The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. McEwen: Mr. Speaker, we have with us, seated in the east gallery -- from the township of Pittsburgh, in the great riding of Frontenac-Addington, the heart of tourism, represented by the Land of Lakes Tourist Association -- 40 grade 10 students of LaSalle Secondary School, along with their teachers, Mr. W. Lofgren and Mr. Allen. Will the members join with me in welcoming this group to this House?

Mr. Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present to you, and through you to the House, 64 students from the school of St. Bernadette in Ajax, where the air is much cleaner than it is in Toronto. They are in the west gallery.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, before you call for ministerial statements, I would like to raise a question of privilege affecting all members of the House. Mr. Speaker, it deals with the precedent that has been set most recently, especially since Sept. 18, 1975, wherein you allow parliamentary assistants to ask questions of ministers in the House.

I point out that parliamentary assistants take an oath of secrecy when they are sworn, that they participate in policy, that they answer for the government and very often in this House participate in the discussion of bills and in the estimates. In fact, they are part of government.

The purpose of the question period is for private members to ask questions of the government. By allowing parliamentary assistants to ask questions, in fact you are allowing a situation where the government is asking questions of the government.

Mr. Yakabuski: That’s right.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to make a ruling on this; and for your assistance, I would point out that on Nov. 5, 1974, in the federal House, Mr. Speaker Jerome made a ruling, against strong opposition from the government, that parliamentary secretaries could not ask questions of the government because in fact they were government. I ask for this ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: My first reaction is that I disagree with the hon. member because a parliamentary assistant is an ordinary member of the Legislature like everyone else. He is not a member of cabinet, and I think you referred to the oath of secrecy. There may be something I am not aware of; so, after I consider this further, if I have a different opinion I shall report back to the House. But that is my initial, off-the-cuff opinion.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, would you report back to the House on your research of this?

Mr. Speaker: One way or the other, yes.

Mr. Roy: And would you direct yourself to the ruling of Nov. 5, 1974, in the federal House?

Mr. Speaker: Well, we are not concerned with the ruling in the federal House here at the moment, but I shall undertake to report back to the House one way or the other.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like clarification on the operation of what are now being called select committees. My understanding is that a select committee, although it does in fact order its own business, must have authorization from this House before it makes an expenditure of money.

We had a problem this morning in the bills committee dealing with Bill 5. My understanding was that that bill was sent to committee so there could be input from the public. When the select committee was set up there was no authorization for the expenditure of funds. Apparently there came to be a confusion because the minister didn’t have funds and the advertising was held up.

Could I understand whether it is right that a select committee being set up is then authorized to expend any funds it wishes without the authorization of this House.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take that as notice, because there are implications going through my mind. Is this a select committee? I thought it was a standing committee considering Bills 4 and 5. It was a select committee; I am corrected.

Mrs. Campbell: There are no standing committees, Mr. Speaker, but I think in effect what we have is a misnomer with this committee and I would like it clarified.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member will permit me to report back.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Before rising on a point of privilege, I would like to welcome to the Legislature Mr. Maxwell Henderson, who was chairman of the Special Programme Preview Committee and who is in your gallery, sir. The Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) will be making reference to his report in a moment or so.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege resulting from the allegations made yesterday by the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba). These allegations suggest in direct terms that the decision of the government of Ontario in 1971 to reduce the drinking age and the age of majority in this province was in direct repayment for campaign contributions made to the 1971 campaign --

An hon. member: How much were they?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- by the brewers and distillers of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, in my years in this Legislature I have heard many baseless charges, uttered often in haste and often in passion. I have even heard some ridiculous suggestions and allegations, but I have never heard an allegation as vicious and demeaning as the one uttered by the member for High Park-Swansea. Indeed, even the member’s predecessor in that seat, took more care, by and large, in the charges he raised from time to time in this House.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of privilege, the Premier never said it at the time.

Mr. Martel: Oh, come on!

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections,

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know members opposite are embarrassed and so they should be.

The suggestion that this government lowered both the age of drinking in this province and the age of voting and majority in repayment for some political donation by a company or group of companies is cruel and grossly defamatory. I will use the Churchillian parliamentary form, if I may, and refer to it as a terminal untruth of the worst order. If I may quote from the member’s exchange on Global news last evening:

“Mr. Ziemba: No one ever asked for this legislation. It came down in July of 1971 just prior to the last election, last big election of Davis’ big win. He ran an election in which he spent $5 million. I think that he brought in this legislation as -- in payment for contributions to his party.

“Mr. Cameron: Contributions from whom?

“Mr. Ziemba: From the brewers and distillers of this province. He was responding to them, to their demands for increased profits by way of introducing alcohol to a whole new group of drinkers.

“Mr. Cameron: Are you saying that William Davis bought a part of the 1971 election in return for the lives of a number of the province’s young people?

“Mr. Ziemba: Exactly, that’s exactly what I’m saying. That’s exactly why I feel so strongly about this.”

A careful examination of the facts surrounding this evolution in public policy in Ontario will indicate that other governments of other political affiliations had lowered the drinking age previous to the decision by the government of this province. Moreover, a clear examination of the record will indicate that the New Democratic Party in Ontario had taken this position in October of 1970 some time --

An hon. member: They supported it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- before the party which it is my privilege to lead felt it appropriate to concur.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Members of the opposition better read their own stuff.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One could ask, based on the cheap ramblings of the member’s allegations, whether the NDP in Ontario came to similar agreements with those who sell spirits in Ontario.

An hon. member: We would have rejected it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It would be a sick question --

Mr. Lewis: Then why does the Premier raise it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- unworthy of any member of the Legislature, except perhaps the member for High Park-Swansea. Thoughtful members would not ask these questions of the other political parties because to do so would be to betray a lack of respect for their leadership that I could not, in good conscience, be associated with at any time.

The decision of my government to lower the age of majority was based upon a developing view and belief in the increased capacity of young people to exercise responsibility as citizens, voters and consumers. If there are those who wish to question that responsibility today, that is their right. I say to the member from High Park-Swansea that to do so in the fashion he has chosen is to betray a personal irresponsibility and lack of judgement that is shocking and disgraceful.

I might also refer the member to a publication put out in October, 1970, and I have a copy for him here if he has not read it, entitled “A New Democrat Ontario,” which I hold here in my hand, and which states, on Page 60 -- to be helpful to him so he may look at it:

“The state has very little business interfering, and then only on the most highly qualified definition of what constitutes the public good, in the decisions affecting the individual’s personal life.

“The age of majority would be reduced from 21 years to 18... This would include voting, running for public office, entering into contracts and drinking.”

The decision made by my government in 1971 was a decision made in good faith, relative to the interests of the young people of Ontario. The suggestion that it was prompted by a motive of partisan financial support surely demands not only a personal and public apology to this government and myself, but also an apology to the people of Ontario, and especially to the young people of this province?

[2:15]

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am surprised and amazed that the Premier, over across the floor with all the awesome power and glory at his command, would choose to descend on me for the statements that I have been making for the past four years. He has ignored --

Hon. W. Newman: Why doesn’t the member stand up and apologize like a man?

An hon. member: Be a man.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the hon. member wish to respond to the statement of the Premier directly?

Mr. Bullbrook: Why don’t you make sure he gets the chance, Mr. Speaker? Nobody interrupted the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: I agree.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We will hear the member for High Park-Swansea. Order, please.

Mr. Ziemba: The Premier is entitled to his beliefs, and I grant him the right to his opinions in the same way that I am entitled to mine. I am going to read into the parliamentary record statistics on motor vehicle collisions, facts from his ministry of --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ziemba: These are the facts and I am going to give them to you; the hard facts.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The debate here, as I see it -- order, please; will the member take his seat when the Speaker is standing? -- concerns the allegations that were made on the air last night. We are not debating the whole issue of the age of majority or what have you. This is not the purpose of this. The Premier rose to point out certain remarks to which he strongly objected. The hon. member may reply to those, but may not debate the whole issue of drinking and age of drinking, please.

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into this record the number of accidents that 19-year-olds --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s debating the issue and that is not really the point of --

Mr. Ziemba: That’s why I keep telling you --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will take his seat. I think I made it quite clear that we are discussing the allegations that were made, not the whole issue of the age of drinking.

Mr. Ziemba: If the Premier of this province is prepared to open his books regarding the 1971 election and prove to us that he didn’t get contributions from the brewers and distillers of this province, I will apologize then.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That’s cheap. The member is a disgrace to his party. It’s a party that I happen to respect, but he is a disgrace to it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we will close the matter. It is a matter of personal privilege. It is something that happened outside the House, over which the Speaker has no control, of course.

Statements by the ministry.

SPECIAL PROGRAMME REVIEW

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, in June of this year the Premier announced the appointment of a Special Programme Review Committee to examine the government’s expenditures and to make recommendations for improvements in productivity so as to reduce government spending growth in the years ahead. The government promised at that time that the committee would complete its work by mid-November. It is my pleasure to announce that the committee has met its target date and I am, therefore, tabling today its report, which contains some 180 recommendations.

The committee, as members will be aware, consisted of three representatives from the private sector, three senior civil servants, the Chairman of Management Board and myself as chairman. In tabling this report, I would like to give particular recognition to the services of the three private sector representatives; Mrs. Betty Kennedy, who could not be here today; and Mr. Hurlbut, who is out of the city; and Mr. Maxwell Henderson who has been recognized in your gallery already. These three people have given very generously of their time and talents in the last six months and we owe them a debt of gratitude for their dedication and industry.

In the course of its work, the committee interviewed civil servants from every ministry and organized a broad and comprehensive review of public expenditures by the Ontario government, local governments, school boards, universities and colleges, the health field, and many other bodies which depend on taxpayer dollars for their support.

The committee also received over 100 representations from the public. The general message of these letters and submissions reflected the anxieties of ordinary taxpayers that government spending at all levels be efficient, restrained and subject to continuous and stringent scrutiny. The taxpayers of Ontario are right.

At all levels of government, and among the army of agencies and institutions which feed off the taxpayer, there is a continuous risk of bureaucratic complacency and smugness in determining how money should be spent for the public good. My view is that elected representatives at all levels of government have to take a more active and critical participation in the process of controlling the public sector. It is, in these times, as irresponsible to demand more spending as it is to allow programmes to expand and proliferate. Both styles of public office lead to more debt or more taxes, or even to more of both of these unpleasant burdens.

In its initial stages, the committee drew from me, as chairman, an outline of the province’s fiscal and expenditure structure, plus some broad guidance on target spending reductions. The September election, as members can well appreciate, took most of my time in the summer period and I was not able to give the committee much of my attention. After re-election, I decided it was essential that committee members work in an atmosphere of independent inquiry. I therefore adopted a hands-off policy and allowed them complete freedom of action. For this reason, members will find a refreshing stamp of independence in the final report.

I am glad to see that the final report reflects a genuine concern for the interests of the ordinary taxpayer and for more effective and efficient programme delivery. The broad approach corresponds to my own view that outlays from the public purse are seen too often, by too many, as a costless remedy to every conceivable economic and social problem of the day.

Incomes, jobs and wealth are generated in a modern economy by a balanced blend of public and private activities. There is considerable evidence that the balance has been undermined in recent times. I draw the attention of members to the opening sentence of the report. “The size of contemporary government spending has become a matter of grave concern, not only to those responsible for it but to all Canadians in every walk of life.”

I do not think we can over-emphasize the importance of economic growth to the welfare of ordinary citizens. Whatever sleight-of-hand economics may be conjured up to justify public sector extravagance and heavy taxes, the plain fact of the matter is that the citizens of Ontario want more and better jobs, more private consumption and higher personal incomes. This can only be achieved through private sector economic expansion; it does not come about by expanding the size of the civil service nor by multiplying social services faster than we are willing to be taxed in order to pay for them. There is no way out of this dilemma. With an expanding population, growth is essential if we are to avoid a steady deterioration in the waif are of the general public.

The committee, in examining the range of public spending, compiled 12 principles for the guidance of government. The first of these says: “Government policy should continue to be directed towards the goal of economic growth.” I would go further and say that I see no viable alternative for Ontario, either now or in the future. Economic growth is what the public wants and expects.

There is a general theme throughout the report which emphasizes the need to improve the degree of fiscal responsibility in the public sector. It advocates, in many places that this can be achieved by maintaining a closer proximity between spending decisions and financing decisions. The report sees this as particularly relevant in that large area of spending which is nourished by transfer payments from the provincial government. Also, the report favours a more frequent application of user charges for public services where the benefits are sufficient to warrant it or where services are seriously over-exploited. I find no disagreement with these principles and we shall be overhauling some of the conventional fiscal wisdom of the past to see whether we can accommodate the proposed changes.

Let me dwell for a while on the dimensions of the problem we all face in controlling the growth of public sector spending. As near as we can estimate, at this time in Ontario, there are over 800,000 people whose jobs are paid for, either in whole or in part, out of public funds. I do not include in this figure the many people who derive work as a result of direct provincial purchases of goods and services and government investments in construction activity, but I do include school boards, universities and colleges, doctors, nurses, and federal, provincial and local government civil servants.

The 800,000 is equal to over 20 per cent of the labour force in Ontario, or one job in five. I find this a very sobering statistic because it illustrates most graphically the sheer size and complexity of the public sector. It is also a clear warning that without a periodic and impartial overhaul of spending programmes, costs will creep upwards in an irresistible manner and both programmes and employment will become ossified and wasteful.

The consumption by the public sector of the output and energies of one worker in five also underlines the necessity of monitoring and improving the productivity performance of this enormous industry. A report such as the one released today cannot possibly probe into every nook and cranny of public spending but it has made a very necessary start on the process.

I find it encouraging that a short period of intensive study has been able to produce so many recommendations. I think it only fair to say that the medicine proposed will not appeal to all people; on the other hand, some recommendations, such as those calling for higher tuition fees, are not consistent with announced government policy and may even run counter to the guidelines of the federal anti-inflation programme.

We are in a period where the chronic imbalance between the growth of the private and public sectors has to be put right. The result will be tough decisions, and for many these decisions may be unpleasant. While it is too early for the government to respond in detail to the recommendations of the Special Programme Review Committee, we shall be giving very careful consideration to the report and its findings will be of great assistance in helping to achieve Ontario’s 10 per cent expenditure growth target for fiscal 1976-1977.

