The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I undertook to advise the House of the design differences between the United States light-water reactor of the type used at the Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, nuclear generating station and the Candu heavy water reactor used by Ontario Hydro at Pickering and Bruce.

At that time, I also undertook to report back to the House on various nuclear regulatory safety matters raised by some members.

Since then there have been suggestions that there is an immediate need for a review of nuclear reactor safety standards, and I would like to comment on these suggestions as well.

As honourable members know, there are a number of basic design differences between the Three Mile Island type of reactor and the Pickering and Bruce types of Candu reactor. I do not propose to deal with all these differences (although I am attaching schematic drawings which depict the two systems); rather, I propose to deal only with those differences that appear to be directly related to the difficulties being encountered at present.

It is important to keep in mind that at this point we do not know precisely what caused the accident. What we do know, however, are some of the consequences of that accident, and it is in that connection that we can compare the design features of the two reactors.

As honourable members are aware, there were early leakages of radioactive gases. One design feature of the Candu reactor which is fundamentally different from the Three Mile Island reactor is the vacuum containment system which exists at the Pickering and Bruce plants.

This vacuum containment system creates negative air pressure within the reactor building which causes the inside air pressure to fall below the outside aft pressure. This means that, even if some radioactivity were released from the reactor, leakage would be inward. Radioactivity would thus be prevented from escaping to the outside environment.

A second problem that occurred with the Three Mile Island reactor was fuel damage and resultant overheating of the fuel rods. While fuel damage could also occur in the Candu reactor, there is another fundamental difference in the design of the two reactors which provides added protection to a Candu reactor. In the case of a Candu reactor, the reactor core would cool itself as long as there were water in the boilers; even if all the pumping systems failed, the water would circulate naturally.

In addition, the Candu reactor is not as likely to suffer severe fuel damage because the fuel, natural uranium, is dispersed in 380 pressure tubes in the Pickering reactors and 480 pressure tubes in the Bruce reactors; these tubes are surrounded by cool, low-pressure heavy water. The result is that the uranium bundles are not in close proximity to each other. On the other hand, the Three Mile Island reactor fuel of enriched, highly radioactive uranium rods is in a dense configuration within a single pressure vessel. It should also be noted that the pressure tubes of the Candu reactor are horizontal and that the heat transfer system is above the fuel core.

A further feature of the Candu reactor is that there is a large volume of moderator water in the calandria which provides additional protection in case there is a need to cool the fuel. Even if the normal coolant in the tubes is lost completely, the presence of the cool moderator makes a so-called meltdown of the core extremely unlikely.

A third problem which occurred at the Three Mile Island reactor was the accumulation of a hydrogen bubble at the top of the pressure vessel. The Candu reactor does not have this type of pressure vessel. In fact, if hydrogen or other gases were produced in a Candu reactor under similar circumstances, the gas would be dispersed in the water transport circuit and could easily be removed.

These, then, are the relative differences in the design features of the two reactors which are relevant to the major problems of which we now are aware. It would not be appropriate to speculate further until we have more information available to us. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have a scientific assessment team already in Pennsylvania and, as I will indicate later, we have been informed by the president of the Atomic Energy Control Board that his officials will participate in a full-scale review of the problems that occurred at the Three Mile Island reactor once conditions return to normal.

I would now like to turn to the questions which have been raised in the past few days concerning nuclear safety regulatory matters. These seem to fall into two broad areas: (1) the reliability of the emergency core cooling system and (2) the need for a review of nuclear reactor safety standards.

It has been alleged that certain internal working documents of the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) provide clear evidence that the emergency core-cooling system (ECCS) of Ontario Hydro’s nuclear generating stations is not “satisfactorily reliable” and that the Inter-Organization Working Group (IOWG), of which Ontario Hydro is a member, is proposing to lower the safety standards for licensing of nuclear reactors.

Neither of these allegations is correct. In both cases the documents are being misinterpreted.

In the case of the ECCS, the issue being addressed in the documents is the ability to prevent fuel-sheath damage. Given present technology, Ontario Hydro and the nuclear industry cannot guarantee that such damage will not occur in every conceivable situation.

To protect the public in the event that a problem should occur, Ontario Hydro designs and builds into its nuclear plant a very effective containment system. AECB safety requirements are met by Ontario Hydro. What Ontario Hydro and the nuclear industry do is to build to the highest standards possible.

As for the lowering of safety standards, that allegation is simply not true. To clarify this matter, I am tabling today copies of two documents. The first is a paper prepared by the chairman of IOWG, explaining the basis for the proposed new standards. The second is a paper prepared by Ontario Hydro discussing the proposed new standards.

I might also draw to the attention of members that last November the AECB issued for public comment the entire report of the IOWG.

It has been suggested that the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs be specifically charged with the responsibility of investigating the matter of nuclear safety and be given permission to sit concurrently with the House so that it might begin work immediately.

First, let me make it clear that the government has no objection to the select committee investigating nuclear safety matters. However, the government sees no particular need to charge the select committee with this responsibility since, under its terms of reference, the select committee is already charged with the responsibility for examining Ontario’s nuclear commitment, including:

-- the performance and reliability of nuclear generating stations;

-- the responsibility for, and the standards relative to, the safety of nuclear generating stations; and

-- the environmental impact and health considerations related to nuclear power.

Quite clearly, if the select committee wishes to review nuclear safety matters, it may do so.

It has also been suggested that the select committee should begin sitting immediately. There is merit in this suggestion.

The timing of such a review in the context of what happened in Pennsylvania, however, is something which should be considered carefully.

I can advise the House that over the past few days we have been in touch with the president of AECB, requesting whether his board would be undertaking a review of Canada’s nuclear safety standards in the light of the accident with the US reactor.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read into the record a letter of today’s date from the AECB president on this matter. It is addressed to the deputy minister, and it says:

“In response to your inquiry yesterday and to our earlier discussions last weekend with respect to a review of Canadian nuclear safety standards in the light of the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power (plant), I wish to confirm the actions which are currently under way and planned.

“Recognizing the emphasis that we place on the prevention of accidents, and the complementary efforts that have been made in establishing effective emergency plans, the actions that have already been initiated are considered to be an appropriate means of ensuring that the public interest is served. It is important that these efforts not be hampered by a hasty misdirection of resources, and I have cautioned against taking any steps which could be counterproductive.

“There is available in the public record a wealth of information on nuclear safety, arising in part from the Saskatchewan inquiry headed by Mr. Justice E. D. Bayda and the Ontario Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning, chaired by Dr. Arthur Porter. The voluminous submissions and transcripts of hearings, as well as reports issued by Messrs. Bayda and Porter, constitute an impressive account of the arguments posed by persons on both sides of the nuclear debate.

“What is essential at this time, recognizing the significant differences between the design of Canadian and United States nuclear power stations, is an in-depth review of the Three Mile Island accident once the facts are known. In this regard, we have been in daily contact with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the board’s staff as well as nuclear safety experts in Ontario.

“Hydro and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited are constantly reviewing the information being provided. It is important to note, however, that the information provided to date by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is very preliminary, and neither the commission nor the board is yet in a position to identify the lessons to be learned from the accident. Until such time as definitive information is available, a meaningful analysis of the accident is not feasible.

“From the outset of our consultations with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the commission has responded very favourably to our request that an in-depth review of the Three Mile Island accident be conducted with a view to sharing our respective knowledge. This, of course, is in accordance with our long-standing arrangements with the US on a bilateral basis and on a multinational basis under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the nuclear energy agency of OECD. As you might well expect, US authorities are of the view that the Three Mile Island accident is of more relevance to other US nuclear power stations of the Three Mile Island design and to similar stations abroad because of the fundamental differences between that design and the design of Candu stations. I might also point out that nuclear safety experts in other countries have often commented upon what they consider to be the uniqueness and comprehensiveness of the Canadian approach to reactor safety.

