded by the ministry, aren’t they?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Which one did I hesitate on?

Mr. Lewis: I think that is the only way to deal with them.

Hon. Mr. Miller: On tabling the contracts, I think that’s an entirely different thing.

Mr. Lewis: Why?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is the cost.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, it is not. It’s a per diem contract.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West, a new question?

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I have a question of the minister responsible for municipal and regional government matters, if I may. Could the minister inform the House who requested the amendments to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto bill dealing with the provision of basic housing policy, as laid down by Metropolitan Toronto in the bill?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I can answer that question, I believe, quite fully. The hon. member is aware that the Metro chairman did meet with the Minister of Housing and did request that the government proceed with permissive legislation in this session, which we have. It is not legislation which is mandatory on Metro to enact nor is it mandatory for the area municipalities to enact either. But if Metro council decides to enact it by legislation, then they must proceed by bylaw. It is my understanding that the Metro chairman will decide with his council whether or not they wish to proceed. It is good planning if they wish to, and if they don’t it is up to them.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, did it not strike the minister as peculiar that in all other instances of amendment in his bill, or indeed in the Ministry of Housing bill that we dealt with, a recommendation had come from Metro and the area councils rather than from the metropolitan chairman alone, and that by dealing with it in this fashion the minister is obviously jeopardizing the integrity of much of the housing plan which has developed from the area municipality?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, I don’t feel we are jeopardizing the integrity at all. I think, Mr. Speaker, we must recognize this, that the chairman has a duty to perform on behalf of Metro council.

Mr. Lewis: It was not going to be on behalf of Metro council.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: His duty was to bring forth to the government a proposal which can be enacted or otherwise by the Metro council.

The Metro council will decide if they wish to have a housing policy for all of Metro, and if they don’t, that’s up to them.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister mean that he and the chairman can enter into something, whether permissive or mandatory, which doesn’t come to the minister through debate in the Metro council or the area councils? Does a private little tête-à-tête with Paul Godfrey result in this, when it hasn’t had discussion at the Metro level?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t believe the leader of the NDP has really got the point.

Mr. Lewis: He got the point.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The point is this --

Mr. Lewis: He is getting it now!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- there was a proposal to the government to make it permissive.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe that is the fire siren. We should empty the chamber. We will resume as soon as the siren has cleared. I have a note of the time remaining in the question period.

The House resumed at 2:40 o’clock, p.m.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the circumstances I think it would be appropriate to wait a few moments before we resume the question period, to give all the members an opportunity to return. We will therefore wait for three more minutes. I will, of course, add that to the time for questions.

The House resumed at 2:43 o’clock p.m.

Mr. Speaker: We will now resume the question period which was interrupted at exactly 2:30. I will therefore add 13 minutes to the question period. The hon. member for Scarborough West had the floor.

Mr. Lewis: The member for Ottawa Centre had a supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for municipal affairs: Does the minister not realize that by passing the amendment requested by Chairman Godfrey he strengthens Godfrey’s hand in getting the bylaw in the form that Godfrey wants before the Metro council? And will he withdraw the amendments related to housing until there have been discussions between the Metro mayors and Metro councils and the chairman, so that a proposal that everybody supports can come before this Legislature in the fall?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention that I believe I had the floor when the House adjourned, but in any event, I’ll answer the question that the member for Ottawa Centre has brought forward.

I was about to say that the legislation is permissive. The legislation is not unusual for this government to bring forth. We bring forth many Acts which are not --

Mr. Lewis: Except that here the minister is shafting the city of Toronto and doing it deliberately.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- requested specifically by any council. What we are doing in this case is listening to what we thought a very good proposal by the Metro chairman.

Mr. Lewis: It is a self-serving proposal. It will slow down housing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It’s for good planning purposes. Now, if Metro council decide they don’t wish to proceed with this, that’s their prerogative. They have the right to do so. I think that’s the way we should operate in this government.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We will bring forth legislation which allows people to proceed in a proper manner.

Interjections by hon. members.

PRICE INCREASES BY FORD MOTOR CO. OF CANADA LTD.

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Premier: Can he table the correspondence he has had with Stelco and, I believe, either Ford or Chrysler? I can’t remember which of the two automobile companies he was writing to.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think I could do that. For the hon. member’s recollection, it was Ford he asked me about.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary to that, has the Premier noticed that Stelco has announced -- even while there is an intended scrutiny of its price increases -- yet another price increase in steel and that Algoma has now moved forward to parallel the Stelco increases? Is it not time for the Province of Ontario to intervene -- since clearly the federal government is getting nowhere -- to protect our consumers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that and, of course, hopefully after July 8 we will have a government in Ottawa which is prepared to come to grips with that.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Hallelujah.

Mr. Lewis: Recognizing that all of us agree that is now an unlikely prospect, whatever it was, will the Premier undertake, through some kind of investigation through his ministry or that of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, a scrutiny of the additional price increase which Stelco has announced and the parallel price increase by Algoma, so that everything from housing to automobiles doesn’t show the repercussions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think, of course, we will watch with great interest the present study or review or whatever terminology is being used. Quite obviously we are concerned about increases whether they are in steel, automobiles or what have you and this government has made this abundantly clear. I think it is also appropriate to point out while it is great to review and have some discussion, it is another thing, after review or after a discussion, to determine what policy a provincial jurisdiction can undertake with respect to the question of prices.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Let’s face it, the Premier is not John F. Kennedy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say this to the hon. member -- quite obviously he is not interested, nor is his party, in the increasing inflation in this country. They sit there across the House; they talk about one issue; they talk to us about it and they go out and support the programme of the present federal government.

Interjections by hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): The government is doing nothing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The hon. members are a bunch of hypocrites.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier is incredible.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The hon. member voted against --

Mr. Lewis: The Premier had better be careful. There is a partisan note creeping into his replies. He should be careful about that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The hon. member is quite right.

HOUSING STARTS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Housing now that, according to the latest CMHC figures, the seasonally adjusted rate of housing for Ontario will be down to 98,375 units in 1974 as compared to 110,536 units in 1973, a decline of 12.4 per cent -- more dramatic than any specific decline of its type since 1966 -- what is the minister prepared to do to change the situation in housing which nothing so far announced has altered?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker I think it was two weeks ago when I pointed out to the hon. member that housing starts were up nationally by three per cent.

Mr. Lewis: Minus Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The hon. member at that time said, “That is a lie.” I assume the hon. member would like to withdraw that statement now?

Mr. Lewis: Hold on a moment. I didn’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is in Hansard.

Mr. Lewis: I didn’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, he did.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t be silly.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I haven’t brought it up before now, Mr. Speaker, but it is in Hansard and I think the hon. member might want to take a look at that and perhaps withdraw the statement.

We have looked at the CMHC figures and they indicate that for the month of May in Ontario we are down some 800 units. The reduction by 800 units, I think we can say, without any equivocation whatsoever, is due to the fact that some of the builders and some of the developers are delaying their starts until such time as we finalize our housing action agreements.

Mr. Deans: When is that going to happen?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The 800 is absolutely minuscule, Mr. Speaker. We will more than make up for that when we get our housing action programme. The housing starts will be accelerated and I simply don’t accept the seasonally adjusted projections.

Mrs. Campbell: When?

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): When?

Mr. Lewis: May I say that if I used the word “lie” I certainly withdraw it. I don’t recall it. Leaving the national starts aside -- and I quite agree they are up; I have those figures in front of me -- may I ask the minister when he is going to table one contract with a municipality, one agreement with a municipality or with a developer to give substance to his Ontario housing action programme, which contracts or agreements the minister has been promising for months, but not a one has yet appeared before the House?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Soon, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Before we adjourn, whenever that is likely to be; in the next week or 10 days?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Hopefully, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Hopefully, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: Those are phantom houses.

DISPUTE BETWEEN AGGREGATE PRODUCERS AND HAULERS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Labour if he was able to do anything to bring together the Aggregate Producers Association and the Haulers Association in an effort to overcome that grievous labour difficulty and to prevent yet another demonstration, I gather this Wednesday, triple the size?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Dickie of our ministry had one meeting with them. He was able to get them together. I do know I had a telephone call today from the lawyer acting for the truckers and I put that on Mr. Dickie’s desk with the hope that he would be able to get back with them. But they are talking to one another through their two representatives.

CLOSING OF PELHAM SECONDARY SCHOOL

Mr. Lewis: I will leave it at that.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Education, can he give us a final, or nearly final, report on the circumstances of Pelham? Is he prepared to acquiesce to the request of the Niagara South board, both by way of financing from his ministry and revision of the boundaries in order that the school continue to exist?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, a meeting is to be held. That meeting will be held between the Niagara South board and the Lincoln board on June 26, and until that time we stand waiting to hear what is the outcome of that meeting.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, the minister is surely aware that the Niagara South board has instituted a qualification, a fiat in the discussions, which says that the province must undertake financial support up to a level of $500,000 -- I don’t know where the figure came from -- for the alterations to the structure of the school? Has the minister responded to that qualification from the Niagara South board?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That isn’t quite right, Mr. Speaker. Actually they have never put any qualification like that on it. The indication is that if the school is to stay open and be filled to capacity, it will probably have to be renovated. Now in that case, they will then have to come to us and ask for renovations, but that has not been put as a qualification of working anything out.

The basic qualification is deciding whether the Lincoln board will send students there and pay for them; and the Lincoln board has, incidentally, put some qualifications on that, because it says if it is going to send 200 students there it will also want the Niagara South board to take some of the teachers it presently has for those 200 students. There are various matters like that which have to be worked out; therefore the meeting on June 26.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, the Minister of Colleges and Universities has the answer to a question asked previously.

OWNERSHIP OF HUMBER COLLEGE

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) asked me to explain the circumstances under which Joseph Burnett had become the owner of Humber College and rents it to our ministry. I said that I wasn’t aware of the particular instance but I would look into it.

The member for High Park made inquiries which turned out to refer to the rental by Humber College of its Queensway campus premises. I would like to preface my response by pointing out that 22 Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology operate from more than 70 locations throughout Ontario. As a result of the rapid expansion of college enrolment and the moratorium on capital expenditures, the premises at many of these locations are rented rather than owned. The financial aspects of rental agreements are reviewed by the ministry, but I believe it would be inappropriate for the ministry to exercise any greater degree of scrutiny or control.

I have made inquiries regarding the Queensway campus of Humber College and can provide the following information: The premises in question were leased to the Lakeshore District Board of Education by Blendcraft Construction Ltd. in September, 1966. The board of education for the borough of Etobicoke, which succeeded the Lakeshore District Board of Education, entered into a revised lease with Blendcraft Construction Ltd. in March, 1967. The board agreed to rent the premises for $93,000 per annum for 10 years, a rental cost of $2.18 per sq. ft.

Shortly thereafter, Peebles Avenue Investments Ltd., which is Mr. Burnett’s private company I understand, acquired title to the premises. Then in April, 1968, the premises became the Queensway campus of Humber College when the college took over the Etobicoke retraining school.

In May, 1968, Humber College agreed to rent a 41,000-sq. ft. addition that would be constructed by Peebles Avenue Investments. The college and Peebles Avenue Investments executed a lease whereby the enlarged premises, totalling 84,006 sq. ft., were leased to April 30, 1979, for $197,975 per annum, a rate of $2.36 per sq. ft. It is under this agreement that the college presently rents its Queensway campus facilities.

The Queensway campus is one of six premises rented by Humber College at costs per sq. ft. varying between $2.18 and $4.16. If the hon. member or other members wish, I can provide full details of the college’s other rental agreements, of which there are six.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Havrot: Nice to see him back.

TRANSFERS OF GREY COUNTY PRINCIPALS

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss the Premier’s “Journey into History” last Saturday, when the train broke down, but I have a much more important question to ask --

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Where has the hon. member been?

