Hansard Transcripts 1976-Mar-18 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, the Residential Premises Rent Review Act, 1975, requires that the Lieutenant Governor in Council determine a percentage rent increase that a landlord may charge for any period commencing on or after Aug. 1, 1976, and before Aug. 1, 1977. The Act further requires that this increase be announced not later than April 1.

Because the increase is of great interest to both landlords and tenants, the government has decided to make an announcement today to allow as much advance notice as possible.

First, I would like to say that this decision was not arrived at lightly. A great deal of research has gone into the determination of the rate. Senior officials of my ministry, led by our staff economist and supported by experts within the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, have worked long and hard to compile the data needed by my colleagues and myself in making this decision.

I would point out that our deliberations were conducted keeping in mind that the percentage rent increase allowable without review should have relevance to the general economic climate and to the overall housing situation in the province so as to minimize any deterioration in the rental situation. At the same time, it must be compatible with the anti-inflation goals of this government.

We also had to ensure that the allowable increase would permit landlords to pass on legitimate increases in cost without exceeding the limits of a typical tenant’s monthly budget.

Therefore, acting on the best advice available to us, we have decided that the percentage rent increase will remain as eight per cent for the period between Aug. 1, 1976, and July 31, 1977.

I would emphasize that landlords who feel justified in charging more than an eight per cent increase must seek a hearing before a rent review officer. Of course, tenants retain the right to such a rent review hearing if they feel that rent increases of eight per cent or less are excessive.

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, later today I will table the report of the Waste Management Advisory Board on the carbonated soft drink container in Ontario.

The Waste Management Advisory Board was appointed a year ago to assist and complement the efforts of my ministry in developing methods of reducing and handling the volume of solid waste of all types now generated in our province. As part of its activities, the board is preparing the final report on the packaging of milk. I hope to receive this report shortly, at which time I will table it and distribute it to the public.

In its report on soft drink containers, the advisory board expresses its dissatisfaction with the industry’s progress during the past 12 months toward increased sale and use of the refillable container.

You will recall that my predecessor, the Hon. W. Newman, met with representatives of the carbonated beverage industry and its suppliers and retailers in March, 1975. The minister alerted the industry to the growing trend toward increased sales of the non-refillable, or throwaway container as it is also called, and asked industry members, bottlers and retailers to take concerted voluntary action to increase the use of the environmentally preferable refillable container.

The board’s report, based on a year’s study, reflects only minor advances toward increased use of the refillable container. It indicates that progress has been limited on the whole and that response by the retail sector of the industry in particular, with one or two exceptions, has been especially disappointing. There is ample statistical evidence supporting this conclusion.

There is some daylight in the situation, however. I quote the report:

“The decline in market share of carbonated soft drinks sold in refillable bottles has been halted and the trend, although modest, has been reversed for the first time since non-refillable containers were first introduced in the 1960s.”

As we are all aware, the issue of solid waste and what to do with it is a challenging and complex problem in today’s society.

The report of the Waste Management Advisory Board makes several recommendations for action by my ministry and I intend to give these full consideration. I will review the board’s report and its ramifications with my cabinet colleagues and introduce specific legislative proposals to the House in the near future.

GUELPH ABATTOIR

Hon. J. R. Smith: Today at 1:30 p.m., on behalf of the government of Ontario, I signed an instrument of assignment of the licence to operate the abattoir at Guelph Correctional Centre to Guelph Beef Centre Ltd., a company of the DeJonge Group. This instrument will be placed before the bankruptcy court when it resumes sitting at 2:45 p.m. today.

The DeJonge proposal, received by the trustee and approved by a large majority of the unsecured creditors, is consistent with accepted bankruptcy practices. It provides for the purchase of unsecured creditors’ claims at 15 cents on the dollar, with larger dividends available to small creditors.

It also permits creditors the option of waiting for six months, during which time the assets of Essex Packers Ltd. will be more thoroughly valued. They may then possibly receive a larger dividend, without losing the guarantee of 15 cents on the dollar.

The advantages of allowing production to continue in this way are many:

Unsecured creditors will receive some payment;

Employment opportunities for some 200 to 300 former Essex Packers workers will be maintained;

There will be a continuing market in the Hamilton and Guelph areas for pork and beef producers, including those who were unpaid when Essex went into receivership;

There will be no interruption in the ministry’s successful rehabilitative programme.

To amplify my last point, the DeJonge Group proposes to run the abattoir as it was operated by Essex Packers Ltd., but with an increase in productivity from 900 to 1,400 head per week. The heavy emphasis on rehabilitative training will now include co-operation with Conestoga College of Applied Arts and Technology in a programme, the details of which are still being developed. At present, the abattoir is classified as a training centre with Canada Manpower. Inmates who seek a career in the industry on release, and who are judged suitable, will be offered employment opportunities as available on release.

Inmate wages will be at least as high as at under the new agreement. Present figures are: On commencement as trainee, $3.15 an hour; after three months’ training, $3.50 an hour; if successful in the merit selection process for assignment to more skilled and specialized jobs, $4.90 an hour.

The programme began last May, and the occasional inmate has remained incarcerated long enough to complete the training and to gain the civilian rate of $5.60 an hour. Usually, however, sentences are completed before the trainee is fully qualified for the top-paying jobs.

Nevertheless, through overtime, many inmates have been able to support their families at a level of over $200 per week, more than twice what their families could hope to receive on social assistance -- and this after paying $25 per week for their institutional board and lodging and substantial income tax deductions.

Since the start of the programme last May, an average of 30 inmates has been employed daily, despite Essex Packers’ troubles, and total earnings have reached $125,000. The best month to date was February, 1976, when 47 inmates earned a total of $15,785. These figures, of course, will increase if the productivity rises as planned under the new agreements.

I should stress that the DeJonge Group was the only company to come forward with a total package involving not only the Guelph Correctional Centre operation, but also the continuance of the Hamilton operations. This factor was of consequence in the government’s decision, since so many jobs can be saved. All other groups contacted would have seen the Hamilton facility phased out, as they were only interested in the efficient Guelph Correctional Centre facility.

For all these reasons, and after exploring all alternatives prior to bankruptcy, the government has decided not to force the bankruptcy of Essex Packers Ltd. This course, followed by the calling of tenders for the operation of the Guelph facility alone, without reference to the future of Essex Packers’ other interests, has therefore been rejected in favour of our agreement to the DeJonge proposal.

IDENTIFICATION OF HAM RADIO OPERATORS’ VEHICLES

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce changes in the motor vehicle licensing system to permit the identification of passenger motor vehicles owned and operated by ham radio operators.

Currently, all passenger vehicles, including those owned by radio operators, are identified by licence plates containing three letters and three numbers.

Mr. Cassidy: Must be an election that did it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Radio operators will now be able to purchase passenger vehicle licence plates that will include their radio call number. These special plates will begin with VE3 followed by two or three alphabetical characters -- for example, VE3-AB or VE3-ABC.

