Hansard Transcripts 1977-Nov-22 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

L057 - Tue 22 Nov 1977 / Mar 22 nov 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

REMARKS ABOUT LAWYERS

Mr. Nixon: On a point of personal privilege while the cabinet is gathering, I want to make it abundantly clear, sir, in spite of the report of my remarks in the Globe and Mail of this morning, that while my comments were critical of the legal profession yesterday I had no intention of singling out any individual lawyers and certainly no lawyers as members of this House, both present and past.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AGRICULTURAL HALL OF FAME

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the members that at a recent meeting of delegates from the major agricultural organizations, support was given to the establishment of an Agricultural Hall of Fame for Ontario.

The objective of the Agricultural Hall of Fame will be to give formal recognition to the many men and women who have, by example and deed, paved the way for the extraordinary developments that have been made in organization, in production, in marketing, in education and in all other phases of agriculture.

The 50 people who attended the meeting, which was held at the Agricultural Museum two weeks ago, asked me to appoint a steering committee to draft a constitution and develop operating guidelines. I am now in the process of choosing the committee members.

The Agricultural Hall of Fame will be located at the Ontario Agricultural Museum.

I think the members will agree that people who have made significant contributions to agriculture have in so doing made important contributions to society at large. It is fitting that we honour them in this way.

TRAINING SCHOOL DEATH

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I announce the death last night of a 15-year-old youth who was a ward of the Hillcrest Training School in Guelph. The youth was pronounced dead at the General Hospital in Guelph, following his being found by a staff member unconscious in his room.

The coroner’s office conducted a post mortem this morning and I expect to hear the results of it later today. I understand that in the circumstances an inquest is mandatory and the date is to be announced by the local coroner.

This tragedy is under investigation at the present time, both by the local police and by senior officials of my ministry, and is being investigated as an apparent suicide.

Our staff notified the parents of the child last night, in person, and a chaplain from our ministry, the Reverend Hinson MacLeod, was with the family.

I will keep the hon. members informed, as more information is available, on the progress of the investigation and of the date of the inquest.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTO PACT

Mr. S. Smith: I will address this question to the Minister of Labour, although frankly, Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred to address it to the Premier (Mr. Davis), or the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), or the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), none of whom is here. However --

Hon. B. Stephenson: I hate being fourth fiddle.

Mr. S. Smith: -- fourth fiddle, Madam Minister. I am sure she will still be very melodic and moderate. I wouldn’t want in any way to denigrate her position.

In view of the fact that the Ontario Federation of Labour will be presenting its brief shortly to the cabinet and that its brief outlines, as you know, the dismal situation in the manufacturing sector in Ontario, particularly with regard to the need to renegotiate the auto pact, what is the government doing to make clear to the federal government that this province demands the renegotiation of that pact so that the number of jobs in Canada in the auto and auto parts industry will be proportionate to sales of autos in this country?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I hesitate to answer this question in a non-melodic voice, as was suggested that I might do, because I have suddenly obviously become a bass today.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just temporarily.

Mr. Foulds: Two esses.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, no, none of that, just voice. At any rate, I would like to assure --

Mr. Conway: You have never been accused of being base before.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Only by you.

I should like to assure the leader of the official opposition that Ontario has made strong representation to the federal government regarding the need to renegotiate the auto pact. The Treasurer has had frequent communications, I am aware, with his counterparts in Ottawa about this specific matter and I think Ontario’s position has been very well put. We are very much concerned about the need to redress some of the imbalances and inequities that have developed as a result of the present arrangements under the auto pact and that position has been strongly put.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, does the minister not agree that it would really help our negotiators at these international negotiations if there were a public outcry and there were seen to be very strong groups in the community and very strong governments demanding certain action of a government? Under those circumstances does she not agree that it is important for Ontario to take positions strongly, forcefully and publicly, so it will be clear to everyone there is a crying need for redress in this situation and that we will not take some type of fobbing off by either the federal government or the international negotiating team, but demand action publicly? Why is the minister so quiet about it?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure that the members of government have been particularly quiet about this specific situation. Perhaps it’s not couched in such ferocious language as the hon. Leader of the Opposition would wish. But I think the Treasurer has made his position clear publicly regarding the auto pact and I think that’s been echoed by the Minister of Industry and Tourism as well.

I think that the position which has been stated by some members of the Ontario Federation of Labour has echoed it rather strongly and we are in support of that position. We believe that this whole problem does need to be reassessed in order to make sure that the position for Canada is more equitable.

We can try couching it in language of vigour, if the member likes and perhaps that will solve some of the problems.

Mr. S. Smith: You could try.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: In view of the fact that at this time there is no assurance that the auto pact will be renegotiated and we have no assurance that we are going to get the contract for the pipeline, is the minister prepared to collect all the cabinet ministers in the federal government, the members from those localities, call a public meeting with the members from those areas present, and with the press present and tell publicly that this has not been negotiated to the benefit of the people of Ontario and make sure that the people in the area know that this is going on?

Hon. B. Stephenson: If and when it becomes apparent that the negotiations have not been carried out to the benefit of the people of Ontario, that’s an interesting suggestion which will be seriously considered.