[2:15]

“On a more immediate basis, a scrutiny of the very extensive analysis of postulated accidents described in the safety reports prepared by the board’s licensees will reveal that extensive, defence in-depth measures have been taken to prevent the Three Mile Island type of accident and, thus, to ensure a high level of public safety. As you know, these safety reports are available for study by interested persons.

“In conclusion, and without prejudging whether or not a formal public review should be held once the facts of the Three Mile Island accident are known” --

Mr. Sargent: What a snow job this is.

Mr. Ashe: You don’t know what he’s saying anyway.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- “we are continuing to assess the information being relayed to us by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As the investigation by the commission continues, we intend to ensure that all relevant factors are taken into account in our own assessment and to require Ontario Hydro and other licencees to examine the applicability of lessons learned thereby to Candu nuclear stations. I fully expect that US authorities will be equally interested in further examining the applicability of Canadian safety principles to the prevention of accidents such as that which occurred at the Three Mile Island nuclear power station.”

Ms. Gigantes: Especially once we get into them.

Mr. Sargent: They were built by different firms. How could they?

Hon. Mr. Auld: That was signed by Mr. J. H. Jennekens, President, Atomic Energy Control Board.

The key issue is whether enough information is available at this time in order to have a meaningful review. We will be pressing AECB for that review to take place in a timely manner and have requested that our own experts be involved. We have been assured that they will be.

Once that report on the reasons for the Three Mile Island accident is available, it would seem appropriate for the select committee to assess its implications for Ontario. Until then, it would seem to be premature for the select committee to become involved in such an examination.

Honourable members are aware that we have a scientific assessment team in Pennsylvania. This team includes the co-ordinator, Dr. Arthur C. Johnson, who is executive coordinator, technology, of the Ministry of Energy, and a nuclear physicist. The members are: Dr. J. Harry Aitken, chief of the radiation protection service of the Ministry of Labour, who is a radiation physicist; Dr. K. Y. Wong, supervisor, central health physics services, Ontario Hydro, who is a chemist in radioactivity; and Mr. R. J. Kelly, who is the section head of the reactor safety group of Ontario Hydro and a reactor safety engineer.

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

Mr. Speaker: There is absolutely nothing out of order.

Mr. Sargent: Does the minister want to tell us when they went down there; when his team went down there? When did they go down?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable minister may continue.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The press release would indicate that. It was released on Sunday. When that team returns within the next few days I would suggest that the select committee may wish to get a first-hand report from its representatives.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, may I assure you and, through you, all members of this House and the people of Ontario, of the safety of the Candu system.

LEGAL AID TARIFF

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am today announcing the government’s decision to increase fees paid to lawyers for services under the Ontario Legal Aid Plan.

Mr. Martel: Four per cent.

Mr. Makarchuk: Now we’ll never see Albert Roy. Albert Roy will be gone forever.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Where is Albert today?

Mr. Mackenzie: What’s the limit? Four per cent? What’s the increase? Four per cent?

Mr. Cassidy: What about hospital workers?

An hon. member: What about jurors? What about people sewing on juries?

Mr. Martel: Is that four per cent?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just ignore the interjections, unless they’re declaring a conflict of interest.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: Are they allowed to opt out of this plan?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: At the same time, I am announcing a number of administrative changes in the plan which are designed to ensure the most effective and efficient use of the public funds we allocate to this important program.

The new legal aid tariff represents the first increase since 1973, and in fact this long delay might suggest consideration of more regular reviews in the future. Calculated over the period since then, it represents an increase of approximately four per cent a year and an additional cost for the 1979-80 fiscal year of $2,000,000.

Mr. Van Horne: Just give us the total.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: During the same period of time, I should say, the federal contribution to this plan has also been increased significantly. The new tariff is effective as of April 1.

For the six years the tariff has been unchanged costs faced by lawyers, like the rest of us, have of course risen substantially --

Mr. Mackenzie: Where did you start from?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- in relation to the four per cent annualized increase the government and the Law Society of Upper Canada have approved.

Mr. Van Horne: You get enough now. How much more do you want?

An hon. member: You are bankrupt now. How much more are you giving away?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I know members of the Legislature and the public will make comparisons, and properly so. In this regard, it is worth noting in the six years legal aid lawyers went without an increase, the cost of living rose 55 per cent.

Mr. Nixon: That’s quite a case you’re pleading.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think by these yard sticks, the increase is modest indeed, and reflects the continuing dedication and public interest tradition of members of the legal profession who participate in the plan.

Mr. Swart: What is the total percentage?

Mr. Martel: I see all the lawyers are clapping anyway.

Mr. Nixon: All the lawyers are applauding.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am tabling the new tariff under which some case payments will increase while others will decrease.

Besides these changes, there are a number of essential features of the new tariff I want to bring to your attention.

An hon. member: Give us the total.

Mr. Nixon: Will the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) sit still for this?

Mr. McClellan: Are lawyers able to opt out of the plan?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The fee levels on the criminal side of the old tariff were based solely on the court level in which the case was tried. If a lawyer elected to have a theft case tried in county court, he or she would be paid more than if the case were tried in provincial court. The new tariff replaces this system by fee levels based on seriousness of offences. There are four categories, ranging from those punishable by life imprisonment to those punishable on summary convictions.

Although the old tariff incorporated some block fees, the new tariff extends the block fee principle to more high-volume offences, making the lawyer’s fee the same no matter how long the case took in court. This is a particularly significant area of cost control.

The new tariff proposes three levels of fee payment for both civil and criminal eases based on the actual experience of the lawyer in trial work, as opposed to a system based solely on numbers of years at the bar. It is anticipated that this system, by recognizing the expertise and efficiency which more experienced lawyers bring to bear on a case, will encourage experienced counsel to continue to offer their services to legal aid clients.

The new tariff provides the machinery for a standard form of account information, which will greatly assist in the assessment and payment of accounts particularly in the area of preparation for trial. One of the most significant areas of control is the application of a formula for the number of hours of preparation time for which a lawyer will be paid. Firm guidelines for allowed time for preparation are imposed. While my prosecutorial responsibilities as Attorney General would have made me reluctant to propose such limits in criminal matters, I was pleased to respond to this most responsible initiative from the law society.

In civil matters, the new tariff adopts a uniform schedule of payment which is applicable to most matters, abandoning in most cases the different fees now paid based on the level of court in which the matter is tried. A second change involves the increased control which will be placed on open-ended certificates through time limitations which will apply to lawyers at each stage of the litigation process.

Additionally, in family law matters, the new tariff reflects the significant changes brought about by the Family Law Reform Act.

The law society, which administers the plan, came forward with a new tariff proposal about a year ago. I told the law society’s annual meeting in October that the cabinet had agreed in principle to a tariff increase, pending the development of mechanisms to ensure the most effective use of the available funds.

Mr. Nixon: I’ll bet that was a split decision.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As a result, a working group of officials of my ministry and the law society met weekly for several months to review various options.

I am pleased to report there has been agreement on four important improvements. The first involves the establishment of a research bank. Since the plan was established 11 years ago, individual lawyers have done an enormous amount of research in preparation of theft cases. The research has been charged to the plan, yet, once completed, it usually remains in the lawyer’s file.

It is clear, as the plan has handled approximately 350,000 cases since its inception, there has been obvious duplication of research. The law society is now establishing a research bank to tap this resource material, build the amount of it and provide it to lawyers on legal aid matters and, for payment of a fee, to lawyers on private practice cases.

Mr. Nixon: You won’t have to search a title every time it changes. How will you make a living now?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As a result, we expect a substantial reduction in the cost to the client for research.