These special radio operator vehicle plates will be made available under the ministry’s current “own choice” licence plate programme for a standard fee of $25, over and above any other fees payable.

This change in the licensing system has been requested by the Radio Society of Ontario, and will readily identify radio operators who can provide -- and, I might say, Mr. Speaker, have in many cases provided -- a very valuable public service by assisting the police or other organizations during emergencies and searches and that type of situation. I am very pleased to announce this today.

[2:15]

Ms. Sandeman: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, the hon. member for Peterborough.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Ms. Sandeman: Mr. Speaker, I have always understood that it was a right of the members of this House to be free to receive their constituents in their offices at any time, whether by invitation or not. Could you explain to me why several of my constituents, and I believe those of other members, this morning were denied entrance to the House for a considerable period of time by the security guards; were subjected to quite intensive questioning; kept standing out in the cold for periods of upwards to an hour; when I, and I believe other members, were expecting to see them upstairs by appointment?

Mr. Speaker: I’m not aware of that, but I just might restate the policy. All demonstrations are outside, but it’s quite clear that if any individual of the demonstrating group or groups, or a reasonable number of people wish to see a particular member, that is arranged. There were several caucuses this morning, I understand, and they had difficulty making contact with the members. But that is the clear, stated policy. If you were in your office, you should have been called by the appropriate security person. If you were there, then there is no reason you should not have received a call. I’ll check into that, thank you.

I believe there was another ministerial statement, which I didn’t catch.

AUTO LICENSING AGENCIES

Hon. Mr. Snow: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, this is an answer to question No. 4 on the order paper in the name of the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid), which I would like to give by way of a statement. The question was:

“Would the Minister of Transportation and Communications advise the amount of money collected by licence plate issuers which has been unaccounted for, for the past five fiscal years?”

The answer, Mr. Speaker: There are no moneys unaccounted for that have been collected by motor vehicle licence issuers during the past five fiscal years.

There is an amount due from one former issuer in the sum of $119.45. At the time of his resignation, a reconciliation and audit of his account established that $286 was due the ministry. Payments are being at the rate of $10 per month, albeit irregularly.

At this time, however, the Ontario Provincial Police, at the request of the ministry are investigating certain matters relating to the handling of funds in two motor vehicle licence issuing offices. It would be inappropriate for me to speculate as to the results of these investigations at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

REPRESENTATIONS BY HAULERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I first ask a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications? Will he meet with representatives of the Ontario Haulers Association, who put forward a rather strong position outside the Legislature today; and will he indicate to the Legislature any changes he intends to make under the Public Commercial Vehicles Act as a result of the representation made to him?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’ve always been available to meet with the Ontario Haulers Association. I have met with them -- not recently -- but I did receive a telegram a few days ago advising me of the intention to hold this demonstration today and asking me to be available for a meeting. I have been in this building most of the day. I’ve not been asked for a meeting. I will be here the rest of the day. I will be most of the afternoon in the estimates committee, however, but I’ll certainly he prepared to meet with them.

To the other part of the question of the Leader of the Opposition; no, I do not have any plans for changing that Act.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister indicate whether with the limited experience we have whether he is satisfied with the new regional system of permits for the truck hauling industry?

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I stated last week, I believe, in reply to a similar question, as per the legislation and the amendments that were passed here last fall as a result of the request of this same truckers’ organization --

Mr. Reid: No, of this one. There are two different organizations.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I beg to differ. I believe this organization was very much involved in representations to my predecessor that probably had a great deal to do with the initiating of his decision to have the dump truck inquiry under Mr. Rapoport. Mr. Rapoport brought in his report and one of the main recommendations of the report, after studying the industry very intensively, was for the control of entry into the field. That recommendation, along with other recommendations of the report, was implemented last fall by changes in legislation or regulation.

We’re just in the process at this time of issuing the new R licences to the truckers who presently have the F licences. Automatically each truck owner who has an F licence gets an R licence, giving him authority to operate in one of the five regions. These are not small regions, they’re quite large regions. Also, as I stated again last week -- and I don’t like to repeat myself, because it’s all in Hansard -- the chairman of the Highway Transport Board is arranging for hearings to be set up in local communities to receive applications for extension of those R licences into a second, third or fourth region. Obviously, many of the operators are going to need this additional licence. Last night I talked to one operator whose home base is within two miles of a regional boundary. He obviously operates in both regions. Of course, I advised him to apply to the board for authority to operate into the second region, permanent authority, and if he needs immediate authority to operate, he can apply for temporary authority which the chairman can grant him.

If we’re going to gain the benefits that were requested by the trucking industry, that were recommended by Mr. Rapoport, then I’m sure the legislation that we have will do this.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary: Can we take it from the answer just given that the minister is prepared to look at ways of becoming more flexible under the present regulations and that he will consider any recommendations that the haulers will care to make with you when they do meet, in fact, this afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The authority for granting --

Mr. Singer: Why don’t you just say you are flexible and sit down?

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- public commercial vehicle licences lies with the Ontario Highway Transport Board. I don’t think there’s any need for additional flexibility. The chairman of the board has the authority and has assured me that he is willing to deal with any situations, or any applications, as they are put before him. I don’t think there’s any need for me -- and I’m not sure I have the authority -- to suggest to the chairman of the Highway Transport Board that he should be more flexible than the legislation and the regulations allow him to be. Also, I can’t give the hon. member a commitment, obviously, that I will implement any suggestions that the truckers may have, because, of course, I have no idea what suggestions they may have.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Premier: Is there a backbench revolt simmering in the Premier’s ranks about the way in which he handled the hospital cutbacks without advance discussion with the areas affected?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: You’re dreaming again. You’d better go and see Stuart Smith.

An hon. member: Wishful thinking.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: What kind of a setup is that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Unlike some parties in this House, we don’t have any backbench revolts.

Mr. S. Smith: They certainly have a revolting front bench.

Mr. Lewis: Oh? You have a statement to make, perhaps, Stuart? All right. May I ask the Premier a supplementary?

Mr. Reid: What kind of setup is that?

Mr. Lewis: Can I ask him this? Would he care to reflect on the following, which was elicited today? The comment says, on the paper I have: “Mr. Johnston hereby goes on record as being in opposition to health cutbacks until further consultation with the people involved. Signed, Bob Johnston, MPP, St. Catharines.”

Interjections.

Mr. MacDonald: He is always in favour of restraint whether it is seatbelts or anything.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be very surprised and disappointed if the members whose ridings are affected by any policy of government didn’t register their concerns to their constituents.

As I say, unlike some parties opposite I never interpret that as a matter of revolt. In fact, within our party the word revolution is not part of our vocabulary, unlike theirs.

Mr. Reid: How about --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Evolution, yes; revolution, never.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, at this point in time, evolution isn’t even in your vocabulary. But immobility, paralysis, all of those.

EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Lewis: May I ask another question? Why did the Premier not accept -- it’s a separate question -- the first recommendation from the Ministry of Culture and Recreation in the cabinet submission that came to you on Nov. 25, 1975, to proceed with the television stations and microwave transmitters for Sudbury and Thunder Bay?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch) might like to comment on that question. I am sure he will be back here very shortly.