Mr. Deans: I think it is becoming apparent now.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, it’s not. It is not yet.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: This is a supplementary to the first question. Is the minister telling the House that the government has changed policy? The Treasurer not later than two weeks ago said during the estimates that a renegotiation is not necessary and in the last year in a budget paper on the auto pact he said that the normal review was necessary.

Is the minister telling the House that now the government is supporting the renegotiation of the auto pact, in view of the negative effects -- especially on the parts industry of Ontario and the unemployment caused, especially in southwest Ontario?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m not sure that the Treasurer was specifically referring to the situation in southwestern Ontario. If he said something of what I gather the hon. member has suggested during the estimates I have not heard about that. But certainly there has been much discussion about certain specific portions of the auto pact which must be improved if the situation is to improve for Ontario industry. As I said, representations have been made about that.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Davidson: Supplementary: In response to the second question or the supplementary put by the leader of the official opposition the minister talked in terms of reassessment rather than renegotiation. Can she tell me what that means on the part of the government, to reassess? There is quite a difference between reassessing and renegotiating a contract that exists.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I think it must be widely understood that assessment and reassessment of the effects of the auto pact are absolute essentials to the development of a position before renegotiation. That’s what I meant.

Mr. di Santo: That was done in the budget last year.

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr. S. Smith: With some trepidation I address a question to the Minister of Energy. I feel I should be given a bonus question for doing this, but anyway.

Since the essence of the Global Television news report last evening seemed to indicate there were no schedules and no cost estimates issued on April 13, 1977, despite the fact that a letter to Lummus refers to them, that a letter to me from Chairman Taylor refers to them, and that a letter to the minister from Chairman Taylor refers to them, would the minister care to make some comment on the results of his investigations into the matter? Do these schedules exist? Is the television newscast correct? If they don’t exist, how does the minister tolerate this kind of business attitude on the part of Ontario Hydro?

[2:15]

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the Leader of the Opposition take that matter up with the select committee. As he knows, this whole matter will be considered by a select committee and I would suggest that would be the appropriate place to do that.

Mr. S. Smith: What’s the oral question period for?

Mrs. Campbell: In other words you don’t know the answer to that either.

Mr. S. Smith: I suppose it is an improvement over the minister telling me I shouldn’t ask him questions in the House.

By way of supplementary, given the fact that no select committee exists as of the moment for me to take that question up with, would the minister kindly answer the question as to whether there really are cost estimates and schedules issued on April 13, 1977, which are referred to in the so-called ultimatum regarding this half-billion dollar enterprise?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, may I just correct the Leader of the Opposition? I have never suggested that he not ask me questions. What I did, as a matter of fact, was invite him to ask me questions.

Mr. S. Smith: Outside of the House.

Mrs. Campbell: Which you don’t answer.

Mr. Kerrio: Questions are easy.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I would hope maybe the day will come when the Leader of the Opposition will see fit to discuss complicated issues with me without having to avoid me outside of the Legislature.

In terms of those schedules, yes, I fully expect they are available and if he would like them then as in other matters I would be delighted to co-operate with him and provide him with whatever information he wishes.

Mr. S. Smith: Will the minister table them? Will he table such schedules and cost estimates in the House?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in tabling any of those documents related to the contract. I may say that I have tried to make that clear to the Leader of the Opposition for many months --

Ms. Gigantes: Why don’t you just table them?

Mr. Davidson: Why didn’t you just say it instead of beating around the bush?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- but it has just not been his style to contact me in connection with this matter.

Ms. Gigantes: Come and do private pleadings, eh?

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Given that we now have a second report on nursing homes which seems to indicate that there is a major problem with regard to nursing homes in the province not being prepared to accept those who are very ill, over and against those who are less ill but can get extended care, what action would she contemplate recommending to the Minister of Health -- who is just coming into the house -- with regard to policy shifts that would guarantee that persons in need of nursing home care in terms of being sick are, in fact, given first priority?

What is she going to do to provide a sufficient number of beds in order that the people who are currently being moved out of active treatment hospitals are given the opportunity and given some place to be placed in the province within reach of their homes?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Health is in the House I would respectfully suggest the member direct the question to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think that the report to which the hon. member refers is in this morning’s Globe and Mail. The headline refers to a nursing home, but the facility in question is a home for the aged.

Mr. Deans: There are two of them; two articles.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Oh, I am thinking of a different one. As far as extended care is concerned, and this is something which we -- in answer to the question from the press gallery the answer is yes.

As we discussed in estimates yesterday, there is a requirement in the nursing homes that a minimum of 75 per cent of the beds be retained for extended care patients. In addition, we discussed and it was agreed -- and this is something which I am working on with my colleague, the Minister of Community and Social Services -- that we do have to develop across the province a system of assessment and placement agencies which will have the ability to put people, as much as is possible, into the type of institution or home, whatever we want to call it, which best suits their needs.

For instance, there was one referred to yesterday in estimates and I will get to this later on. The member’s colleague from Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) asked about a particular home and what is done there.

In checking this morning, we find that 99.2 per cent of the beds in that home are, in fact, occupied by extended care patients. We do, from time to time, come across instances where maybe the home is being asked to go to 78 per cent or 80 per cent beyond the minimum required and finding some resistance because of the extra care involved, staffing, time and so forth. That is where I think a series of assessment and placement agencies will be of assistance to us.