Mr. Sargent: Is the Premier aware of the letter he received on April 2 --

Mr. Havrot: Was the hon. member on holidays all last week?

Mr. Sargent: -- related to the fact that the Grey County Board of Education transferred two secondary school principals out of their schools and communities against their wishes, and over the clearly expressed protests of the students and staffs of the schools and the parents in the respective communities, where no rationale even remotely acceptable to any of these groups has been given by the board for this action --

Mr. D. J. Wiseman (Lanark): What’s the question?

Mr. Sargent: -- and these principals were not given a hearing of any kind before the decision to transfer was made --

Mr. Speaker: We’re waiting for a question.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): What is the question?

Mr. Sargent: In view of all these things --

An hon. member: What’s the question?

Mr. Havrot: The hon. member should be in Stratford. He’s a great actor.

Mr. Sargent: -- and in view of the fact that 274 teachers are going to go on strike, is the Premier concerned about the man on his right, who is doing nothing about this? And what is the Premier’s position on this right now?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Absolute nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would only say about the man who is situated geographically to my right, I could only wish that all areas of the Province of Ontario were served by men of his capacity and integrity in the Legislature.

Mr. Breithaupt: What is his capacity?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He’s the chap who goofed.

Mr. Deans: Or at least his political affiliation.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As for the particular problem mentioned by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, Mr. Speaker, while quite obviously I am concerned about it, as I am about all problems, I would say, with respect, that the hon. member might direct that question to the Minister of Education.

Mr. Sargent: All right, I will.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member may.

Mr. Sargent: What is the Minister of Education going to do about it? He knows the situation. What’s going to happen?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall he called me on the telephone about this situation a week or so ago. We chatted about it. I indicated to him that I think this is a responsibility of the local school board -- the matter of hiring teachers, of appointing principals and so forth --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Autonomy.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Appointing principals, switching them from school to school, are matters that rest with the local school board.

Mr. Havrot: How about that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Now, if the people in the community have a complaint in this particular area, it should be directed to the local school board. And it is wrong, really, for the party that talks about local autonomy to suggest that we should do something about it.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary: I compliment the minister on his respect for local autonomy, but does he realize there are many underlying factors that don’t qualify here at all? One man has four years to go --

Mr. Speaker: Question. Question.

Mr. Sargent: -- on his contract, and he’s going to have to move holus-bolus. The House leader is going to lose his seat over this, he is. He is going to lose his seat.

Mr. Speaker: Is that a question?

Interjections by hon. members.

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

STRIKE AT DARRIGO’S

Mr. MacDonald: I have a question of the Minister of Labour with regard to the situation at Dorrigo’s food markets, where the workers have been negotiating for a full year since certification in June, 1973, and have not yet succeeded in getting a contract and are out on strike. Is the ministry involved at all in this strike; and what action does the minister propose to take with an employer who is defying the law and a legally certified group and is obviously not bargaining in good faith?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, my in- formation on that is simply that there are no meetings scheduled. We are aware of it, and I will see what I can do to get the ministry more actively involved.

DISPUTE BETWEEN AGGREGATE PRODUCERS AND HAULERS

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: While I’m on my feet, Mr. Speaker, may I make a slight correction to the answer I gave to the leader of the NDP? Actually, Mr. Dickie did not meet with the aggregate people --

Mr. Lewis: That’s what I thought.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- but he arranged a meeting with them. I understand the two have met, but, as I say, I had a call from one of them this morning and I left the message with Mr. Dickie in the hope that he would give them a call back this afternoon and see what more he could do. But I was wrong when I said that Mr. Dickie had met with them.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor- Walkerville.

CANADIAN BRIDGE WORK STOPPAGE

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Back on May 13, I asked the Minister of Labour a question concerning the work stoppage at the Canadian Bridge division plant of Hawker Siddeley in the city of Windsor. May I repeat the question to the minister and ask him if he is aware of the situation? Does he realize that the strike has been on for 75 days, and that it has not been resolved? And will he look into the situation and attempt to resolve it?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to look into the situation.

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

WELLESLEY HOSPITAL ARBITRATION AWARD

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): A question of the Minister of Labour, again, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister determine why it is taking so long for the arbitration award to be handed down to the medical technologist unit at Toronto’s Wellesley Hospital -- it being now over 3 1/2 months since the final submissions were heard -- and if, in that situation, those workers may well expect an award based on awards to other hospital workers in the city of Toronto, recently involving the Labour ministry and the Ministry of Health?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, again I can simply undertake to try to speed up the reports that they are waiting for.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

WASAGA BEACH ZOOLOGICAL PARK

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier: In view of the earlier questions asked of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism and the Minister of Colleges and Universities concerning assistance to the Ontario Zoological Park at Wasaga Beach, is the Premier now in a position to announce any policy with respect to the saving of this institution so that it can remain as a tourist attraction and so that the very valuable collection of animals that has been gathered from all over the world can be kept in one place, protected, and hopefully developed even further?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to say anything further today. I would only remark that when I was on that very delightful train trip on Saturday I was presented with one petition and it was brought to my attention by another group with respect to the zoo at Wasaga.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lanark.

MILK PRODUCTION INCENTIVE PROGRAMME

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Is it true that the milk incentive programme that has been so successful in the province, is due to end at the end of this month? And if so, would the minister consider extending that time for another six months or a year, in view of the fact that it has been quite successful in producing more milk and helping our farmers?

Hon. W. A, Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): What programme?

Mr. Wiseman: The one that helped the farmers increase their milk production by 15 or 20 per cent, the forgivable part

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, that matter is under consideration at the moment. I haven’t got a positive answer for the member, but it is under consideration and we are recommending it be continued -- but we have to look at it in all its aspects.

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

ETHYLENE OXIDE

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health regarding ethylene oxide and the recent discovery by scientists at Columbia University that they were able to use it to form mutagenic and carcinogenic substances: Inasmuch as ethylene oxide is often used for the sterilizing of pharmaceuticals, antibiotics, medical instruments and plastic tubing in medical equipment, can the minister find out whether this procedure has been or is being followed in hospitals throughout Ontario, and if so, whether the continued use of this substance should be reviewed?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to try and find some information on that topic.

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

FLEMINGDON WOODS

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Housing. Could the Minister tell us now whether he has in fact answered the questions of the residents of Flemingdon Woods, and particularly has the minister now given them an audited statement of the debt in that particular development?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I have had no questions put to me by the residents of Flemingdon Woods, and I don’t have an audited statement of whatever the operations are in that development. OHC was the banker in the project, loaned the money to the developer, and the rest of it is in accordance with the Condominium Act, or if there is any violation of the Condominium Act then my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement), should be asked.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Is the minister contemplating any amendments to the condominium legislation so that this sort of a thing cannot happen, as it has happened on so many occasions -- even in occasions where the HOME programme has not been involved -- where a large debt is turned over to the condominium owners when those people who have been operating it want to unload it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, as I said in answer to the member for St. George, the question of the administration and any amendments to the Condominium Act do not rest with my ministry but with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

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

MINIMUM WAGE RATES

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Would the minister explain, if there is an explanation, why we have to wait three months for the implementation of the minimum wage provisions that he announced on June 11, in face of the fact that the people who really need the increase most are those on the minimum wage?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: First, Mr. Speaker, the computations were done as at an expected implementation date of Oct. 1. Second, there are a good number of industries and institutions which wanted at least six months’ notice, so that they could regulate their contracts and put out their advertisements, particularly in the tourist industry, where they wanted their brochures and things of that nature with the rates correctly based on what the wage would be.

It’s as the result of the requests of various groups that we have announced this in advance and the calculations, as I say, have been done as of Oct. 1.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

MICROWAVE OVENS

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In light of the fact that the Food and Drug Administration in the US have ordered permanent warning labels on all new microwave ovens and also because of the fact that in Canada many of the microwave ovens used in homes and quick food vending establishments do leak higher than permissible amounts of radiation, is the minister prepared to take the same action concerning the microwave ovens as has been taken concerning electric kettles?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the problem. I think they interfere with the people who have pacemaker implants; they interrupt the operation of that type of device.

I am not going to initiate any legislation along those lines because I have no legislation under which to frame same, but I understand my colleague the Minister of Health is contemplating legislation of this nature dealing with microwave and laser devices.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Minister of Health is just starting to contemplate it.

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

OFFICIAL GEMSTONE FOR PROVINCE

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Premier. In view of the widespread acceptance of the amethyst as a gemstone, will the Premier, in concert with his colleagues, make every effort to have it designated as the official gemstone for the Province of Ontario as a counterpart for the trillium which would foster a brand new gemstone industry in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and, I believe --

Mr. Deans: Say yes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- some few weeks ago the member for Fort William and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) raised with me the possibility of Ontario determining that this particular mineral would become the official stone of the Province of Ontario. Quite frankly we have not had an official stone, a mineral per se.

I think there is some merit in it. Certainly I have no negative reactions. I haven’t quite frankly, given a great deal of thought to it yet because of other matters, but perhaps when the House concludes it is something that could be pursued. As I say initially, Mr. Speaker, I have no negative thoughts about it at all.

Mr. Lawlor: I think a little bit of nickel; a slip of iron.

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

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege if I may.

On May 24, 1974, the Minister of Housing said, in reply to a question:

“Mr. Speaker, the latest figures I have seen from CMHC, which arrived on my desk yesterday morning, indicate that housing starts on a projected basis are at 286,000 in Canada which is an all-time record; and Ontario is maintaining its pace in relationship to other provinces.

“Mr. Lewis: No, that is wrong.”

I think the words that I used were appropriate and I think the observation I made was appropriate because while Canada increases, Ontario decreases. I would thank him not to attribute to me statements which simply aren’t on the record.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, I’ll show the member.

Mr. Lewis: Okay. Fair enough.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the balance of the orders of the day I wonder if I might introduce to the members of the House the former member for Grenville-Dundas, the Hon. Fred Cass, who is with us today, and extend to him a very warm welcome on behalf of all of us.

Mr. Lewis: He is here once a week, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Sargent: Throw him out.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure we are very pleased to have Mr. Cass with us today and I am sure he will have observed that nothing has changed.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Sargent: That wasn’t very nice.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

NORTHERN COMMUNITIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine, on behalf of Hon. Mr. White, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide for the Incorporation of Communities and Territories without Municipal Organization.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, further to my statement to the House the other day, the bill empowers the Treasurer (Mr. White) to establish in territory without municipal organization a community, the inhabitants of which will be a body corporate. There will be an elected council of either three or five members as determined by the Treasurer and they will exercise the powers and duties as provided in the bill.

A procedural bylaw is set out in schedule A of the bill to govern the proceedings of the council and those proceedings may, with the approval of the Treasurer, be amended by the council. The organization expenditures of a new community during its first year of operation, as approved by the Treasurer, may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.

We will proceed, Mr. Speaker, with first reading only now and I expect second and third this fall.

MILK ACT

Hon. Mr. Stewart moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Milk Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is going to amend that?

An hon. member: He has only just amended it.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): He is not following Manitoba, is he?

Mr. Lewis: I hope so.

Mr. Foulds: Wouldn’t that be wonderful?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for the control of the quality of milk, by imposing on and collecting from a producer penalties when milk supplied by the producer fails to comply with the prescribed standards, or is produced on premises or with equipment which fail to comply with the prescribed standards.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM ACT

Mr. Sargent moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: He is betting on the Chairman of the Management Board to second that one.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Is he adding the Chairman of the Management Board’s name to Durham?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to remove the confusion which exists between the town of Durham and the regional municipality of Durham. The name Frost has been chosen in honour of the late Hon. Leslie Frost and I am quite sure that every member of the House would join in honouring this great man.