Mr. Lewis: As I understand it, however, it did come to cabinet on Nov. 25, 1975, and presumably cabinet said no since that was the public decision. Therefore, whoever speaks for cabinet --

Mr. Singer: Why don’t we get questions instead of speeches all day?

Mr. Lewis: Who speaks for cabinet?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question may be referred to when the appropriate minister is here.

Mr. Lewis: But I don’t want to ask the Minister of Culture and Recreation. I would like to ask --

Mr. Singer: You have already had an answer.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Premier answer why cabinet rejected the recommendations?

Mr. Singer: Do you have a supplementary for that? I’m sure you must have?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only make the observation that there are a multitude of recommendations which come to cabinet from a number of ministries. I would say -- I think I am right in this -- that probably the majority of these recommendations involve the government in additional public expenditure.

I think it is fair to say that, in spite of some of the rhetoric here in this House in the past while, the government programme of restraint has been one that has been under way for a period of time. While I am not at liberty to divulge the discussions that take place within cabinet, I think it is fair to say that there is some likelihood that the decision to delay or postpone or find alternatives to expenditure of sums of money, whether it was educational television or anything else, would be in that area of restraining the level of government expenditure. As I say -- I am sure the Leader of the Opposition knows this -- I really can’t tell him exactly what goes on in cabinet as much as he would like to know.

Mr. Speaker: We will have one more supplementary from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, maybe the Premier can explain why he --

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, this question period is a joke.

Mr. Lewis: -- took the position he did when at the top of page 5 and throughout the memorandum it said:

“Cancel, at a cost to the government of $903,000, the planned stations at Sudbury and Thunder Bay. The government received absolutely nothing for $903,000 in 1976-1977.”

Can he explain in the context of restraint how that made sense?

Mr. Singer: That’s Tory management. Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the same question really has been asked three times. The Premier said it was cabinet policy. Why does our time have to eaten up by this posturing by the Leader of the Opposition?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Are you in bed with them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: In answer to the question -- this is why I suggested, with respect, that perhaps the Minister of Culture and Recreation might answer this particular question -- as we are attempting to deal with restraint we are also attempting to see if there aren’t alternatives which can be accommodated within certain levels of expenditure. The ministry has been working on alternatives but quite often alternatives are not as good as one would like to see achieved basically or in the initial period --

Mr. Sargent: We didn’t get our copy of that report.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- whereby there will be --

Mr. Makarchuk: Nine hundred thousand dollars for nothing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the members will listen for a moment, the ministry is pursuing an alternative that really will result in no loss to the Province of Ontario.

[2:30]

Mr. Reid: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River with a final supplementary.

Mr. Reid: May I ask the Premier if he doesn’t feel as a matter of policy and principle that TVO or ETV, whatever he prefers to call it, should be spread to those communities far away from the metropolitan centre, where we don’t have the benefit of a number of television channels and so on; that in fact ETV was set up to do that very thing, and he is punishing those very people that it was set up to bring that service to?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted to have this question from the hon. member because he is, of course, right in his basic assumption on the long-range policy of the government and certainly ETV -- or whatever terminology he may wish to use -- contrary to the views of some of his colleagues in his own caucus; yes, I think in terms of policy and principle --

Mr. Sargent: Why is Grey-Bruce last on the list then?

Hon. Mr. Davis: In terms of policy or in terms of principle, the intention is to have it in the northeast and northwest. I don’t think there is any question about that. The Leader of the Opposition was referring to a plan whereby this would be accomplished. I am just saying to the House the ministry is working on a proposal where this can be partially accomplished within the constraints and with no $900,000 loss.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Premier: In view of the Health Minister’s ill health, which we all very much regret, will the Premier postpone the hospital closings at least until the minister is back in operation again?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to lead anyone astray. This is a very important issue to the communities which have made representation to the government and to the hospital boards.

I guess now I have met with either three or four groups which have made representations based on their views of the decision of the minister and the ministry. I think it was the hope of the minister prior to yesterday to come to some degree of finality, if possible, as soon as it could be done in order to have it settled in the minds of the people affected and so on. And I think that made great sense.

I would say to the members of the House, Mr. Speaker, that with the unfortunate illness of the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) that the function of his ministry will be continued. I said to the one group yesterday, or I think both of them, that quite obviously there would be a response and that it might take somewhat longer than was originally anticipated. I have assured every hospital board or community that has been in to see me that the submissions that they have made will be carefully evaluated.

I think it is fair to state, Mr. Speaker, that by and large the submissions have been positive in nature. Unlike some of the observations I have heard from across the House, they genuinely support the government’s programme of restraint. They are anxious to accommodate what they recognize, unlike some opposite, as the economic realities of Ontario and Canada today. I have been frankly impressed by the constructive way in which they have approached it. I was, I hope, very honest with them and made it very clear to them. There are one or two members opposite who were present at those meetings when I did my best not to create any level of anticipation or expectation that might not be fulfilled, because I don’t think that would either help the situation or be fair.

Mr. Nixon: Just created a lot of cigar smoke.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member was at one of those meetings, and I think he would agree that was the approach that was taken. It is my hope Mr. Speaker, that the ministry and those who may be assisting, can be evaluating the submissions made. I made it quite clear that while the tentative date for closing of some of the institutions was April 1, I think it was always in the mind of the minister that this might not be practical in some instances, and we are not committed to a specific April 1 date.

I can’t add anything more than that at the moment, other than to say that I am sure we all regret the misfortune of the Minister of Health. But I also have to say to the leader of the Liberal Party that it is the responsibility of Premiers and governments to continue functioning. People are entitled to answers and decisions; and to say that the decisions on the alternatives that the government has been asked to assess will be postponed indefinitely because of the unfortunate situation with the minister himself, I cannot give the member that particular undertaking.

I would only add to the Leader of the Opposition -- and I don’t think I’m betraying any confidences -- the mayor of Durham does not really blame the government for the closing of the arena.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: In view of the very positive and constructive nature of the delegation -- as the Premier himself described it -- and their willingness to assist in the necessary restraint policy, was the Premier able to explain to these delegations why they were not consulted in the first place for their constructive comments, and why instead it was said that all that would do is create “a lot of flak”?

Hon. Mr. Davis: We discussed a number of matters in the course of the meetings that I attended --

Mr. S. Smith: How come you didn’t consult with them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and while I recognize, and we debated this yesterday to a certain extent in the hon. member’s absence, which I totally understand, in a non-partisan way.

Mr. S. Smith: That makes one of us.

An hon. member: Couldn’t face the music; that’s why he wasn’t here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As some of his colleagues would say, he really didn’t miss anything, but --

Mr. Ruston: That’s what the reporters say, too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And the Liberal House leader is going to report to him very accurately.

Mr. Conway: The red Tory is a red herring.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker: I have to say this to the leader of the Liberal Party the question of whether consultation, in that sense of the word, prior to the recommendations of the ministry or of the minister might have led to some of these suggestions prior to -- I don’t want to say what was in their minds, but this in itself was not expressed to me in the way that I think the leader of the Liberal Party is suggesting.