I should also like to take this opportunity to invite further comments and suggestions on the report from the general public, from local governments and the many public bodies affected by its findings. It is our hope that within the next two to three weeks we can achieve a wide circulation of this important document and that this will provide a unique opportunity for the taxpayers of Ontario to make their views known on the specifics of the programmes for which they are paying.

In the end it is the taxpayer who pays the cost, either through inflation or through higher taxes. Nothing is free. People everywhere are paying now for every service offered by the governments and their agencies whether it is a waterfront park, a book from a public library or a visit to the doctor. There is absolutely no magical fiscal formula for doing it any other way.

The Ontario government has already announced its intention to keep its expenditure growth down to 10 per cent next year. This has, I am sure, given a clear signal of restraint to provincial programme managers and to the many governments, boards and agencies through which 70 per cent of the provincial budget is channelled. The alternative is higher taxes, which in turn would mean a lower rate of growth in personal consumption, less business investment and consequently fewer new jobs.

I think it appropriate at this time to reemphasize the government’s intention to adhere to the terms of the Edmonton commitment. This involves a pledge on our pant to increase our transfers to local authorities at the rate of growth of our revenues. This year we have substantially overpaid on that commitment and in fiscal 1976 we intend to take this overpayment into account.

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer didn’t tell them that in advance.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Accordingly, I pact transfers to local governments in 1976 to grow by about 5½ per cent.

Mrs. Bryden: They can’t live on 10 per cent.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This action will require some tough choices at the local level. Wage and salary raises and other cost escalations will have to be found from efficiency improvements or increases in local taxes or from programme revisions and deletions. I am convinced that belts can be tightened at the local level with no loss of essential services. That must be the responsibility of the locally-elected representatives. The buck must stop at every level of government.

At the provincial level, we intend to continue the programme of restraint initiated earlier this year. Some ministries will be subject to a virtual budgetary freeze. The size of the civil service will be further reduced. It is essential that Ontario’s borrowing be kept within reasonable limits, and to this end our expenditures next year will be held below the growth of revenues.

[2:30]

Mr. Singer: You’re going to lose a lot of those Tory mayors and controllers when they have to raise municipal taxes.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Similarly, I expect Ontario Hydro to actively seek out ways of reducing its intended borrowing load in the next two to three years.

Mrs. Campbell: There won’t be any more public housing.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Until we have achieved a restoration of fiscal balance, there can be no large new programme initiatives and I repeat our earlier promise that this government will not be drawn into massive new federal-provincial shared-cost programmes.

For those who have dreams and pretensions toward ambitious new schemes of large-scale income redistribution. I would advise them to consult with Canadian taxpayers first. I see no great thirst on the part of taxpayers to undergo a forcible reduction in their standard of living to finance new income redistribution programmes.

Mr. Renwick: We will watch for that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: These are tough times and restraint has to be applied in the public sector --

Mr. Roy: You’re starting to realize it, are you?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- both as an example and as a necessity.

I am encouraged by the report tabled today. As I have said, it is too early yet for a considered response by the government, but nonetheless we do not have a great deal of time. I intend to introduce an early budget in support of the new discipline that is sweeping through the public sector. If we delay now, we shall pay the price later, and we intend to keep our economy and our society free of foolish economic fallacies and weaknesses. We intend to keep Ontario strong.

Mr. Reid: Get the NDP out of your bed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would like to bring members up to date on several new developments relating to the teachers’ strike in Metropolitan Toronto.

As was reported earlier today, representatives of the Metro Toronto school boards met with staff of the Anti-Inflation Board this morning in Ottawa. The school board had requested the meeting in order to seek clarification on the application of the anti-inflation guidelines to the Metro Toronto situation.

The school board had asked representatives of the secondary school teachers to join them at the meeting, and I am very sorry that the teachers declined to take advantage of this opportunity, because it is clear that both parties would have gained from the discussions this morning. I say this because it is obvious that misunderstanding about the anti-inflation guidelines is a major factor in the continuing impasse that we face here in Toronto between the school boards and their teachers.

Just to illustrate this, let me comment on the statements attributed to one of the leaders of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation this morning. This spokesman was quoted as saying that the Metro secondary school teachers are exempt from the federal wage and price guidelines. Personally, I am surprised that he would say this because I myself have met with representatives of both the teachers and the school board to explain the provisions of the anti-inflation programme as they relate here in the Province of Ontario to the public sector and as they relate to the negotiation of collective agreements. I believe that this application, and that the application of these guidelines, was clearly understood by both parties here in Metropolitan Toronto.

To clarify once again, let me reaffirm that the guidelines will apply to the negotiations of all collective agreements for those groups covered by the federal anti-inflation legislation where an agreement had not been reached prior to midnight on Oct. 13.

Mr. Lewis: But he meant that they fall under the exemptions.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That isn’t what he said, though.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s the whole problem.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Members will recall that on Nov. 7 I clarified, for school boards and teachers, the definition which the Anti-Inflation Board will use in determining whether or not an agreement had existed prior to that time.

It is clear that no agreement existed between the Metro Toronto school board and its secondary teachers as of midnight, Oct. 13, so it is quite obvious that they are subject to all of the provisions of the wage and price guidelines.

The confusion appears to stem from the fact that the guidelines outline a number of circumstances in which the Anti-Inflation Board may give “special consideration” to an agreement to see if an amount higher than the normal maximum increase might be allowed.

One such circumstance is that the previous agreement was signed prior to Jan. 1, 1974. Another involves the existence of historical relationships with other groups in the labour force. Both of these circumstances would seem to have some application in the present Metro situation.

However, in no way does this mean that the guidelines are not applicable. It only suggests that where such circumstances exist the Anti-Inflation Board may decide to permit the employer to pay more money than would normally be allowed.

Within the last few hours, I have spoken at length with Ottawa and obtained further clarification on these matters. I have learned that the Anti-Inflation Board wishes to reaffirm a particular portion of its general statement issued on Nov. 7. In that statement, the board stated it did not intend to replace normal collective bargaining processes; however, the board indicated at that time that in situations where an impasse had been reached it would be prepared to offer clarification of grounds for possible special consideration under the guidelines.

The Anti-Inflation Board is well aware that an impasse does indeed exist here in Metro Toronto between the school board and the secondary teachers. Thus it has this morning issued an invitation to both parties, the school board and the teachers, requesting them to submit information which would enable the Anti-Inflation Board to assist in clarifying the grounds for any special considerations under the guidelines.

The Anti-Inflation Board has stated this morning that any requests for special consideration will be closely scrutinized. It has further stated: “The judgement of the board will be influenced not only by the merits of the particular case but also by the possible impact of the resulting settlement on the successful implementation of the anti-inflation programme as a whole.”

It is my hope that both parties, the board and the teachers, will take up the offer of the Anti-Inflation Board and make presentations to Ottawa as quickly as possible. However, in the light of these developments, my concern is that there will be no further bargaining until this clarification has been received from the Anti-Inflation Board.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s the whole problem.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s what I said six days ago.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I hope this will not be so and I would strongly urge both parties to get back to the bargaining table, perhaps using the services of the Education Relations Commission if such can be of help. We also know that the Anti-Inflation Board will deal with this matter as quickly as possible but I might say that in the meantime --

Mr. Singer: That’s what the minister should have done a month ago.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- it would seem to me that the logical and responsible course of action for both the school boards in Metro and the secondary school teachers would be to get the schools open and operating normally at once -- tomorrow -- here in Metro Toronto rather than continuing this present impasse, which by any measure is rather futile at this time in the absence of clarification from the Anti-Inflation Board.

Mr. Bullbrook: If the government here had its own board, it could make its own decision. It could decide on the exemptions itself tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call the next order of business, I’ll recognize the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mr. Bounsall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you and the other members of the House would wish to join me in a warm welcome to the 40 students from Vincent Massey Secondary School in the east gallery. They are under the direction of Mr. Norm Kocot, their teacher.

Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, please join me in welcoming 28 grade 9 history students from the Stayner Collegiate Institute under the direction of Mr. Mickericus.

Mr. Speaker: I’d also draw to the attention of the House that, seated in the Speaker’s gallery, we have. K. S. Sagoo, OBE, and member of the Parliament of Kenya, who is visiting Ontario, I know the members of the House would like to welcome him.

Oral questions.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to pursue matters with the Minister of Education for a moment, if I may, because I’m a bit perplexed.

Wouldn’t it be the better part of logic to invite the Anti-Inflation Board to come to Toronto to meet with officials of the ministry, the Ontario Education Relations Commission and various representatives of the teachers’ groups who will be engaged in on-going negotiations -- whether Metro, Peel or elsewhere -- to attempt to clarify the broad exemptions which will be permitted in order that collective bargaining may proceed on that basis and with that knowledge throughout the province, rather than each individual dispute or confrontation having to go the route which will necessarily prolong bargaining.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I think as my friend knows, first of all, the Anti-Inflation Board up until now had taken the position that it was going to review settlements after they had been agreed to by both parties. This was the general rule. In their statement of Nov. 7 they said, however, that where an impasse had occurred they would, under special consideration, consider defining what special consideration means. They are now applying that particular section of their Nov. 7 statement to this particular situation. They feel that, given the fact that they review both sides’ positions and probably make a determination about what special consideration would apply here, this will serve as a benchmark for other groups in this province, both in the public and the private sector. I can’t presume to ask them to come to Toronto to do this.

Mr. Lewis: It would sure save a lot of time.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Their place of abode is in Ottawa. That’s where they are operating out of and that is where their staff is.

Mr. Lewis: We wouldn’t want to discomfort them.

Mr. Singer: And never the twain shall meet.

Mr. Lewis: On $1,034 a week they could certainly afford travel expenses.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I might say that the Ministry of Education, the Education Relations Commission, and indeed the school boards, the school trustees councils and the teachers’ federations, are all being asked for information upon which the board can make various decisions that it is going to have to make. They want the salary settlements for the last five years for major boards in this province and they want all kinds of information. They will not be without factual background upon which to make their decisions.

Mr. Lewis: Would the minister agree, however, that even when the exemption considerations are taken into account, there remains the fundamental impasse between the last board offer and the teachers’ reliance on the fact-finder’s report? Is there, therefore, no way the minister can bring the parties together to proceed with a settlement on those matters, independent of whatever the Anti-Inflation Board may rule?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is my impression from talking with the parties -- and I think the school boards have indicated this, because they decided to go up to Ottawa even before the invitation was issued by the Anti-Inflation Board; they just happened to be there this morning as the board made its decision that it would ask the parties to present their position --

Mr. Lewis: It is a long stall.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- the board wants clarification before it will, as I understand it, make any change in its position, if indeed it was even thinking about any change. So I suggest to my friend that, with that particular position, until the Anti-inflation Board makes a decision, it is going to be very difficult to bring the parties together.

Mr. Singer: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister explain again -- and perhaps in simpler terms so that even I could understand it -- the usefulness of the two parties continuing to bargain and perhaps arriving at a figure which they have no way of telling is going to be final? What is the purpose of the exercise? Isn’t it an exercise in futility?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Perhaps my friend missed the last part of my statement, where I said that really the better part of wisdom right now would be for the boards to open the schools and the teachers to get back and operate things normally and then let’s get the determination from the Anti-inflation Board.

Mr. Lewis: That is not going to happen.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I suggest that would be the best thing that could happen at this point.

Mr. Lewis: Wonderful!

Mr. Foulds: Would it not be neater and quicker if the board and the teachers submitted their respective final offers for a judgement from the Anti-Inflation Board? Would the minister not suggest that would be a quicker way of settling it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m sorry? What offers?

Mr. Foulds: Would it not be quicker and easier if the teachers and the boards submitted their respective final offers -- my colleague has confused me here -- submitted their final stances to the Anti-inflation Board for a judgement? Would that make the Anti-Inflation Board a final offer selector according to the minister’s legislation?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Wells: I guess if they did what the member suggested it would, but I don’t believe that’s the role the Anti-Inflation Board wants to be put in. In fact, what is going to happen is that the school board is going to present its position to the Anti-Inflation Board and if the teachers accept the invitation offered to them they are going to put their position to the Anti-Inflation Board --

Mr. Lewis: But that is a matter of exemption, not position.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- which is then going to define their position as to whether they are entitled to special consideration or not.

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The question then remains how far will the Anti-Inflation Board go in stating what they mean by special consideration? Will they do it in general terms or will they do it in very specific dollar and cent percentage terms?

Mr. Lewis: The strike could go on forever at this stage.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That we will have to wait and see --

Mr. Lewis: The minister is insensitive.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- because the board has no bench-marks upon which to go. I might tell my friend that the board is presently considering the Hamilton elementary settlement --

Mr. Lewis: I gathered that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- which is presently up there; this is a settlement that was signed by both parties. They expect to have some decision on that very shortly which, again, will establish some bench-marks, some guidelines, some precedents.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary from the member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: Does the minister not recall that about a week ago my leader and I both suggested to him that he take the initiative, get a decision from the Anti-Inflation Board first of all, so as to prevent a strike which might be totally academic anyhow? At that time he said this would be interfering with the rights of the teachers. What has happened, that the minister today comes in having changed his mind on that issue?

Mr. Mancini: That’s par for the course.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: First of all, I haven’t changed my mind; the Anti-Inflation Board has changed its mind and decided that in this particular instance it would consider an agreement beforehand.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister should have asked them.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would like to know where the Liberal Party stands on this matter.

Mr. Shore: We are asking the questions.

Mr. Singer: The minister could have done it himself in the first place.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member for Ottawa East wanted legislation. Does he want this House to bring in legislation? Does he want legislation?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, could I answer the question? I have been asked a question.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are supposed to ask them not answer them.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It’s not the minister’s right to ask questions.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if the government can’t do the job we’ll move over.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further questions? The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

DRYDEN CHEMICALS LTD.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, could he clarify what legal proceedings or recourse he is investigating that may be applied to Dryden Chemicals Ltd., or Reed Paper, in northwestern Ontario, involving the pollution which may have caused, or may yet cause, Minamata disease amongst the native community?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The matter is being considered by the ministry in its broadest terms, because of course there are very difficult problems in determining just what may or may not have occurred. As a step to a better understanding of the problem and what may arise, I have instructed one of our senior counsel to go to Japan, and to my knowledge he is in Japan now with the group of doctors now visiting Japan at the request of the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller).