Mr. Deans: I have two supplementary questions: The first is, does the minister recognize that in the Ottawa area, where he already has an assessment patient placement agency in operation, there is a six-month waiting list; that there are perhaps more than 300 persons on that waiting list; and that there simply aren’t a sufficient number of beds to accommodate the people who require them? What is the point of having an assessment operation if the minister doesn’t have anywhere to put the patients who need the beds?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have two comments in reaction to that, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it must be acknowledged that the few assessment placement agencies we have right now, don’t have the kind of authority that I certainly envisage assessment of placement agencies eventually having. Right now, it is a matter of persuasion, coercion or whatever, to get people properly placed.

The second thing is that I think this is part of an overall problem -- which I have certainly discussed with a number of the Ottawa members from time to time -- as to how beds in all kinds of facilities in the Ottawa area are being used. And, as you may know, we do have under way, under the auspices of the district health council and with co-operation from the faculty of medicine at the University of Ottawa, a study on the long-term needs of Ottawa-Carleton. Included in that -- in February, although I wouldn’t want to be held to that date -- will be a one-day census of who is in what kind of bed and where they are from.

That is an added dimension to the problem in Ottawa -- the number of beds in the Ottawa area being utilized by persons from outside of the Ottawa-Carleton region. I am told by my staff that we have nursing homes with empty beds not too far away in nearby counties. So it may be that we have to better co-ordinate among the various counties and regions to try to keep people in appropriate facilities.

I recognize that it is a problem. I haven’t heard the number of 600.

Ms. Gigantes: It’s 300.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Sorry, 300. Is that in connection with any one particular home or in general?

Ms. Gigantes: That’s general.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I hadn’t heard that. I would want to think about whether that’s an appropriate figure. We’ll always have some waiting list. I know from my own experience in the past, sitting on the board of homes for the aged, that we always anticipated having some waiting list. It’s just a question of whether that’s appropriate or inappropriate for the number of facilities and beds and so forth available.

Mr. Davidson: Oh, come on!

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Given the fact that the estimates report of the minister’s predecessor for 1975 and 1976 and the present minister’s report this year for 1977 all clearly point out that a hospital bed is at least seven to eight times more costly than a nursing-home bed, how long do we have to wait for this reassessment? The ministry has known for three years.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, let’s put a couple more things on the record. First of all, since October 1975 there has been a freeze put on the ministry by the Management Board of Cabinet for new nursing-home beds. Secondly, if one looks at the planning ratios for nursing-home beds, the province is as a whole over-bedded in nursing-home beds.

Mr. Roy: Except in the Ottawa area.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Thirdly, over the last few years we have begun to develop some alternatives, not the least of them being chronic home care. I will, late this week or early next week, be tabling the initial assessment report on the chronic home-care program. And that is even less expensive.

Mr. Sweeney: It is more expensive.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is even less expensive than an extended care bed in a nursing home. So we are trying to ensure that there is a wide range of services. But the point is that there will, in fact, be some waiting lists.

I guess it is the ideal but I don’t think we could afford to have on any one given day no waiting list at all for anything. That is unrealistic.

Mr. Deans: Since we don’t appear to have a sufficient number of nursing-home beds, we don’t appear to have a sufficient number of chronic care beds in the province of Ontario, and since the minister has been systematically reducing the number of active treatment beds in the existing hospitals, what is wrong with working out a program that would allow people in need of nursing home care or who are at the chronic care level to be kept within those hospitals and to provide that level of care at the reduced cost? What is wrong with doing that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think, perhaps, if the member has an opportunity to come to estimates committee we can probably get into it in more detail than question period allows. When one talks about keeping them in a hospital at the lower cost let’s first of all establish that one would have to be talking about establishing a chronic unit --

Mr. Deans: Then do it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- and by and large you’re talking in terms of twenties, thirties and forties as the numbers of beds for viable chronic units. That has been going on in a number of hospitals around the province -- the conversion to chronic. We have the conversion of the old Mount Sinai just down the street from this chamber; this will be finished soon and will bring on 300 more chronic beds.

Mr. Roy: It was empty for three years.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: And there is the rebuilding of the old Dunn Avenue campus of Queen Elizabeth, being rebuilt for chronic care; and the conversion of the Salvation Army Grace Hospital to chronic, just thinking of the Metro area.

Mr. Deans: That’s converting a whole hospital. I’m not talking about that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: So it has been going on. I have a number of policy matters to discuss with my cabinet colleagues in the near future. The member’s suggestion is a good one and certainly not altogether out of line with the ministry’s thinking.

Mr. Conway: In an earlier response to the member for Wentworth the minister indicated that from this point of view he would like to see some very major strengthening take place in that assessment placement process. I wonder if the minister could share with us this afternoon what specific proposals he envisions for that strengthening.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Not at this point, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated, it is being worked on between my ministry and that of my colleague, the Minister of Community and Social Services, following which we will seek approval for whatever is the conclusion of our work from the social development committee of cabinet and then finally of cabinet and Management Board.

HOSPITAL BED RATIOS

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I’ve another question for the Minister of Health. Is there truth to the rumour that it’s the intention of the Ministry of Health to reduce the proportion of beds to population from four to some lower figure, 3.75 or 3.5, in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s a rumour that I started; unlike the rumour started by the member’s colleague from Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). I just want to put that in there, it might help his campaign.