Mr. Nixon: Unkindly.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t say that unfairly, but he can look behind him to the member who was at one of those meetings. And it was interesting for an area that rather traditionally, with some help, had opposed any approach of looking at things on a regional basis, if I can say that -- where it was even an issue in certain by-election periods -- to have that particular group of people come in, and the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) was there as well --

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier put a gun to their heads and they came in like lambs.

Mr. Reid: Is this a perpetual motion machine?

Hon. Mr. Davis: To have the warden of the county suggest -- and I found it interesting -- that perhaps if there was a regional health council, or some structure of county council which could do this, I found intriguing -- if I can phrase it that way --

Mr. S. Smith: Is this all directly pertinent to my question, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but there was no suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that this was, on its own initiative, going to occur prior to that event.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Huron-Middlesex was there.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Grey-Bruce have a supplementary to the first question?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Premier, in view of the circumstances of yesterday; we all very sincerely regret what happened to the minister and we hope for his full recovery. But in view of the circumstances, and supplementary to my leader’s question, if minority government is going to work --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Have you found a way out? Find a way out; tell us about it. Have you found a way off the hook?

An hon. member: That was the Premier’s quotation.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: You just snap your fingers.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He just blew the caucus confidence.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are wasting time.

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: Quote, unquote. The Premier was pleading on his knees yesterday, begging for consideration. If this is going to work --

Mr. Lewis: It is called a leak.

Mr. Sargent: -- why wouldn’t the Premier, in view of the situation now in regard to hospital closings, appoint a full committee of the House to deal in the future with hospital closings?

Mr. Deans: Was he at the Liberal caucus meeting?

Mr. Lewis: We have just found out what they decided.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Hamilton West’s question had to do with consultation earlier; and I think that’s been asked --

Mr. Sargent: I’m talking about a committee of the whole House. Can I get an answer from the Premier?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. It’s a different question completely.

Mr. Sargent: It certainly is not.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I rule it so. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since you’re not prepared to permit the question to be answered, I would like to ask the Premier for clarification on the removal of the April 1 deadline. Is he going to see that his office informs the boards of the various hospitals that they need not consider April 1 in the context of the minister’s announcement as the closing date? I think the arrangements in these hospitals might very much depend upon the Premier’s statement in this regard.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s quite obvious that for those hospitals where the consideration of the briefs and the proposals will not be completed in time to bring some finality by April 1, yes, there is no question that they will be informed.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: As I understand it, every single hospital other than Chesley has been given an avenue of appeal and reconsideration. So, with the exception of Chesley, we are talking about an extended life for all the other hospital closings?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am now getting into an area where I can’t give the hon. Leader of the Opposition a total answer. I don’t think that that is, in fact, the case. I am only going by memory now, but I believe there is a hospital in Virgil; there is one in Kemptville; there are about 10 altogether, those are two. I don’t believe that I have had representations, for instance, from Copper Cliff; I am not sure of that, certainly I haven’t met with them. Really the four that I have met with who have presented the situations to me are Clinton, Durham, Doctors Hospital, and Paris-Willett.

SCHOOL GRANTS

Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: Is the province going to ensure that financial assistance to school boards will at least equal this year the amount that they received last year?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be directed to the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact the question was asked yesterday in the absence of the hon. member, perhaps the Minister of Education might care to answer it.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s fine, I apologize.

Mr. Speaker: The question was answered yesterday. If there is a brief reply, we will allow it.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s fine.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that the grant regulations are known to the boards. The rate of support, the grant per pupil for recognized ordinary expenditures, will likely be the same for most elementary boards in this province. It may be down slightly for some secondary boards, but we have put in a floor guarantee that it will not be any less than 95 per cent of the grant that it was the year previous.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary on that -- again, forgive me for not having been here -- but that is per pupil; we are speaking about where enrolment has gone down, and where the regulations now say that during a time of declining enrolment that transitional grant has now been removed, according to your new regulations. That will mean that where there is lower enrolment they will actually have lower grants this year in total than they did last year, because they will not be given a cushion with which to handle that. Would the minister please answer that question?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, yes, I would be very pleased to answer that question. I think, in keeping with the programme of restraint that we are now embarked upon, that if they have fewer pupils it will of necessity mean perhaps fewer staff, and a certain cutback in expenditures. The kind of provisions we have had in for the last few years were becoming a crutch, a crutch to boards to not cut back in keeping with their declining enrolment, and so we removed that declining enrolment position from those boards this year.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s the crutch the ministry said was never there; the fat that was not in the system.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If the member would like to talk about one of the specific boards and what money they are getting next year, I would be happy to supply him with that answer. I just want him to know that we don’t think we can keep propping up boards by paying them grants for pupils who aren’t there.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s called new math.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s the fat in the system, which they said wasn’t there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: I have a supplementary question. I would like to talk about one specific board; the Hamilton board has had to set back all of its budget meetings because it does not yet have the communication from the ministry in writing with regard --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Should have been there yesterday.

Mr. Deans: -- it hasn’t got it yet -- with regard to the budget and the regulations. When will they be getting those in the mail in order that they can, in fact, go ahead with the meetings that they had scheduled? I asked the minister this last week too, by the way.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, well, Mr. Speaker, I have here the communications which were sent out to every board of education in this province, and they were dated Feb. 12, 1976. If the Hamilton board didn’t have it they should have been in touch with our office before this to get it. That gives them all the information they need upon which to compute their grants. Now, the regular grant regulation --

[2:45]

Mr. Deans: They need the regulation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, you don’t need those. You can compute your grants with everything that is in these documents here. The grant regulations are merely the formalizing of what is in this document here, which tells you all the figures you need to compute your grants.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe this question has been explored quite thoroughly yesterday; the same question was asked and the answer was given.

REPORT ON DAY CARE

Mr. S. Smith: For the Minister of Community and Social Services: Since the chairman of the advisory council on day care has said that the minister has had the report of that council since Jan. 30, can the minister explain why he has not yet made this report public?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That has been answered.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Isn’t the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) talking to her colleague?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: May I repeat the question that was asked of me yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He should have been here.

Mr. Nixon: Answer, go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The member for St. George, from the member’s party, asked me the precise question yesterday.

Mr. S. Smith: I am sorry.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Hamilton West have any further questions?

Mr. S. Smith: No further questions.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has an answer to a question asked previously.

NORWICH UNION INSURANCE

Hon. Mr. Handleman: On Monday, March 15, the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) asked me a question regarding whether or not the Norwich Union Insurance group had held discussions with my ministry prior to its announcement that it was pulling out of the insurance business in Ontario.

I am pleased to report that the Norwich Union Insurance group contacted our superintendent of insurance on March 11 to inform him that their board of directors in England had decided to cease writing insurance in Canada in the property, automobile and casualty lines because of an insurance loss of over $1 million. This group, which has operated in Canada for about 100 years, will continue to write life and marine insurance.