Mr. Foulds: Except maybe the Chairman of the Management Board

Mr. Lewis: The regional municipality of Frost? That will frost Ottawa, I’ll tell you.

Mr. Good: No tax revenues.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

DENTISTRY ACT

Mr. Walker, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Miller, moves second reading of Bill 71, An Act to amend the Dentistry Act.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us now is somewhat complementary to the amendment brought in a few days ago dealing with the position of denturists and the scope of their work in the province.

The ministry, in conjunction with the dentists of the province, introduced a programme whereby the costs of dentures available directly from dentists would be managed by the section of the bill which had been previously introduced and which is repealed by this particular section. It’s an interesting tale indeed -- probably not interesting enough to recount to you, sir, this afternoon -- that the government, in an attempt to bolster its policy of excluding denturists from independent practice, was attempting, by the piece of legislation repealed by this amendment, to insist that dentists would provide, let’s say relatively low-cost dentures across the province.

They undertook, as you will recall, to use public funds for an elaborate advertising campaign in which the names and locations of the dentists participating in this plan were brought to public attention. There was some criticism of the utilization of public funds for that purpose since it was tantamount to advertising the services of individual dentists.

There were also, as you know, certain shortcomings in the programme in that the low-cost dentures were not readily available in all communities.

While I suppose we must indicate if not gratitude at least interest in the dentists’ programme of attempting to forestall the increase in the scope of denturists in this province, we must say the programme was an abject failure. I think it is an indication of its failure that the government has moved to repeal this rather strange piece of legislation which was put on the books about a year ago. I don’t think it is worthy of an extended debate in the House other than to say it was an adhesive plaster, a Band-Aid put on a piece of government policy which was totally inadequate and certainly could not be repaired simply by the addition of this sort of joint policy between the former Minister of Health (Mr. Potter) and the dentists.

I am glad to see it expunged from the legislation of the province. I feel it was a rather strange procedure, by way of policy and by way of enactment, for the government to use. It was a substantial failure in that many people would not avail themselves of these cutrate dentures since, apparently, they did not come up to the standards they were prepared to insist on.

It still comes to the point, Mr. Speaker, that under the system which has evolved in this province, in spite of the inhibiting legislation of this government over the last number of years, people are demanding high quality dentures at low prices. The dentists so far have not been able to provide that service in a manner acceptable to the general public.

It is our hope that government policy will go several steps beyond where it is now so that the people in the community who require these services can go to denturists or a dental therapist, as they will be known after the passage of the companion bill, and be able to get high quality dentures and partial dentures, properly fitted, properly cared for, at reasonable prices. We have no objection to the repeal of that section.

I suppose the dentists would be well advised to establish, among themselves on a professional basis, a cost for their services and the prosthesis they fit into the mouths of their patients at a level acceptable to them, consonant with good service and high quality.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I think the introduction of Bill 71 is a clear indication that the government’s earlier plan to force upon the people of Ontario a service they didn’t have faith in has ended in complete and dismal failure, despite the spending of thousands of public dollars by the Ministry of Health in trying to promote a private organization.

I question the right of the minister -- I did all along -- to expend public moneys to promote the dentists of Ontario. Even as late as Thursday, March 21, in the Globe and Mail the president of the ODA stated in a news story that about 700 dentists were offering a low-cost denture service that the government was spending $30,000 to advertise. As late as March the government was still in the business of throwing away public funds to try and promote this programme. And here it is, just 60 days later, withdrawing the whole programme.

The thing has been a complete and dismal farce right from the beginning. I have a letter here, Mr. Speaker -- and I would like to read it into the record -- which I had occasion to write as a result of the introduction of this low-cost denture programme which the government has been advertising. I think the letter, which I wrote on behalf of a constituent, lays out just what has been going on in these low-cost denture clinics operated by the Ontario Dental Association.

I will omit the constituent’s name, Mr. Speaker, as I do not have permission to use his name in this. The letter is --

Mr. Speaker: I’m wondering if the hon. member is really speaking to the bill intituled the Dentistry Act or if he is going back to the Denturists Act.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, Bill 71 calls for the repeal of the section of the Dentistry Act which provides for low-cost denture service by the dentists. This is precisely what I am speaking to -- the withdrawal of the low-cost denture plan.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member may proceed. I had some doubt that he was on the bill, but he may proceed.

Mr. Germa: I think I’m on the right bill -- Bill 71, Mr. Speaker -- and it does deal with the low-cost denture plan.

Mr. Speaker, this letter was written by myself on April 5, 1974, to the Ontario Dental Association, and I will not use the constituent’s name:

“Dear Sirs:

“The above-noted constituent recently approached me in a very high state of agitation regarding the activities of the dental profession and also the function of the low-cost denture clinic in the city of Sudbury. Mr. [ -- ] was directed there by a dentist to have himself fitted with a full set of dentures for the advertised price of $180. Upon his first visit to this clinic, he was obliged to make a deposit of $30 as forward payment for the dentures expected.

“Once the dentures were made, he returned for his first fitting and he found them very unsatisfactory. Dr. Ralston, who was the dentist in charge of the clinic, then relined the dentures at the first fitting, but I am informed that it had the effect of throwing out the alignment to such a degree that the back teeth were separated by one-eighth of an inch when the front teeth were touching. Even in spite of this poor fitting, he did try to learn to use these new dentures. They were so loose and sloppy that whenever he sneezed, he informed me, they would fall out on the floor.

“Mr. [ -- ] returned to the denture clinic to try and have further adjustments made, but to his surprise the person in charge took the teeth away from him and immediately refunded his money and informed him to go elsewhere to have another set of teeth made. At no time did Mr. [ -- ] ask for a refund of money, and was quite incensed that they had dismissed him in such a fashion.

“This constituent also had with him certain advertisements which had been appearing in the local press and in the Globe and Mail, March 27 and March 30, 1974, which were sponsored by the Ontario Dental Association. It is his opinion that the statements which are headed as fact in this advertisement are not in good taste. Mr. [ -- ] had further clippings which advertised Ontario’s low-cost denture programme and which were sponsored by the Hon. Richard T. Potter, the former Minister of Health. He objected strenuously that public funds should be used to advertise private business, especially when it has been so unsatisfactory to him.

“I might add that I am receiving many severe criticisms pertaining to the dental profession generally. I am personally incensed at their activities as they relate to the manufacture and fitting of false teeth by people other than dentists. An investigation of this matter would be appreciated.”

Mr. Speaker, that was on April 5 and to this date I have not had any response from the Ontario Dental Association. So you see the futile position the general public are placed in when they do lodge legitimate complaints. They don’t even get a response from these professional organizations. To some degree, I have to support the opposite bill that we are working with this week in that the minister has taken some steps to control the self-appointed, self-anointed, self-governing, self-policing and self-licensing bodies, and this applies to all of the professional bodies. But we are dealing here with this low-cost denture plan.

If the plan was any good, and I think it would have had some merit had the dental association had any feeling about supplying people with dentures, but in fact only 17 per cent of the dentists in Ontario participated in the plan; and most of them, I understand, participated reluctantly. Those who did participate apparently didn’t give decent service. If you complained they took the teeth right out of your mouth and told you to go elsewhere.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): It is just like taking the oats out of the horse’s mouth!

Mr. Germa: I might also say, Mr. Speaker, before I get sidetracked, the same gentleman that I wrote to the ODA about did return to my office, even though I had not received any response from the ODA. This man did go to another dentist and got himself another set of low-cost dentures.

He came back into my office again with his second set of teeth, and he had them in his pocket this time. He took these teeth out of his pocket and he laid these teeth on my desk.

I am not and I don’t profess to be trained in this profession and neither is he. He is a tailor by trade and he has got nothing to do with the trade at all. His complaint was that these teeth were biting the side of his cheek on one side only and he couldn’t figure out why every time he went to eat he was biting himself. So we looked at these teeth on my desk and we examined them.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): He should leave them in his mouth.

Mr. Germa: I beg pardon?

Mr. Walker: He shouldn’t leave them in his pocket.

Mr. Germa: Even with our untrained eyes, Mr. Speaker, we could observe that these teeth were mounted probably one-eighth of an inch off of the gum ridge. They were mounted in the direction to which they would go in order to bite this one particular cheek of his. He and I, in our amateur fashion, decided that this set of teeth mounted in this plastic framework were in fact one-eighth of an inch off the true centre, and therefore resulted in his chewing his own cheek. He couldn’t wear them. And this was his second time around.

I said, “Well, it’s hopeless. I have already written to the ODA in Toronto” -- and he has a copy of the letter -- “and I have had no response.” He didn’t know what to do because he knew it was illegal to go to a denturist. He was trying to obey the laws of this land. He didn’t want to turn himself into a criminal and yet he had to go through this struggle twice.

As far as I know, and I haven’t seen him lately Mr. Speaker, he still walks around Sudbury with his teeth in his pocket. The $180 he spent is no good to him.

I think there is a reason, Mr. Speaker, why the Ontario Dental Association did not survive in supplying low-cost dentures, and why they were not interested in supplying a service that the people can afford. The secret came out in a study which was done by the Ontario Dental Association, dated September, 1972, entitled “The Public Concern.” This review by the dental association was designed to answer a whole bunch of questions that the public was directing at the dental profession generally. It’s interesting that they were so honest in this one particular answer to a question which appears in appendix K, page 1, of this report.

The question is: “How can the dentist justify fees of $400, $500 and $600 for a plate?” I am sure everyone here has had a constituent ask him how the dentists have the nerve to charge that kind of money. The answer from the Ontario Dental Association was this: “Under the free enterprise system, if the dentist feels his talents are worth that much and the person looking for this level of expertise agrees to pay that fee, that is strictly their arrangement. The patient appreciating excellence is glad to pay for it.”

So, we are back to the old supply and demand. If you have the fat buck in your purse you can go out and get a good set of teeth in Ontario. If you haven’t a good buck in your pocket, then you have to go and put up with this kind of nonsense and buy teeth that you carry in your pocket instead of your mouth.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Germa: This is the reason, Mr. Speaker, for a rising discontent and why the people who have chosen to be dental mechanics or therapists or denturists, whatever you call them, have a great following. There is solid support for them out in this community. I would like to have seen the government continue with the low-cost dental plan. I would like to see dentures made by competent, qualified, trained, excellent persons. But under the present system we have no choice but to abolish it, because these people just will not deliver false teeth at a price that the average citizen can afford.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, even though it would be desirable to have a dentist manufacture and prepare and do all of these things, they haven’t done it in the past. The Ministry of Health has not been able to force them into doing it, even despite government legislation and even despite thousands of dollars. I suppose the best thing to do is to just scrap it and maybe try to make amendments to the other bill, which will provide a wider service to those people who need it.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to enter the debate? If not, the hon. member for London North.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, there is not a very great deal that can be said about this particular Bill 71. It is entirely consequent, of course, on Bill 70. The section of the bill entitled section 1 repeals section 20(a) of the Dentistry Act, found in section 3 of chapter 141 and which merely provides the mechanics by which legislation could be established for a low-cost denture programme and the establishing of a price for it, and that the government deems not to be necessary any longer and accordingly abolishes.

However, I should report that it is my understanding that the Ontario Dental Association and individual dentists -- some 700 throughout the province so far -- will be continuing the low-cost denture programme on their own as a voluntary operation; and for that I am sure they are to be commended.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 71. Shall the motion carry?

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 71, An Act to amend the Dentistry Act.

Clerk of the House: The second order, House in committee of the whole.

DENTURE THERAPIST ACT

House in committee on Bill 70, the Denture Therapist Act, 1974.

Mr. Chairman: Bill 70, the Denture Therapist Act, 1974. Are there any comments, questions or amendments on any of the first three sections?