The second improvement involves the use of paraprofessionals in case preparation. The law society is now working on the details of a pilot project in Metropolitan Toronto, involving the use of investigators and social workers in the preparation of cases. It is clear that lawyers spend a great deal of time performing non-legal tasks which could be performed better, or at least as well and more economically, by specialized investigators and social workers. The pilot project, details of which will be announced in the coming months, will determine whether it is feasible and an efficient use of funds for the plan to pay investigators and social workers for some of these tasks now performed by lawyers.

The third important change involves the establishment of an objective point system for the creation of a two-level criminal legal aid panel. This is distinct from the payment-by-experience element of the new tariff and will be tried on an experimental basis in York county. The right of the accused to select his or her own counsel is a cornerstone of the plan. However, in some cases it has become increasingly illusory with passing time. For example, at present there are more than 1,400 lawyers on the criminal legal aid panel in the Metropolitan Toronto area alone.

To compel an accused charged with a serious offence, who has no familiarity with lawyers, to choose a name from that list without background information to guide that choice amounts to little more than freedom to make what could be a mistake. The consequences of such a mistake fall not only on the accused, but also on the taxpayers who bear the increased cost of inefficient representation. The two-level system will ensure a basic level of competence among all members of the legal aid panel, while at the same time identifying by objective criteria those criminal lawyers who are best equipped to handle serious cases.

Mr. Nixon: QCs and non QCs.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I mentioned earlier, the government and the law society have agreed to a system that would for the first time enable the plan to pay experienced lawyers at higher rates. The new tariff includes three scales of payment for most of the services which lawyers provide to legal aid clients.

Mr. Nixon: I want to be chairman of the appeal board.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Lawyers having the equivalent of four years, practice in criminal or civil litigation would qualify for the second highest scale and lawyers who qualify at the second level and, in addition, have a total of 10 years’ litigation experience would qualify for the highest scale rate. For example, where the basic rate is $42, a lawyer at the second level would qualify for $48 and at the third level for $54.

Mr. Nixon: It is still a great sacrifice.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: But it should be remembered that all of these rates are reduced by 25 per cent when the plan pays the lawyer.

An hon. member: We surrender. Just send us a memo.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The fourth point is also designed to ensure efficient use of funds. The law society has agreed to monitor very closely the process under which tariff rates can be increased in the discretion of a taxing officer in cases of particular seriousness or difficulty.

It is important to remember when dealing with the tariff that lawyers involved in the plan do accept an automatic 25 per cent deduction from all rates. This is done as part of the legal profession’s contribution to legal aid and it represents a dedicated public service worth millions of dollars on behalf of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: A great sacrifice.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I appreciate that the former leader of the Liberal Party does not share the total enthusiasm --

Mr. Nixon: Stick to your notes. Just read it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) does with respect to the importance of this plan.

I would just like to say that as in most other matters when there is a conflict between the former leader of the Liberal Party and the member for St. George, I have no difficulty in agreeing with the member for St. George.

Mr. J. Reed: Now what about the general practitioner?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This is done as part of the legal profession’s --

Mr. Ruston: Is that the best you’ve got to offer?

An hon. member: You are repeating yourself.

Mr. Speaker: You see what happens when you stray from the prepared text.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: In conclusion, I should remind the members of the Legislature that it was Mr. Justice Martin who, as a member of the bar of this province, spoke of the legal aid plan during its infancy as “boldly and imaginatively conceived.”

He said: “While modifications may from time to time take place, it may be confidently asserted that it is capable of making a great contribution to the administration of justice and it may well be a landmark in man’s never-ending search for justice.”

Mr. Van Horne: We want justice. We want you to sit down.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The new tariff modifications I have announced are part of the process of evolving the plan to better serve the public and is evidence of the government’s continued commitment to providing our citizens with the finest legal aid system in the world.

Mr. Nixon: And to look after you.

[2:30]

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I will turn away from my first thought of having a question about legal aid and why they don’t pay the lawyers in QCs since they don’t cost as much, and direct a question to the Minister of Energy based on his very important statement today.

Would he not agree with me that it would be irresponsible if we waited until the American review of this special accident were completed, or if we were to wait for certain misinterpretations the minister referred to in his statement to be cleared up, before we took the responsibility as members of this House to re-examine the safety of the reactors that we have built and that are operating, and that we are building and will be operating in the province of Ontario?

Might I ask him if he would suggest to his cabinet colleagues and to the Premier that the terms of reference of Dr. Porter, our royal commissioner in this matter, be amended so that he might work with and advise the select committee, which already has as its terms of reference the safety of these devices, so that we can without delay work in concert to make a recommendation to this House as to whether or not we agree with the minister’s statement that these devices and these mechanisms are safe and that they should proceed to be operated and to be built in this province?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said a moment ago, that I think it is within the competence and the jurisdiction as presently given by this House to the select committee to look into the safety aspect. From what I read I think the honourable member might agree with that. As for when the committee might meet, I was speaking to the co-ordinator, Dr. Johnson, an hour or so ago and our group will probably be returning towards the end of this week, because it would appear that there isn’t anything further that can be learned there immediately, although we will continue to be in close touch, through AECB, with the regulatory agency, and Hydro may still be doing some sort of advising function to the utilities there because of some other electricity supply problems they have.

I would think that it might be worthwhile for the committee to hear from that group when it returns and decide the course later on. I think there is something to be said, though, for tying in a review of the safety procedure with whatever lessons may be learned from the incident at Three Mile Island.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: The minister would recall the apprehension that he must have felt, and certainly that we all felt and continued to feel over the past weekend. Would he not think that a special reference by the House to the committee and also putting us to work together with the royal commissioner in this special area -- since it has been indicated that he does have a large store of information, and it has been further indicated that he does not have all of the information that he has asked for from Hydro, even on the safety measures as well as the power planning work -- would he not think that we are lax in our responsibility if we as a House and the members opposite as a government do not make such a special reference?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the select committee indicated yesterday that the select committee has the report with Dr. Porter’s -- I guess they aren’t recommendations; Dr. Porter called them something else -- observations of the results of the hearings, some 300 or 350 hours of hearings that his royal commission had on this matter, and Dr. Porter might well be of assistance to the committee as a witness, or some of his staff might be, but it didn’t seem necessary to have him seconded to that committee.

I would only comment that Dr. Porter’s own royal commission that is currently holding hearings, some rather important ones, having to do with the need for additional transmission in southwestern Ontario. His target is to report in the fall -- I believe about the beginning of October -- and, speaking as Minister of Energy, I am rather anxious to see him complete his task, which now has been under way for almost four years, I guess.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order and a supplementary.

My point of order is for the information of the House. Since the committee has a responsibility to proceed with this, it is just a question of the timing of it as to whether we do it in the summer or whether we do it more immediately. As quickly as I can coordinate it with the staff of the committee, there will be a meeting of the steering committee of the select committee to take all these matters into consideration.

My supplementary question to the Minister of Energy: I would like some clarification, if I could get it, as to what extent, if any, the Ontario survey team is being restricted in getting firsthand information as to what happened in the Pennsylvania tragedy. Am I correctly informed that the Ontario team is excluded from firsthand observation, as is being provided to all the representatives of the American-style plants from around the world, and that all it has is access to the daily briefings of the news media? If that is the case, does it mean that we are not going to get direct information from our survey team but, rather, we will have to wait until we can get it from whatever the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the United States provides to the Atomic Energy Control Board in Canada?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I suggested that the committee might want to meet with the team was that I am not in a position to answer that question definitively. I know they have been giving us reports which appear to me to have a fair amount of information in them; but exactly who they have talked to, I am afraid I cannot give the honourable member that information.

Mr. MacDonald: Are they excluded from firsthand observation and taking secondhand accounts from whoever is briefing the press daily?

Hon. Mr. Auld: As far as firsthand observation in the plant itself is concerned, I am not sure whether they have been in the plant, but I do not think they are in the plant every day.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Why is the Minister of Energy avoiding the prospect of seconding Dr. Porter as a consultant to the select committee? Why would the minister downplay probably the one person in Ontario who, first of all, has a wealth of information in his possession; who, secondly, has gained a very strong element of trust among the general public; and who, thirdly, will not be subjected to the vagaries of political posturing and political stances --

Ms. Gigantes: Oh, for heaven’s sake, where is your political courage?