The superintendent of insurance has held discussions with the group’s Canadian general manager and he has assured us that he is in the process of dealing with a number of Canadian insurers to take over the Norwich Union portfolio and the agents concerned. Negotiations are still continuing and I’ve asked to be kept informed of the progress. I have also received assurances that other companies operating in Ontario will supply the market and that there is capacity within the system to do so.

I can assure the members that my office has and will continue to provide assistance to agents, to farm markets as well as to consumers who may experience any difficulty in placing their insurance needs.

CATALYTIC CONVERTER

Mr. Martel: A question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Has it been drawn to the minister’s attention that there is a severe problem with the catalytic converters in 1976 GM models which apparently leave a sulphur-like odour in the car which affects people who are suffering from chronic bronchitis?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, it has not been brought to my attention.

Mr. Martel: Can the minister immediately have the appropriate people within his ministry delve into it? Apparently the company cannot find a solution to the problem to this date, and it should be rectified.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: As I usually do in reply to questions of that nature, if there is a legislative remedy available to me, I would certainly exercise it.

GUELPH ABATTOIR

Mr. Worton: I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services. In his announcement of an agreement with his institution and Essex Packers along with the DeJonge Group, has he taken into consideration the concerns expressed by the members of both sides of the House as to whether he feels that his department is sufficiently protected in regard to the investments it has of over $1 million in building and equipment? Secondly, is the minister satisfied that the farmers who will be selling beef to this group are sufficiently protected in regard to payment? Thirdly, has he consulted with the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) in regard to the $1.5 million in wages, that is, holiday pay and severance pay that go to the employees?

Does he feel the ministry is getting sufficient moneys out of this firm to pay off these and has he taken any steps to protect future loss to the employees?

Hon. J. R. Smith: I would like to thank the hon. member for the number of discussions he has had with me expressing concern over a number of the firms interested in receiving this lease at the Guelph Correctional Centre, as well as other members on this side of the House. As a matter of fact, I was very pleased when the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association came to see me on Tuesday afternoon and expressed their concerns about the DeJonge proposal. At that time I laid it right before them -- what were basically the objections of the agricultural community to the DeJonge brothers as packers? It centres on only one incident in 1973 involving one of the brothers. Other than that, there is no substantiation -- or no allegation can be proved in any way regarding this family company.

As far as protection is concerned, the background of these people has been checked out by all levels of police and so on. On payment of the employees’ severance pay, I might point out to the hon. member that the employees are among the various creditors, as well as farmers and suppliers to Essex Packers. There was an overwhelming vote of all creditors to accept the proposal. Seven of the 25 objectors were beef producers. There were 22 beef producers involved in total and one of these objectors to the settlement had a claim of $14; the others are substantial amounts.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: We will allow a supplementary. The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Would it be fair to assume that the farmers and all of the creditors will be paid off at 15 cents on the dollar which, believe, was the latest proposal made by the group with which you have now entered into this agreement?

Hon. J. R. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the DeJonge consortium of companies has deposited with the receiver today moneys -- a cheque for $250,000 -- and the pledge of one of their properties as surety for the payment of $500,000 at 15 cents on the dollar.

DERELICT MOTOR VEHICLE RECOVERY PROGRAMME

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Could the minister indicate to this House the extent to which the derelict motor vehicle recovery programme is being actively pursued by his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, that programme started last year with two pilot projects. I’m advised now that it involves over 400 municipalities in the province, mainly in central and northern Ontario. They’ve located about 11,000 abandoned vehicles and 5,000 of these vehicles were shipped to markets. It involves about $ 170,000 in provincial subsidies and we hope to involve a total of about 450 municipalities by the end of this year.

SYNCRUDE PROJECT

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. What is the reason for the delay in the negotiation of the agreement for the participation of Ontario in the Syncrude project? What effect is the delay having on the project itself?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the project itself is going ahead on schedule, all aspects of it -- the main plant, the pipeline and the utility plant. There are a number of agreements involved with the Syncrude participation. If the member could indicate which particular agreement he is referring to, whether it’s the utility plant agreement, the main participation agreement, some of the financial agreements or whatever, they are all --

Mr. Renwick: They’re all part of the package.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- they are all part of the package and they are all proceeding, I think, pretty well on schedule.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary.

Mr. Renwick: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A supplementary by the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question: Referring to the Premier’s statement of Feb. 4, 1975 about the urgency of the project, when does the minister anticipate that the $100 million investment by the Province of Ontario will be made in the project? Or is the government reconsidering its participation regardless of the fact that the project is going ahead without the participation of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the project is going ahead with the participation of Ontario. Ontario is not considering withdrawing from the project. The $100 million represents five per cent, as members know, of the $2 billion estimate at the time at which we entered the project. Ontario has been paying its portion of the project as we’ve gone along according to interim agreements signed. The plant, it seems, will come into service on schedule in 1978.

Mr. Sargent: I have two points. Has the $100 million been paid yet? Secondly, what other provinces are involved at five per cent?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think the current up-to-date figures would be about $20 million spent as part of our commitment to the Syncrude project. Members will recall that the governments of Canada, Alberta and Ontario are participating in the project to a total of 30 per cent. The Province of Alberta is in for 10 per cent, plus an additional amount of money which they are lending to some of the participants, plus their participation through the Alberta Energy Co. in a number of the off-site facilities -- well, really, they are on-site -- the utility plant and pipeline. As well the Alberta government is involved in Fort McMurray and in the overall project with the provision of housing, roads, bridges, sewers, schools and so forth.

SEXUAL CHARGES

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Could the Attorney General tell us what is going on in Ottawa in relation to --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You have come to the fount of all knowledge.

Mr. Reid: Nobody can tell us that.

Mr. Singer: He might tell us that one, too, but where he has jurisdiction in the Crown attorney’s office -- that is what I was talking about. What is going on in the Crown attorney’s office in Ottawa in relation to those charges against certain individuals who were charged under the Code with sex offences on the basis of the evidence -- or the apparent evidence -- of a 15-year-old boy who was being treated for his mental condition? Some charges have now been withdrawn against people who have some public reputations, having sat there for many months, and those people -- at least one of whom enjoyed a position in the media -- were damned by reason of charges that are never going to be heard in court. And the Crown must have known about this.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the matter that the hon. member refers to involves a number of cases, which resulted in the convictions of, and pleas of guilty by, a number of individuals.

Mr. Cassidy: And a lot of acquittals.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There’s no doubt but that the one very key witness, on behalf of the Crown, was a very important witness in these proceedings. There was a charge withdrawn on Monday --

Mr. Singer: A number of charges.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am aware of charges against one individual that were withdrawn on Monday. The reason for the withdrawing of these charges was because it was felt that this witness was in ill health and simply unable to testify by reason of his ill health. And I am further advised that one of the reasons for his ill health was the extent to which he had been victimized by the events that led up to the prosecution of a number of individuals and which, as I have already indicated, resulted in conviction or pleas of guilty.