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): Mr. Chairman, I should just advise that I have a large number of amendments to this particular bill. Most of them, of course, pick up the Health Disciplines Act. The first one appears at section 4(8). I believe each of the opposition parties have received copies of the amendments. If they haven’t, we can provide some additional ones.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments before this?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could receive another copy of those amendments. I think my leader has them and I know that he is just about to return to the House because there are some additional comments that he wishes to make on particular sections.

If we can have the amendment we might be in a position, then, to at least deal with those amendments. If it is acceptable, perhaps we could proceed with the various minor amendments and have those put; and then when my leader arrives, we would be able to deal with the area that he particularly wishes to amend. I understand that the amendments which he proposes will be in the first section, perhaps because they most particularly involve the definitions in subsections (l) and (m) of “practice of denture therapy,” and the subsequent “practice of supervised denture therapy” in each particular case.

Perhaps it would be possible, Mr. Chairman, for the various amendments to be spoken to generally if the parliamentary assistant has anything that he chooses to say concerning all of them, after which I think we would be prepared to proceed with the dealing with them, if that is possible.

Mr. Chairman: Is there anything particular in these first three sections that any of the members present would care to deal with at the present time?

Mr. Walker: Perhaps I can assist here by making some very general comments as to the large numbers of amendments that come in. This does not particularly relate to any one individual clause, but under the circumstances perhaps this will assist for a few moments.

Most of these amendments arise out of discussions with various bodies. Some of them arise out of discussions with the Ontario Dental Association; some are as a result of amendments made in the social development committee in its study of the Health Disciplines Act.

Just to summarize some of the amendments, when we get to section 4(8) it will be found that that particular amendment relates to receiving a provisional licence; and to receive a provisional licence an individual has to successfully complete a course of study rather than just take it. This is a rather important amendment and will mean that a series of successful completions must occur before any provisional licence will be granted.

The balance really pick up the similar provisions in the Health Disciplines Act. They relate a great deal to the question of incapacity; they will relate to complaints and the appeal board; they relate, in section 20, to restoration of licences and references to the discipline committee on the issue of incapacity. Generally speaking, Mr. Chairman, they are almost in the legal phrase, mutatis mutandis.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments, questions or amendments on the first three sections of the bill?

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): On section 1, Mr. Chairman.

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

On section 1:

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I was interested to hear the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) who is not participating in this debate other than in the hallway just outside this chamber -- indicating to the media, although he hasn’t made such an announcement in the House, that the denturists had met with him over the weekend and they have agreed to take the course of training and the special examinations leading to certification as denture therapists.

I had understood that was their policy, but this is the first time, as far as I know, that it has been announced publicly. I think that is a good course of action for them to take.

I think we must be aware, however Mr. Chairman, that that does not necessarily mean they support the provisions of this bill. As a matter of fact I would indicate to you, sir, that that is not the case; they do not support the provisions of the bill. It may very well lead to the denture therapists -- as they would then be called when they successfully take the course and are granted certification -- may very well lead them to continue breaking the law of Ontario as they have in their capacity as denturists in the past.

Now I would be the last to recommend breaking the law to any citizen. I have heard others say in this chamber and elsewhere that if the law is an ass, it should not be obeyed. It is my own feeling, and I hope I am not overly conservative in this regard, that the law is to be obeyed and the citizen can work very hard indeed to have it changed, both through his representation in the Legislature and in the community.

I am afraid that if we do not extend the scope of denture therapy to include the fitting of partial dentures, we are going to lead a number of denture therapists to break the law, because they consider that an unwarranted restriction in scope.

You are aware, Mr. Chairman, that other jurisdictions permit the fitting of partial dentures; and as far as we are aware and from the information we have been able to adduce from experts in this field -- admittedly biased in one way or the other, but at least putting forward their understanding of the facts as they are -- there has never been any indication that the service of the fitting of a partial denture by a denture therapist has led to any more problems than if the same service was provided under the supervision of a dentist.

I and my colleagues in the Liberal Party have examined these alternatives carefully, and we regret that the government has not seen fit to allow the scope to include the fitting of partials; for that reason we believe it is necessary for an amendment to be offered to section 1, which establishes the scope of denture therapy.

Mr. R. F. Nixon moves that the following words be added to section 1(l)(i), (ii) and (iii): “or any upper or lower removable prosthetic denture.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If I may say something further on the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I am aware of a division of opinion in this regard; we tried to assess the opposing views as carefully as we could. We are of the opinion that if the courses provided for denture therapists are adequate; if the certification is based on adequate preparation and instruction and the successful completion of that course; if the supervision by the Ministry of Health is such that the denture therapists are not going to be led into other dental work, let’s say; if the scope is established by this amendment and adequately policed, if I may use those words, by the Ministry of Health -- and I hesitate to use those words, but they would mean adequate inspection -- then the health and well-being of the citizens will not be in jeopardy.

We believe that the provision of these services go reasonably together, and we would ask that the amendment be considered by members on all sides.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Chairman, it’s quite easy for me and this party to accept the amendment, because as we know and as you should know, as the minister should know and as the parliamentary assistant should know, we’re not breaking new ground in Canada if we adopt this amendment.

The Province of Quebec has been operating such a plan whereby denturists can work on partial dentures with the provision of a certificate of oral health. I don’t know what is added by the certificate of oral health, but it is at least added insurance that someone who has been trained medically has examined the mouth and certifies at that time that the mouth is fit and proper to have a denture placed. I haven’t heard any public outcry come out of the Province of Quebec on account of denturists being able to do partial devices.

I don’t see why we in Ontario have to always be behind the rest of Canada. We’re forever in a catch-up process. It matters not whether we’re talking about wages or even the supplying of dentures; we’re always trying to catch up with somebody else. The province had a wonderful opportunity here when the denturists did such a good job of focussing public attention on a requirement that wasn’t being met in Ontario. The public out there is very well educated as to what we’re talking about here in this chamber. They know exactly what we’re saying. They know exactly what they’ve been getting. They have been getting this kind of service in the past, and I don’t see why we should take it upon ourselves to deny them that service.

In a letter dated June 3 and addressed to the Minister of Health, the Denturist Society of Ontario informed the minister that at a public meeting they had approved the following resolution with only one abstention -- and section (b) of that resolution reads:

“Bill 70, as it now stands, is unacceptable to this society so long as it unreasonably restricts denturists from providing those services to the public which the public have come to expect and have a right to receive.”

The public already has this service, Mr. Chairman. This bill is therefore not progressive; it is denying a service that has already been provided. The public has accepted it. There hasn’t been any public health problem that has been reported to this Legislature or to the minister. And if there has been something reported to the minister, now is the time to bring it forward.

Whenever you put a restriction on a person, you should have to justify it. There has yet to be any reason put. Even when the minister was denying them the right to do full dentures, he didn’t justify this action. He just said: “This is the law of the land and you will have to obey. You peasants just have to obey my laws. I don’t have to justify the law to the public or to you.”

Here he is, he is doing the same thing. The whole principle is wrong. He’s got to make his case. He couldn’t make a case and he couldn’t make it stick on a full denture; and I suspect he can’t make his case on this matter of a partial denture which we are talking about now, I think it is incumbent upon the ministry to justify its actions, and to this point it hasn’t done so.

It is for this reason, Mr. Chairman, that I suspect this bill is going to fail just as dismally as Bill 246 failed. The government can’t stand in the way of public opinion, and there is a wide body of public opinion out there which demands and sees the need of this service.

I cannot understand why the minister insists on denying this service. He tried to eliminate this service completely. He had to back off. He just backed off a little bit from the edge. He’s still close to the brink of destruction. There’s still no satisfaction out there from this bill.

I don’t know why this ministry insists on making trouble for itself. This ministry has been in trouble for the past three years. We go through Ministers of Health like popcorn. Why? Are they getting advice from the wrong people? Have these professional societies got him by the nose so that he can’t think for himself? Can’t he think on behalf of the people out there, or does he just think about these professional societies who put the thumbscrews on him? Are his advisers selling him down the river, or don’t they know?

He has an obligation to let this House know just what brings him to make these actions; because they are absolutely unacceptable the way he’s been bringing them in.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): When the parliamentary assistant comments on this, perhaps he can tell us when the government expects to get back to the position of the bill that was originally presented on the denturists, which in fact would have met the requirements of the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. As the parliamentary assistant recalls, initially the government did pro- pose that denturists would be able to practice directly with the public, then the government changed its mind in some embarrassment. It was a reversal of form which we’re more accustomed to see from this side of the House, from the opposition.

But at any rate, the government now is beginning to back-track. When is it going to come up with a reasonable kind of position? The position proposed by the amendment is reasonable. There may be other positions which may be reasonable; but what is proposed here and the distinctions that are made just aren’t.

It seems to me the government is still dancing to a tune which has been laid down by the dentists. It allows the dentists to abandon their low-cost scheme. Because of the pressure, it allows denturists to do certain things, but not others; and certainly not to practice fully within the kind of competence for which they will be qualified under the courses and the requirements laid down in this bill.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for London North.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, in rejecting the amendments proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, I really do not have to go through many of the arguments. The arguments have been well made and well founded by all sides in this particular issue, and it would be repetitious, certainly Mr. Chairman, other than to say there is a great deal of difference between installing a partial and installing a full plate into an edentulous arch; and I think that is recognized by the Leader of the Opposition, who suggested that those were the arguments against the partials being given to the denture therapists. However, in their particular opinion they have concluded the damage is not so great as to not allow it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There isn’t any indication of damage at all.

Mr. Walker: In this instance, of course, if you are fitting to live teeth there would be, as you indicated, the question of x-rays, which are not within the domain of the denture therapists but are beyond the skill and competence of what is anticipated of a denture therapist, certainly beyond the skill and competence of what they are tested for. And also things like drilling machinery and so on to attach to live teeth, this would start to really approach so much the domain of dentistry to be surely dentistry itself. For that reason the position being taken is that partials will not be permitted. In effect, the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition would accomplish that purpose and we’d have to reject that.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour -- all right.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary assistant is right when he said the arguments have been made. The arguments that the opposition has been making have proven true. The arguments that the government has been making for the past two years are not true. You haven’t been able to put up any defense against the position put up by the opposition, and that’s why you are backing off -- at least you are backing off a little bit -- because we were right from the beginning and we are still right as far as this issue is concerned.

You say they are going to be damaged. Have you any evidence? It’s incumbent upon you to present your evidence now. You just can’t stand there and say there is damage or there is danger. You haven’t shown us any danger. They are doing it in Quebec every day. I don’t know how many thousands a day they are doing. Are you going to try and tell me that Quebec is going to end up in trouble on account of this? We don’t see that. Have you any information to back up your statement that this is a dangerous practice to grant to denturists?

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, one has the ability, even being a layman, to come to conclusions as to what causes damage and what doesn’t cause damage in the form of oral care. In this particular case I am of the opinion that to extend to a partial route, to extend that far, and to allow x-raying and to allow drilling and to allow attaching of partials, which are complicated pieces of machinery, to live teeth is unwarranted and goes too far. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, those are the arguments.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, what --

Mr. Walker: I believe we are not the only province which does this. I believe Alberta, for instance, prohibits partials.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I think the point is well made by the hon. member for Sudbury. It is true that some jurisdictions don’t permit it; it is also true that some jurisdictions do; and try as we may, there has been no evidence indicated that it is dangerous to the oral health of the people in the province where this power is given.

I don’t want to be offensive to the hon. member for London North, but obviously he has come in here under orders from the Minister of Health, who was here just a minute ago but who somehow doesn’t want to be in the chamber when this matter is discussed, as if there is something nasty about talking about dentures and partials and that sort of thing. We are all sick of talking about it, but isn’t it strange that he has taken no part in this debate at all, other than to say to his junior: “No amendments.