Mr. J. Reed: -- which is what happens very often, and even when we attempt to be constructive, on a select committee.

Ms. Gigantes: What were you elected for?

Mr. J. Reed: Just let me finish. My friend can have her day when we meet.

Ms. Gigantes: Shame on you.

Mr. J. Reed: Why would the minister avoid doing that, knowing that Dr. Porter is so important to the reassurance of the people of Ontario?

Ms. Gigantes: Because we asked for political responsibility. Leave it to Porter, he says!

Hon. Mr. Auld: Again, I indicated that, speaking as the Minister of Energy, I am anxious to see his royal commission complete the whole task that it was given. But if one is to listen to the chairman of the select committee, who is aware and who, with his staff, has seen the observations that Dr. Porter has made, it would seem that any specific information or advice that he might give might well be given as a witness, even if it was for a week or two, so that he can continue with the hearings he is currently holding.

There may be those who, in the light of his statement that I mentioned yesterday about Hydro having the best system in the world, would say that he was not completely unbiased.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: At 3 p.m. on Thursday the minister told the House that he had a team down in Harrisburg. I checked that at four o’clock, and I accused the minister of misleading the House. He apologized and said he had no team down there at that point.

Why does the minister tell us today that it took three days more, or almost a week after Harrisburg started, to get a team down from Ontario Hydro? Is this an example of how the minister is looking after our interests here?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I indicated on Thursday that I had unintentionally misled the honourable member because I was told that Hydro was monitoring it very carefully and I interpreted that as meaning they had somebody there.

We put together the team after some discussion with the other ministries. We had to make some arrangements so they would be able to meet the people whom they needed to meet to find out what was going on. I believe they left either Saturday night or early Sunday morning; I know they were there Sunday.

RYERSON FINANCING

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Premier, if I might have his attention for a moment, about the financing of the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, which is certainly an institution and facility very dear to his heart since many of his political and administrative cronies are on the board.

What response can he make to the president, who has laid before the public the grave concerns that he has as to the continuing efficacy and usefulness of the institute, since its budget has been cut back to the point that it must withdraw from many of its programs which have been proved to be useful and popular; and since the institute, rather than the universities, is gathering more students and requires additional support?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the acting leader of the Ontario Liberal Party is certainly right when he suggests I have a certain affection for that great institution, which is well served by distinguished members of the board -- none of whose names come immediately to mind -- and by a president who was an excellent critic on educational matters in this House and generally supportive of the government on most issues.

Mr. Martel: Hardly. Now that is insulting.

Mr. Cassidy: It is misleading the House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What does the member mean, it’s misleading the House?

I would only say to the acting leader of the Ontario Liberals -- listen, have you seen the signs in Scarborough West, how they have changed? They do not say “Canadian Liberal” or even “Ontario Liberal”; they say, “Stuart Smith Liberal.”

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Tit for tat on the editorializing. Now back to the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In fact, how is he making out at Birchmount Collegiate at this hour?

Mr. Breithaupt: Very well.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to tell the acting leader he got more applause than his leader will get at Birchmount.

Mr. Sweeney: The people at Ryerson will be very interested in this answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Ryerson will be very interested, because what perhaps --

Mr. Speaker: The question is, is there any money for Ryerson?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I do not think that is quite what the question was, Mr. Speaker.

I am informed -- and I have to put it in that way -- I am informed that Ryerson met the minister on March 13. The institution is coming back to see the minister fairly soon. I think perhaps what has emerged is that they are in the process of finalizing a submission to the minister. She told them prior to her departure for a few days that they would meet some time this month. So that is where it stands.

They are preparing a submission, which probably will have to involve the advisory committee on university affairs, or whatever the structure is, to see whether there should be some alteration in the weighting formula. But the institution itself is in the process of preparing an updated submission to the ministry.

Mr. Nixon: Would the Premier not agree that it is a tragic mistake in policy and administration, which he must share with his policy minister and the various Ministers of Colleges and Universities, that Ryerson would be treated as an institution just like the others, when obviously it stands alone in this province, not only in its mandate, but also in the role that it has played and will play in the education of the young people?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted to hear the acting leader of the Liberal Party suggest that it is a unique institution. I can recall debates in this House, which he will recall even better than I do, when he was trying to relate Ryerson as being the same as most of the other community colleges. He will remember that discussion well, I think.

[2:45]

Mr. Nixon: Do you want that clarified, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no. We do not have time. There is also something to be said as one is developing a formula that there is a certain --

Mr. Nixon: As usual, you stood in the way.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, we were right about the colleges and you people were wrong. You wanted the transfer courses and you wanted BA courses. You were all wet, and history has proved us to be correct. You know it. Even Walter --

Mr. Nixon: You went to Florida to find out.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, no. I went to California. I never got to Hawaii, unfortunately.

Mr. Nixon: You are still wrong.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am no expert in these formulas, but I think that has to be taken into account as well as the maturity of Ryerson. In other words, they have been an established institution for a longer period of time with perhaps -- and I emphasize perhaps -- more alternatives in the terms I of administrative procedures. I don’t know.

All I can say to the honourable member is that the institution is coming to meet with the ministry. We do recognize -- more than members opposite do -- the unique characteristics, the great contribution, the calibre of its graduates and the role it plays in our educational system and in the economy and society of this province. Members opposite will never get me to say anything but kind words about Ryerson and its president.

Mr. Nixon: How much money do we pay for it?

Mr. M. Davidson: Kind words and no money.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Money is another problem.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: Since Ryerson has been making its case to this government for quite some time now and since this government is supposed to have a commitment to manpower training and to the educational system’s training people for specific jobs, why can’t the Premier give a commitment today to fund Ryerson adequately before it is too late? The student ratio to faculty has already increased dramatically over the last few years. Where is the government’s commitment?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The fact that Ryerson is still not only doing an excellent job, but has been for the past number of years indicates that our policy really hasn’t been too far off the mark. I really think that’s fair.

Mr. Cooke: In spite of your policies.

Mr. Warner: Why are you punishing them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the honourable member that we have had requests for money from institutions from other parts of the province, though not the same as Ryerson. The leader of the Liberal Party for today is suggesting it is unique. I agree with that, although I would make a pitch that Sheridan College, which happens to be physically located in the great city of Brampton, could also do with certain additional funding for capital projects, et cetera. They are all unique.

Mr. Foulds: What’s wrong with the local member?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Nothing is wrong. They have problems too. Everybody wants more money. Our task is to treat --

Mr. Laughren: Even the lawyers.

Mr. Van Horne: Why don’t you give it to them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I hear rumours that members want more money on occasion, and I understand that. I would only say to the member in reply to his supplementary question, that my answer really is the same as I gave to the acting leader of the Ontario Liberal Party. The ministry will be meeting with Ryerson. We are quite committed to its continued existence. I can assure the honourable member it will continue to exist. Not only that, it will provide a quality educational program.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: Is it possible for the Premier to draw into such a meeting with the ministry, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), in view of the fact that that minister is prepared to fund industry in this province to create employment, when the public may be very concerned to learn just how many trained personnel we are bringing into this country because we lack that kind of trained personnel here who could be trained at Ryerson?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Why couldn’t the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk have asked that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am the last one to get into any debate as to just what the scope of Ryerson’s responsibilities may be. But I would point out to the member for St. George that a good number of those classifications of personnel that we lack in this province at this moment in terms of skilled trades really would not emerge from the kind of courses that would be offered at Ryerson in any event. I am saying a goodly number.