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary, if I may: There was a reference made in the report to the children who might someday be affected. Can I ask the minister, in addition to the health of the children would it be possible to pursue a suit against the company to seek economic compensation for the loss of livelihood experienced on behalf of the native communities?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have not seen the report to which the hon. Leader of the Opposition refers, but all I can say at this time is that it’s a very complicated matter. The matter is being reviewed. The legal implications, the difficulties, are certainly well appreciated by some of the member’s colleagues, and I hope that in due course I’ll be able to make a more comprehensive statement to the House.

Mr. Singer: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we should have a supplementary from the member for Ottawa East this time.

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to ask the Attorney General --

Mr. Kennedy: Equal time for the leadership candidates.

Mr. Roy: -- in view of his comments yesterday about taking this action against Dryden Chemicals --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It must be a supplementary question dealing with the answer given today.

Mr. Roy: Yes, it’s right on, Mr. Speaker. I just want to ask the minister if he is going to show the same enthusiasm for the prosecution of this case as he did in the Dow Chemical case?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s not supplementary to this. The member for Wilson Heights wanted to ask a supplementary, I believe.

Mr. Singer: I wanted to ask the Attorney General what kind of instructions he is giving to the official guardian and/or others in relation to a class action, which the newspapers reported today that he thinks it is possible to bring; and how he is going to do that without substantial changes to the existing legislation?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Again, I have not seen the report; I assume there is some, newspaper report with respect to this matter --

Mr. Singer: Page A-20 of today’s Star.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I apologize to the House; I have not seen it.

Mr. Singer: I’ll send it to the minster.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would be very much obliged if my friend would send it. I can just indicate that it’s a matter that is under discussion with the official guardian; I’ve been discussing it with him for several weeks. I’m not in a position at this point to tell my hon. friend what amendments may be necessary, but it is a matter to which we’re giving very serious consideration.

Mr. Roy: Have you heard of the Dow Chemical case?

MENTAL RETARDATION PROGRAMMES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: In a letter the minister was kind enough to send me on Nov. 13 last in response to a question I’d asked in the House, he indicates that by the end of fiscal 1975-1976 some $66 million will have been received under the Canada Assistance Plan for the funding of mental retardation programmes transferred to his ministry. Yet in the period 1975-1976 his ministry is spending $15 million of that money. What is happening to the other $51 million which we were assured, absolutely assured in the Legislature, would apply to a mental retardation programme?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I’m glad the Leader of the Opposition asked that.

Mr. MacDonald: Why?

Mr. Good: It is only the second time you have had to say anything.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: There is no question that the moneys are committed. As the hon. member knows, I gave him the projections in terms of the spending over a period of years.

Mr. Lewis: That’s additional money.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: That’s right, the spending is over a period of years. But --

Mr. Lewis: Yes, more money --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Just remember this, that it’s not just a question of spending the money in any old way at all.

Mr. Lewis: I know.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It is a matter of making a wise use of that money and ensuring we have the programmes and that the facilities and the programmes are developed where they are going to do the most good. So that until we finalize that, we are not going to be spending the money just for the sake of spending it.

Mr. Lewis: I see. By way of supplementary, is the minister then placing the additional $51 million in trust? Or is he disbursing money received under the Canada Assistance Act explicitly for mental retardation through other programmes in his ministry so as to cut down the amounts required from general revenue?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: As far as the --

Mr. Good: I’m glad you asked.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Yes, I’m glad he asked that as well, because I want to ensure in my ministry that those moneys are available when we are ready to use them.

Mr. Reid: So you are putting them in trust.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I have been assured on an inquiry that those moneys have been earmarked for these specific programmes in connection with mental retardation and that when there is a call for these moneys, the moneys will be available.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: My question is not being answered. The money has been received, and is being received, from the Canada Assistance Plan. Is the minister putting it in trust for the use to which it is to be applied or is he disbursing it into other programmes in his ministry? What has happened or will happen to the additional $51 million?

Mr. Breithaupt: It makes for a lumpy mattress.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I haven’t checked our bank book recently in terms of where the money is --

Mr. Lewis: Could you do so?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: All right, just a minute. Insofar as the moneys from the federal government are concerned, they don’t come into the bank account in my ministry. The member will have to check with the Treasurer for that. But as far as the credit goes, when we wish to disburse those funds --

Mrs. Campbell: Where is it?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I’ll reiterate that those funds are available --

Mr. Shore: Correctional Services.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- for dispersal through properly worked out programmes and facilities.

Mr. Lewis: You are reneging on the commitment.

Interjection.

Mr. Lewis: I had a very embarrassing question for the Minister of Government Services, (Mrs. Scrivener), who intuitively sensed it and fled the House. I therefore have no further questions.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Treasurer following his statement with respect to the Special Programme Review and his apparent knowledge now as to how Paul felt on the road to Damascus. Can he tell us, now that the buck has stopped passing, and because of the question that arose from the statement of the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells), whether he is reconsidering having his own approach to dealing with the various matters that the Anti-Inflation Board would deal with federally so that matters such as those affecting the teachers and other groups could be dealt with, perhaps more expeditiously, if we had a group operating here under the federal guidelines, rather than dealing with the group that the Minister of Education says perhaps won’t come from Ottawa all the way to Toronto?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I can’t imagine anything more irresponsible than a provincially-appointed board in this province or, for that matter, in some other province -- and let’s for a moment assume that they were in all provinces -- and I assume that in nearly --

Mr. Bullbrook: They eventually will be.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- every province there are problems in terms of --

Mr. Bullbrook: They will be; oh yes. They will be within six months -- the Treasurer will have one.

Mr. Shore: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for London North.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I haven’t finished, Mr. Speaker. I thought the member for Sarnia had a question.

Mr. Bullbrook: I have a statement: You will have one within six months -- make no mistake about it.

Mr. Speaker: The minister will continue with his answer, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Let’s assume for a moment that there were 10 boards and that the first questions referred to all of them happened to be teacher and board of education disputes. It would be highly irresponsible if any one of those boards settled until they had checked with the other nine and with the federal board --

Mr. R. S. Smith: Not boards of settlement.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and compared the action which one board was prepared to take with that of another. If we had a board here today in operation, it would be completely wrong for that board to take action until they find out what the federal board was proposing to do in other provinces.

Mr. Bullbrook: You don’t have the most fundamental grasp of it -- not even fundamental -- you don’t understand it at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The irresponsibility of the member for Sarnia shines through beautifully in all of this.

Mr. Bullbrook: You don’t understand the question.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Just beautifully. The irresponsible member from Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Premier (Mr. Davis) doesn’t understand it and you don’t understand it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: If it is the intention of the Treasurer to keep Ontario strong, as he says, what is possibly wrong with having our own board dealing with the same kinds of exemptions --

Mr. Bullbrook: Right.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- referred to by the Minister of Education, for historic or traditional purposes --

Mr. Bullbrook: That is sloughing off responsibility.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- in the same way that the board in Ottawa will eventually have to do, and therefore doing it earlier and within a proper Ontario balanced framework?

Mr. Roy: Yes, give us the responsibility.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It could not be done earlier unless we were irresponsible. If the member wants to sell out to everybody who comes along and wants an exemption or a loophole, he can do it. We are not going to --

Mr. Bullbrook: You don’t understand it.

Mr. Singer: Is there no Ontario integrity? Does there always have to be a sellout?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- do that on this side of the House. We are going to be responsible in this light and we are not going to curry special favour for political reasons -- for crass political reasons.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for London North with a supplementary to this question?

Mr. Shore: Mr. Speaker, before we lock into this plan, would it not be responsible to make sure we understand it and put our thrust to the federal government so that we know what we are opting into? Is that responsible?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is exactly what we are doing. We had officials in Ottawa yesterday and the day before.

Mr. Singer: It is a sellout.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Ministers will be going to Ottawa next week.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the members opposite might have some --

Mr. Reid: Has the agreement been signed?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question was asked and is being answered.

Mr. Roy: You signed a blank cheque.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister.

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the members opposite might have some respect, let alone sympathy, for a federally appointed board that can’t answer all the questions overnight.

Mr. Bullbrook: And that’s apparent. Overnight? Six months it will take. You watch it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Their decisions are coming forward, they are making their minds up and they are doing it on a consistent national basis. We are making our point of view known.

Mr. Bullbrook: It won’t work.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Those decisions are coming forth from Ottawa.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Treasurer knows it won’t work.

Mr. Breithaupt: A further question of the Treasurer following that additional information that he has given us: Since there apparently is apprehension among his own officials as to what these guidelines will be and the details of them, does the minister intend to advise the house as to what the terms of reference will be before in fact they are signed, I believe it is next week?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There is no apprehension in the minds of our officials; I don’t think it is correct to say that. Certainly, the officials have not received all the answers which they would like to have -- none of us has -- in a programme of this magnitude. I think in fairness to the government of Canada it can be said that they are consulting -- not making all the decisions unilaterally.

Finally, in response to the member’s question, the agreement will not be signed next week. I don’t know how that appeared in the paper. The agreement really hasn’t been presented to us yet and there is just no possibility that an agreement will be signed next week.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may: I take it then that we won’t in fact have an opportunity to debate the memorandum of agreement, or indeed the implications of the Treasurer’s statement to the House, during the course of this session at all, and that we will have been committed to the procedure without a full debate over a day or two engaging the attention of all members of the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know -- (a) I don’t know when the House is going to rise, and (b) I don’t know when that agreement might be signed, but it is not going to be signed next week.

Mr. Bullbrook: A supplementary, if I may: Current with my question of two days ago, is there a possibility that we can have some undertaking, either from the Treasurer or the Premier, that we can fully debate that memorandum of agreement before the House rises?

Mr. Lewis: That’s the same question.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I can’t give that undertaking; perhaps the House leader can. I think we are several weeks away from an agreement being signed, either by the government of Canada or by this province.

Mr. Lewis: But you’ve already reported what the government is going to do.

OFFSHORE OIL SUPPLIES

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker, following the report that it is expected that within six years there may be some requirement for Ontario to use offshore oil to resolve some of our energy problems: Has the minister a statement to make with respect to the accuracy or otherwise of that report?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is referring to a report that was in the Globe and Mail about a week ago, which his research staff has dug out for him.

Mr. Breithaupt: No, I save these things myself.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The report, in large measure, results from the report of the National Energy Board of October, 1974, wherein they look at the prognosis for oil supply and demand in the country. In fact, they have recently held additional hearings and will be reporting -- we hope within another week or two, and hopefully before the Ministers of Energy meet on Dec. 12 -- on the supply/demand situation. It does appear -- they indicated a year ago -- that by the end of this decade or the early part of the next decade, Ontario will have to rely for some of its supplies west of the Ottawa Valley on imported crude, not on domestic crude.

Mr. Breithaupt: I thank the minister for the answer which his research staff no doubt dug out for him.

INTEREST PAYMENTS ON ONTARIO SECURITIES

Mr. Breithaupt: A further question of the Treasurer: Have any arrangements been made with respect to the persons who hold Province of Ontario securities or Hydro securities, so that they may have the opportunity to receive the interest payments that would otherwise be coming due and which might obviously he held up because of the postal difficulties?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: As has been done in the case of Canada Savings Bonds -- I asked that question myself this morning and I will get a reply for the member.

KREVER REPORT

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Health.

Mr. Roy: Order. Is he not a parliamentary assistant?

Mr. Leluk: Can the minister tell the members of this House what the present status is of the Krever report, which deals with the organization and operation of the Addiction Research Foundation of this province, and whether any of the recommendations contained in that report have been implemented at this point in time?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The Krever report was asked for, I guess, by the Addiction Research Foundation itself and was received by it. There was a period of time after its receipt when there was no apparent action being taken. I was concerned and so I saw the chairman of the board and he assured me he would step up the review of it, even though a review had been going on in camera.

I feel that in the intervening months, across the summer, a great deal has been done. For example, we now have a committee, representing our ministry staff and ARF, which is looking at the goals, objectives and role of the Addiction Research Foundation.

A consultant was hired by the ARF and that was one of the recommendations. That consultant has made a report on the restructuring of the management and organizational structure. I am told that almost therapy sessions have been held lately with staff and that they are changing their roles. My opinion is that a good deal of progress is being made as a result of the Krever report.

AIR POLLUTION STUDY

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of the Environment: Is the minister aware that in Dr. Neri’s report, which came to light about a week ago, the following statements were made -- during the two years of the survey the shutdown of the smelter operation was necessitated on 22 occasions; shutdowns occur when the index, which is scaled 1 to 100, reaches 50. Is the minister aware that statistics presented last week by his own ministry for the same period of time, 1972 to 1973, say the pollution index was exceeded on only seven occasions? How does one account for the difference between 22 and seven?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, that’s my information as well. In 1972 there were seven occasions over 32 and once over 50; and in 1973 there was one occasion when the API exceeded 32. That’s the information I have. If there is other information, I would be happy to have it.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary question: In the Neri report it says there were 22 occasions when there were plant shutdowns and that only occurs when the limit reaches 50. How do we get the difference in material presented by the ministry and that used by Dr. Neri? Can the minister find out for this House where the difference lies?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Plant shutdowns occur when the emission level reaches 100. They are cut back until 100. That’s for outside readings.

LINDSAY APARTMENT BUILDING PERMIT

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of the Environment: What is the minister’s response to a motion passed by the council of the town of Lindsay this past Monday evening that the request to grant a building permit to the ANED Construction Ltd. to construct a 103-unit apartment building on Westwood Ct. in Lindsay be approved, knowing that it is going to cause overflow to the Lindsay St. N. pumping station on occasion, knowing that this will cause pollution until the pumping station has been upgraded; and also knowing that a request was made to the Ministry of the Environment in early April, 1975, and the town still does not have a decision from the ministry; housing is more critical at this time than the pumping station and as a result this seemingly arbitrary action is recommended due to the procrastination of the Ministry of the Environment?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I will take notice of that question and get the hon. member the answer.