We were advised that if this young man had to be called upon to give evidence yet once again his health would deteriorate to such an extent that his very life might be in jeopardy. It was on that basis, and on that basis alone that those charges were withdrawn on Monday last.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Doesn’t the minister know that this young man, who was supposedly the key witness in 17 individual trials, was mentally ill two years ago when the charges were first laid and that the Crown should have recognized that this was likely to happen? And in the case of non-guilty pleas the young man would not be available to give his evidence, and that this was all known to the Crown’s office and the Crown did nothing about it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have looked into the matter fairly carefully, Mr. Speaker, and I am satisfied that the Crown attorney in Ottawa conducted himself in the best tradition of the Crown’s office in this province in the handling of that very delicate matter.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment has the answer to a question. Is this a supplementary for the member for Ottawa Centre?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, Mr. Speaker. One appreciates the minister’s concern about the witness in that particular case, but in view of the fact that not within living memory has there been charges laid against males who consort with female prostitutes in a bordello does the minister not feel any concern about what has happened to the reputation of people who were charged in this rather unusual and extraordinary case? Is he not concerned, or has he laid down any guidelines to police departments and Crown prosecutors as to what should happen in the future if material of this nature comes to their attention?

[3:00]

Mr. Singer: Shouldn’t happen then.

Mr. Sargent: Pretty shaggy.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: From the information which has been made available to me, I’m satisfied that the matter would be handled no differently in the future, certainly with the information the Crown counsel had available to him. If any of the members opposite have any specific allegations to make about the handling of this particular case I would like them to make these specific allegations rather than a sort of general, vague condemnation of the manner in which this was handled. If there are any facts which I do not know let me have them.

Mr. Singer: The Crown ruined several reputations by this ridiculous kind of action.

Mr. Cassidy: It ruined reputations and it led to a suicide; that is what happened.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: They are making some pretty irresponsible statements on the other side of the House and I think they should be made aware of that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: A point of privilege.

Mr. Cassidy: I would say to the minister that if he would dig into the files of his predecessors, about six or eight months ago I gave a lengthy list of those kinds of complaints and I have not had a response.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please that is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister requested any specifics from members opposite by way of complaints and they were provided.

Mr. Speaker: I didn’t recognize that as information being given.

The Minister of the Environment has the answer to a question.

Mr. Singer: If the Attorney General can’t concern himself about people’s reputations, it is a fine thing.

ACCESS TO OSHAWA MARSH

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durham East (Mr. Moffatt) asked me a question yesterday about my ministry staff being denied access to the marshland known as the Oshawa Second Marsh.

I’m advised staff were denied access in June last year. Apparently work had been undertaken by the federal Department of Public Works which obstructed the outflow of water from the marsh to Lake Ontario. However, last August, my ministry staff, along with staff from Environment Canada, made an inspection of the area in question.

On Sept. 8, a letter was forwarded from my ministry to the Oshawa Harbour Commission requesting that the obstructing material be removed to restore the natural outlet from the Second Marsh to the lake. Further inspection of this marsh will be undertaken very shortly to see that our recommendations have been carried out.

Mr. Moffatt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question.

Mr. Speaker: We have time for a short supplementary question.

Mr. Moffatt: Supplementary to the answer: Has the material been removed from the outflow from that marsh to this date?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That’s what the further inspection will find out. I expect that will be done in time.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener presented the annual report of the Ministry of Government Services for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1974, and ending March 31, 1975.

Mr. Cassidy: We hope it is her last.

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

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

Ministry of the Environment

Environmental control programme $10,000,000

Mr. B. Newman from the standing procedural affairs committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee has carefully examined the following applications for private Acts and finds the notices, as published in each case, sufficient:

Mid Erie Acceptance Corporation Ltd.;

Borough of Scarborough;

Township of Wicksteed;

Borough of York;

Congregation of St. Andrew’s Church, Ottawa;

City of Cambridge;

McMaster University;

Township of Nepean;

Kent County Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

Your committee further recommends that copies of the Canadian Parliamentary Guide be purchased for distribution to the members of the assembly.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this report be received and adopted? Carried.

Motions?

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that when the House adjourns today it stand adjourned until Monday, March 29.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the report of the Provincial Auditor to the Legislative Assembly for the year ended March 31, 1975, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.

Motion agreed to.

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2

Clerk of the House: The government notice of motion No. 2, Hon. Mr. McKeough:

Resolved: That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the Civil Service and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1976, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word or two about this. The giving of the blank cheque to the Treasurer is always something that concerns members of the Legislature and of course that’s exactly what we’re talking about. We don’t intend to oppose it quite obviously, because it may well be that a week Monday we’ll be in the midst of an election and not have an opportunity to deal with this matter again.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I doubt it.

Mr. Deans: There are rumours drifting in this direction that that might not happen. Nevertheless, in the event that it does happen, it’s obvious that the Treasurer has to have the necessary funds to pay the civil service and to continue the ongoing programmes.

I do want to suggest to the minister in this regard that, until such time as we come to the individual programmes of the various ministries, there’s one matter I had hoped to raise within another discussion in the House and won’t have an opportunity to do so, and for that reason I wish to raise it here.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) said today that perhaps there would be a setting-back of the date for hospital closings in the Province of Ontario. We in the Hamilton area don’t anticipate any hospital closings as such, but we have been told there will be some bed reductions in the area, and the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) has indicated those bed reductions are not necessarily for the reasons of a lack of funding, but because the beds are no longer needed for active treatment care.

There are approximately 2,100 beds in the area and the minister indicates that he might be prepared to reduce that by 200. He handed the matter over to the local health council. They, in turn, gave it back to the Minister of Health because, frankly, they felt they were not in a position to make any recommendations that will effect any cuts at this time.

I want, therefore, to make a suggestion to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) which he might well pass on to his colleague, since his colleague is going to have to spend some of this money in putting into operation the programmes that he intends to have in effect as of April 1 before we get to dealing with his estimates in the House.

I want to suggest to the Treasurer that just as there is approximately a $22,000 saving to be effected by the reduction of 220 active treatment beds in the Hamilton area, there is at this point a demonstrated need for some 360 chronic and nursing-care beds. It’s my understanding that approximately 20 per cent of the hospital beds currently in use are, in fact, being used for chronic and nursing-home care. It’s also my understanding that the average cost is about $100 per day for active treatment, and that the cost for chronic and nursing-home care would range at the level of about $30 to $40 per day, depending on the degree of care made available.

I want, therefore, to suggest to the Treasurer that when he is making his moneys available to the Minister of Health he do so in the following way; that he say to the Minister of Health, “Yes we will approve the expenditures that you are asking for in the interim supply motion, but we’ll approve it subject to you sitting down with the appropriate people in the city of Hamilton and working out a new arrangement whereby, if there is to be a reduction in active treatment beds, there will be an appropriate number of nursing-home and chronic-care beds made available to deal with people who have a great need for that and for whom those beds are not currently available.”