Stonewall it. Just call for a vote as soon as you can and that’ll settle it and we’ll be well rid of it.” I really am offended at that attitude, because obviously there is no way that any amount of debate can convince an upwardly-mobile junior parliamentary assistant not to follow orders. Obviously he is going to follow orders, however long it takes, and we could be arguing that black was white or otherwise and it wouldn’t make any difference to him what the argument is because it is all settled.

I just want to register my objection, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the Minister of Health, who has been involved in all the negotiations and a few minutes ago was making an announcement pertaining to this following his meeting with the denturists over the weekend, isn’t in the House and by a matter of specific personal decision has absented himself. Really, while we are talking to an honourable gentleman, the member for London North, we are, in fact, talking to nobody who has the power to make any tiny change from the policy established by the minister who, somehow, doesn’t feel he should be here for this debate.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: I’d like to pursue this matter a little further if the parliamentary assistant insists. There is a procedure to get around these things you are worried about. You are worried about the denturists taking x-rays. There are jurisdictions which have a certificate of oral health procedure whereby the mouth is examined; presumably, if it is thought that x-rays are necessary, the x-rays would be done at that point in time and the person would come to the denturist with a certificate.

Mr. Walker: I thought you didn’t support that?

Mr. Germa: Certainly I support that. I don’t think it’s necessary but if that is the requirement necessary to convince you to allow this to happen, I would support that avenue.

Other jurisdictions have such a system; British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec have a certificate of oral health system in place and working. This will eliminate a lot of those hazards which you seem to be hung up on, or feel that there are going to be certain dangers.

I would also like to ask you to explain the minister’s statement on May 16 when he introduced these bills. I wonder if you recall what he said? “Experience elsewhere has shown that the oral bill of health procedure is impractical.” Where do all these statements come from, without any substantial evidence to prove them? Have you got some evidence to say that the certificate of oral health is impractical? “Experience elsewhere has shown -- ”

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): Those provinces are so far ahead you will never catch up.

Mr. Germa: Elsewhere? Where has it been shown? Where has it been shown that the certificate of oral health cannot work and does not work? We have three provinces already using them. Would not the certificate of oral health meet your fears that there could be damage done? Would the certificate of oral health not include an x-ray; or could it not include an x-ray? I suggest it could. I suggest the x-ray could come as part of the certificate of oral health.

It’s already been done in Ontario; you know that, I’m sure you know that. Voluntarily, the denturists went out and got the necessary arrangements made whereby people were coming in with certificates. Medical doctors were signing some certificates. Dentists were signing some certificates. With that kind of protection, you’ve got to come up with more evidence to prove you are acting on behalf of the public. I suspect you are not acting on behalf of the public. I suspect you are acting on behalf of one of the most vicious pressure groups in the province, the Ontario Dental Association.

You have eliminated over 50 per cent of the business of denturists by slipping in this one section which says they cannot do partials.

That’s over 50 per cent of their business and I think you knew that when the amendment was brought in.

I’d like you to answer those several questions about the certificate of oral health and why this could not eliminate the hazards you envisage. Also, maybe, you would reply on the minister’s statement that experience elsewhere has shown that the procedure is impractical -- that is, the procedure of a certificate of oral health.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I fail to see how any certificate of oral health has any connection whatsoever with the question of a partial. If the whole issue of partials relates to the complicated mechanical work, relates to the question of anchor, relates to the question of drilling the live teeth, how on earth can a certificate produced by somebody in advance of that person’s arrival at the denture therapist clinic have any purpose whatsoever? I fail to see the argument raised by the member.

As to the comments made by the member relative to the minister’s statement on May 16, the observation made by the minister was as a result of the studies conducted within our ministry in observation of other governments in Canada which have used this particular certificate of oral health or oral hygiene. It has been found really to serve very little purpose once the route of allowing denture therapists to practise unsupervised is pursued.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word on this.

I think the parliamentary assistant misses the point on the whole matter of the making of partials and an oral bill of health. As I said on second reading of the bill, the health of the existing teeth is what must be certified as well as the health of the mouth itself.

It is the existing teeth involved with the making of a partial denture which would have to be certified by someone who has the competence to x-ray -- this of course is involved -- who has the skill and competence to examine the oral cavity for any other problems that might exist.

So the whole matter relates itself to the licensed denture therapist not only doing the mechanical work, taking the impressions for which he is duly trained and for which he will be licensed under the laws laid down by the government and with the training laid down by the government. One aspect of it that certainly must be carried out is the making of the partial by the person involved to suit whatever condition exists there as far as the making and filling in the vacancies is concerned. Certainly he is well qualified to do that end of it because those who have been doing it for years as licensed dental technicians do it on nothing more than a prescription from the dentist; this is simply a matter of saying fill in certain vacancies in the mouth and attach it here and there according to the prescription. So the person who has been trained up to now, licensed as a registered dental technician, has been doing it just on a piece of paper, a prescription.

Now if he receives from the dentist a certificate of oral health this would include not only the health of the mouth but the health of the existing teeth. If there is a remote chance there may have to be some drilling work done on the existing teeth to fit the partial, this would be part of the oral health certificate that would come from the dentist to the licensed denture therapist. The dentist’s certificate would say that the mouth is in fine condition to receive a partial plate, the teeth are firm and solid and they are okay, and in his opinion they are suitable to have a partial plate attached.

The argument you will probably come back with is: Who is going to be responsible for the partial plate? Well, the licensed denture therapist will have to take complete responsibility for the application which he has made. The dentists will have to take responsibility for the oral bill of health -- that his x-rays were read properly, that those teeth were solid and healthy and that if he himself were making the partial he would put it on those teeth as they now exist.

I know what your problem is. Your problem is you can’t get the co-operation of the dentists to give an oral bill of health. Why don’t you start working on that problem?

Mr. Walker: I think it goes beyond that, Mr. Chairman. The member for Waterloo North has suggested that in this particular situation the dentist would provide some type of certificate which would say that the teeth are healthy and accordingly can accept whatever necessary anchor there is. Well if there is to be drilling, who does the drilling? Does the dentist provide a hole in the tooth before it arrives or does the denture therapist provide the drilling? In that particular case, I think that extends beyond the scope I prefer to see denture therapists involved in and certainly that is the position within the ministry.

It raises other questions as well, Mr. Chairman. When I indicated that it hasn’t worked in other jurisdictions, experience has shown that the patients themselves do not want this joint approach of some type of oral certificate. Primarily this is because it splits the responsibility between, on one hand, obviously, a dentist, and on the other hand, obviously, a denture therapist. It is something that is not particularly desirable when one can say: “Well, it was his responsibility to say the tooth was sound;” or the denturist could say: “It was his responsibility to make sure that he was drilling in the right spot;” or whatever. Secondly, there is an additional cost involved: There would be a visit to a dentist and perhaps an x-ray to get some kind of certificate to say that the teeth are sound and so on. Then there would be a second visit to a denture therapist for the plate to be made and the partial to be anchored by drilling or whatever it might be.

I think, all in all, it divides the responsibility in a way that is really not proper, not functional and really would serve no purpose. In the situation today, the public now have the option, if they wish, to go to a dentist and have the teeth prepared in their own way, as it was before. They also have the option to go to one of the low-cost denture services if cost is a factor and yet they still wish to have the services of a dental surgeon. They have the further option of going to a denture therapist who is a supervised denture therapist in the case of a partial. Or they have the option of going to a denture therapist if it is anything but a partial. I think that covers the spectrum.

Mr. Chairman: I will put the question then.

Those in favour of Mr. Nixon’s motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack this?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We will stack this.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments, questions or amendments on any later part of section 1? Anything before section 2?

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: Yes. On section 1?

Mr. Germa: I would like to move an amendment to section 1, but with this other amendment stacked I just don’t know how it will function.

Mr. Chairman: This amendment is to section 1(l). Is yours to a different section?

Mr. Germa: This amendment would be to the same section. I was working on the premise that this amendment by the Leader of the Opposition would be defeated.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Gee, I don’t think you should assume that.

Mr. Germa: For some reason I had that premise.

Mr. Breithaupt: I understand that it has been our view that subsections of sections can be amended and that the passing or defeat of one subsection has not meant that the section is automatically carried. So in particular areas, such as this kind of a section, where there are many subsections, the matters can still be dealt with separately.

Mr. Chairman: Providing it is a different matter.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member acquaint us with the content of his amendment so we might rule whether it is the same thing in different words or whether it is entirely new?

Mr. Germa: It has a little variation, Mr. Chairman, but it is definitely on the same section.

Mr. Germa moves, seconded by Mr. Deans, that section 1(i) of Bill 70 be amended by adding at the end of item (i) the words: And any removable partial prosthetic denture where such denture is necessary to oppose any complete upper or complete lower prosthetic denture; and by adding the same words after the word “arch” in item (ii) and by adding the same words after the word “both” in item (iii).

Mr. Chairman: To me that is not a significantly different amendment to the one proposed by Mr. Nixon --

Mr. Germa: It is different, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: -- except that it refers to it as being opposite a full set of teeth on the other half of the mouth.

Mr. Germa: I wonder if I could explain the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I think I understand it. Possibly you haven’t caught the difference in the two amendments.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is the one from the letter to the denturists.

Mr. Germa: The first amendment would provide --

An hon. member: Have you got an extra copy?

Mr. Germa: I only have the two copies. I sent one to the Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the first amendment provided that a denturist could work on a partial denture at any time or any moment. This amendment which I have presented would provide that a denturist would be able to work on a partial denture where it occludes only to a full upper or lower denture. I think the denturist society explained it quite well.

Mr. Walker: That is the same thing.

Mr. Germa: Not really.

Mr. Walker: It is the same thing as the Leader of the Opposition moved.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, it is not quite the same.

Mr. Germa: Let me go through this again, Mr. Chairman. The first amendment would call for a denturist to be able to work on a partial denture at any time, regardless of the state of the other parts of the mouth. The amendment I would present would provide that a denturist would be able to work on a partial denture only when it occludes to a full upper or a full lower.

This is the reason I want to do this. Can you imagine the dilemma a person is going to be in, when he needs a full plate in one arch and he needs a partial in the other arch? He decides to go to his denturist to get his full plate and then he is forced to go to a dentist’s office to get his partial plate. How do these two mechanics, working at arm’s length from one another, maybe in two different cities, ever bring these two dentures together so that they would fit and occlude one to the other? Can you not see this man running back and forth between his denturist’s office and his dentist’s office with his teeth in his pocket probably?

This amendment tries to bring some sanity in this world, to the whole operation, so this person wouldn’t have to gallop back and forth.

I know what your intention is. By having this restriction, you are going to force the man into the dentist’s office to get the full plate and the partial made in the dentist’s chair. Presumably some people will do that, but there are some people who for various reasons will not bend to your wishes. You are going to make life very difficult for them in order to get these two separate jobs done; namely a full denture to occlude to a partial denture. I think it is important.

In the letter that I had -- I don’t have it with me right now -- that is what it is supposed to accomplish, and I think it is a reasonable request.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I have studied the wording of both amendments. If Mr. R. F. Nixon’s motion were to pass, that would certainly include what you are doing here. So I see no difference in the final amendment.

Mr. Germa: That was my original hesitation to present it, Mr. Chairman. I was working on the premise that the first resolution would be defeated. Certainly if the first amendment passes, then there is no need for mine. This is what I was trying to settle with you when I first started.

Mr. Chairman: The same thing would be true if it were defeated, I would say.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, this is worded differently.

Mr. Chairman: No, I rule that it is not sufficiently different to place it separately.

Mr. Germa: I think, Mr. Chairman, you haven’t been listening to what I was talking about. Shall I repeat it and maybe you can get through your head what I was talking about?

Mr. Chairman: No, it is not necessary to repeat it.

Mr. Germa: There is a difference in those two amendments and I am asking you to recognize them.

Mr. Walker: There is no difference.