Mr. Speaker: I will agree to one supplementary.

Mr. Eakins: Will the minister assure me that he will take this personally and look after it on behalf of the council of the town of Lindsay?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He just said so.

OIL AND GAS PRICES

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Attorney General: During the last two days, stories have been carried in the daily newspapers suggesting that one or more oil companies may be intimidating or in some ways inhibiting the freedom of speech of certain gasoline retailers. Is the ministry or any of the ministries planning on investigating this serious matter?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am I sorry, I know of no investigation by my ministry I at the present time. That does not mean there is not one. I thank the hon. member for bringing the matter to my attention. I will make inquiries and ask that the matter be looked into if it is not being investigated at the present time.

STUDENT HOUSING PROCRAMME

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney General. Is he aware of any investigation by the RCMP into possible illegal actions in the development of the Ontario student co-operative housing projects? Is he aware that that investigation is allegedly completed, and has he taken any steps to investigate it to indicate what his role may be as a result of that investigation?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as I know my hon. friend, the member for St. George, well understands, the RCMP does not come under my jurisdiction.

Mr. Roy: There is something missing in your outfit.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not aware of any report that has been completed. I’ve just heard for some time that this matter was being investigated. I will again make inquiries and report back to the Legislature, if there is something to report back, in relation to this investigation.

LEAD LEVELS AT GM PLANT

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Health. Will the minster conduct an investigation into the dangerous lead oxide levels reported by General Motors of Canada at their south Oshawa battery plant, and will that investigation cover the workers inside the plant, their families and the residential areas adjacent to the plant, and can we have that report tabled in the House?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I believe it’s already done. I believe General Motors opened a new battery plant recently -- two or three months ago. According to the Ministry of the Environment, the levels outside the plant have been acceptable. However, levels inside the plant were found to be unacceptable, even though it has supposedly the most modem equipment around. This is why the notice was given. I believe high lead levels were found in the urine of the workers, and that’s checked on a regular routine basis. As a result of the high lead levels there, blood samples were taken. I am pleased to say that by noon today, 21 of them were back and all were normal. Therefore, the plant is remaining closed while the ventilation is improved. Once it’s improved, they will be back. There appears to be no hazard to the workers in the short exposure.

Mr. Breaugh: Would the minister please explain to us what the monitoring system is that his ministry does? Also, could he identify those 29 workers? There seems to be great disparity as to what General Motors says and what the ministry says. We don’t know who they are.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, my ministry doesn’t do in-plant monitoring on a normal basis. The Ministry of Labour is responsible for that, but our ministry supervises and sets standards. The information came to me.

VIOLENCE IN HOCKEY

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Attorney General: Agreed that his enthusiasm for cutting out hockey violence is sincere, doesn’t he think that he is reacting just a bit much in sort of benching one of his Crown attorneys, Doug Walker in St. Thomas, who’s coached the local midget team for 10 years --

Mr. Shore: He wasn’t a good coach.

Mr. Roy: -- and apparently Mr. Greenwood from the ministry telling him that there is a conflict of interest?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: This is of urgent public importance?

Mr. Roy: Isn’t the Attorney General overreacting a bit much? Doesn’t the Minister of Housing consider that urgent?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the matter that my friend refers to was drawn to my attention yesterday in Welland. I can assure him that such instructions did not come from me. I am concerned that such instructions would be given -- if such instructions were, indeed, given -- and I’m certainly looking into the matter, because I share my friends’ view; I simply do not agree that there is any conflict of interest.

Mr. Roy: Could I ask one quick supplementary? I gather from his answer today, the Attorney General is prepared to contravene these instructions to his colleague.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Contravene?

Mr. Singer: Reverse them.

Mr. Roy: Reverse them.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, if there were instructions given to any coach, as stated by my friend, that he could not participate as a coach simply by reason that he was a Crown attorney or an assistant Crown attorney, I will in fact reverse those instructions.

[3:15]

HIGHWAY 400 EXTENSION

Mr. Dukszta: I have a three-part question for the Premier. 1. Is he going ahead with extending Highway 400? 2. What is the proposed alignment? Needless to say, the extension of 400, as much as paving Spadina, would be of tragic consequence to Metro Toronto. 3. What is the schedule of construction?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be properly directed to the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Dukszta: May I redirect the question?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you may.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, do you want me to repeat it again? With all the traffic consequences, is the government going ahead with the extension of Highway 400; what is the proposed alignment; and what is the schedule of construction?

Mr. Evans: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Snow: To the first question, the answer is yes. To the second question, the alignment as far as Eglinton Ave. is established because we own the right of way. The alignment from Eglinton Ave. to St. Clair is yet to be established in consultation with Metro. As to the third question, the schedule is not established yet.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: Could the minister advise the House of the cost to the province of the Highway 400 extension?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I can’t at this time.

BOOK PUBLISHING BY CENTENNIAL COLLEGE

Mr. Reid: A question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities: Does the minister think it appropriate that a community college, in this case, Centennial, should be competing with the private hook publishing companies in Ontario, which we are trying to support, by publishing textbooks and other books in direct competition with those firms?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would ask the member to supply that specific information to me. I am not at this time aware of the competition whereof he speaks.

Mr. Reid: I will provide the information, but by way of supplementary, as a general policy does he think it appropriate that community colleges generally should be in competition with the private sector?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think that it is very necessary for the practical experience of a community college to come to grips with the marketplace. That’s primarily their design and I think there is a value in that approach to that problem.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Mackenzie: To the Treasurer: Does the minister consider that the price guidelines apply to the purchase price of buses for public transit systems?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They don’t apply to us. Whoever is selling these buses, presumably depending on whether they are one of the 1,500 firms, may be within the formal guidelines of the government of Canada in terms of the price to be charged. If they are not that large -- and I would be surprised if they weren’t -- then I think they are under the same moral guidelines which all firms or sellers are in the province.

As far as the purchaser is concerned, he has the option of paying the price or not paying the price. He also has the option, if he thinks the price is excessive or has risen excessively, of probably asking -- once it’s rolling -- the opinion of the Anti-Inflation Board, of complaining to the Anti-Inflation Board.

I may say that -- and this will be going out to the municipalities, I hope, tomorrow or Monday -- we are in the process of establishing a committee within the government under the Management Board secretariat, but probably including representatives from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, the Ministry of Government Services and the Ministry of Health, several of the large purchasers in government, to which government purchasing agents can refer any of their views as to excessive or very rapid price increases. That committee will be monitoring the price of goods which the government, which is a large purchaser of goods, will be purchasing during the life of the programme. If they find a price increase to be excessive or not justifiable in their view, then they will be passing that information along to the Anti-Inflation Board.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: In view of the minister’s programme of budget austerity, will he make exceptions for exceptional increases that are being quoted to municipal transit commissions and continue the subsidy of 75 per cent so that public transit systems are encouraged and not decreased in the interest of the number of automobiles on the roads?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the government’s grant policies are in effect until such time as they are changed.

REFLECTIVE LICENCE PLATES

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In light of the increased concern for safety on our highways, as evidenced by the government’s proposed reduction of speed limits and by mandatory use of seatbelts, is the minister prepared at this time to add another safety feature, that is, reflective licence plates?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, that is not under consideration at this time.

MAILBOX SIGN

Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Government Services agree that on the sign on the mailbox downstairs, which says “Mail for Ontario government offices from the private sector,” the message would be more appropriately conveyed if it said “from the public”?

Interjections.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, the member has made a good point. The answer is yes.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Is there a name on one of those mailboxes reading “Andrew StuParick”?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know.

Mr. Lewis: I just wondered.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I wonder if the minister would consider placing similar mailboxes at government offices throughout the province in order that local residents could contact their MPPs or the ministers by mail about local problems during the mail strike?

An hon. member: Use the phone.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, well over a week ago I did announce in this House that we had an emergency mail delivery system in effect throughout the province. It is a fact that we are receiving mail at all of our various government offices all over the province for delivery both to these buildings and for exchange through the various systems within government. I believe that if members wish to receive mail from their constituents, the constituents have only to deliver the messages to those offices.

ALUMINUM WIRING

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. How are the repeated assurances of Ontario Hydro regarding the safety of aluminum wiring valid in the light of statements made by the Scarborough Public Utilities Commission chairman that all the receptacles in his aluminum-wired home had to be replaced because they were melting?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if the member would read the rest of that newspaper report which appeared in today’s press he would find that Mr. Curtis, the general manager of the Public Utilities Commission of Scarborough, reported that aluminum wiring is safe.

EGANVILLE CREAMERY

Mr. Conway: A question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism: Does the minister not find it contradictory that in its first year of operation the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. should make its largest single disbursement to a firm which in the recent past has closed out 22 jobs at the Eganville creamery? I refer to the $1 million loan made by the EODC to Ault Foods of Winchester.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not find it strange that we should make the $1 million loan to the Ault creamery. It was obvious that there was a process which Ault had brought into being in this province which was causing both the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) some problems. That was what to do with the whey by-product they happen to produce from those factories. They had the opportunity, if they had the proper plant facilities in this province 1, of eliminating an environmental problem; 2, assisting in further revenues for people in the field of agriculture; and 3, for expanding export potential for the market.

Mr. Conway: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: How does the minister rationalize the fact that the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. is subsidizing a large concern which is closing out 22 jobs?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is debating the answer.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: A question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Now that the president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada has admitted that by the imposition of compulsory seatbelt legislation and reduction of speed limits there will be fewer automobile accidents and a reduction in the insurance claims level, and in view of the statement by him that they won’t do anything about this for at least two years, will the minister now consider instituting a freeze on automobile insurance rates?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I’ve seen the statement in the press. Certainly, we’ll be talking to the insurance industry concerning the effect of the use of seatbelts on the accident rate and claims rate against the insurance companies. I think the effect of it will show up much sooner than in two years, and certainly we’ll keep that in mind when we’re reviewing rates for next year.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mrs. Birch presented the first annual report of the Advisory Council on Senior Citizens.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The chairman of that council is a guest in the gallery today. I’m sure that all hon. members of the House would like to join with me in extending their appreciation for the very fine work that this council, through its chairman, has done on behalf of the senior citizens of this province.

Hon. W. Newman presented the ninth annual report of the Ontario Crop Insurance Commission.

Hon. F. S. Miller presented the 1974 report of the Ontario Cancer Institute.

Mr. Edighoffer from the standing estimates committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Energy be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976:

MINISTRY OF ENERGY

Ministry administration programme .... $439,000

Energy policy programme .... $1,562,000

Ontario Energy Board programme ....$1,153,000

Ontario Energy Corp. .... $226,000

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may rise on a point of order or privilege, or whatever you may deem it to be -- clarification, I guess: As a matter of general curiosity and particular concern, and arising from some submissions made to the legislative select committee looking into the Camp commission report, would you in your capacity as Speaker report to the Legislature or arrange to have one of the ministers report to the Legislature on the duties of, activities of and explanation of such duties and activities of one Andrew StuParick in his service, I think, in the Ministry of Government Services, so that some of us who are somewhat mystified can have clarification, and perhaps the gallery as well.

Mr. Speaker: That doesn’t come within my purview.

Mr. Lewis: Well, it involves the members of the Legislature, however, and it is in a sense --

Mr. Speaker: I think perhaps a question should be directed to the appropriate minister, whoever that might be.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that on the select committee to consider Bill 5, Messrs. Davidson, Samis and Warner be substituted for Mrs. Bryden, Mr. Bain and Mr. Philip.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

[3:30]

FAMILY BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Family Benefits Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment is to remove any reference to the sex of the parent, thereby enabling either the mother or the father of the child to be eligible for benefits.

Mr. Sargent moved, pursuant to standing order 30(a), that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to consider a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the closing by the Ministry of Health of the Chesley and District Memorial Hospital and the implementation by the Minister of Health of a programme to close 24 hospitals in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker was made aware of this in the proper way at least two hours before the opening of the House. In accordance with custom, a member from each party may have five minutes to discuss the matter as to whether we should set aside the ordinary business of the House. I will call on the hon. member for Grey-Bruce first.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I want to put the Premier at ease. All this mail here is not asking me to run for the leadership of the party.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I might say I am disappointed. I hoped it was.

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: In a very serious vein, I would like to impart what this is all about. I was notified yesterday that the Chesley and District Memorial Hospital would be closed by Jan. 1, in less than five weeks. In the federal House yesterday, the federal MP, Crawford Douglas, asked the Minister of Health and Welfare, Mr. Lalonde, to ask the Province of Ontario to stall the closing of this fine hospital and to make sure that the Province of Ontario would give adequate health services to all the people of Ontario in view of the fact that $951 million per year comes to this ministry for allocation equitably across Ontario.

Regardless of the fact that 8,000 people are served by this hospital -- in Paisley, Tara, Sullivan, Bentinck and all that area -- regardless of the fact that the former Chairman of the Management Board, Mr. Winkler, and another Conservative who ran against me as a candidate assured us during the election that the hospital would not close -- that was their firm statement -- 60 people, full and part-time, will be out of work.

This fine hospital was built by the nickels and dimes of the people of Chesley and area and has no debt. It is in the middle of a great area of a snowbelt. Its closing will be a real hardship for the whole area where time factors will cost many lives.

On Sunday all the churches in the area asked their congregations to write letters to the minister to the effect: “Please let us keep our hospital open.” I have here, sir, 983 letters received since Sunday morning. I have here 1,650 signatures. Teams went all over the whole area and thousands of miles were covered in this fight, pleading for the right to run our own affairs and to have our own hospital. I ask the minister to take the knife out of our back and quit harassing us.

The Minister of Health told the committee on Friday referring to the mayor of Chesley and the chairman of the board that he has 24 hospitals on his list. That is the quote they had on the air and they verified to me two hours ago that that was the minister’s quote.

It is a fact that the ministry does have $950 million federally to allocate on a fair and equal basis here in the Province of Ontario. Forgetting about the chaotic conditions in the city of Owen Sound, where we always have a list of some 350 people waiting to get admitted for surgery, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I regret the position taken by this government and the minister. I implore him to rescind this closure letter and let this fine hospital continue to remain open.