Mr. Deans: I don’t need the minister’s help, thank you.

Mr. Foulds: The minister just lost him 40 votes.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m just trying to be helpful; I'm sorry.

Mr. Nixon: The minister’s time will come. We will help him too.

Mr. Deans: If I wanted help I wouldn’t be asking for help from the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The point I’ve been making to the hospital people -- and it follows from the member’s earlier question -- is that looking ahead and looking at the fact that by the turn of the century the proportion of our population, which one can call aged, will be something like 50 per cent greater than it is in proportion to today’s population, and looking at changing modes of treatment, we’ll be moving into chronic programs and geriatric programs of various sorts.

One cannot say that the whole system as it is today must be taken as it’s given and everything else is added on. The realities of our ability to raise money, the realities of the economy at this time are such that we have to look at the active treatment bed ratios to make room for other things to come into the system or to be expanded within the system, and to take cognizance of, as I said the changing patterns of practice.

Now, having said all that, no final decision has been made. I would hope that that would occur in the not too distant future.

Mr. Warner: Is the Minister of Health telling us that he is going to help out those private nursing homes that have been shuffling off some of their patients to the homes for the aged, by now establishing separate institutions for chronic care?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’m not establishing any new ones. There are existing ones in operation or under construction or conversion. I guess the only recent new one would be the Salvation Army Grace Hospital in downtown Toronto which will convert to chronic and palliative care from its current, very successful operation as an active treatment hospital, and the conversion of the old Mount Sinai. But I’m not saying I’m going to be building new ones. Certainly, as we look around the province, where the need for extra chronic beds is recognized, we’ll try to do it within existing facilities as we are doing in several centres, not the least of them being Windsor.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Has the minister initiated that rumour with any advice from any of the official sources within his ministry that might have given him evidence to indicate that there should, in fact, be a reduction in the active bed ratio below the figure of four that’s been mentioned by my friend from Wentworth?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’m not quite sure I understand the question, but I’m just speaking for myself as the minister. In looking to the future needs, whether it be institutional care such as chronic and so forth, or whether it be programs outside of what has become the tradition of institutionalized care, and given the facts of life and finance in Canada today -- and I think from my reading this is something that every province and every country is having to face -- I ask the member to look at the fact that in the United States, for instance, the Secretary of Health has indicated that by 1984 they’re going to have to close 100,000 active treatment beds to bring their system into line and to allow for flexibility for other programs. That’s what I’m talking about.

I wanted to point out, Mr. Speaker, how good I’ve been today in not pointing out that there’s another group of students from my riding in the gallery.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, to come back to the original question and the answer which the minister gave, I am wondering how this solves the problem highlighted in the article this morning, picking up on the article from April 15 of this year. How does all of this answer the problem of nursing homes wanting to and being able to accept patients who simply require minimal care, thereby shuffling some of the problem into the public homes for the aged? How does what the minister has told us today solve that problem? What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, again, with respect, this is something that is certainly going on in estimates committee. We could take up a great deal of time there without cutting off other members who want to discuss other subjects.

I pointed out first of all that the regulations to the Act require that a minimum of 75 per cent of the beds in a nursing home be retained as extended care beds. The hon. member asked me yesterday about a home, I think it’s called St. Raphael. We checked into that. As of this morning, 99.2 per cent of the beds in that home are in fact extended care beds.

To the very earliest question of this series, I indicated that we are working on the principle of assessment and placement agencies that will have some teeth.

Mr. Warner: When?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I hope certainly in the next year that we will have resolved our discussions and got the matter through cabinet.

Mr. Warner: In the fullness of time.

Mrs. Campbell: Has the minister looked at the experiments which have been carried out in some of the western provinces, where they have analysed nursing home care in degrees of care expected from each of the different classifications of homes? In view of the fact that the interministerial report indicated that most of this relates to financing, why haven’t we at least looked at the record in the west where they have degrees of financing related to the degree of care which is to be delivered?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the systems employed in the west are any more successful than the system we employ in the province of Ontario. In effect we do have two levels of care, extended care and normal residency, and rather an involved point system and a regular evaluation and then re-evaluation by the physicians involved.

Certainly the representations I’ve had from the nursing home industry in my nine or 10 months as Minister of Health indicate they would like to see something like that come in to improve on what they consider to be a low rate of return on investment. For instance, the extended care rate applies to all nursing homes whether they were built in the last year at 12 or 14 per cent mortgage rates, or built 20 years ago at much lower rates and lower construction costs. I know that that’s something that aggravates them, but I really don’t think from what I’ve read of what goes on in other jurisdictions that they are any closer to the ultimate answer than we are.

BRIBERY CASE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have the answers to several questions asked by the hon. member for Downsview (Mr. di Santo) regarding the prosecutions which came about as a result of Judge Waisberg’s commission which reported on crime or criminal activity within the construction industry.

First of all, may I state that I had the matters raised by the hon. member reviewed by the acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, criminal law division, Mr. McLeod, who agrees that the decisions reached by the Crown law office back in the fall of 1974 were appropriate.