Mr. Germa: There is a difference.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They can be voted on at the same time.

Mr. Germa: Now can I go through it again?

Mr. Chairman: We can vote on it as an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Germa: If I can see the difference, certainly you should be able to.

Mr. Chairman: In my opinion, if the bill passes, in other words if the present section 1(1) stands as it is here, there is really nothing new being said in the amendment of the member for Sudbury that isn’t said in Mr. R. F. Nixon’s amendment.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): On a point of order, if I may: Is it not possible for the amendment to be put as a subamendment, for the subamendment to be placed before the amendment? Therefore, if it carries, then obviously the amendment would carry as amended. Rather than spend half an hour wrangling about it, why don’t you just put it as a subamendment and allow the vote to be taken?

Mr. Chairman: If the members are willing to have it placed as a subamendment up to Mr. R. F. Nixon’s amendment we could deal with it that way. We’ll consider it as a subamendment, an amendment to Mr. R. F. Nixon’s amendment.

Mr. Deans: Thank you, you do know the difference.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any comment? Shall we stack this then too?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We haven’t really voted on it.

Mr. Chairman: We haven’t really voted.

Those in favour of Mr. Germa’s motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Mr. Deans: We will stack that.

Mr. Chairman: I haven’t seen five members stand up yet. It’s defeated then.

Any further comment in the first section? All right, section 2. Any comment, question or amendment?

On section 2:

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, section 2 establishes a governing board for denture therapists and subsection 2 says: “The board shall be composed of three members representing the public interest and six denture therapists.”

I would presume that the six denture therapists would have to be selected from those who are now holders of the certificate in denture therapy. In other words, that large group of people to which this bill really specifically applies, the denturists, will not be eligible for inclusion in that board until they have taken the course, passed the examination and are certificated as denture therapists. So the board, to begin with -- and it could continue for a considerable length of time -- would be made up of three govern- mental appointees, possibly including a dentist -- that would be the responsibility of the Ministry of Health -- plus six present denture therapists, who have, let’s say, lived directly under the requirements of the present law which is being amended by the provisions of the bill now before us.

I have been in contact with a number of present denture therapists. I know they are well organized and they are, as far as I know, very much in favour of the amendments that are presently before us. They realize, as does the government, as do the members of the Legislature and the community, that we cannot continue with the supervision under the statute as it presently is without amendment.

But I simply draw to your attention, sir, that under the provisions of subsection 2 of section 2, no present denturist would be eligible to sit on that governing council. I’m not proposing, in an amendment that I’ll put before you in a moment, that they should sit on that council as denturists per se without having taken the course and obtaining the qualifications to allow them to become denture therapists, or that we should try to dislocate the procedures unduly. I do feel, however, that the board itself would have difficulty in commanding the allegiance and respect of the present denturists if, by the statute, they were prohibited from occupying a position on that board. I have swithered in my own mind as to just how it could best be accommodated. I want to say a little more about it, but I would like to move my amendment at this time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon moves that section 2, subsection 2, be amended by striking out the words “six denture therapists” in the second line and adding the words “three denture therapists and three members of the Denturist Society of Ontario licensed to practice denture therapy.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’m not at all sure that this would meet the requirements of everybody concerned. But it would, in fact, recognize that large group of people presently known as denturists, who have been practicing illegally under the present statute for many months. I think it would recognize the fact that the bill is designed to accommodate them, and they in turn have indicated they are prepared to take the proper courses, try the examinations and if successful operate as denture therapists. It would be an indication that we in this House recognize their special position in this governing council. It, in fact, might not be necessary to continue this special adaptation without some limit. But certainly when we are establishing the procedures as they presently are, it is an indication of our recognition of the special status of the present denturists.

I would urge the minister to give some consideration to this amendment. If he has an alternative procedure, I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment and hear what he has to say. But I do believe we would be making a mistake if we constituted a board which, de facto, excludes the present denturists.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment. It is abundantly clear in this latest adventure into the problem we’ve been having with the denturists that the government has done everything it can to subdue the Denturists Society as we know it in Ontario today.

Even as late as last week, the minister sent out letters to each individual member of the Denturists Society trying to incite them against their leadership, I don’t know why the ministry has treated this one organization so. Of all the organizations in Ontario this one has been handled a little bit worse than any I’ve ever seen.

In this bill, the government has completely ignored the fact that the denturist has brought this service to the people of Ontario, has educated the people of Ontario into using this and demanding this kind of service. Now, when it comes time to write legislation, the government completely ignores what they’ve done. It ignores their expertise, it ignores their experience and any other of the things which they might bring to bear upon it. As an organization, they have no voice or say in what’s going on.

Does the minister think that by ignoring them completely they’re going to go away? They’ll just disappear? They’ll curl up in the dust? He shouldn’t be so naive. They are a well-knit and cohesive group. Even though the minister sent out this letter to subvert them they still voted unanimously to take the position they did. Yet the government continues on its merry way, forever pounding these people the way it is doing.

I am very pleased we will be able to support this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to speak briefly with respect to the amendment which has been made by my leader. I think we will all be better off as soon as the various apparently competing groups of dentists, denture therapists and denturists begin to -- I was going to say pull together but I don’t think that’s the right phrase I should use. What I think I should say is a good amount of spirit and interest has been shown, particularly within our community, as unfortunately the divisions in this health service area have been more and more sharpened by comments back and forth.

There have been great public involvements. Of course, it is true and unfortunate, as my leader has said, that certain persons have felt their only obligation or the only possible way they could make an impression on the public interest is to defy the law. This, of course, is most unfortunate because I am certain no one would wish to do this unless driven to it by forces which that person felt he was no longer able to control.

I think we have the opportunity in this amendment to bring some of the goodwill back into this whole situation. If the minister is prepared to consider this amendment, those who have been operating as denturists and who then qualify will, perhaps, come to the conclusion that they are not going to be looked down upon or not dealt with partially or unfairly by this board composed of other persons.

I think that it is likely that only one of the three members suggested at the present time is going to be a denturist. I presume we should bring in the other two groups, as well as the public, by having the situation as set out in my leader’s amendment accepted by the government.

We have the opportunity of getting this group together in a feeling of balance and goodwill so that the future development of this entire area will be done in a balanced and adequate way for the health care of the people of the province and in the best interests of all concerned. I hope that the parliamentary assistant will consider accepting this amendment, even though this amendment may be necessary only for a few years and could be changed at some time in the future.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, I just might refer the House to section 1(e) of the Act, where it defines a denture therapist, meaning a person licensed under the Act to engage in -- and so on. That covers all the categories.

That’s further defined in subsection i of section 1, where it defines licensed to mean, firstly, licensed to “engage in the practice of denture therapy;” or secondly, “the practice of supervised denture therapy;” or thirdly, it also “includes a provisional licence.”

Now that we have been advised, just this morning, by the denturist society -- on unanimous agreement, I may say -- that they are prepared to take the examination scheduled for August, then I think the arrangements or the procedures established under provisional licensing, covered in section 4(7) further on in the Act, will provide a sufficient vehicle by which these individuals can find themselves on the board.

Now, here is the procedure, as we know it, with respect to the 137 denture therapists who have now taken the three sets of examinations, if they wish to be independent of supervision -- they are now, of course, supervised denture therapists. Within the period of one month following the proclamation of the bill -- which will not occur until after the August examinations -- within one month, if they wish to be provisionally licensed, they will have to make application for the provisional licence as an unsupervised denture therapist. That is for a once-in-a-lifetime period of six months, so that after they have successfully completed the courses that have been laid down, they then can receive their permanent licence.

With respect to those within the Denturist Society of Ontario -- and we have a known list of about 103; though I believe there might well be more than that; it has been said of upwards of 200 -- they will have to take the examinations in August; which, of course, are under Bill 246, the 1972 Denture Therapist Act.

When they have taken the examinations -- and they have now unanimously agreed as a result of their meeting on Sunday to take those examinations -- they then will be in the same position as the present-day supervised denture therapists. They too can make application within one month. They must do it within the one-month period for this so-styled provisional licence.

Therefore, within one month, and conceivably within a very few days following the successful completion of examinations in August, we will have a category of people with provisional licences. This will include the 137 we now have as having passed examinations, plus all those who will take the examinations in August. That, in theory, should be the entire group of denturists of the Denturist Society of Ontario.

From that group the governing board of denture therapists can be composed of three members representing the lay interest, and of course, six denture therapists. At that point in time there will be not only the 137, but perhaps something approaching a further 200 additional denture therapists. Therefore, they are all in the same category and they are all then eligible.

I would assume that the government would like to keep its options open as to the number. Rather than saying three and three -- three of the old 137 and three of the new 200 -- perhaps it should be four of the new 200 and only two of the denture therapists.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If you would like to change it that way, that is fine.

Mr. Walker: All I’m saying is the options will be left open at this point. The Lieutenant Governor in Council will have the opportunity of appointing the six denture therapists, which will come from a list of some 337 perhaps, and they will include the entire grouping of the Denturist Society of Ontario. I would assume that a certain number of people from the Denturist Society of Ontario will find themselves on the board.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would assume so too, Mr. Chairman. Yet when the parliamentary assistant says that after that date in August they in fact will all have the same qualifications there is this difference: Two hundred of them will have gone through the refining fire of the last few months by virtue of their membership in and allegiance to the concepts and principles of the Denturist Society of Ontario, If you think about it you will realize that is a qualification that no one else can have -- that these people have fought a good fight and they have taken substantial personal risks.

If there is any way that we can, in this legislation, reassure them that their governance is not going to be in the hands of those who did not take their course of action, and therefore might have a somewhat different attitude towards the professional aspects and scope of their profession, we should do so. Thus the big difference that cannot be expunged by legislation is that the present members and members at that time of the Denturist Society of Ontario have a qualification that others simply cannot match. You see the difference?

Mr. Walker: I see the difference. We will find ourselves in a position where there may be no people within one particular category. You’re suggesting a three on three and --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If you want to make it four and two that’s all right.

Mr. Walker: All right, but you’re talking about three denture therapists. They will all be denture therapists after August.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But they won’t all be members of the Denturist Society of Ontario.

Mr. Walker: So what you’re saying is that all 337 will be eligible for three seats and the other 200 will be eligible for three seats.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s right; that’s exactly right.

Mr. Walker: I think that gets into some very confusing situations. In fact one of the groups may well disappear. We may find ourselves having to come back to increase it to six, because the denture therapists who are the 137 presently in existence may well join the Denturist Society of Ontario if it continues. Therefore, they will all be Denturist Society of Ontario and we’re stuck with the other three.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Fine -- so?

Mr. Walker: Or the Denturist Society of Ontario may well regroup itself into one large group and we’d be stuck finding some people from the Denturist Society. I think, in this case, we have to rely on the good grace of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to ensure that the various groups are properly represented.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Your advice has been very gracious in this area.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, I don’t accept the parliamentary assistant’s premise that everybody is going to be a denture therapist after August.

Mr. Walker: If they want to be independent this is how they can be independent.

Mr. Germa: There are going to be two kinds of denture therapists. If you look at the definition of denture therapist it means a person licenced under this Act to engage in the practice of denture therapy or the practice of supervised denture therapy. This is precisely the point.

Mr. Walker: But look at the definition of licence on the next page.

Mr. Germa: No, the supervised denture therapist is a different bird altogether from the denturist who has been operating as an independent all these years. I suggest to you that even though one is called a supervised denture therapist and the other person just a denture therapist, there is a great difference between these two people. The method of remuneration is entirely different and they might have a different outlook and a different attitude. One person is working for wages and the other person, to all intents and purposes, is a business person. He is running his own business as a denturist.