Now let me suggest this; if we were to make available 400 chronic and nursing-home beds in the Hamilton area in addition to those that are currently there, that would take up the 200 beds that have to be taken out of the active treatment area and would provide for 200 of the additional beds that would be needed for chronic and nursing-home care.

At this point in time, the saving in doing so, just on the 200 active-treatment beds alone, would be some $12,000 a day, falling short of the objective of the ministry of $22,000 a day by only $10,000 a day.

In addition to that, by virtue of setting up these 400 chronic and nursing-home beds we would be able to meet an immediate need, we would be able to maintain employment at the current level within the various hospitals that we are talking about and we would, therefore, not further dislocate the people involved in providing health care in the area.

The 200 additional beds that would be made available would be used to provide for a demonstrated need. We are not asking for all 360 that are needed, but simply 200 of them.

I want to suggest further that the Treasurer discuss with the Ministry of Health officials who must make these decisions the possibility of using the facility at Chedoke Hospital, of leaving there a small but active emergency treatment facility; leaving there all of the facilities currently used for rehabilitation purposes, and then turning the remainder of that facility over to chronic and nursing-home care.

The effect of this would be that the 20 per cent of the active treatment beds currently in use and the variety of general hospitals would be no longer needed. Those people who are currently using those $100-a-day beds could be transferred to the new facility at Chedoke into $40-a-day beds. The staff that is currently on staff at Chedoke would then continue to provide the care. The staff that is currently available and being used in the general hospitals could be transferred to the Chedoke facility and we would find that if there was any, there would be very little dislocation of employment, that if there was a need for a reduction in employment that could be taken care of over a short period of time by the normal attrition process, and we would have met two needs and saved approximately the same amount of money.

I want to say to the Treasurer that my concern in health care is to make sure that we provide an adequate facility, at least in the Hamilton area and in my opinion throughout the province, to ensure that those who need care can get care within their capacity to pay.

I believe it is possible, with a programme similar to the one that I have outlined to the minister, that this could be done, at least for the Hamilton-Wentworth area. I am also convinced that there are many other areas, many other regions, which could do likewise. There is no need -- in fact that would be folly -- for the ministry to pursue the programme that it currently has of reducing the active treatment beds without providing adequate facilities for chronic and nursing-home care and without taking into account important factors, If you proceed with the reductions that you are talking about, it will inevitably mean a reduction in the staff. If it means a reduction in the staff it will have an overflow effect on those people in the community who may well be considering the possibility of entering health care as a profession. Those people will be diverted --

[3:15]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I point out that I believe the hon. member is discussing an entirely different subject?

Mr. Deans: No.

Mr. Speaker: We are voting supply here --

Mr. Deans: I know.

Mr. Speaker: -- not discussing the advantages and disadvantages of nursing homes, or what have you.

Order, please.

I think it is proper to exemplify the voting of supply for such things, but to debate the case of nursing home beds vs. active treatment beds, it seems to me that’s another field completely.

Mr. Deans: I would, on your interjection Mr. Speaker, put this to you: That between now and the day the Minister of Health’s estimates are tabled in the House and dealt with, the Minister of Health will, by virtue of this motion, be given all of the money necessary to implement all of the programmes which he has indicated will commence on April 1.

Mr. Speaker: If I might point out, I agree that --

Mr. Deans: No, no.

Mr. Speaker: -- it is a matter of voting supply for whatever necessary expenditures that have to be made.

Mr. Deans: And I have said that I am prepared to vote that supply on the following conditions: That the Treasurer put to the Minister of Health and his ministry that within that area these matters I am most concerned about he considered; and I think that’s quite well within my rights. I think I am entitled to put to the minister that if he wants roe to give him a blank cheque to spend money from now until such time as I have an opportunity to discuss the actual estimates of any ministry, then I am entitled to suggest to him there are certain things which have to be considered by that minister and the other ministers involved.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think the matter of the one type of bed vs. the other does not enter into it.

Mr. Deans: It does; it shows how to save money.

Mr. Speaker: It is a matter of voting supply. I agree you are illustrating it, so the hon. member may continue.

Mr. Deans: Thank you very much. I appreciate that very much, thank you. Now you have really done it, because I don’t remember where I was. What was the last word; could you tell me?

Mr. Renwick: “But.”

Mr. Deans: Which “but” was it, though? Oh dear, where was I? Maybe the Treasurer could tell me, since he was listening so intently?

Mr. Ruston: You were out of order, that’s what happened.

An hon. member: Start over again.

Mr. Deans: I guess I will have to start over, because I can’t remember.

Well anyway, without going into it any further, I will say this to the Treasurer: I am always reluctant, particularly since I’ve already indicated non-confidence in the government, to give him a blank cheque. I am reluctant to say to him: “Yes, go ahead and spend in whatever way it pleases, without any recourse to the legislative process”; at least not before the next election, assuming my colleagues from the Liberal Party proceed with their foolhardy amendment to the amendment.

I want to suggest to him that he should certainly make known to the Minister of Health that I make this suggestion in good faith. I make this suggestion believing full well that there is an opportunity for the government of the province to save money -- which is what we are all interested in -- while at the same time providing for all of the active-treatment bed needs; while at the same time providing for the chronic and nursing-home needs; while at the same time not dislocating the employment of so many dedicated people. I remember now where I was; thank you very much.

What I was saying was the Treasurer has to bear in mind that for a great many people who are currently either in school or in the process of entering schools related to social services and health, they may well be dissuaded, as a result of this government’s actions, from pursuing that career. At some point within the next decade, he will be screaming and shouting at us, when we are in government, that there aren’t enough nurses and there aren’t enough people in social services. And it will be because the Treasurer and the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor), have effected cutbacks which are not well thought out; they are ill-advised.

So I say to the Treasurer, if he wants this money he has to undertake these kinds of things as a possible way of ensuring that the saving he is trying to get allows the provision of the health-care delivery system that we all think is so necessary in the Province of Ontario.

Beyond that, one final point dealing with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) and the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), it’s small, but important to the area I represent. The Minister of Housing decided some time ago to build a HOME project on Saltfleet Mountain, as it was then known; it’s now known as the town of Stoney Creek. The Minister of Housing built this some considerable distance away from any other built-up area and as a result there is no public transit. The city of Hamilton owns the only public transit system.

Neither the Minister of Transportation and Communications nor the Minister of Housing is prepared to enter into any subsidy programme to ensure there is public transit. I want to suggest that in the consideration of the expenditures of this government from April 1 until such time as we deal with Housing, or until such time as we deal with Transportation and Communications, some serious consideration be given to the plight of the people who are living in homes far removed from the normal routes of communication or transportation and who do not have any public transportation available to them.

With those two comments, which are parochial in nature, I say to the Treasurer he should spend this money very wisely. I hope maybe after April 1 we’ll have an opportunity to look more closely at where he intends to raise the revenue in order to spend what he’s been overspending and over-borrowing in the last number of years.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, traditionally the motion has been put before the House each year which gives the Treasurer the right to spend the money put into the estimates for the next successive 12 months in the fiscal year. Complaints have been put forward by opposition members and I believe, really, they have been echoed by supporters of the government -- at least in general terms -- that very few Houses give this sort of a blank cheque to the Treasurer -- that is, one full year’s supply. In this instance it might amount to something in excess of $12 billion.