The town of Chesley is an expanding town. It has 120 new homes being erected now; new senior citizens’ apartments are being erected. The two doctors we have there now will be leaving and 8,000 people will have to look elsewhere for hospital care and will have no access to further doctors even though we pay the same hospital rates as people do across the province; in Toronto, Windsor, across the board.

Mr. Speaker: The member has 30 seconds left.

Mr. Sargent: Okay, Mr. Speaker, thank you. I say to all members this could happen to them, too. In view of the mail strike I’m going to put these on the minister’s desk in a moment. I say to the minister we have billions of dollars for nuclear power and we have millions of dollars for football stadiums but we are cutting back on small hospitals in the outlying parts of Ontario. I say to the minister and the Premier (Mr. Davis) that they’re badly mixed up in their priorities. If the government is in such bad financial position that we have to resort to this let us redirect our priorities and find out exactly what is going on.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have a speaker from the New Democratic Party? Yes. The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: I should like to speak to this motion to propose a matter of urgent public importance, Mr. Speaker. This is a really difficult matter. I understand entirely what prompts the member to put it.

Within the last few weeks, partially at the member’s invitation, I was fortunate enough to meet with the administrator, the chairman of the board and leading doctor of the Chesley community hospital when they put their case before me for maintenance of the hospital. I must say the position they took left me a little ambivalent about the response, because I suspect that the minster and his staff, particularly in the context of the financial constraints they feel bound by, can make a fairly effective case on the situation in Chesley and, maybe, even some other community hospitals.

There are some deficiencies in the government’s position on Chesley and the broader issue raised by the member for Owen Sound; deficiencies so great that it gives all of us in the New Democratic Party real pause. There seems to be no recognition in the ministry of the need to guarantee, at the very least, a major outpatient facility and community health centre which would provide active emergency care; nothing concomitant with the closing down of the hospital to ensure that.

There seems to be no sufficient appreciation of the impact on a little community like Chesley of the closing down of the hospital. There seems to be no sufficient appreciation of the snowbelt realities in that part of the world. Above all, there seems to be no appreciation that, as a result of the folly of tie government, if Chesley is closed down the patients will be referred, as a matter of course, to the Owen Sound General and Marine Hospital, which, as a result of the imploring of the member for Owen Sound and others of this House, I finally visited late in the day. I feel chagrined shout that; I should have done it earlier. But let me stand here now and say to the Minister of Health that the behaviour of the government around the Owen Sound General and Marine Hospital has been absolutely outrageous and the position of the member has been consistently right, and I concede it.

I want to tell the minister, and it arises directly from Chesley, I could hardly believe it when I toured that hospital, when I asked my research associates to assemble material, when I looked at the background, when I read the reports and when I realized the legitimacy of the case. I felt personally a little chagrined that I hadn’t entered into it and understood it more fully previous to this.

So given the realities of closing down Chesley and the consequences for Owen Sound, it seems to me the member does rise on a matter which, obviously, to people in his area can be construed as being of urgent public importance. But I take it the step further that it has to be taken to legitimize a debate: It isn’t just Chesley; Chesley is a symbol of capricious, quixotic and unpredictable planning of hospital administration across the province. There are all kinds of members in the New Democratic caucus who, within their own constituencies, have little community hospitals threatened with shutdown, without any overall sense of planning or rationalization about hospital beds, hospital facilities and hospital development. It is hard to deal with them in individual and arbitrary ways. Therefore, it is legitimate that Chesley be seen as a symbol of bad hospital planning across the province. The arguments for Chesley may or may not be legitimate; I find it hard to measure. But I do know that Chesley is simply the tip of the iceberg which exemplifies for communities all over Ontario the same kind of frustration and anxiety. In that sense, I think a public debate is legitimate.

You would say, sir, and I’ll bring my remarks to an end, how can it be made of urgent public importance when the Health estimates have passed? It is precisely because they have passed and because the nature of the telescoping of those estimates left us between 40 and 45 minutes for the whole discussion of general hospitals in the Province of Ontario. Why is it of urgent public importance when we still have the Throne debate? Because the Throne debate never joins issue in this fashion and never really resolves an issue as a debate of this kind can or might resolve.

On balance, therefore, difficult though it is, but seeing the general point made, we would support the member in his request for a debate of urgent public importance, and see it as a debate on the future of community hospitals right across the Province of Ontario.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we did have some discussion during the estimates about these things and we have it on an ongoing basis. I don’t think I would ever rank the closure of a hospital as not being a serious matter. Yet one must look back to some of the statements made in the heat of the election campaign -- by the Liberal Party, about the savings of 25 per cent on the bed costs in the province; I think they said $320 million -- by the comments of the official critic of the Liberal Party, that in fact we had built too many beds in this province; I believe there were criticisms from the NDP to that same effect; and by our statement, that in fact over the past two years, at least under my tenure as minister, a rationalization of hospital beds in the province had to be made.

In the case of Chesley -- and I visited there too and I find them lovely people and they’ve been very nice to me throughout a very trying time -- I have one of two options: Close the existing hospital or build a new one if a hospital is to exist. One must go further back in time and realize that when the new Hanover hospital was built a pre-condition of its building was the closure of Chesley. Chesley doesn’t meet any of the fire marshal’s requirements, or many of the fire marshal’s requirements, as I’m sure the members know.

We have had many discussions with the community. We’ve talked to them -- well before I became minister but certainly since I’ve been minister -- having visited them once and having sent staff at least twice and having met with the delegation last week. The creation of a clinic in the area, or outpatient service of some type, obviously is something we would like.

Normally speaking, the money for this kind of physical plant is put up in the community. And this hospital, I understand, has a $300,000 grant to it right now for some type of facility in the community that could -- and probably should be functioning there for the kinds of care needed on a short-term basis. If, in fact, you can’t justify the closure of Chesley Hospital I am reasonably sure one cannot justify the closure of any hospital at any time in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: It has to be part of a plan.

Mr. Good: Tell us your plan.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is part of a plan and this is the thing I am trying to get across to you. I did not move with any haste in this matter -- I have spent a good amount of time on it in the past year.

How many will close? I don’t know.

Mr. Lewis: What do you mean you don’t know?

Mrs. Campbell: If you don’t know, why don’t you?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Now, just a second -- how may will close, I don’t know.

Mr. Lewis: But you should know.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just a moment now, I didn’t interrupt and I would appreciate the opportunity to answer.

I am not sure what kind of time-frame it takes to wind these things down because if one looks across the Chesley matter, the issue of closure has been up for a full 10 or 12 or 15 years. And it took that time to actually get to the painful decision to do something of this nature. I don’t like doing these kinds of things.

I can tell you, yes I have an analysis of the needs of this province.

Mr. Lewis: Do you?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, it is 24 hospitals, to be specific.

Mr. Lewis: What are they?

Hon. F. S. Miller: These are hospitals that staff have recommended to me should be closed.

Mr. Singer: Ah, very interesting --

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps you might share it.

Mr. Singer: -- that is very interesting.

Hon. F. 5. Miller: I have had that within the last 10 days.

Mr. Singer: Why don’t you share it with the House?

Mr. Roy: Share it with us.

Hon. F. S. Miller: This is part of the planning process that I am going through right now.

Mr. S. Smith: The estimates were three days ago.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We looked at the number of beds across the province and determined on a fairly orderly basis where closures would be required in addition to that. We are discussing this on an ongoing basis with the Ontario Hospital Association -- we are discussing it with the people who should be able to help us, and I think we are making an orderly and systematic approach to a problem of overestimation of needs in the province.

Therefore, I take none of these actions in any light vein. The Minister of Education (Mr. Wells), if he saves a dollar in this province, gains the undying thanks of every single voter --

Mr. Lewis: But we have a right to know your estimate?

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- the Minister of Health trying to save a dollar invariably runs into the anger and hostility of the communities affected. The proper way would be to argue the matter as the plan comes forward in the future. I think until that plan comes forward to you, it’s premature.

Mrs. Campbell: No.

Mr. Singer: You want 24 debates, do you?

Mr. Lewis: What is the plan? Before you rule, Mr. Speaker, might we ask the minister just to be helpful to the House? This in fact speaks to the problem. Is it possible for the minister to take the members of the Legislature into his confidence about the plan for the possible shutdown of hospitals across Ontario so that Chesley can be seen as a part of that, rather than an arbitrary act?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I said to the board -- in fact, that is where the member got his information -- that they should realize they weren’t an isolated instance.

Mr. MacDonald: We need a debate so you can talk about the plan.

Mr. Ferrier: Are any of those hospitals in Muskoka?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would say it is premature for me to talk about that plan in detail, yet, because I had mentioned --

Mr. Singer: Because you don’t want to give your hand away, you are not prepared.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- I had mentioned Chesley publicly because they were aware of the fact. I had mentioned Windsor’s Riverview --

Mr. Singer: They wrote you a letter. You wrote them a letter.

Mr. Ferrier: You are sure none of these hospitals is in Muskoka?

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- because they were aware. I don’t want any hospital to become aware of it in a premature way -- I would like an opportunity to talk to the boards.

Mr. Roy: Which one are you going to shut down in Ottawa?

Mr. Singer: They’ll find one day the lights don’t work.

Mr. Speaker: This has been a very interesting and I think an important debate.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, if I may, sir? Regardless of your decision the House should know the list of the hospitals that are planned to be closed. Because if the divide-and-conquer system comes into effect --

Mr. MacDonald: That is why we need a debate.

Mr. Singer: That is why we need a debate.

Mr. Sargent: -- if we know collectively what the minister is going to do, sir, then all hell is going to break loose. In the meantime he is going to knock us off one by one, and it isn’t going to work.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the hon. member had an opportunity to present his facts and figures, which were very impressive.

As I say, this is a very interesting and very important debate. I think those representing each party have given a lot of information, perhaps sufficient for this particular time. And there is no doubt about the importance of the subject of the hon. member’s motion, especially to those people who are directly concerned.

But as was mentioned, I think by the Leader of the Opposition and perhaps by others, we have, just a few days ago, completed a study of the estimates of the Minister of Health where there was ample opportunity to discuss all related matters. Also I point out something else, that the Throne Speech is not debated at this time --

Mr. Singer: That is not the kind of discussion.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, order -- and the hon. member, if memory serves me correctly, is scheduled to speak, he is almost the next speaker there. I think he could make his presentation then. If there are any further facts and figures at that time -- it may be tomorrow as I understand it -- certainly there will be many additional opportunities to bring these matters before the House. It would be my considered opinion that we should not set aside the business of the House today to consider this particular matter.

Mr. Shore: I think this is more important.

Mr. Breithaupt: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I must challenge your ruling based upon the fact that the letter from the hon. minister announcing the closing of this hospital is dated Nov. 17 and that is the same date that the estimates finished here; so there was not the opportunity, unfortunately, to discuss this particular matter. As a result, Mr. Speaker, I regret we must challenge your ruling.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there were a number of letters. That was only one of them, and I can give the dates --

Mr. Roy: No, no, we have a challenge.

Mr. Singer: It is not a debate.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know, but let’s have the facts.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s information I wasn’t aware of. The hon. member for Kitchener challenged the Speaker’s ruling.

Mr. Lewis: Regretfully.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, always.

[4:45]

The House divided on the Speaker’s ruling, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Auld Belanger Bennett Bernier Birch Brunelle Davis Drea Eaton Evans Gregory Handleman Henderson Hodgson Irvine Johnson (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel) Jones Kennedy Kerr Lane Leluk MacBeth Maeck McCague McKeough McMurtry McNeil Meen Miller (Muskoka) Morrow Newman (Durham North) Norton Parrott Rhodes Rollins Scrivener Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Snow Stephenson Taylor Timbrell Welch Wells Williams Wiseman Yakabuski -- 46.

Angus Bain Bounsall Breaugh Breithaupt Bryden Burr Campbell Cassidy Conway Cunningham Davidson (Cambridge) Davison (Hamilton Centre) Deans di Santo Dukszta Eakins Edighoffer Ferrier Ferris Foulds Gaunt Germa Gigantes Givens Godfrey Good Grande Haggerty Hall Kerrio Lawlor Lewis Lupusella MacDonald Mackenzie Makarchuk Mancini Martel McClellan McKessock Miller (Haldimand-Norfolk) Moffatt Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) O’Neil Peterson Philip Reed (Halton-Burlington) Reid (Rainy River) Riddell Roy Ruston Samis Sandeman Sargent Shore Singer Smith (Nipissing) Smith (Hamilton West) Spence Stong Swart Sweeney Warner Wildman Worton Young Ziemba -- 68.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 46, and the “nays” are 58.

Mr. Speaker: I humbly declare the Speaker’s ruling --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Now can we get on? I declare the Speaker’s ruling not to have been upheld and I now place the question: Shall the debate proceed?

All those in favour of the debate proceeding shall say “aye.”

All opposed shall please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

I might just point out to those members who may not be familiar with the rules the rule says each speaker who wishes to talk on this may speak for 10 minutes with the debate ending at 6 p.m. or earlier if there are not enough speakers. The debate will proceed in a moment.

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Speaker, I rise to another point of personal privilege. It relates to the events earlier this afternoon and to the Premier’s statement. I feel terribly strongly about alcohol, the drinking age, and the related carnage on the highways. My feelings are so deep that they lead me on occasion to statements which can be both extreme and unfair. Last night’s Global Television interview was one of these occasions. I apologize to the Premier and undertake that it won’t happen again.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, sir, I have made my point. There are many more able speakers going to continue the debate. But I would like to say one thing to the minister. It is very important that on the part of all the 24 areas where he plans to dismantle their hospitals, that he let us have the names of those areas. It is most important that we have that before the House.

Mr. Dukszta: Closing of the Chesley hospital is a good example of the totally heedless, un-thought-out and even dangerous approach of the government to the question of the health of residents of Ontario. His managerial cut-costs-at-any-price approach has in fact put the health of Ontario and our health system into a real danger.