If there is a shortage of machinists or tool and die makers, whom some industries are now seeking, I am sure the member for St. George understands that Ryerson is not the kind of institution that provides that type of training. As to whether or not the minister --

Mr. Makarchuk: How come you closed the machinists’ training school at Burtch then?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the honourable member that is a separate, distinct and totally different issue -- a totally different issue.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: A totally different issue.

Mr. Renwick: New question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for St. George that I am sure the Minister of Industry and Tourism would he delighted to attend such a meeting, but I really think the issue is, as I sense it from the press report and my brief discussion, arriving at a weighting that takes into account the total course availability at Ryerson -- whether it does have some distinguishing characteristics that are different from the other colleges of applied arts and technology, what its relationship is in terms of the level of funding with our universities. This is something the committee has always been grappling with; we haven’t achieved perfection.

I have no objection to the minister attending. I say with great respect -- he is still here -- I am not sure whether he could help that particular situation, but certainly I will suggest to the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) that she invite him. She is a very obliging person, and I know he will be delighted to attend.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Energy arising out of his statement today and his statements in the House over the course of the last few days.

In view of the fact that the report of the Inter-Organization Working Group, which the minister referred to in his statement today, recommended among other things a fourfold increase in emergency limits of radiation exposure for members of the general public; a further tenfold increase in allowable radiation exposure if this new limit was uneconomic to meet; and recommended that regulatory limits on radiation exposure should be removed entirely, depending on the calculated probability of certain nuclear accidents, will the minister now direct Ontario Hydro to suspend its support for any such weakening of Canada’s nuclear power plant standards until we know just what happened in Harrisburg last week?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, this is a little complicated but I hope that I can explain it by reading this statement by the chairman of that group. This has to do with the proposed change.

He said -- and I will be as brief as I can: “However, for assessing the consequences of postulated accidents a more comprehensive and realistic approach has been proposed.” That is how the chairman describes it -- “a more comprehensive and realistic approach.” “In particular, failures have been categorized in six classes instead of two, according to their potential consequences and for each category an upper limit of acceptable frequency of occurrences has been proposed.

“The proposed values are such that the estimated risk resulting from each category of accident is equal to or less than the risk associated with normal operation of a nuclear plant. For an individual living near the plant this risk is lower than one in a million to contract a fatal cancer, an imperceptible increase above normal incidence.

“The risk of an event is estimated by combining the probability of the event with its consequences.” In other words, stricter standards for the more probable incidence and less strict standards for the very improbable incidence, which meant an increase in the anticipated radiation of, I believe, a maximum of 25, which was sort of across the board, to a maximum of 100 for the least probable and something like five for the most probable.

There is a scale which shows this both ways, but it is a little hard for me to describe.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister not aware that the Rasmussen report in the United States, which was the bible of probabilities about nuclear accidents taking place, has had its support withdrawn by the leading American nuclear agencies and that the accident in Harrisburg was also the kind of accident whose probability was so slight that it should never have occurred? Will the minister therefore agree to tell Hydro not to go along with any change in nuclear power plant standards, any weakening of nuclear power plant standards, until we know what happened at Harrisburg and until we have had the opportunity to reassess all the calculations about probabilities, since the calculations of probabilities that were made last summer by that working group, the Atomic Energy Control Board, must now be considered as no longer realistic or workable?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Ontario Hydro has one member of that working group, which I believe consists of eight people. Four are from the Atomic Energy Control Board, one is from Hydro and I believe the other three are from other utilities which are involved.

I should also remind the leader of the third party that Hydro in many cases exceeds the Atomic Energy Control Board’s standards. They meet every one of them and in some cases, they exceed them. I just finished reading at some length the standards that were applied by AECB and Ontario Hydro in their plants which would prevent the kind of apparent accident that took place in Pennsylvania.

Mr. J. Reed: When the minister is considering the request of the leader of the third party regarding standards, would he make sure the consideration of standards be made in connection with the Canadian technology, understanding the parallels the leader of the third party is attempting to draw between the two technologies do not really fit --

Ms. Gigantes: Oh, come on now.

Mr. J. Reed: -- and if there are problems with the Candu system they’ll be a different set of problems --

Ms. Gigantes: Do you know how they do their probability studies?

Mr. Swart: Radiation is the same.

Mr. J. Reed: -- and they won’t have very much relationship one to the other?

Mr. Laughren: Weakened standards.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That’s a very easy question to answer. As we all know, there’s a great difference between the two systems. Consequently, the probabilities we deal with --

Ms. Gigantes: Why don’t you put him on the Hydro board?

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- are no doubt not all the same as those in the US or other systems.

Mr. Cassidy: Whether Hydro has one member out of an eight-man working group, or seven members of an eight-man working group, surely the minister recognizes that Ontario Hydro has by far the bulk of the Canadian nuclear power program and, therefore, quite legitimately the bulk of the concern of the public in Canada over what may be happening with nuclear power stations is going to be concentrated here in this province.

Why will the minister not agree to tell Hydro it must not support any weakening of nuclear power plant safety standards until we know what happened in Harrisburg? Why is he stonewalling the Legislature and why can’t we have that assurance from this House to the people of the province of Ontario who are very concerned about what may happen with the nuclear power plants in this province?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I thought I had indicated the report of the chairman of that working group really indicates the standards are being increased rather than weakened.

Mr. Laughren: For your own credibility, you should say yes.

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question to the Minister of Health, in the absence of the Premier. In view of the repeated statements by the Minister of Health and also by the government of its commitment to retaining universal access to medicare, can the minister explain how that commitment will be implemented when in the community of Stoney Creek, 18 of the 24 family physicians have opted out of OHIP and three of the remaining six GPs are refusing to accept patients transferring from opted-out doctors?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Again, if the honourable member hasn’t had a chance to read my statement of last Thursday, I would be glad to send him yet another copy. I think I made it clear that if there’s any indication people are in fact not able to obtain the services, the Ontario Medical Association have agreed to assist in enforcing the principles outlined last Thursday, and to look at any particular case.

Ms. Gigantes: Only the OMA knows for sure.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I can tell the member that to my knowledge I have not received any indication from any citizen in that community that they are finding a problem, but certainly, we’d be prepared to put to the medical association any particular problem, as per the agreement we announced last week.

[3:00]

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In the first place, can the minister table the information he promised two weeks ago about the degree of opting out by surgeons and other specialists in various hospitals and communities across the province?

In the second place, can the minister explain how the agreement announced last week, which dealt with access to insured service in hospitals, is going to benefit people in Stoney Creek whose primary care is provided by family physicians practising in the community? Is the minister saying that people are going to have to go to hospitals and be insistent in order to get medical care? If that’s the case, how does that square with the cutbacks now taking place in hospitals which the minister is trying to encourage?

Mr. Warner: It’s a mess.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the honourable member knows, the latter is certainly not the case. In point of fact, “cutbacks” is a most inappropriate word to use.

Mr. Mackenzie: There were 15 more pink slips yesterday at the General.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: A shifting of priorities is more to the point. This philosophy has been advanced by everybody in this chamber: that is, that the priorities need to shift to take account of the changing needs in health care.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In point of fact, in that community, as in other communities, people travel back and forth between Stoney Creek and Hamilton and other communities for medical services.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, no.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What I’m pointing out is that there has been no indication --

Mr. Warner: In other words, the government is not going to do anything, right?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- whatsoever that anyone is having any difficulty getting access to services.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is not going to do anything, eh?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I understand the motivation of the member in trying to create a problem where there isn’t one.