I can see a danger regardless of who takes over the board. Until this thing settles out like you say, if these people all amalgamate at some future date so be it, but I suspect these two birds have different feathers completely, and the other person is a man or a person who works for wages, he is not engaged in the practice of denture therapy as a business, he’s doing it as a job, as a means of earning a wage. There’s a big difference there in these two people.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I don’t see the difference in feathers between the two. I really think that many of their interests are identical, but even if there were differences in feathers, I think it’s fair to say that many boards do well because there are diverse opinions on the boards.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. --

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, just one more point, and that is I would suggest to the parliamentary assistant that he does consider the possibility that certain goodwill can result if, in the initial appointments that are made, a balance is struck so that those who have been members of the Denturist Society and those who have become denture therapists both feel they are sufficiently well represented that one is not going to get a possible advantage over the other. I think it’s going to take some time to build up the goodwill of working together in this professional health care area.

I would certainly encourage the parliamentary assistant to pass on our views to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and that, with the difference in numbers of approximately 200 to 100, some balance could likewise be struck initially in the appointments, because of the backgrounds of the particular persons involved, perhaps on a four to two relationship. This might bring about some goodwill and leave a -- I don’t dare say it -- good taste in the mouths of all who are involved in this legislation.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Nixon’s motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Shall we stack this with the others?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, stack it.

Mr. Chairman: Anything on section 3? Anything on any other section before subsection 8 of section 4?

Mr. Germa: Section 3(2)(b) -- could I ask a question? That’s on page 5.

Mr. Chairman: There is no section 3(2)(b).

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Section 4(2)(b).

Mr. Chairman: You can ask a question.

Mr. Germa: I am sorry. If I may ask a question on 4(2)(b). That’s where it is.

Section 3 agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: In 4(2)(a) it tells us that the registration committee will conduct examinations and prescribe fees, and then (b) says that they “may exempt an applicant from any licensing requirement.” I can’t envisage why at any point in time you would grant a licence to a man who has not faced any of the regulations which are laid down. Maybe the parliamentary assistant could explain why it is necessary to have that disclaimer clause in there. It sounds dangerous to me.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, this has been picked up from the Health Disciplines Act and is identical to the wording in the various five parts of phase one of the Health Disciplines Act. In fact, I can refer him to section 32(2) of the Health Disciplines Act, on dentistry. You’ll find precisely the same words applying there. It’s an attempt to have uniformity.

My suspicions are that there will be very few occasions, indeed if any, that would have this particular situation apply. However, in an effort to have uniformity and consistency, this is identical with all the other portions of the Health Disciplines Act which cover a discipline.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, just saying that there will be very few or maybe none -- why do we leave this door wide open so that it could happen, that the registration committee could grant a licence to a person such as myself who knows nothing about the business?

Mr. Walker: You have to take the examination.

Mr. Germa: I beg your pardon?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You don’t have to worry about that.

Mr. Walker: It is just strictly consistency, Mr. Chairman, and merely picking up all the words. The only argument that is valid in this case --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: His campaign chairman might want to be licensed.

Mr. Walker: Yes, when you are ready you can make an application and we’ll see if it is not possible to licence you.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, you haven’t explained why it is here. All you do is refer to the Health Disciplines Act and you say it’s for consistency. Will you tell me why it is in the Health Disciplines Act then? Why would you want an opening to license a person who doesn’t meet any requirements?

Mr. Walker: Of course, as the member has quite correctly said, that went through the Health Disciplines Act, was vetted very carefully by the standing committee on social development, an all-party committee, and was deemed appropriate by them to be maintained in the Act. I understand there were no objections raised by opposition members on this particular portion of each of the parts of the Health Disciplines Act, and certainly I believe nothing was raised relative to section 32, which dealt with dentistry.

As to why it should be there or why the committee saw fit to put it in, I wasn’t privy to the arguments and there has been no transcript kept of those particular arguments. I can’t give you the reasons, other than to say I rather suspect that there may be some circumstance or some occasion some day where it seems appropriate to pursue this course of action. I can think of some circumstances where professors of law are admitted to the Law Society of Upper Canada without having practised and without having gone through a period of articles. I have always wondered about it myself, particularly when I was going to school there. However, in some cases it was deemed appropriate and the discretion was exercised -- and presumably in the right direction. In this case the same thing is available to the governing board of denture therapy.

Mr. Breithaupt: You might want to designate somebody an honorary denture therapist.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this subsection stand as part of the bill? Carried.

Anything further before subsection 8? If not, the hon. parliamentary assistant has an amendment on section 4(8).

Mr. Walker: Section 4(8), Mr. Chairman, deals with the courses of study, and my amendment will eliminate the word “taken” and replace it with the words “successfully completed,” which is at the request of the Ontario Dental Association. I think it is a reasonable request.

Mr. Walker moves that section 4(8) of the bill be amended by striking out “taken” in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof “successfully completed.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on section 4?

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments, questions or amendments on the next four sections? If not, the hon. parliamentary assistant on section 9.

Sections 5 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 9:

Mr. Walker moves that section 9(2)(a) of the bill be amended by adding after “committee” in the second line “or to the executive committee for the purposes of section 11(a).”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on section 9?

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. parliamentary assistant has an amendment to section 10.

On section 10:

Mr. Walker moves that section 10 of the bill be amended by renumbering subsection 4 as 5 and by adding thereto the following subsection:

(4) Where a quorum of the discipline committee commences a hearing and the member thereof who represents the public interest is unable to continue to act, the remaining members may complete the hearing notwithstanding his absence.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on section 10?

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. parliamentary assistant has an amendment to section 11.

On section 11:

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, my amendment to section 11 is in the form of a new section 11(a); and 11(a) of course falls immediately after section 11(10) and prior to section 12.

I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Are you going to read the whole thing? Could it be agreed that it be put into the record?

Mr. Walker: I am prepared to dispense with reading it?

Mr. Chairman: Could we take it as having been read? Is that agreed by the committee? Agreed.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could have a few brief remarks on this matter, as this attempts to delineate the move from the disciplinary committee to the board of inquiry. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant could comment briefly on it and that might save some questions or comments from this side?

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, when it was decided that capacity or incapacity should become subject matter of the Denture Therapists Act -- this was subsequent to the bill having been printed, of course, for the first time -- it was picked out word for word from section 38(1) of the Health Disciplines Act, which has already gone through the committee stage. From a content point of view it is word for word from the Health Disciplines Act; for particular reference, 38(1) of that Act.

The decision was made on reflection that capacity or incapacity should become the subject matter of the Denture Therapists Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The next amendment is to section 13. Is there anything on section 12?

On section 12:

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, I would just like to ask a couple of questions with respect to section 12. Of course, it is important that there are proper appeal procedures in these matters.

What I would like to know from the parliamentary assistant is if he can advise us of the kind of persons he foresees being named to this appeal board. In the earlier sections, Mr. Chairman, we had set out the matter of a governing board of denture therapists which attempts, so we are told, to balance the public interest with persons who are particularly well versed in the area of the work itself.

I wonder if we can get any guidance as to who is expected to form -- that is, by general view -- the appeal board? Obviously, names are not wanted; but I wonder if it is the intention, for example, to have perhaps a dentist, a medical doctor, a lawyer; how do you intend to do this when you will be dealing with some particularly difficult areas which may cross the bounds, especially when you are looking at matters of incompetence or inability to continue a practice? Are you going to involve a psychiatrist or are you going to involve a medical doctor, as I have said? How do you see the thing developing and what sort of areas are you going to be looking to for appointments to this appeal board?

Mr. Walker: The appeal board, Mr. Chairman, will be the same people, will be the same individuals, as the Health Disciplines Board. It is anticipated that Bill 70, this Denture Therapists Bill, will be proclaimed some time late in August or the first of September; about that time. Subsequent to that, Bill 22, which is the Health Disciplines Act, will be proclaimed. The Health Disciplines Board, established under the Health Disciplines Act, is an appeal body and that appeal body will become precisely the same individual body as the Denture Therapist Appeal Board.

It will bear no relationship whatsoever to denture therapists. The board, I understand, will bear little if any resemblance -- I think it is fair to say no resemblance -- to any of the health disciplines.

As I understand the situation, the individuals to be appointed to the Health Disciplines Board will not be health discipline people. Lawyers therefore are eligible.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, I wasn’t thinking of putting in an application myself. It is interesting to see how you are proceeding to attempt eventually to tie these things together. It has taken obviously as many years as there are in the history of the province to have the various professions in the health field working and co-ordinating well, and hopefully better, their efforts as they develop, especially when it gets to the very difficult areas of discipline within a profession. I’m encouraged by your views of having the same general persons involved, sitting in appeal from the other health disciplines, being included here. It seems a good start.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 12 stand as part of the bill?

Section 12 agreed to.

On section 13:

Mr. Chairman: Section 13, the parliamentary assistant has an amendment.

Mr. Walker moves that clause (b) of subsection 1 of section 13 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

(b) submit an annual report on its activities to the minister and which shall include such additional information as the minister may require, and the minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant General in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next ensuing session.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Walker moves that subsection 2 of section 13 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

(2) the board may obtain expert or professional advice in connection with a hearing or complaint, but the adviser shall be a person independent of

(a) the parties in the case of a hearing or

(b) the complainant and the member complained against in the case of a complaint; and in the case of a hearing the nature of the advice shall be made known to the parties in order that they may make submissions as to the advice.

Motion agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

On section 14:

Mr. Chairman: The parliamentary assistant has an amendment to section 14.

Mr. Walker moves that subsection 2 of section 14 of the bill be amended by striking out:

“and the licensee an opportunity to make representations” in the 11th and 12th lines; and inserting in lieu thereof the words, “an opportunity to state his complaint and the licensee an opportunity to state his answer thereto, either personally, by his agent or in writing.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 15 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 20:

Mr. Chairman: Any other further comments, questions or amendments before we get to section 20? If not, the parliamentary assistant has an amendment to section 20, subsection 1.

Mr. Walker moves that subsection 1 of section 20 of the bill be amended by striking out the words “or cancellation” in the fifth line.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further amendments to section 20?

Mr. Walker moves that subsection 2 of section 20 of the bill be amended by inserting after the word “committee” in the second line, the words “or where the revocation or suspension was on the grounds of incapacity to the registration committee.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

On section 21:

Mr. Chairman: We have an amendment to section 21.

Mr. Walker moves that subsection 1 of section 21 of the bill be amended by striking out “or that any premises are being used by any person to engage in the practice of denture therapy without being licensed under this Act” in the third, fourth and fifth lines.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Just one comment. What is the effect of striking out those words? Does it simply mean that there cannot be the kind of raid on a suspected malpractice situation that has been sort of a tradition in the dentist’s powers over a number of years? What does this accomplish?

Mr. Walker: If I can answer the Leader of the Opposition, this applies strictly to off-licensed or non-licensed premises. Wherever there is a licensed premises or licensed person, those premises can be investigated as may be required. However, for anyone else -- any other non-licensed premises -- they could not be subject to a raid or an investigation as suggested here by section 21.

No other Act has this particular provision, and frankly, this goes a bit far to allow for non-licensed premises to be subject to some type of raiding. In effect, if these words were allowed to remain in section 21, that would mean that perhaps any member’s home here could be subject to a raid by the registrar or the committee that was under him -- civil rights.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How would that happen?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): We haven’t had that in the statutes for about 50 years.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. parliamentary assistant on the next subsection.

Mr. Walker moves that subsection 2 of section 21 of the bill be amended by striking out the words “or the premises that he believes upon reasonable and probable grounds are being used to engage in the practice of denture therapy by a person without a licence under this Act” in the seventh, eighth and ninth lines.

Motion agreed to.

Section 21, as amended agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments, questions or amendments before we get to section 30?

Mr. Germa: Section 26.

On section 26:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: I’d like to ask the parliamentary assistant about the fines section. Section 26 provides penalties for illegal practice. It provides that there be a fine of $2,000 for the first offence, and a fine of $2,000 or six months for the second offence.