Let me just go over the point he raised in his reply to the member who brought the question up. It is true that we have more beds in Ontario than in a number of other jurisdictions. We have 5.7 beds, according to the hospitalization international comparison, 1969 -- much more than the people have in Great Britain. And it is true that this is too many beds for our needs. It is also true that I have personally urged the government a number of times that we must look seriously at the question of health care, the question of beds, and reduce the number of beds. In that sense the minister has been correct in saying that I have urged him to do so. I have not urged him, and I will never urge him, to cut beds without thinking of the alternatives in Ontario now, hospital beds are often used inappropriately. People who are chronically ill are often admitted to hospital merely because there is nowhere else for them to go. They are admitted quite often to the hospital beds because there is no way for them to be treated or examined on an adequate basis in an emergency room -- out-patient or otherwise. It is quite true that at least one out of five patients who are now in beds in Ontario hospitals generally probably should not be there. But I cannot urge the minister to cut this one in five beds to reduce the proportion unless he proposes to introduce a system of alternative care which will take care of the people who are now in beds.

You simply cannot throw them all out of those beds and say: “Because we have to cut out beds you’ll have to go somewhere else.” Where will they go? There is no alternative. I’m going to spend a few minutes pointing out there are very few alternatives, indeed, in our health system for taking care of the ambulatory patients, those very patients who, in fact, now occupy one out of five beds needlessly.

Yet, the hon. minister in approaching this, approaches it from only one particular point of view: Let’s just cut beds and nothing else. At the same time, he’s illogical in many of his approaches because he gives capital and money towards building other hospitals. Thirty-four per cent of all our beds are in teaching hospitals, yet the teaching hospitals receive well over 50 per cent of capital costs. All of the teaching hospitals are largely now in large centres and most of them are in Toronto. It’s the big hospitals which receive extra money for beds and facilities. That is not wise. For this the hon. minister pays by having to cut much-more-needed beds in the rural areas.

When we come to the psychiatrical beds, the same situation occurs. There are, in fact, a number of empty beds but again you cannot cut those beds until you produce an alternative. I stress again and again that we’re taking a real risk. Both as a health critic and a physician, I want to urge the minister to consider that he, as an engineer, may not fully understand that it is taking a real risk to simply remove a bed. That may appeal to an engineer who has worked in a factory to move something out. That does not apply to the human services and never will.

Not only does he do that but he carelessly and needlessly has been cutting a number of other services. There are alternatives. There are a number of alternatives which would do. You can move towards building community health centres. The NDP has been concerned for some time. It’s our policy that one way of solving the question of health problems in Ontario is to move decisively towards building community health centres, which would deal with most of the health and social service problems on an ambulatory basis.

At first, indeed, it may be an expenditure but, in the long run, it is the only way that we can attempt to control the services and the costs of health care in Ontario. He has not done that and I will show, in a few minutes, that he has, in fact, made many approaches towards the community health centre movement which strangles them and sabotages any attempt to introduce this particular way of organizing health care in Ontario.

We need more rehabilitation beds, as has been spectacularly shown in the speech of one of the NDP people during the estimates. He has not fully responded and the ministry attempts to deny the need for it.

We need more nursing beds. You need both an ambulatory-type of service, like a community health centre or a drop-in centre and, at the same time, Mr. Speaker, you need rehabilitation and you need nursing home beds to take care of all the patients who now occupy that one in five beds and need not be in that bed. You cannot, and I repeat this again, you simply cannot remove that bed.

The minister needs both money for training and the change in laws to allow paramedical professionals to take care of patients on an ambulative basis, whether they are taking care of them in health centres or whether they’re taking care of those patients at home. That would be a considerable saving of money. The minister has not done it. On this he again has to be faulted.

The last point, which I would like to speak of in some detail, is that I believe the minister is now actively sabotaging the whole approach to the community health centres. There are about 10 community health centres in Toronto itself and he has now designed a policy which, in effect, will make sure that most of them will die on the vine.

I hate mentioning the names of the civil servants, but in the implementational group in this ministry whether it is under direction of one civil servant or another -- Dr. Aldis, is the one I have in mind -- or whether it is the minister’s directive a policy has been instituted which cuts support to all the community health centres.

[5:00]

Hon. F. S. Miller: No. I don’t know who it was.

Mr. Dukszta: I see that the minister is disagreeing with me. Let me just say what the policy means, in effect when it --

Interjection.

Mr. Dukszta: It was Dr. Aldis. Let me say, I don’t believe he acts entirely on his own. I believe this is a directive which has come from the minister. So he too cannot hide behind a group. It is the minister’s responsibility.

There are two points about his approach, before the minister gives money to the community health centres. These need examining.

One is that the standards which the minister demands from them are infinitely higher than he would dream of demanding from a physician in general practice, He always requires that every physician who works there should be fulltime. Two, he sets up standards of valuation which involve examining patient records to a degree, which again he would never dream of doing if private patients in general practice were involved. That’s wrong. Whether the minister likes it or not -- and if explanation is given that he proposes to do this as evaluation -- I think it is wrong, because he is strangulating. He is not consistent, because some of the community health centres have largely received a different contract than the one I am speaking of. Like the one in my own riding; it is one with a different contract altogether.

Not only does the minister strangulate the community health centres, which would be one way of solving this problem of excess of beds -- moving the patients to an ambulatory treatment -- but he’s also made a very active effort to cut down almost all support services in the community. I will not go through a whole litany of them as I did through the estimates. Let me just remind the minister of three or four major cuts in terms of the psychiatric beds which would undoubtedly affect the utilization of beds. Six months ago he cut up the entire crisis information service in Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital -- very much a prevention-oriented service.

He has also cut down the children’s services from 32 to 25 beds; he has thrown them out without providing alternative services in any sense. He has cut down the social service department by his action, he didn’t do it directly, by approving what the hospital would do. He has cut down the social services in Toronto General Hospital, and, in effect, he is making sure that once more the patients have to stay in bed because there is no one to place them outside.

Let me summarize, because I think I’ve got a few seconds left. The Chesley situation is a superb example --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Dukszta: It is a superb example of the minister’s failure to manage our health care system, and he is taking a real risk proceeding on this course.

Mr. S. Smith: The reason that our party believes that the matters being discussed today are of urgent public importance are partly related, of course, to the concern of the member for Grey-Bruce for the hospital in his area. But they relate also to the announcement made in the course of discussion by the Minister of Health that he had a list of 24 hospitals across this province that he is possibly preparing to close, and his further statement that he does not believe it to be appropriate to inform any of these hospitals about the opposition he has on his desk before him, because it might be premature.

He has created, in fact, a situation of panic within the province, whereby every community now has to be concerned as to whether its little hospital is going to be closed or not. The panic is thrice compounded, unfortunately, by the fact that there exists neither criteria nor objectives by which people can judge whether their hospital has been meeting some reasonable standard and, therefore, will not come under his axe, or whether their hospital by some caprice of the minister might be eliminated tomorrow. If not tomorrow, the day after that. I would remind this House that when we close hospitals we are dealing not only with problems for the community and problems for the patient but we are also dealing with the people who work there.

Hospitals are highly labour-intensive industries and people have moved to some areas believing that the hospital would be there as a permanent structure. They have been encouraged to take training as nurses, as nurses’ aides, as orderlies. People have come to take laboratory technician training. Suddenly these people will find themselves without work and not only in Grey-Bruce but throughout the province, it now turns out this is going to happen.

As I said in this House during discussion of the Ministry of Health estimates on Nov. 12, we have a situation in which no criteria have been established by the Ministry of Health by which to judge the efficiency and effectiveness of hospitals and thereby to judge also their deservedness in terms of continuing or being eliminated.

The government has had before it for some time the Deutsch report with several recommendations, including that before any new programmes or facilities be provided a rational plan should be developed to avoid costly and unnecessary duplication. It is all very well for the Minister of Health continually to tell this House that his predecessors unfortunately built too many hospital beds. Who in heaven’s name were his predecessors? They are the same people who are sitting there right now.

Therefore, he says, it has become necessary for us to rationalize the number of hospital beds across the province. Let him stand up and shout from the rooftops that the Conservatives have been fooling the people for 32 years by offering these monuments to Conservative government in each riding throughout the province: A hospital here and a hospital there, bricks and mortar for everyone.

It is the same policy with the universities. It’s no different.

Interjections

Mr. S. Smith: The fact of the matter is that we now find --

Interjection.

Mr. S. Smith: -- it becomes necessary to close beds. Now the question is by what criteria; under what plan; which hospitals; why those hospitals; why not other hospitals; what are the means by which these things are decided? It has furthermore been told to the ministry there should be the positive encouragement -- I quote again from the Deutsch report -- “of many more centralized services for hospitals on a regional basis to reduce costly and unnecessary duplication including highly specialized laboratories.”

The ministry has within its possession right now and has not seen fit to release to the public, a report indicating that regionalized publicly-oriented laboratories of a specialized nature are much more efficient and much cheaper than privately-run ones. On some misguided notion that it is supporting private enterprise when it supports publicly paid for but privately-run laboratories, the government refutes to make that report public. I look forward to seeing that report being tabled in this House.

The fact of the matter is we cannot sit idly by and watch some capricious decision to choose one hospital here and 23 others somewhere else. What about Meaford? What about Penetanguishene and Barry’s Bay? I only mentioned those hospitals because according to the latest statistics available they had longer length-of-stay figures -- days per patient -- than the hospital which is presently being closed in Grey-Bruce.

The fact is we see the bankruptcy of this government’s policy in terms of health. We see a $3 billion budget with neither objectives nor means of measuring whether these objectives are being approached. We see hospitals being picked without a clear idea as to why they are going to be destroyed and eliminated.

We see no alternatives in terms of what the people who have been trained I to work in these hospitals are supported to do with their lives now that the government has seen fit to close these things. All we hear by wax of admission that the government has for years overbuilt beds in this province is simply, “It is politically difficult not to do that and what would the hon. member have done?”

I can see the truth has caused the Premier to leave the House. I can well understand his desire to flee in the face of it. I can understand his desire to flee in the face of the truth but truth will eventually set him free. The fact is when they overbuilt those beds and gained the political popularity they did, they were setting us up for the present situation in which people are going to be put out of work, communities are going to be disrupted and panic will ensue in the province.

What we say is this: What is the list of 24 hospitals? Where are they located? And why those? What are the criteria by which those particular hospitals were chosen? How do we know that next year there will not be another 45 hospitals on the list unless we have some good way of measuring the criteria that the Ministry of Health is using? When will the ministry implement the alternatives that we have been calling for for years? When will it make public the reports which indicate that its policies are in fact too expensive and are failing?

These are the questions that my colleagues and I wish to have considered by this House and that is the reason this is a matter of urgent public importance; not merely because of the Chesley situation but because of the other 24 hospitals and because of the bankruptcy of the entire health policy despite its $3 billion budget.

Mr. Wildman: I speak in this debate because there appears to have been a similar lack of overall planning with attention to local needs by the Ministry of Health in my riding. As everyone knows there is a lack of doctors in the north and a lack of medical care. There have been attempts by the ministry to rectify that situation but there are a number of problems in Algoma which seem to have resulted from a lack of planning in doing that. For instance, the ministry maintains that there are sufficient facilities for extended health care for the population of the district of Algoma. Unfortunately, the three facilities which they talk about are all located in the southern part of the riding or in the eastern centres of the district. Thus, people living in places like Wawa and White River have to travel about 200 miles during all types of weather in order to visit loved ones.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I came back to hear the truth.

Mr. S. Smith: You are too late.

Mr. Wildman: Well, I am surprised.

Mr. S. Smith: Here it is. The member for Algoma is giving it to you, so listen.

Mr. Gaunt: You came back just in time for the doctor.

Mr. Wildman: Usually, this means that elderly people just don’t get to visit their loved ones very often. Why couldn’t the planning have been set up so that there were facilities distributed throughout the district to make it possible for people not to have to travel such long distances? Why isn’t there a centre in Wawa, for instance, to serve the communities of Wawa, Hawk Junction, White River, Hornepayne, and Missinaibi and so on? I suggest it is because the ministry officials don’t have any real understanding of the geography of the north nor of the needs of rural communities.

Also, because of the shortage of doctors and surgeons throughout the north, the ministry has a programme to attract doctors to the north by subsidizing their salaries if necessary. They have been encouraging local communities to build community health centres, which we support, but ironically they refuse to contribute grants to the building of such centres. They say they are needed to attract doctors to the north but they do not give the money necessary to build them.

They say in the absence of district health councils there is no coordination in the construction of such centres. So, in some cases you have a proliferation of centres in one part of the riding and one part of the district. In my case, there is a situation in Bruce Mines where there is a centre which doesn’t have sufficient support and the community is now in debt. They don’t need the doctors. There was only one doctor when it was set up for a much larger staff, and there is another centre built only 12 miles away in Thessalon.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Who built it?

Mr. Wildman: The local community. There is no planning by the ministry, no direction by the ministry, to indicate what should be done in that area. It’s left completely to the initiative of local officials end then the ministry comes along and says: “Well, it wasn’t our fault.” That doesn’t help.

This mess in central Algoma, I believe, is an example of the fact that there is a lack of forward planning and co-operation in dealing with the needs of local communities in rural areas by the Ministry of Health and this certainly seems to be the case in the Chesley hospital and I would submit that that is also the case in many areas of the north and certainly in the district of Algoma.

[5:15]

Mr. Eaton: I’d like to say a few words on this because I can certainly understand the feelings of the member for Grey-Bruce, having two small hospitals in my riding. For all I know one of these or both could possibly be on the list. It’s hard to say. It does leave some uncertainty, but I think I would much rather see the minister retain that list to himself until he does have an opportunity to review it and perhaps make some decisions himself on how he will be moving on the situation before he releases the 24 names and, perhaps as someone across the floor has said, cause a bit of a panic among some of the hospitals which may be on the list but which he might not be deciding to include because of his review of the situation.

I’ve never seen the member for Grey-Bruce so serious about a subject and I think he presented his case very well. I know, however, the position we’re in. The opposition, the Liberals themselves, have said that some of the beds should be closed in the province, and we have to take these things into consideration with the restraint that we face.

Mr. Roy: We want it orderly.

Mr. Eaton: I would perhaps rise to suggest an alternative in the situation that we face. We have developed, in one of the communities in our riding, the Southwest Middlesex Medical Clinic. It has now been in operation close to a year and I think it has been highly successful. It has provided a service in that community where people can go on an emergency basis before they have to go into a hospital. Things can be looked after where normally if they had to be rushed into the hospital treatment might be delayed to the point that it would be too late.