As a result of evidence taken at the royal commission on certain sectors of the building industry, investigations were made by a joint task force involving the OPP and the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

The royal commission hearings commenced on June 5, 1973. In the spring of 1974, the Crown law office reviewed the transcript of the evidence taken by the commission on a daily basis as it became available. In the fall of 1974, the Crown law office provided to the joint task force a list of approximately 20 areas where criminal charges could be considered but at the same time suggested to the police that further investigation was required in each of these areas. This investigation was done, and at the conclusion of their investigation, a decision was reached to cause criminal charges to be laid against six persons, which charges were laid on December 18, 1974.

The six persons who were charged were persons who had received benefits rather than persons who had given benefits. It is clear that section 383 of the Criminal Code creates two parallel offences, one for the receiver and one for the giver. The decision to charge, in each case, the person who received the benefit and not to charge the person who conferred the benefit was based upon a consideration of the following factors:

1. In the Crown’s view it was necessary in these eases to refrain from prosecuting one or the other of the giver or receiver in order to have the evidence of one for a successful prosecution.

2. The relative degrees of culpability having regard to: (a) who instigated the transaction, namely that the donees in each of the six cases instigated the payment; (b) the reason for it; (c) the testimony and demeanour of the participants during the royal commission.

3. The Crown law office’s assessment of the deterrent value in the construction industry of the prosecutions.

Mr. Foulds: That’s incredible.

PIPE PRODUCTION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. I hope he shares my interest in selling Ontario pipe for the Alaska Highway pipeline. In view of the day to day changes in events altering the opportunities as we face them, and more particularly, in view of what the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Hon. Jack Horner said, and I’d like to quote him: “The final decision is for Canadians to make, not Americans. We are in the driver’s seat with regard to the pipe. If we make the right decision then we will make available to Canadian suppliers” --

Mr. Speaker: I don’t hear a question yet.

Mr. Kerrio: -- “the opportunity to produce the pipe.” This is very significant, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It’s still not a question.

Mr. Kerrio: The question is, will the Premier address himself to the comments I’m making when I suggest that if all we’re guaranteed is that competitive price is all that’s going to be considered in the contract would he and his ministers take a more active part in seeing that we do have a fair hearing in making the decision of where this pipe is to be purchased?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t kept track but I do believe the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans), the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis), the member for Niagara Falls and perhaps one or two others have raised this matter in the past two weeks. I will once again reassure the member for Niagara Falls that the government has been interested in this and was pursuing it perhaps even before the member for Niagara Falls knew there was to be a pipeline.

Mr. Kerrio: If I had known sooner I would have sold them the pipe.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How many times do I have to tell him? If the member for Niagara Falls wants to compete in either the sale or the installation of the pipe I can think of no rules or regulations of this House that would preclude him doing so and I wish him well. My own guess is that Canadian supplier or suppliers will be involved in this process. I am very optimistic about that. I can’t say that I am that familiar with the hon. member’s own operation to say whether or not he would be personally one of those.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, in view of what’s happening in this whole issue, I would just like to ask the Premier if he’s aware that the US export subsidy and knocked-down pricing -- such as that of one company reported as offering to build a gas line in Mexico -- would give a strong competitive edge to the US in the Canadian selling of this pipe? I am most concerned that if we don’t bring to bear every bit of pressure the Premier’s office and the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Energy (Mr. J. A. Taylor) have t their command, we are not going to build the pipe in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to prolong this although I recognize its importance. But I would also point out to the hon. member that there are a number of people making representations and that includes the province of Ontario -- and this dates back a period of time.

Just to give him the latest information, Mr. Jefferson, vice-president, services, Foothills, stated before a committee in Calgary as recently as November 16 -- that’s admittedly a week ago -- in answer to a question related to Ontario -- this was to the committee on industrial benefits from natural resource development, chaired by Mr. George Hughes Adams, that the project will be handled by six separately incorporated Foothills corporations. Each would be responsible for the building of the section of the pipeline as it passes through Alaska, the Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

I have to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that part of the line does not go through Canada. I think one can assume that American producers of pipe are going to endeavour to get their share of that portion that is not in this country. One is going to read a lot of speculation, and there will be a lot of competition.

To say categorically to the hon. member it is going to happen, I am not in a position to give this guarantee. But I can tell him that on a personal basis and through ministers of the government, the government of Canada is totally aware. I am critical of the government of Canada on occasion but I have to say this for them, they are aware of the importance of it.

Mr. Roy: Jack Horner is doing a good job there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just want to tell the member what Mr. Jefferson has said. “It was stated that on the Canadian section, in excess of 85 per cent of all materials and services would be obtained from Canadian sources and this would include transmission pipe valves and related equipment. Purchases of supplies and equipment will be handled independently, section by section, and the responsibility will rest with the operating contractor.”

I should point out that another firm in Canada will also be making some effort to get their share. I think that firm is called Ipsco. I think it is geographically located in the province of Alberta, and I think for anyone to suggest that they will not be competing for a portion of this pipe would be to underestimate their capacity.