There are, of course, remedies available to this House during the period in which we are in session, that is in the fiscal year during which this expenditure would be authorized. But the feeling is very much in the minds of the members in opposition, and surely elsewhere, that our extensive debates on the estimates are a bit futile in that this motion approves the expenditure in total. I don’t know of any other House in any democratic jurisdiction where the House is asked to approve such tremendous carte blanche responsibility on the part of the Treasurer without some adequate, let’s say more easily understood and observed, safeguards.

I personally don’t believe the motion itself should be a vehicle for extensive discussions as to precisely how the moneys are to be spent. But I would suggest that I feel quite strongly that our procedures should be patterned after other Houses where the members are asked to approve supply not in blocks of one year but perhaps on a quarterly basis. Some legislatures and parliaments do it more frequently than that.

I believe, as well, there is a possibility of an election in the next few weeks and a new parliament will be back here -- it is quite possible it will be a new parliament, perhaps even a new government -- examining the business of the House some time later in this year.

I would hope that the minister would give some consideration to following the traditions in other democratic parliaments by not asking for a full year’s supply. It’s true that the voting of supply has been used in the Parliament of Canada in the past -- by the Conservative Party which was then in opposition -- as a lever perhaps to extract from the government of the day certain concessions in matters of policy and administration. There have been chances, I suppose, that supply would run out because an intransigent opposition would refuse to vote supply until amendments to government policy came forward.

There are, however, political balances and checks in this connection. If the opposition refuses to vote supply so that the public service is not paid or certain pensions are withheld, of course, I believe there is a danger of irresponsibility in that connection. Weighted against that, surely, is the unreasonable request from the government that this House be asked to give them a blank cheque for what will be in excess of $12 billion.

It is true we will have ample opportunity to discuss in detail the expenditure of those dollars during the life of this Legislature or its successor, if in fact there is an election. But still it seems an unreasonable way for a democratic government to proceed. With that in mind, I would move an amendment to the motion, seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt).

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nixon moves that the words “for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1976,” in the third and fourth lines be deleted; and the following substituted, “for the period commencing April 1, 1976, and ending June 30, 1976.”

Mr. Nixon: The motion would now read:

“That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil service and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply, for the period commencing April 1, 1976 and ending June 30, 1976. Such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.”

Now Mr. Speaker, if you will just permit me a moment or two before you put the motion. As I say, there will be ample opportunity for debate in this House, or another with other membership; there will finally be an approval of the vote of supply, usually in December of the calendar year; but I would suggest, sir, that this change, while in no way interfering with the responsibility the government has to meet its commitment, does leave a considerably greater degree of responsibility with the members of this House.

I would urge, Mr. Speaker, not only that the NDP accept the motion, but the Treasurer might well consider accepting it as well.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nixon’s motion is now before us. Any further discussion on this? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, briefly: I am sure the member for Wentworth and officials of both the Ministries of Health, of Housing and of Transportation and Communications, who will undoubtedly read the Hansard of this particular discussion, will take the comments which may have merit so far as Wentworth and active-treatment and chronic-treatment beds are concerned into consideration in their plan-making.

I would simply say to the former leader of the third party that I have no objection to his amendment to our motion. I would point out, however, that the committee studying the report of the Camp committee on the Legislature is looking at exactly this. I frankly would prefer to leave that subject to their deliberations and to look at ft a little bit more closely than obviously we are able to look at it here this afternoon. I am not sure when that committee will report, but that is one of the things they are deliberating on, about which they questioned the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld) and myself when we appeared before the committee. Perhaps that aspect has not reached the former leader and the caucus, but that is something they are looking at and it seems to me it might have been more reasonable to leave this matter to the advice of what I will call the Morrow committee.

I would simply point out that all the arguments which the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk made, have been made on a number of occasions, and I might be so bold as to say more brilliantly and more eloquently by the former member for Sudbury among others. But I was glad to have this member’s contribution to this ongoing debate. When he first entered the House, certainly when I first entered the House, the budget was introduced, the estimates were introduced, and they were all passed by March 30, and this particular motion was not necessary. I think this particular motion was introduced for the first time in 1965 or 1966, when overall approval was put beyond the date of April 1 and this became necessary.

Mr. Nixon: Do you recall whether or not it passed without debate the first time?

[3:30]

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The first time? No, I think the member for Sudbury, as I recall, talked eloquently, much more eloquently than the former Leader of the Opposition, about the right of Her Majesty the Queen to ask the assembly for money and -- well, let’s not go into that.

It should be pointed out that if we are trying to keep things in perspective, there has been a debate going on this week -- it is not yet finished, it will be resumed again this afternoon as I understand it; it has been going on in committee for the better part of a week -- which has nothing to do with the estimates for the year ending March 31 next. All that debate, as I have heard it and read about it, has to do with the following year. I am speaking about the supplementary estimates.

So that the matters raised by the member for Wentworth, awl in effect by the former Leader of the Opposition, are being debated under the heading of supplementary estimates; and I might say, Mr. Speaker, being very strict about it, it is completely out of order, because it is not the supplementary estimates that are being debated at all.

With respect to the Ministry of Health, for example, it is completely with respect to a policy or policies which presumably will be given effect in spending estimates beginning April 1, 1976, rather than for the year ending March 31, 1976, which is what the supplementary estimates are all about.

I would only point out one further matter, and that is -- and I say this to the former Leader of the Opposition with respect -- it isn’t a blank cheque. The government fully laid out on December last what its spending plans were for this coming year. Those figures have been before the public. We went across this province. We tabled in the House a figure, I believe of $12,512 million; it may have been $12,520 million.

Those figures do change, the percentages change, but on every occasion I have said that as Management Board has completed its studies for the estimates, as there have been appeals to cabinet back and forth, and discussions, obviously the figures have changed somewhat. I can tell the member that I think the spending estimates which will be tabled -- and perhaps a set of them may be tabled, I don’t know, before the budget on April 6, there may be one hook ready for tabling by the Chairman of Management Board -- I can tell him that the total of the four books, the total which will show up in my budget, will be within $100 million of that figure --

Mr. Nixon: What was the amount?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is $12,512 million, as I recall it. There will not be a significant variation in any of the figures, I think it is fair to say, from the spending estimates which I tabled in the House last December and which have been discussed at some length across this province. I say that because, in effect, half of the budget became known on that date, and the other half -- that concerning revenues and economic outlook -- will be known, the Lord willing, on April 6 in this House, at 8 o’clock at night.

I am anxious to read it and I hope hon. members are anxious to hear it. I have no trouble in accepting the amendment to my motion proposed by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the amendment moved by Mr. Nixon carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The motion, as amended, is carried.

Introduction of bills.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATE CONTROL BOARD ACT

Mr. Swart moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish the Automobile Insurance Rate Control Board.