This type of medical centre has certainly been an asset to the community. Many services have been provided there, not only on an emergency basis, but on a regular health care basis. I think this is certainly an alternative that can be looked at in the instance of the problem that the member for Grey-Bruce has presented to us.

I know the minister and the interest he has taken in his ministry and in the operation of some of our hospitals, having had him visit the small ones in my riding where we have problems because of their size. I’m sure also the member up there has problems because of both the size and the age of his hospital. Unlike what the member for Hamilton West was indicating, it probably wasn’t a hospital that was built in the last 33 years, it was probably built sometime before that, as were many of our small hospitals around this province.

When it comes to the consideration of the cost of renovating them and of changing them, then perhaps there is some rationale for using some of our larger centres with the facilities available, such as our medical clinics. I know that the minister has shown compassion and will show some in this instance and I’m sure that he will give some consideration to the alternatives. I say to the minister that I’m sure that he realizes the situation being put forth by the member here and I trust that he will give him every consideration and consider the alternatives and the ramifications of the decision being made.

Mr. Roy: You should have been --

Mr. B. Newman: I rise to continue the debate that we’ve had with the minister concerning the situation in the Windsor area. Unfortunately, in the completion of the minister’s estimates on Nov. 17 of this month, just a few days ago, after having sat in the House for approximately 2½ hours, I only had about three minutes to express to the minister my concern over the Windsor situation. At that time, the minister replied to me -- and I’m reading from page 641 of Hansard -- that a letter was sent to “Riverview Hospital, saying that it should close March 31, 1976, unless the alternative is acceptable, and proposed to us by the end of this month.”

As I was talking to the minister earlier, I made mention to him of the confusion. Even with the minister’s comments here concerning the closing of the hospital on March 31, 1976, from what we understand with the communication from the ministry much earlier in the year, the decision was going to be made at the end of the year and not before the end of this month. I tried to point out to the minister that he wasn’t giving the local community sufficient time to arrive at a satisfactory alternative to what he had proposed and the ministry’s proposals, as numerous as they were, never seemed to clear the air.

The latest that I had heard was the complete phasing out of the Riverview Hospital closing it up, leaving people who need chronic care with no facility other than to be transferred into Windsor Western Hospital, which would be taken off active treatment and made into a chronic-care hospital. If that is the ministry’s proposal to save money -- this was one of the proposals coming through, from what I understand, from some of the minister’s officials.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, no.

Mr. B. Newman: If it wasn’t then the minister can correct it later.

But imagine coming along and closing Riverview and putting the chronic-care facilities in Windsor Western. Imagine all of the physical changes that would have to be made in that hospital -- widening the doors, adjusting the washroom facilities and everything of this sort. Actually, you would be building a new hospital on the site. The expense would be far greater than the $4-million saving that the minister wanted at the expense of the community.

In addition to that, just the thought of closing Riverview is not acceptable to the community. Let me tell the minister he will find every single community group opposing that position of his -- if it still is his position. Reducing the number of beds could possibly be an alternative, but phasing it out completely and transferring it into another location is not acceptable. Likewise, the breaking up of the health-delivery team in that hospital is not acceptable to the community. They developed an excellent team and dispersing it into four other hospitals in the community is not acceptable.

Just Monday night of this week city council passed a resolution strongly supporting the maintaining of the Riverview Hospital. The Windsor Western staff likewise supported that The Windsor District Labour Council on Tuesday -- that’s just two days ago -- were very much in support of maintaining Riverview, even if the minister doesn’t maintain it at its full capacity, at least to the extent of 120 beds, and placing those patients who are not benefiting from any therapy in the hospital in other facilities in the community.

Remember -- if there is a surplus of beds in the city of Windsor, it is a result of the decisions of this government in allowing hospital beds to be built within the last five years. The government apparently had no overall plan drawn up around the needs of the community, yet it permitted the construction of a substantial number of beds in the one hospital. Now the minister is confronted with closing the beds. If I’m not mistaken, approximately 100 beds are going to be closed in that one hospital. Naturally it is preferable to take out of Riverview Hospital those patients who are not able to get any type of therapy and place them in the active-treatment hospital in the community.

If the minister is interested in saving the $4 million, why doesn’t he look at some of the approaches that are being used in other jurisdictions? For example, the walk-in wipe of surgery that has been used since 1961 in the city of Grand Rapids, Mich. -- US President Gerald Ford’s own community. It has saved large sums of money and has been so popular that approximately 2,000 hospitals in the United States use that type of service. They list 40 different operations that can be performed on a walk-in basis so that the active-treatment bed is not used for other than active-treatment. The Watts Hospital in Durham, North Carolina, also is one of the hospitals that uses a walk-in-type of surgery and is also saving substantial funds. The Phoenix Surgacentre is such a hospital. Centralized purchasing, the centralizing of the laundry facilities and so forth are other means that can be used in a community to save funds rather than depriving the community of much needed health delivery services.

Not too long ago the hon. minister made mention concerning Riverview and IODE hospitals, that a chronic hospital should not stand alone but should be integrated with a general and a psychiatric hospital. Yet the hon. minister, in the information that I have, was going to go back on that and change one of the hospitals into a complete chronic care hospital. He can answer that when he has the opportunity.

Just one week ago, on Thursday Nov. 13, there was an editorial in the Windsor Star. I’m not going to read it all because other members want to speak. But its headline is “False Economies in Hospital Plan.” I suggest the minister read the editorial, listen to what the people in the community are trying to tell him. We don’t disagree with him in saving funds, but let’s not save them at the expense of human life in the city of Windsor.

Mr. Bain: I appreciate this opportunity to participate in a debate on medical care in general and hospitals in particular. In northern Ontario and in other rural parts of this province one finds that facilities such as hospitals, schools, churches and so on occupy a much more important position in the community than they do in the larger centres. To withdraw a hospital or a church or a school is a death knell to many of these communities.

The residents of these communities also feel a much greater bond with their hospitals than you would find exists in larger communities. I’m sure that many other members have found this to be true in their own ridings.

A case in point has arisen in the tri-town area that I think is probably more extreme than any other case in this province. Early in the 1970s the minister -- or the ministry, to be more exact -- decided there was to be one hospital board where previously there had been two, and that there would be one hospital where previously there had been two hospitals.

In a report commissioned by Kates, Peat, Marwick and Co., it was found that of course there would be fewer employees in this one new hospital than existed in the two that were presently being utilized. And of course as always, there would be fewer beds in the new hospital than in the two existing facilities.

In the process of setting up this one hospital board, this one hospital board also bad to determine where the new hospital would be. In this whole process, which took a number of years, the hospital board finally decided on a location, after a great deal of soul searching. But that site was not acceptable to the minister, so he appointed four people of his choosing to the hospital board. Of course those four people, with existing members on that board, ensured that the minister’s wishes would be carried out, so the site of the hospital was changed at the minister’s insistence.

Not surprisingly, members of the hospital board that did not agree with this change felt that appointing four new members by the minister was not democratic. Therefore, the members who didn’t agree with the new site location and didn’t agree with the undemocratic action resigned.

Presently we have a very dedicated board of men and women who are trying desperately to build a new hospital that they feel will provide better health care to the people of the tri-town. But they are labouring under great difficulties because of all this past turmoil that has been caused by a long extended process, by intervention by the minister, and by his decision which disallowed the people in the local area making the decision. Even today there are parts of the community that are supposed to be served by the new hospital which refuse to elect any members to the new hospital board.

[5:30]

What I personally find most regrettable in this whole situation is that local people have been turned against other local people, that bitterness has festered over the last few years because of this whole process. What could have been accomplished earlier by a democratic decision of a hospital board would have solved the problem, but that didn’t take place.

I believe, because of the unusual severity of the problem that exists, an innovative solution should be utilized. I won’t say the minister complains, he has merely mentioned that one of his onerous tasks is to make decisions which often bring him in conflict with the local communities. This happens, for example, when he decides to close a hospital or where a new hospital would be located. I would suggest this whole problem can be resolved by reconstituting the nature of hospital boards along the lines of municipal councils and boards of education. As we have seen in all the speeches that have been made thus far, local people want to be involved in the decisions about their hospitals; so reconstitute hospital boards and allow the local people to make the decisions. The ministry can rifer advice and expertise but it should not dictate to local people the way it is presently doing.

Another case in point where local people have been dictated to, and their wishes disregarded, is in the Kirkland Lake area I have already discussed with the minister in the House the need for Kirkland Lake to have a chronic and extended-care hospital. Such a building exists because the old hospital is now vacant, as the minister well knows. Patients were moved to the new hospital at the beginning of this month.

In Kirkland Lake and many parts of the north there are just not the proper facilities for chronic and extended-care patients, therefore they take up active treatment beds in hospitals and they also stay in homes for the aged. A case in point is in Kirkland Lake where in the Teck Pioneer Residence fully 50 per cent of its residents are now chronic patients who would be better served in a chronic hospital.

My colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier) has just informed me that in Timmins they are often advised that since there are no chronic beds available they will try and get them a bed in the chronic wing of the Haileybury Hospital. But that hospital, if the minister’s plans come to fruition, will be closed and that chronic wing will disappear.

There are fewer chronic beds in the new Kirkland Lake hospital than existed in the old one. The Teck Pioneer Residence has half of its beds occupied by chronic patients. It would be ideal to utilize the old hospital in Kirkland Lake as a chronic and extended-care hospital. It would serve a vast area of northeastern Ontario.

The people of Kirkland Lake -- their leaders and the medical community there -- would desperately like to get together with the minister. They presented a brief to the government over two years ago. They would like to plan with him a facility in Kirkland Lake for chronic and extended-care patients; not an expensive elaborate one, but one that would utilize the present old hospital I think it would be an excellent facility if only he would take the time and effort and sit down with the local community and attempt to plan such a facility.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of speaking briefly to this subject. I should preface my remarks by the statement that I am pleased to see the hon. member of Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), who felt this was such an urgent matter of public policy, has finally returned to the House so that he can listen to the debate.

I am slightly appalled at two of the previous speakers, whom I would have expected to have some knowledge of the standards and the criteria upon which decisions are made regarding the maintenance or non-maintenance of institutions such as hospitals in this province. I am particularly appalled to find that the associate professor of psychiatry from McMaster University has no knowledge of the fact that in fact there has been an accreditation programme for small hospitals going on in this province for the last 11 years.

It has been a most effective method of accreditation, carried out, I will tell you, voluntarily by the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Medical Association. It in fact examines the quality of patient care as well as the plant of the institution. This information has been available --

Mr. S. Smith: Do I take it the 24 hospitals being closed are being disaccredited? Are these hospitals being disaccredited? It is the criteria for closing hospitals that are --

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is not what I said.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The member simply said that there were no criteria and no standards. In fact, there are criteria and standards upon which the decisions are made regarding closure or non-closure of an institution.

Mr. Sargent: Is the minister in favour of closing hospitals?

Mr. S. Smith: That’s not accreditation, that’s closure.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s an accreditation programme on the basis of an assessment. I would like the members to read the report of the Ontario Medical Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Ontario Hospital Association and they will learn what the standards are.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Is the minister saying if they don’t receive accreditation, they are closed?

Mr. S. Smith: But that is not accreditation; it is closure. It’s not the same topic.

Hon. B. Stephenson: At any rate, in this instance, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: All right, listen.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, apparently some of my medical colleagues are not as well informed as I feel they should be --

Mr. Sargent: Make your point.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and I shall make an honest attempt to educate the professor of psychiatry from McMaster. It is obviously necessary.

The thing that we must remember is that we are, in fact, suggesting closure of these institutions on the basis of maintenance of good medical care and not for any other reason. There are reasons of finance, of course, but the major reason is the level and the quality of the care which can be provided in small institutions.

Mr. Roy: Oh, don’t kid yourself.

Hon. B. Stephenson: When one remembers --

Mr. S. Smith: That’s not what the minister said, he said it was money.

Hon. B. Stephenson: When one remembers that the Chesley hospital is exactly eight miles from Hanover --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Will you allow the hon. member for York Mills to continue?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and fewer than 30 miles from Owen Sound, in which there are excellent general hospitals with full facilities, with superb staff and with nursing staff --

Mr. Sargent: You talk about knowledge.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and the range of facilities which is necessary for good medical care, it is inconceivable --

Mr. Sargent: In the kindest way, ma’am, you don’t know what you are talking about.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- that one should consider maintaining the Chesley Hospital as an acute general hospital. I am sure that it does have uses. I am sure that it would make an excellent site for a primary care facility, where emergency situations requiring no hospital bed could be dealt with. I am sure that it could be used as a daycare facility for the chronic patients within the community or the psychiatric patients within the community.

Mr. Roy: Yes; well that’s it, he doesn’t know the --

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am sure that there are many uses to which it could be put. It is not a useful facility for the provision of acute general hospital treatment. I think this must be recognized on the basis of the quality of case which must be provided in this day and age to patients in an Ontario general hospital.

Mr. Roy: The minister hasn’t understood it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: This province, fellow colleagues, I would like you to know, is well-known throughout the world because it has probably one of the best hospital systems on this entire planet. I, as a physician, have been proud to be associated with that hospital system.

Mr. Roy: For the best evidence the minister should go on Yonge St. and University Ave.; there is a big hospital shortage.

Hon. B. Stephenson: There are problems within the system and I would remind members that the special Committee on the Healing Arts, which reported in 1967, suggested closure of small hospitals which could not maintain the level of quality care. The Mustard committee, of which I was privileged to be a member, recommended exactly the same thing.

We are pleased the ministry has seen fit to begin to use the standards of assessment, which have been set by those people acutely aware and primarily concerned with the level and the quality of care, to make decisions on these very small institutions, which cannot in any way, in this day and age, provide the kind of service which the people of Ontario deserve. I think that we should all be grateful that the minister has made a list. He will in his own good time I am sure, discuss this with the boards of those hospitals to which he is referring. I know that it has been discussed with the Chelsey board in the past --

Mr. Reid: I’ll bet he waits until after the next election to do that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- because about seven years ago the concerned citizens of Chelsey came to Toronto to discuss the possible closure of that hospital since they felt it wasn’t necessary either at that time.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker on a point of order.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I think the minister is doing a good thing and I think it is probably just as well the member for Grey-Bruce brought the subject up because I think some of this should be aired and clarified for the members of the house.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a point of order?