But I would assure the hon. member for Niagara Falls, the member for Wentworth and if he would relay it to his leader, and all of those who represent constituencies, and I guess indirectly the Leader of the Opposition, that this government is making every effort to see that particularly -- I will be selfish -- Ontario manufacturers get their share. We do not award the contracts so I am not in a position to guarantee it. But I am relatively optimistic that Canadians will get their fair share of the pipe and other related materials that are purchased.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would ask the Premier if he is not aware that his Minister of Industry and Tourism in reply in this House on November 17 stated that Canadian companies do not have some of the technology presently in place to produce the pipe for the Alaska pipeline? In view of Mr. Horner’s statement and the fact that Stelco has continually repudiated that and say they can produce it, will the Premier repudiate the statement of the Minister of Industry and Tourism? He’s making the kind of statement that’s selling out the Canadian interest.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the member for Welland-Thorold no minister has worked harder on behalf of the manufacturers of this province than the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

[2:45]

Mr. Nixon: All over the world, in fact.

Mr. Foulds: Too bad it wasn’t effective.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There may or may not be some technical problems. I can tell the member that I don’t pretend to be an expert in the technology of the production of pipe, but I assure the hon. member for Welland-Thorold that we are making every effort as a government, and I know the private sector is making every effort, to see that it is the supplier of a good portion of this pipe. I can’t add any more to that. I assume the hon. member for Welland-Thorold doesn’t himself expect to put in a bid, like the member for Niagara Falls. At least I didn’t know he was in the business, so I can’t wish him well.

Mr. Nixon: He isn’t; why don’t you get that straight? You have been told three times.

Mr. Yakabuski: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the controversy with regard to the supply of pipe for the proposed pipeline, is it true that Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie is considering a tube and pipe facility to be added to that complex with an eye towards getting some of the pipeline business?

Mr. Wildman: Yes, it is, it is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not familiar with all of the possible plans of some people involved in the steel industry. I would be very surprised if all of the major companies in this particular sector aren’t looking at their capacity to produce those materials, because they will amount to many millions of dollars.

I cannot answer specifically as it relates to Algoma. Perhaps if the hon. member had a word with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes), who is geographically fairly close to Algoma, he might have the most recent inside corporate information. I don’t.

TRAINING SCHOOL DEATH

Mr. Foulds: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services with regard to the statement he made this afternoon.

Can the minister assure us that the same kind of full report supplied by his ministry in the tragic Norma Dean case will be made public in the case of the tragic incident at Hillcrest yesterday? Specifically, could he inform the House the route through which the young lad arrived at the training school, whether it was section 8 or section 9, and whether it was through a Children’s Aid Society, the police, or a treatment centre?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can assure the hon. member that, as the full information is available, I will make it available to the hon. members of the House. I do have a fairly comprehensive preliminary report which was delivered to me just before I came into the House, prepared and put together by staff during the night.

Following my being advised yesterday evening shortly after the death of the youth, they began the preparation of the report. I have not yet had a chance to review that in its entirety, but to the best of my knowledge, at this point, according to the information I have, the child had been in the care of the Children’s Aid Society since, I believe, 1975. When the more comprehensive report is available to me, I will be in a better position to give the member more accurate information with respect to that.

The other thing I would raise at this point is that obviously I would not wish in any way to prejudge the outcome of the inquest in terms of the kinds of responses, the kinds of information that I might be able to give out prior to that. I would be willing to share with the member any information that I get, certainly, on a private basis; I am not in a position to deal with it publicly.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary: Is it not true that Hillcrest is supposedly the maximum security institution for disturbed children in this province? If that is so, how can such a tragedy take place? Doesn’t that indicate that perhaps training schools are not the answer for 15-year-old children?

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is true that that particular training school is one with a higher degree of security than most, or any, of the others in any of our training school system in the province.

I have in preparation at the moment a new proposal with respect to both the philosophy and the purpose or the role of training schools in the total picture of children’s and youth’s services in this province. As soon as I have had an opportunity to deal with that at the policy level with my colleagues, I hope I will be in a position to make some rather substantial announcements with respect to the role of training schools.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. McClellan: Through the Chair, to the minister: In view of the fact that these kinds of tragedies are inevitable as long as children who need mental health care are sent to training schools, would the minister not agree that the time has come to close training schools in Ontario and replace them as soon as possible with an adequate --

Mr. Speaker: That question was just asked.

Mr. McClellan: I don’t think the question was asked as a matter of complete provincial policy, Mr. Speaker. It was specific. I am asking whether the matter of general policy for the treatment of disturbed children, the training school system, ought to be closed, and whether the minister wouldn’t agree with that. I don’t appreciate being cut off on it!

Mr. Speaker: I was listening very carefully to the question that was asked previously by the member for Port Arthur. Yours was a duplication of it.

The hon. member for Renfrew North.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That’s enough supplementaries on that.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, there was only one supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: There was a repetition of questions. The hon. member for Renfrew North.

EDWARDSBURGH LAND ASSEMBLY

Mr. Conway: A new question to the Premier: Having regard to recent proposals with respect to the Edwardsburgh industrial proposal for eastern Ontario, and having regard to the Premier’s recent pilgrimage to Prescott, has he, in fact, accommodated the interests of the former member for Carleton-Grenville and the former minister from that area, who at that time was alleged to have asked the Premier to report to his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, that “We don’t need any more poplar trees here in eastern Ontario”?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I did travel to eastern Ontario, as the hon. member mentioned last week, and I must say that I came away encouraged that, with one or two aberrations, of course --

Mr. Samis: More than one or two.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- eastern Ontario was still solidly in support of the Progressive Conservative Party.