When I compare that with other jurisdictions, Mr. Chairman, it just makes me shudder that our penalty clause should be so much more severe than other jurisdictions who have had these people operating for many years. Alberta, for instance, I understand has had these people legally operating for 11 or 12 years.

I would point out that for the first offence of illegal practice in Alberta, the maximum fine is $50, and second offence is $100. In Manitoba, the first offence for illegal practice is $200 to $500, and the second offence is $500 to $1,000. In British Columbia, the first offence is $200 to $500, and the second offence is $500 to $1,000. Our penalty is four times more severe than even the most severe jurisdiction that I’ve mentioned; and Alberta, which has had the most experience in this, has seen fit to have only a penalty clause of $50.

Have you got a bunch of desperadoes down there that you’re trying to control, or is this just another indication of your attitude toward these denturists that you’re going to clobber them and really subdue them? Could you try to justify penalty clauses which are so out of line with the other jurisdictions in the country?

Mr. Walker: I think it’s unfair, Mr. Chairman, to contrast the penalty sections for contraventions of the Denture Therapists Act with contraventions of similar Acts in other jurisdictions in Canada. It would be better to treat the denture therapists as a new discipline, which they are, and to treat them in similar fashion with other disciplines that we have in the province. In fact, if you will observe the maximum fine for the first offence in the case of dentistry, under section 43 of the Health Disciplines Act the amount is $5,000. Although it is fair to say that each discipline is peculiar and has to be treated on its own, nevertheless some relationship should be given to other disciplines within the jurisdiction of Ontario and not with jurisdictions, in my opinion, in other jurisdictions in Canada.

Secondly, the hon. member waved the figure of $2,000, flagging it as a substantial figure. But it must be kept in mind that a judge, who on hearing a particular case involving a contravention, will make the decision as to the amount, but he can not exceed $2,000. There may be a circumstance where $2,000 is warranted. But on the other hand, there may be a circumstance where something far less than that is appropriate, and I’m sure the trial judge in his discretion will properly exercise it.

Section 26 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments before we get to section 30? If not, the parliamentary assistant on section 30.

On section 30:

Mr. Walker moves that section 30 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“No licensee is liable to any action arising out of negligence or malpractice in respect to professional services requested or rendered, unless such action is commenced within one year from the date when the person commenced the action, knew or ought to have known the fact or facts upon which he alleges negligence or malpractice.”

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to that?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: I can’t find any logical sense in amending section 30, which was an advanced step to the old section 30, and substituting this new one.

Probably, the amendment emanates from the remarks made by Julian Porter, when the Health Disciplines -- no, it doesn’t. A head is being shaken at me from under the gallery. However, there is a man named Julian Porter who appeared before the committee dealing with the Health Disciplines Act, and he found it a terrible thing that those doctors and hospitals should be held on the hook a little longer than a year, and that power should be given to the courts even to extend the period beyond that.

I think the limitation period of one year is far too small, far too short, and I can see no advantage at all in taking away from the courts the discretion that was given to them in section 30 as it is printed.

The minister’s assistant is going to argue that the words “or ought to have known” perhaps are a sufficient safeguard. Well, the hon. member who is putting the bill before the House is a lawyer, and he knows that the courts get very technical about analysing the words “or ought to have known.” Then, the onus is thrown upon the complainant to establish that he didn’t know and there was no reason that he ought to have known, and it is a very serious onus.

I don’t think, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment is appropriate. If it goes through, we are going to be told, “Well, you are a member, you accepted it in Bill 70, so why should you argue against it in the Health

Disciplines Act?”

I am going to argue against it in the Health Disciplines Act when that comes before committee of the whole House. I think it’s wrong in principle. I think the limitation period should be extended rather than limited and I think that there should be a discretion left to the courts to further extend if the court feels that there is some reason to extend it -- not that the onus should be put on the complainant to prove there was no reason that he ought to have known.

For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, we are going to oppose this amendment to section 30.

Mr. Walker: Mr. Chairman, I understand there was some confusion alleged within the health disciplines discussions in the social development committee, which brought about a reworking of the section to clarify a nebulous situation. The result was, of course, this particular section which we have picked up from the Health Disciplines Act, in particular section 17 of the Health Disciplines Act.

This having been picked up from the Health Disciplines Act, I would assume first of all that if the member is successful in arguing the cause and changing the Health Disciplines Act that no doubt if that amendment is accepted, an amendment in this particular case would be made to make a consistency from one to another, as this entire Act is merely meant to lay the groundwork or pave the situation for ultimately becoming one of the parts of the Health Disciplines Act. Everything is attempted to try to achieve absolute consistency, wherever possible, with the Health Disciplines Act that, of course, has gone through the committee stage and is yet to arrive here for third reading.

Mr. Singer: Yet to arrive here for committee of the whole House.

Mr. Walker: Yes, and if the change occurs in the House relative to that, then I would assume there would be a change made in this at some appropriate time. On the question of the prescription period, I tend to agree that the government is a bit amiss in not having a consistent prescription period in all matters in which there is legislation relating to prescriptions.

For instance, motor vehicle accidents dealing with hospitals or dealing with municipal corporations or whatever it might be, whether it is one year or two years -- I am not really addressed in my own mind and concluded in any significant way -- however, I do feel that it should be consistent from one Act to the other so that everybody knows that there is a prescription period in which to allege the malpractice.

I would think that the local registrar could well have some authority to extend this one-year period not unlike motor-vehicle situations where --

Mr. Singer: Registrar of what? The Supreme Court?

Mr. Walker: -- the local registrar of the Supreme Court, where there appears to be dealings or circumstances that specifically warrant the extension. I think if there is a dealing with an insurance company, a local registrar in a motor-vehicle situation would extend the one-year prescription period. I would think that he has that authority.

Mr. Singer: No, he has no such power.

Mr. Walker: Well, I thought my reading of the rules of practice suggested that he had that. However, I may be incorrect.

Mr. Singer: No, you are one day beyond the prescription period; you are out.

Mr. Walker: Well, in any case, it is the issue of --

Mr. Singer: Out, out, out.

Mr. Walker: -- consistency here and picking this up from the Health Disciplines Act I think in this situation is absolutely warranted.

Mr. Singer: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that the member for London North has given his amendment a very bad defence. What he is saying, in effect, is because there was some worry in the standing committee about the limitation period, and because Julian Porter did, in fact, have his way -- and let’s remember who Julian Porter is.

Mr. Walker: Who is he?

Mr. Singer: Julian Porter is the solicitor for the Ontario Medical Association; so he doesn’t come to this with an unprejudiced point of view. He puts forward the case of his client, as a good lawyer should do. I am not criticizing his putting forward this idea; it is in his client’s interest that the limitation period should be as short as possible. That’s the argument he put forward, and apparently he convinced the standing committee or the minister at that time. I am going to try to unconvince the minister at the appropriate time. But what you are saying is that because something was down below that hasn’t yet been finished here, in the interests of consistency let’s be consistent with something that might eventually happen up here. Now let me tell you how inconsistent you are being.

Mr. Walker: Best chance you’ll ever get.

Mr. Singer: Well, all right. Let’s analyse what’s being attempted here. We are cutting back the limitation period. One of the Ministers of Health -- I’ve forgotten which one; it might have been the hon. member for Carleton East (Mr. Lawrence) when he was Minister of Health -- listened to the pleas I’d been making for many years and extended the limitation period, either insofar as hospitals are concerned or doctors, and made one two years, while the other stayed at one year. Previously it had been six months and one year. So a few years ago, one of those limitation periods was extended to two years.

Then when the people who were called upon to write the Health Disciplines Act were looking for a period, they took the latest figure that the Legislature had dealt with; and that was two years. But they went a bit further and put in something that had some additional and, I think, substantial merit; that gave the court the power to extend the time for commencing the action either before or after the time so limited on such terms as they considered proper. Now what’s wrong with that?

The member for London North suggests that the registrar be given this power, and I think that is wrong. I don’t see how we can give an administrative official the right to assert or perform a judicial function. If that function is going to be performed, I think it’s got to be performed by the court --

Mr. Walker: That’s not his job.

Mr. Singer: -- and with great respect to the member for London North, I say there is no power to extend the limitation period in an automobile accident.

Mr. Walker: It’s been done.

Mr. Singer: If it is 366 days, you are out; and if you have not issued your writ within the year’s period, it is just tough. I think that law is too hard; I think that the law is very difficult. I think the member for London North has to understand the games that are played by those who act on behalf of the professional associations. And they play the game very well. They drag, they delay, and they don’t tell the people about limitation periods; then the complainant suddenly wakes up one morning to find that he is out of court merely by reason of provision of a statutory limitation period which can do him harm.

The phrase that is salving somebody’s conscience is “or ought to have known,” and I suppose litigation could be taken and great arguments could be presented on whether or not somebody ought to have known. But that puts the burden absolutely on the shoulders of the complainant, and it’s a very hard burden to overcome. I don’t think that the consistency should tend to the argument put forward by Mr. Porter down below. I think that the consistency should tend to confirm what was originally written into the Health Disciplines Act and what section 30 in this bill, Bill 70, says as originally printed.

I think you are hurting those people who believe they have a complaint, and I think you are placing them at the mercy of professional and competent advisers. Most of the complaints are not going to come into the bands of competent advisers until they are in very serious trouble, and they may delay it. They may unnecessarily delay it because of ignorance or because they are led to believe that somebody is looking into their complaint. I don’t think two years with a power of review for the courts is unreasonable at all. I would urge in the name of consistency that the hon. member for London North accept the halting step that the member for Carleton East took once when he was the Minister of Health, and that we move in that direction.

I have a bill before the House about complaints that suggests six years, and everybody is shocked at the thought that you could sue somebody six years after an event. I don’t think that is so shocking either. I suppose my argument would be a little weaker if I attempted to argue six years at this time. But surely what is originally in the Act in section 30, and what was originally in the Health Disciplines Act, makes much more sense than one year, and then the onus being on the complainant to prove that there was no way that he knew or ought to have known.

He ought to have known? If he has a pain in his gum that he doesn’t think is very serious, is somebody going to suggest if he had such a pain he should have taken eminent medical advice and found out that he had a complaint, or that somebody had left a piece of tooth sticking in his gum or whatever? How should he ought to have known? Why not make it two years and why not give the courts the general power to review?

I would urge that the member for London North withdraw this amendment and accept section 30 as written in Bill 70.

Mr. Chairman: Shall Mr. Walker’s motion carry?

Those in favour of Mr. Walker’s motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.” In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Singer: No, sir.

Mr. Chairman: Shall we stack this with the others?

Mr. Singer: Right.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments, questions or amendments on a later section of this bill? If not, we have three stacked motions here.

The committee divided on Mr. R. F. Nixon’s motion that section 11, subsections (i), (ii) and (iii) be amended with the addition of the words “or any upper or lower removable prosthetic denture,” which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 28, the “nays” 37.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost.

The committee divided on Mr. R. F. Nixon’s motion that section 2 be amended by striking out the words “six denture therapists” in the second line of subsection 2 and by adding in lieu thereof the words “three denture therapists and three members of the Denturist Society of Ontario licensed to practise denture therapy,” which was negatived on the same count.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost.

The committee divided on Mr. Walker’s motion that section 30 of the bill be deleted and the following be substituted therefor: “No licensee is liable to any action arising out of negligence or malpractice in respect to professional services requested or rendered unless such action [etc.]” which was approved on the same count reversed.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion carried.

Bill 70, as amended, reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves second reading of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Succession Duty Act.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): It being 6 of the clock I would suggest that the debate be adjourned.

Mr. Speaker: I always thought the members wanted to be informed of what was going on at 8 o’clock.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.