Mr. Sargent: With the greatest respect for Madam Minister, that is the first time in history I have heard that statement. In the 13 years I have been in this House --

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. You may disagree with the Speaker, but it is not a point of order.

Mr. Sargent: She made a statement that was not right. She made a false statement.

Mr. S. Smith: She made 10 false statements.

Mr. Sargent: I take back the wording of that -- she made a wrong statement. The fact is that I have for 13 years been fighting to keep this place open. The board is continually asking me to keep the place open.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Grey has the floor.

Mr. Sargent: For the record, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. S. Smith: I hope she handles the Ministry of Labour better than that.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Her credibility is going down.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey.

Mr. McKessock: I want to take a minute to point out to the Minister of Health that this hospital in Chesley also serves the people from my riding. I have received many petitions, and letters and telegrams from council, senior citizens and very concerned people about this hospital closing.

This government is very concerned about preserving the Niagara Escarpment in our area. The people there just can’t understand why you don’t want to preserve the people.

I would like to point out that the care given in the Chesley hospital is of very high quality. I met the Minister of Health at the opening of the addition to the Mount Forest hospital, and at that time he mentioned that he wished he were head of a ministry with more sin in it. Well I kind of wish that he had moved to another ministry, because I feel that he is bringing sin into this one.

Mr. Roy: The minister is a dirty old man.

Mr. R. S. Smith: One says it is care, the other says it is fun.

Mr. McKessock: I think it has been pointed out to the minister that --

Mr. R. S. Smith: I take it the more you can get, the --

Mr. McKessock: -- it would be a sin if Chesley hospital was closed. I think it was also mentioned that there are a number of Mennonite families in Sullivan township, which is in my riding, who have no other means of transportation than the horse and buggy. These people rely on this hospital for health care.

Instead of being a sinner I would like the minister to be a good Samaritan. Keep this hospital open and do not let these I people die by the side of the road.

Mr. Godfrey: I would like to talk more about the general theme rather than the Chesley hospital. I can’t understand why the House is so empty today with four eminent members of the medical profession speaking at length; it would seem to me that the benches would be full.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That it why it is empty.

Hon. F. S. Miller: If they were here they would be asleep.

Mr. Godfrey: Maybe the members, particularly on the other side of the House, have been persuaded by the hon. minister --

Mr. R. S. Smith: We have had the hon. lawyers going.

Mr. Godfrey: -- that doctors don’t know anything about medical care and that it should be left to engineers; maybe that is saying something about what is going on. The shedder of sweetness and light, the minister, disarms everybody by saying, “Maybe I run a better Ministry of Health because I am not a doctor.” I would point out to him, without being malicious at all, that he better give second thought to that.

I am concerned about the general theme and I would like to know a few things.

Mr. Roy: We will be calling for Dick Potter.

Mr. Godfrey: No, it’s not that bad.

Has the Chesley hospital been disaccredited? If the Chesley hospital has lost its accreditation, this sheds new light on the minister’s decision. Does this mean that every hospital in the province that is not accredited is going to be under the threat of being closed; does it say that the minister and his ministry are going to do something about helping these hospitals to become accredited?

I don’t really think the hospital has lost its accreditation. I would appreciate specific comments from the Minister of Labour if she can back up her statement.

[5:45]

I do feel the birds have come home to roost very quickly. Only a few days ago I was persuaded by the Minister of Health that he had the best possible approach, the best possible budget -- given certain terms -- with which to work. But it must be obvious to him that this first tiny putting of the toe into the water on closing down medical installations, has caused a division in the House and caused a very powerful party to be outvoted for the first time in many years. I would hope and I would plead with him that he not proceed any further in this enterprise in this manner; otherwise we are going to have more divisions.

It’s all very well for him to say: “Really. If I don’t cut medical dollars, I’ll be the most popular man in the province,” but he can’t budge out of the problem that way. I am concerned about his embarrassment by the act that he nicked on possibly the smallest, weakest hospital in the province on which to descend with all his ministerial might, and therefore called forth even Don Quixote on this side of the House to ride to that hospital’s aid. I do protest, though, that I am not speaking about Chesley, because frankly I don’t know enough about it. But I do know enough about the principle involved that you cannot --

Hon. F. S. Miller: Then why does the member have so much to say?

Mr. Godfrey: Oh no, sir; I take my example from the minister. I have a great deal to say even though I know nothing.

I am surprised at the minister, and particularly surprised at the Minister of Labour, who obviously has never practised in a small hospital, who obviously doesn’t realize, -- or if she has, she has spent too much time doing medicine and not enough time speaking with people -- who realizes that the fabric --

Interjection.

Mr. Godfrey: -- of a community may ofttimes be tied around the hospital. I would sincerely ask the minister to answer the following question: What alternative uses does he have for the Chesley hospital installation? Where are the people who are working there at present, and in the other 23 hospitals he is going to close, going to find jobs? What are the minister’s provisions for work for those people? What are his plans to ensure the physicians who are there because the hospital is there are going to stay in that community? Because as it has been suggested, the physicians will move on and we already have a programme which is having difficulty puffing physicians into small towns. Is the minister really being short-sighted?

Now maybe if the minister had been a physician or health worker -- he doesn’t have to be a physician to be qualified in this -- he would realize there is a basic, instinctive urge in people, which Sir William Osler, a physician who never did join OHIP at any time pointed out, there is an innate urge for humans to undertake the study of medicine and there is an innate urge for them to do that, usually, around a hospital installation. And it does break down the fabric of that community when the hospital closes.

I would ask if he has considered the following: If I had an industry in my riding which employed 60 people, with spinoff employment for another 60 people, and I closed out that industry, what would his government say about that? Would they ask for a reckoning as to the reasons why? The industry might be able to say: “Well, we are losing money;” but I don’t think that his health service is losing money up there when it is equated with the dollar value they get.

I would ask him as well, what are his criteria for not getting better health care in that region? He apparently feels that closing the hospital will mean there is better medical care at the Owen Sound hospital. Can he assure us that the catchment area, which the Chesley has been supplying up until now, can be taken over by the new Hanover and the new Owen Sound hospitals? I have reports, and I do not have the research staff the minister has, which would suggest to me that the Owen Sound hospital has an occupancy rate, fairly continuously, of something about 92 per cent.

You know when we talk about standards of health care, and we discussed the health budget so quickly the other day that 13 was not able to get to this, what are his criteria of health care, for dollars put in?

The Minister of Labour (Hon. B. Stephenson) has already pointed out we have an accreditation committee which has two or three very simple parameters of what is good health care. One of them is the number of autopsies that are done per year per admission -- that’s a great one.

The other is the average length of stay; and as you know our drive has been to reduce the average. For some reason or other, if you reduce the average length of stay in a hospital, that is better health care. The other is the number of tonsils and adenoidectomies carried out in that particular region.

These are sort of criteria as far as health care goes. There are others -- fire regulations, and other things like that, which we won’t go into.

The minister knows, and he himself has admitted, that he has no way of gauging whether our health care is of such and such a level. He has two research teams working at present to determine those parameters. Yet now he says the level of health care given by this institution is not enough. I suggest the only value that our friends across the room have to put on health care is the amount of money it costs to deliver. If it costs too much, then obviously the health care we are getting, the health level we are developing, is not sufficient to justify it.

Let me give you an example of what I mean by putting dollar values on health care. I don’t know the average age of the patients in Chesley but I dare say many of them are senior citizens. Senior citizens have many osteoarthritic conditions. Osteoarthritis is usually treated, and well treated, with Aspirin, a fair amount of Aspirin. Because older people have a certain amount of gastrointestinal problems -- I am explaining this to you, sir, because you are not a physician and you may not realize the full thrust of what I am saying.

Because they have gastritis, sometimes Aspirin causes an irritation of the stomach lining. In order to overcome that, the usual prescription is coated Aspirin. This is a rock rib treatment and the best possible treatment of osteoarthritic pains of that type and many other problems. At present, a senior citizen who wants relief and is prescribed coated Aspirin is, by direction of the drug benefit formulary August, 1975, given an asterisk in the column to indicate the medication of choice by the dispensing pharmacist -- a medication called Novasen which is an enteric coated Aspirin. Novasen is given because it is the cheapest, the dollar value is less for that.

Mr. Speaker: About 30 seconds.

Mr. Godfrey: Novasen for the last three years have been shown by Quad Review -- a prestigious document put out by the federal government -- to be unsatisfactory. It does not come up to standards qualifications. This is what I mean by putting dollar value on medical care. The senior citizens of our province who are in Chesley and are being prescribed this are getting inadequate medication, which has never been titrated. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Martel: The minister has his hands full.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, I only have seven minutes to do it in.

Mr. Speaker, decisions of this type are not taken lightly nor without planning. The fact that some of the speakers have claimed they are not aware of criteria does not mean criteria do not exist. In fact, we have been using a number of bed standards and planning standards for some time, and we have very thorough and comprehensive lists of the bed needs, area by area, municipality by municipality, in this province.

Mr. Dukszta: Why doesn’t the minister say those things to his colleagues, so that they know what to do?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have a certain number of problems. One can either say there should be no limitation upon the spending of health and therefore no need to look for alternative ways of spending today’s money -- and let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, the first party which said we must do that is the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party has consistently said we spend too much on health care, and at the same time that we have to spend the money -- and I can quote at length from Hansard.

Mr. Roy: Sure; but you don’t spend it well, that’s the problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Let me quote the member for Ottawa East on Oct. 30:

“Surely you are going to have to make some hard decisions. The doctors, for instance, in this province may not be pleased and obviously a lot of communities will not be pleased when you start cutting the number of beds in their hospitals.”

Mr. Roy: Right.

Hon. F. S. Miller: And on, and on, and on.

Mr. S. Smith: We know that. It’s immaterial.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am doing it after a great deal of thought. The alternative in this particular community was the --

Mr. R. S. Smith: What we want to know is what the --

Hon. F. S. Miller: May I please speak?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has a very few moments.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have listened very patiently to all of the members and I am trying to explain.

I am fully aware of the unpleasant nature of the decisions being taken. But if, in fact, some of the programmes so glowingly reported or described by the members during my estimates are to have their proper place within my estimates, then I must take some decisions of this nature.

I accept the criticisms made in good faith. I do need to spend more money on children’s mental health programmes. I do need to spend more money on a number of other programmes -- VD control and rehab medicine and a whole bunch of other things.

It is an acknowledged fact that this province has probably got more active treatment beds than almost any other jurisdiction in the world. I have been told consistently by those opposite that, in fact, we don’t need them all. I am taking some of the steps to effect these changes. They will be painful on an individual basis.

I have a list of 22 hospitals -- and don’t jump to conclusions that that means that they are going to be closed. It simply means that staff, in giving me advice internally in response to a request given to them saying: “How would you save so many dollars and transform it into other programmes whilst maintaining the level of care and accessibility that we need,” have come up and said: “You could do it by these means.”

Mr. Sargent: The minister is changing his pitch now. He said there were 24 hospitals to be closed.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have no intention of seeing 24 closed. The member asked me how many were on the list. Each one will, in turn, be told, in negotiation, if it’s being considered. Each one will have the option and opportunity to discuss the merits of closing with me and they will learn it in that order only after I’ve decided there’s some reason to consider the problems with them.

Let me look at the comments made by the member for Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta) just last week. He said: “We don’t need the number of beds we have.”

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That’s on page 434 of Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr. Sargent: Will the minister accept a question here?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister just has a few moments left.

Mr. Sargent: I know that, sir. One short question.

Mr. Speaker: Everyone else had the opportunity to ask. If there’s time at the end, maybe. You may ask a question if there’s time at the end.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Let me quote the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) on page 448 of Hansard last week --

Mr. Dukszta: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker. The hon. minister has the floor.

Mr. R. S. Smith: On a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: The point of order doesn’t interrupt a person who has the floor.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member for Hamilton West said:

“Now the politically courageous thing to do if the federal government is wrong, and I think they are wrong in not cost-sharing these ambulatory programmes, the politically courageous thing to do is put the patient in more efficiently run place -- ”

Mr. Dukszta: I have a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister still has the floor.

Mr. Dukszta: But I have a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker: It doesn’t matter. Unless the hon. minister wishes to yield the floor? If not, carry on.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I don’t at this time, because I’ve only got two minutes left.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, have the rules in this House changed? We can’t get up on a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: The rules have not changed. The hon. member is wasting time.

Mr. Sargent: Have the rules changed?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. F. S. Miller: And he went on to say:

“The politically courageous thing to do is to put the patient in the more efficiently run place anyhow, and then to demand of the population that it take note of the fact that a saving has occurred and the province demands its share of that savings from the federal government. That would be the correct, the moral and the politically courageous thing to do.”

Mr. S. Smith: Absolutely right. Is the minister telling us the ones he is closing are inefficient? And if so, by what criteria?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Please let me talk. The member had his turn and I try to obey the rules, okay?

We have made that assessment. We made the decision that that hospital, because of its physical plant, was not a safe place --

Mr. Sargent: It was a political decision and the minister knows it!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Every decision I make is political because I’m a politician and I’m proud of it.

Mr. Riddell: Even though it’s not in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It’s not in the best interests of my party, but it’s in the best interests of the people of this province. It’s time some of the members realized we’re making decisions of that nature today.

Mr. Sargent: The minister doesn’t believe that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Members opposite should have the guts -- I mean the intestinal fortitude.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Why else would I do it?

Mr. Riddell: The minister’s own conscience tells him --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the minister have further remarks to make?

Mr. Roy: Try to convince the public of your intestinal fortitude.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member wouldn’t know what it is.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed with that community the fact that we believe they should have some community health clinic or something of that nature in the area. We are willing to consider that building being used for that purpose.

The funds would need to be provided by the community. The doctors are already there; we welcome, encourage and assist in that area, and we have told them that already. We would do that with any other community in which such a change was contemplated, because we intend to maintain the best level of health care possible at the dollars we can afford.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.