I acknowledge one or two aberrations. I’ve got news for the member. In fact, some of those aberrations may disappear and I don’t want to be personal about it at all.

Mr. Samis: Now back to the trees.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I recall, Mr. Speaker, the former member, a very distinguished colleague of mine and a friend of many -- I was going to say on both sides of the House, although he philosophically differed with some -- made observations about the future potential of the Edwardsburgh site. I think he did observe that he would like to see more by way of industry than an increase in the number of trees. I think he did make that point somewhat subtly. I understood what he was saying.

I can also tell the hon. member that that riding fortunately is still represented by an extremely able, aggressive person on the government side of the House, and that I am very confident we will find the best ultimate use for the Edwardsburgh site, because he is taking such an active interest in seeing that the right decisions are made.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Given the fact that the Premier, I thought, made a very appropriate reference in his speech to his government’s concern about regional disparity and what federal government wasn’t doing in that regard, and having regard to the former member’s comment that, “What we need are more jobs in industry,” I would ask the Premier what specific proposals he is entertaining at the cabinet level to make that Edwardsburgh industrial showcase something more than an experimental farm, which is quite obviously unsatisfactory to the people in eastern Ontario who feel that this government knows all about regional disparity because it has left eastern Ontario to languish industrially.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I -- No, I won’t, I’ll try it --

Mr. Warner: You were going to resign.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, just you, David. You are the only one who should.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I did make some observations at that very excellent, nonpartisan affair. I did point out that one of the problems we faced on a national basis was the disparity that existed in many parts of Canada. I have also pointed out that in some respects we face problems even within our own province -- that there hasn’t been total equality in terms of economic growth.

Mr. Samis: You can say that again.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One of the reasons we have had some measure of success, both in eastern Ontario and more recently with additions in northern Ontario --

Mr. Roy: Yes, majority government, eh?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- is because the people in those parts of the province recognize that this government is making efforts to see they do share in the economic prosperity of the rest of the province.

The fact that so many members come from that part of Ontario just indicates to me the wisdom and the logic of the people who live in that great part of the province. In spite of the fact that in two or three cases they did make errors in judgement, I still --

Mr. Speaker: That is not part of the answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- have confidence in their ability to determine what is best for them and we will assist them in that process.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. After that political harangue, could the Premier tell us if he has any new initiatives at all, leaving politics aside, for the people of eastern Ontario?

Mr. Nixon: It wasn’t a harangue. It was a soporific.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I was asked specifically about the Edwardsburgh site --

Mr. Roy: Yes, the Premier hasn’t answered that yet.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As the former Leader of the Opposition indicated, it was not a harangue at all, he called it a what?

Mr. Nixon: A soporific. It puts you to sleep.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He indicates that it put him to sleep. I wouldn’t doubt it for a moment because it doesn’t take much to put the hon. member to sleep on occasion.

Mr. Nixon: Just a speech from the Premier will do it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say that my own speeches put me to sleep on occasion but they have been more successful, obviously, over the years than his own.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Premier is not answering the supplementary at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, you are quite right.

Mr. Warner: He does not have an answer.

Mr. Wildman: Could the Premier indicate to this House which ministry will be responsible for making to the cabinet whatever proposals the government has for the Edwardsburgh site and for carrying them out? The Minister of Industry and Tourism disclaims responsibility for the original decision and fears that anyone who wants an industrial park in that area must be off his nut.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really am trying to answer that supplementary question but I’m getting so many other interjections that I am having difficulty concentrating. What was the question?

Mr. Samis: The Premier is looking for an audience.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As recently as, I guess, yesterday or Friday, I forget the exact date, a meeting was held with representatives from the government and with representatives from the local municipalities; they discussed four or five possible ideas for the Edwardsburgh site, how it should be handled. I understand these resolutions or ideas are being presented to the local government bodies. I expect they will be ratified, amended and so on. In this consultative process with the local communities involved the government is looking to them for their advice and guidance. When we receive that, then we will inform the House more fully as to what the plans for Edwardsburgh may be.

BADGLEY REPORT

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to ask of the Minister of Health why since July 1977 he has been sitting on the report of the provincial committee to review the Badgley report? I mean that figuratively of course.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have not, Mr. Speaker, been sitting on the report. It was put out to the OHA and to the OMA for official comment from both of those bodies. Some discussions have already been held at my level. Further discussions will be held and I would anticipate wrapping that up some time in the first half of 1978, going to cabinet and finally officially stating the government's reaction to the Badgley report.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Considering that two members of the committee were from the Ontario Medical Association and two members of the committee were from the Ontario Hospital Association, constituting four out of five members of the committee, I would like to know why the minister thinks it is necessary at this point to send the report back to those associations? If he is consulting these associations, is he consulting any group which might be considered client groups?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Not at this point. We have certainly heard from a number of client groups and certainly the committee which did include representatives of the two associations heard from client groups. Any material I received during that time -- letters or briefs -- were submitted to them.