Mr. Warner: They fall into quicksand and the minister gets them a bathing suit.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Did the minister have the opportunity to hear the president of the Ontario Medical Association speaking on a Sunday evening radio program broadcast in the city of Toronto? He indicated that he was not, on behalf of the association, going to stop counselling members of his association from opting out of the plan. Did he this morning hear that same person on a CBC radio broadcast? This time, he said he wasn’t aware of any possible mechanisms by which the arrangement introduced into the House by the Minister of Health on Thursday, regarding supplying opted-in services within the hospital sector, could be arrived at. Has he a response to either one or both of those statements?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I didn’t hear the broadcast this morning, Mr. Speaker. In that regard I can reiterate that what was agreed to last week was that the medical association and the hospital association would begin discussions immediately to arrive at an overall mechanism. I can tell the member that the hospital association has written to all of its members, through its chief executive officers --

Mr. Cassidy: Only for the hospitals.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- indicating to them very clearly what had been agreed to -- by the hospital association, the OMA and the government -- to reinforce and restate the basic principles of the plan.

As regards the Sunday evening program, I heard most of it at home. I can’t recall verbatim that particular section but it seems to me the answer was more along the lines that they are not engaged in a program of encouraging opting out.

While I am on that point. Apparently in my absence yesterday, while I was in Sarnia, there was a question raised about the sending out --

Mr. Cassidy: Just sending out kits.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- of some particular kit. I did check on that this morning personally. I was told that the kit is only sent out on solicitation. It is not sent out on an unsolicited basis.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s not true.

Mr. McClellan: They just happened to have it lying around.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I certainly take the word of the chairman involved --

Mr. McClellan: I guess it was put together by accident.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- but I can tell the members, that in answer to direct questions I’ve put that they are not involved in an active campaign of promoting opting out.

GLANBROOK LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Cunningham: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. In view of the request by citizens and council participating in the landfill hearings at Glanbrook to have those hearings held under the 1975 Environmental Assessment Act, will the Minister of the Environment be supporting their request to cabinet? Is he fully aware that these citizen groups have made this request in order that they can have an opportunity to review the mix of alternatives to landfills so often publicized in the press?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am aware of the request. I think the member knows the request was put to the advisory committee. Until we have some response from that committee -- I believe by Thursday or Friday of this week -- I really wouldn’t want to suggest that I have come to a firm conviction for or against the request. I will listen to the argument. I will try to have an understanding of what the advisory committee recommends, and then I will formulate an opinion. Until then, I think I will keep an open mind.

Mr. Cunningham: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask if the minister would not be compelled to see that this particular request might be a landmark decision in so far as the continued abuse of the Environmental Assessment Act is concerned. Is he aware that this proposed landfill site represents the largest site in the province, would be located on acres of valuable farm land and would be situated directly on the headwaters of the Welland River; and is he prepared to assist these citizens with their request before cabinet, or could we rename the Environmental Assessment Act the Environmental Exemption Act?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will respond to the last part. That is not a very valid question, because it is just not so.

I would think the member might also wish to have assessed the alternatives to landfilling. The member might also wish at some time to put forward the suggestion that I would support wholeheartedly, that we have one hearing on landfill sites. What we have gone through is a long Ontario Municipal Board process and now an environmental hearing. I am not very happy to see those two necessary hearings; I think they should be combined in one. I am sure the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) is aware of that and has sympathy for that point of view.

I think those are the immediate concerns. There is no doubt in my mind that the concerns of the citizens have been aired and will be aired again. The terms of reference that the Environmental Assessment Board considers in such a hearing vary very little, whether it’s under the Environmental Protection Act or under the Environmental Assessment Act. I think they have been most generous in listening to the concerns of the citizens; I am sure they will continue to do so. If they were very significantly restricted by the present hearing, I think it would make a considerable difference. Surely the member would agree that the assessment board has been most generous in its interpretation of what could be heard under the Environmental Protection Act.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. In his statement today, on page six, he notes that Ontario Hydro “builds into its nuclear plants a very effective containment system.” Is the minister aware of the quarterly technical reports on the Pickering generation station which indicate that a leak in the wall of the reactor building went undetected for 18 months; and is he aware that, according to the same technical reports for the fourth quarter of 1973, “losses of containment occurred four times in the quarter as a result of air-lock and seal failures,” and that, again according to the same technical reports, “airlock failures at Pickering have been a continuing problem”?

If the minister is aware of all those, how can he say that the containment system which Hydro builds in is “very effective”?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I guess in all plants there have been the kinds of problems one expects in one-of-a-kind operations. There have been a number of times, as the honourable member is aware, when some of the reactors have been shut down because of things that occur and are monitored constantly and then are fixed. I simply repeat what I am informed by Hydro, and what Dr. Porter himself has said, that that system is a highly effective one.

In addition, of course, the other part of the system, the cooling part, is quite different from the US operation. It really has three cooling elements to it, and any one of them will keep the uranium from superheating.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: Is the minister aware, given the rate of failures that have occurred in the containment structure at Pickering, that in order to achieve the rated level of safety the containment building would have to operate now for several hundred years with no failure?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I learned a long time ago not to try to answer technical questions to which I did not have the answers. I will certainly find out about the matters the honourable member raised and report back.

CHEST DISEASE CASES

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Last week the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) asked several questions regarding lung cancer among gold miners in northern Ontario and bronchitis among railway workers.

Mr. Conway: The independent member for Cochrane South.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I welcome that degree of independence from members on this side of the House. I suspect it will happen over on that side soon.

Mr. J. Reed: It will if we form the government.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I confine my hopes to that side.

Regarding miners, as I am sure the member knows my ministry is concerned there is a possibility that work in mines in northern Ontario may contribute to the development of lung cancer. Because of the possible relationship between the development of lung cancer and exposure to substances in the work place, my ministry, in conjunction with the Workmen’s Compensation Board, is conducting a major study of miners.

Through examination of health records of some 16,000 uranium miners and some 30,000 non-uranium miners, we hope to be able to answer the question of whether the increased lung cancer rate evidenced in Timmins and Kirkland Lake is related to work in gold mines or to some other factor. I hope the study will be completed by late 1980.

The draft report entitled Cancer Mortality in Selected Northern Ontario Mining Communities, by Dr. Wigle, mentioned by the member in his question, will be used by our research staff during the course of this study.

Concerning Dr. Vingilis’s statement to the member for Cochrane South, regrettably his comments were not qualified and thus were open to misinterpretation. Scientists have for some time been concerned about the effect on workers of substances found in hard rock gold mines. However, as I indicated, there is as yet no substantial body of research evidence that positively links lung cancer to work in gold mines.

In connection with the member’s question about chronic bronchitis arising from diesel fumes inhaled by railway workers, I have been advised by the Workmen’s Compensation Board that to date they have had only one claim regarding diesel fumes and bronchitis among railway workers. That claim and that issue are currently under review by the board.

A final matter regarding bronchitis and smelter workers raised by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) is currently under consideration by the board as well and I will pass along information to it as soon as it is available.

Mr. Pope: I would ask two questions of the minister in response to his reply. The first is: in the meantime, while the study is being completed, will the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the ministry review all existing and past claims of miners in northern Ontario involving silicosis and lung cancer with a view to maintaining these files on record, should their studies show a relation- ship? Secondly, while there may only be one claim currently on file with respect to diesel fumes and chronic bronchitis, will the minister review all previous claims that have been turned down by the Workmen’s Compensation Board relating to chronic bronchitis, bronchial problems and asthmatic problems to see whether or not Ontario and the Ontario Workmen’s Compensation Board will not now follow the jurisprudence of the Quebec Workmen’s Compensation Board and recognize these kinds of problems as being associated with diesel fuel?

Mr. Mackenzie: It is not just northern Ontario either.

Mr. Pope: I never said that.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Don’t limit him that way. I am surprised the member would want it limited that way. He had a broader interpretation of it.

I will be glad to discuss both of those issues with the board and report to the members.

Mr. Peterson: Since the minister has had the decency to respond to the member for Cochrane South within a week, when is he going to answer a considerable number of other questions, one of which I put to him about a month ago and which he promised in his beneficent and usual charming way to take under advisement?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: When is he going to respond to that particular question?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a supplementary.

Mr. Peterson: Of course it’s a supplementary.

[3:15]

Mr. Wildman: Is the minister aware that on a number of occasions in the past miners in northern Ontario, after receiving their yearly chest X-rays, have been advised by Ministry of Health doctors that they should not return underground but have also been advised by the Workmen’s Compensation Board that their lung condition is not yet at a stage which is compensable and therefore they do return underground?

Is the minister willing to look at this situation now to determine that if a miner is advised not to return underground because his health might get worse he might advise the Workmen’s Compensation Board that it should be doing something about providing compensation to these people, so that when they work above ground they don’t lose pay as a result of that advice from the Ministry of Health?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If the member is advising me there’s some discrepancy in the information being given by the board, I’ll be glad to look into it, I wasn’t aware of that before. Thank you.

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Energy, also on the nuclear business, but on nuclear wastes. Is the minister satisfied that the program for disposing of nuclear waste by AECL, particularly in underground repositories, is a safe one? Can he indicate what input Ontario, through his ministry, has had in assuring the people in the area where these repositories may be, particularly places like Atikokan and Ignace where they might be drilling for such repositories, that this is safe and there is no danger to the inhabitants in the area? What input has he had in this program?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I’m aware that the control board has a program of public information and consultation prior to selecting a site for an experimental facility, a chamber in a certain type of granite, far underground. I believe that it has adopted the present system as a result of the somewhat unfortunate approach that it had originally taken, I guess in the Bancroft area.

I can’t say in detail what input our ministry has had in the establishment of the new process which they are undertaking. I think they have indicated to all the members whose ridings might be affected by some of the prospective sites how they propose to approach those communities, and I understand that all the members who have seen their proposal agree it is a good approach.

As far as the technical feasibility of what they are doing, I am not in a position to comment because we have not been directly involved. They have the expertise and the research, I gather, to do this. What they are proposing is an experimental operation in the first instance. Most people who are involved, I believe, agree that the information on which they are basing their experimental operation seems to be reliable, but again it will be a pilot project, as I understand it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The minister is right in that we have been approached by AECL. I wonder if the minister is prepared to go on record and to assure people that the information that is being presented by AECL is correct, that he as Minister of Energy representing the government of Ontario is satisfied that all necessary precautions are being taken and that this sort of approach to this problem is feasible? Can the minister table in the House what Ontario’s responsibility is in the disposition of this nuclear waste, and whether his approval is necessary for the sites, or the transportation and that sort of thing?

Hon. Mr. Auld: First of all, the Atomic Energy Control Board is the national agency that has the responsibility of setting the standards. I can only say that to the limited knowledge we would have of the factors involved, the standards they have set are acceptable. We do not second-guess them because they have the responsibility.

As far as our involvement is concerned, I would say the only involvement the province has on a site would he one that would relate to zoning if it’s in an organized municipality. I assume what they are doing is a type of mining. If they are doing it in crown land, obviously they will have to get authority from the province either to purchase that land or to lease it.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister not aware that he is a partner in that endeavour according to the agreement his predecessor signed last year -- I believe it was in June? Is the ministry not yet aware which sites they have decided on to drill, whether that is Hydro land or crown land in Ontario, as they have decided on four sites? Is the ministry not in a position to reveal what those four sites are?

Hon. Mr. Auld: It’s quite correct that there is an agreement and they will seek our approval before they actually establish one. I cannot tell the honourable member because I don’t believe they have decided which of their priority sites they propose to establish.

HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I would like to ask the minister if he’s now in agreement with the position put by the Boyden Medical Centre, and I take it also the Krever commission, that a questionnaire proposed to be used by his ministry was in effect a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code and a violation also of the Health Disciplines Act? Why would the ministry be asking questions such as, “Does your doctor care whether he hurts you during an examination?” and “Is your doctor’s main interest to make as much money as he can?”

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If I can remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, and I will check into this -- by the way, I think the honourable member, in connection with a question he asked last week, was going to send me the name of a particular --

Mr. Breaugh: I have.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Sorry, I haven’t seen it.

If my memory serves me correctly, and I will check, that part of that proposed questionnaire was one of sort of an attitudinal survey. It is some time since I looked at anything on this, but I believe that was discussed with the Boyden group as a possibility for a questionnaire. I don’t believe it was supposed it would actually be used until there had been some consultation. I will check to be sure but I don’t think there’s any such distribution of questionnaires going on.

Certainly we would wait until we heard from Krever on that matter. We certainly don’t intend to do anything at all to put ourselves in contravention of health disciplines or any other type of confidentiality sections. In fact, from time to time I get criticism from some of the members around here that I don’t send them enough information when they make inquiries because of the confidentiality provisions imposed on us in answering inquiries even from MPPs.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary: Did the ministry in fact use that questionnaire at the York Community Centre Clinic?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will check that. I was not aware of that. I will check to see whether that is the case.

DAY-CARE POLICY

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Will the minister say when he will release a new policy consultation paper for day care, a policy paper he said last fall would be ready by January of this year?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, a group of people within the ministry have been working for several months now in the preparation of policy recommendations that would then be considered for incorporation as part of a government policy in the area of day care. The work has been progressing well but perhaps not as quickly as we might have anticipated last fall. I am hoping the background work will be completed and policy consideration given to the recommendations before this summer.

Mr. Blundy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is it true the new policies will propose a loosening of the skill requirements for day-care supervisors so not even those who are in charge will require an early childhood education certificate?

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is impossible for me, Mr. Speaker, to respond to that and indicate what the recommendations are because much of the work being done at this point is at a staff level. I am certainly not aware of any specific recommendation to that effect.

I wonder whether the honourable member, and I realize I can’t ask him a question, is expressing some concern relating to one of the recommendations that is part of the policy paper on standards currently under discussion. In that paper there is some suggestion, and it has given rise to some expression of concern on the part of some people, that we ought to be looking towards some criteria of competence as opposed to strictly certified qualification in certain areas of child care. That may be what gave rise to that concern, I can’t be certain, but that is part of the paper that is publicly being discussed at the present time.

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, may I have another comment on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: You may have a question, but not a comment.

Mr. Blundy: I have a question. Most of the community colleges in Ontario have many students in early childhood training courses or education courses. These people, in my opinion, are being trained for this type of work. What does the minister think this sort of person should have over and above, or instead of, early childhood training education?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be very presumptuous of me to purport to know precisely what experience a person ought to have, but I should think there are areas of experience and so on that might well be important supplementations to some formal training at the community college level. That would be a great asset to persons working with children, whether they be in an early childhood education setting or elsewhere.

Mrs. Campbell: Or whether it is a grandmother.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I know some grandmothers who are pretty competent in dealing with young children.

CABINET AUTHORITY

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. The question requires a simple yes or no answer.

Mr. Samis: You won’t get it.

Mr. Conway: Chief Justice Warner.

Mr. Warner: I would like to know whether the Attorney General would sign this letter that is being sent to him and reads:

“To the Honourable Joseph Clark, MP, Leader of the Official Opposition, House of Commons:

“Dear Mr. Clark: I have been deeply disturbed by recent reports that you favour cabinet having the authority -- “

Mr. Rotenberg: The answer is no before you go any further.

Mr. Warner: “ -- to break the law. I wish you to know that this government will not countenance placing any person above the law. We in Ontario are proud of our tradition of an English law system dating back to the Magna Charta where it was written, ‘No free man shall be in any way molested and we will not set forth against him unless by the law of the land.’”

Will the Attorney General sign this letter?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Well --

Mr. Conway: Yes or no.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- I don’t know what Mr. Clark has said in this respect.

Mr. Foulds: Neither does he.

Mr. Makarchuk: Yes or no.

Mr. Warner: You should resign as Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I can assure the members of the House that no one in this government would countenance law-breaking by anyone, whether it is a member of the police force or any other member of the community --

Mr. Makarchuk: Including your leader, including Joe Clark?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- or, indeed, any member of the government.