I certainly didn’t consider that the two doctors -- the three doctors, really, because one of the representatives of the hospital association was a doctor as well -- and the other persons were, as it were, representative of the firm position of the OHA or the OMA. They were there to represent those sectors because it involves very directly both the hospitals and the medical profession as to how services are or would be delivered. Both associations, since the Badgley report came out, have gone through changes in their executives and perhaps therefore one could anticipate some slight change in policy -- not necessarily but possibly. I think both executives deserve the right to consider it and give the official position of both associations.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Ms. Gigantes: I assume from that answer that what he is telling me is that he is not going back to any client groups for any input. I would like to ask the minister, on the basis of that, whether we would be safe in assuming that the report is rather far-reaching and calling for government action, or he wouldn’t be sitting on it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, my experience with the hon. member is that she will make any assumption she wants whether it is based on fact or not.

Ms. Gigantes: It is the only answer I ever get from this ministry.

COW-CALF PROGRAM

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Could the minister inform the House if the cow-calf program monitoring is complete and is he in a position to tell us what the average of the calves was this fall?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the monitoring period will go to December 15. At that point in time we will calculate the sales around the province to get the average figure. I wouldn’t want to say what it will be at this point in time, but it looks like it will come out somewhere around 38 cents. There will be a payout to the cow-calf producers of this province.

Mr. Wildman: That’s better, but still bad.

Mr. Wiseman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would that payment go out to the producers before the end of the year?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes; we are anticipating that it will go out before the end of the year, providing the government of Canada will be kind enough to give us their figures by December 15.

Mr. Roy: Yes, before Christmas.

APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Mr. Roy: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Would the Premier confirm or deny the meetings that are supposedly taking place in the dining room downstairs involving some of his well-known colleagues, members of the Conservative Party and the deputy minister, as reported in an article by Jonathan Manthorpe on November 8? Would the Premier confirm or deny that these meetings are taking place re appointments to boards and commissions?

Hon. W. Newman: Where have you been the last two weeks; practising law?

Mr. Roy: No, I have been giving him two weeks to prepare the answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand it took the hon. member two weeks to get here to ask the question. It is true that people do get together; people do meet, that is true.

Mr. Roy: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, supplementary to this question, having in mind that it is the government’s prerogative to make appointments to boards and commissions and so on, how can the Premier possibly justify a civil servant, who is supposed to be apolitical, meeting with basically a political group? How can he justify that these appointments are non-political, based on merit, when the only people giving him advice are in fact Tories?

Hon. W. Newman: They are the only people capable of giving good advice.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really find I listen to advice from many quarters. I find that on balance the best advice I get happens to be from Progressive Conservatives. I don’t think that would come as a great shock to the member.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Sure doesn’t happen federally.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just so the hon. member doesn’t forget how objective and non-partisan we are, I believe one of the recommendations emanating from that group, which ultimately was approved by myself and cabinet, was his former very distinguished colleague from Armourdale.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: I would hardly call that non-political.

Mr. Nixon: Cutting a little close to the bone there.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Trudeau is never surrounded by Tories.

Mr. MacDonald: Would the Premier confirm the membership of that committee? Was the listing correct, the one I gave during discussion of the private members’ resolution carried on the order paper under the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith)? If not, would he correct it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I always take great delight in correcting the member for York South. I can’t often do it except on matters of real substance.

Mr. Foulds: On this one you can’t.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In that this is a matter I know he wants to learn more about as a matter of urgent public interest I can’t honestly recall, because I don’t attend those meetings, whether that was the complete list.

Mr. MacDonald: If the Premier finds out, will he give me a list?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will be delighted to inquire and to give the member a list of just about anything he wants -- just about anything.

Mr. MacDonald: Very good, thank you.

Mr. Deans: Was that yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven’t read the article.

Mr. Roy: The Premier hasn’t read the article.

Mr. Breithaupt: He’s two weeks late.

Mr. Roy: In view of the answer given earlier by the Premier that he does not attend these meetings, doesn’t he feel as the political leader --

Hon. B. Stephenson: Is this urgent public business? You’ve got to be kidding.

Mr. Roy: -- he should be attending those meetings rather than his deputy minister who is not supposed to have any political leanings, he is supposed to be apolitical.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That’s why he’s there.

Mr. Nixon: Maybe he’s not going to use them if the government changes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it should indicate very clearly to the hon. member how non-partisan and objective these recommendations are. It is because of my deputy minister’s participation with this group that does recommend names from time to time, which ultimately have to be approved by cabinet --

Mr. Roy: How come they are all Tories?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that he handles this very onerous responsibility extremely well and gives it that measure of objectivity. Let me say to the hon. member everybody this government appoints is there because of the intelligence, the logic and the ability that he or she possesses to bring to the job.

Mr. Swart: Political affiliation.

Hon. W. Newman: That’s why you would never make it.

REPORT

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaunt from the standing general government committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Office of the Provincial Auditor be granted Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Administration of the Audit Act and statutory audits..................................................$1,956,000

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS ACT

Ms. Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 109, An Act respecting Special Education Programs.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I wish members would present bills to the Chair in the proper form. There’s absolutely no information on this at all.

Ms. Gigantes: This bill guarantees access to education for all children of compulsory school age who suffer from any kind of chronic physical disability or any kind of learning disability, including the blind, deaf, autistic, mentally handicapped and perceptually handicapped, or for children who are exceptionally gifted.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF BURLINGTON ACT

Mr. Ruston, on behalf of Mr. Reed, moved second reading of Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the City of Burlington.

Motion agreed to.