Mr. Conway: He doesn’t even know who Jean Pigott is. Don’t expect him to know about law.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That is our position; it always has been our position.

Mr. Makarchuk: Will you convey those sentiments?

Mr. Cassidy: From the Ontario Conservative Party.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I haven’t had a chance to discuss with Mr. Clark what he has said. I am sure the opportunity will arise but I certainly don’t intend to correspond with him until I know what, in fact, he did say.

Mr. Conway: Claude, will you tell Joe who Jean Pigott is?

Mr. Speaker: A point of privilege; the member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: I just wanted to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney General --

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege and the honourable member knows it.

[3:30]

PETITIONS

MINISTRY OF HEALTH ANNUAL REPORT

Mr. Lawlor: We will take another crack at it.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 33(b) of the Legislative Assembly, the undersigned members of the assembly hereby petition that the annual report of the Ministry of Health for 1977-78, tabled October 23, 1978, be referred to the standing committee on social development for such consideration and report as the committee may determine.

Let me tell the Minister of Health that, among other matters, Lakeshore might just come into focus.

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the estimates of the Ministry of Correctional Services stand referred to the standing administration of justice committee for consideration not to exceed 10 hours.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 35, An Act to amend the Insurance Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I can understand why you had some difficulty in introducing the bill; it’s not in its proper form.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, this bill was prepared with the assistance of a group of students from Wilfred Laurier University, who also consulted with the House experts in drafting bills. Any imperfection in the actual form is entirely my responsibility, not theirs, but they were anxious to have it introduced. It deals with amendments to the Insurance Act which I know, sir, you will be glad to peruse as you read the bill.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS DECLARATORY ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 36, An Act to declare the Application of Certain Parts of the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to extend the application of parts IV, V, VI, VII and VIII of the Employment Standards Act, 1974, to domestic servants. These parts are concerned with employment standards relating to the hours of work, minimum wages, overtime, public holidays and vacation with pay. Section 3(f) of Ontario regulation 803 75 currently prevents these parts of the act from applying to domestic servants. The purpose is clearly to give coverage that doesn’t now exist to domestic servants in the work force.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Stong moved first reading of Bill 37, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Stong: This bill recognizes the hospital pharmacists as a separate bargaining unit under the Labour Relations Act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Gaunt: In response to my friend from Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), I will leave all of the esoteric matters to a later time; to a more appropriate time. I do, however, Mr. Speaker, want to pay tribute to you on this occasion for the excellent way in which you conduct the affairs of this House and protect the rights of all of us here. I want to say to you, sir, that it is not an easy job. I congratulate you for your evenhandedness in conducting and carrying out the affairs on behalf of all of us in the chamber.

I also want to pay tribute to the new members, the newly-elected members in the House -- my colleague across the way from Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay) and also my colleague from Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson). I certainly congratulate them on being elected, as I have already done privately. I can’t say that I wish them a long tenure in this House. I must be fair. But their contribution to the affairs of the province will, I am sure, be noted and will indeed advance the cause of fairness and justice. I do welcome them and pay tribute to them for joining the “club of 125.”

I was interested in the remarks of my friend from Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) yesterday. It was a good speech. I was slightly disappointed. I was hoping my friend would give us some new insights into Hydro; about the mandarins in the Premier’s office; about the tentacles extending from the Premier’s office into the Minister of Energy’s office and un through to Ontario Hydro. But I didn’t get that. Perhaps at a later date we will be treated to that particular exposé.

Mr. Havrot: Don’t hold your breath.

Mr. Gaunt: I was hoping the member would recommend that the office of the Premier, which has ‘on the door, “Office of the Premier,” be changed to include “Office of the Premier and Chief Executive Officer of Hydro.” I think, really, that’s the way my friend feels and that’s the way I feel. I think we have some evidence to support that.

In any event, I am supposed to be speaking on the throne speech. I am going to be rather parochial and deal with matters related to my own area, for the most part, Mr. Speaker, if you will permit that. Really, when I read the throne speech there wasn’t much I could bite into in terms of what this government was going to do other than what we already knew. I think the throne speech itself could be described as an ode to an aging government. I think it’s fair to say, at least from this side of the House, that the government’s senility is only exceeded by its tenacity.

Mr. Conway: They’re all asleep over there.

Mr. Gaunt: Having said that, perhaps I can dismiss the throne speech and its content and wait for the budget document which my friend from Muskoka is going to bring down on April 10.

Representing as I do an agricultural riding, perhaps I should just make a few brief comments about the farming situation as I see it currently. As always, farmers are certainly concerned about input costs, the costs they have to pay for the products they have to buy in order to run their business. It has been reported that twine this year, for instance, is going up another 25 per cent and this represents well over a three-digit increase over the last three years. That is certainly an item which farmers have to have and yet they are confronted with these ever-escalating costs.

Fertilizer is another important input cost. Fertilizer is a very important ingredient in terms of farmers and the crops they grow and their total operation. Indeed, it’s part of the green revolution; it’s really a cornerstone of the farm efficiency story.

Mr. Nixon: We’ve got nobody but Gene Whelan looking out for us.

Mr. Gaunt: Fertilizer continues to be one of the most effervescent farm items, both in relation to supply and price. In nitrogen products urea is in demand in the export market, but anhydrous ammonia prices are very much depressed. Hence urea will be in tight supply and we expect prices to be up about 15 per cent from last year, according to the UCO brief which was presented to our caucus yesterday.

Mr. Nixon: That was a good brief.

Mr. Gaunt: Anhydrous ammonia, I understand, will be about at last year’s price or up slightly. Apparently ammonia and nitrate is expected to be up marginally, with manufacturers hoping it will be up enough to cover the increased cost of natural gas.

I think that overall the result is that more than 20 per cent of the North American ammonia producing plants are going to be shut down. With the situation in North America complicated as it is by the supplies of natural gas from Mexico and Russia and Saudi Arabia being made into ammonia and put on to the world market at prices that will not allow the North American manufacturers to cover their raw material costs, it certainly makes for a very interesting and perhaps difficult pricing period, not only for the manufacturers in this province and in this country but also for the farmers who are subjected to ever-fluctuating prices for that important commodity.

As my friend says, the fluctuations have, in recent years at any rate, always tended to be upward and this has created some real difficulties for farmers.

Farm machinery, of course, I needn’t mention that. It’s very easy to walk through a fall fair or exhibit these days and dream about what it would be like to farm with at least $200,000 of machinery sifting around within about 200 feet.

[3:45]

It is a problem about which we are concerned as farm people. it is a problem that is not going to be easily resolved. It is a problem that all of us are worried about. It is a problem about which we are all concerned and have to cope.

Let me turn now to the matter having to do with the Ministry of Natural Resources and, specifically, the district office in Wingham. I believe this is a very important district office. It is staffed by a very competent director and group of employees under his charge. But I believe it could and should become even more important if the boundaries of the district were changed both to the north and south, although more to the north would be the more appropriate. That is one office where the Premier does not have his tentacles and where the mandarins do not have any authority.

I propose to the ministry that the boundary be altered to the north to take in the townships of Greenock, Kincardine, Bruce and Saugeen to coincide with the electoral boundaries. The four townships would total 374 square miles.

The fact of the matter is that the Owen Sound district, to the north, is overworked; and the Chatham district, to the south, is overworked. It makes abundant good sense, to quote my former colleague from Downsview, to give up some territory in the Owen Sound district to the Wingham district and some responsibilities in the Chatham district to Wingham so that the workload is more equal, making for better performance and delivery of service to the public. In short, it would enrich the program delivery end of the organization. That is really what it is all about.

Further, in terms of geographic location: The Wingham office is located in the northern part of the district. The district currently goes to Stephen township in the south, and so it would make good sense that it should go 50 miles to the north, which would then give it a very central location smack-dab in the middle.

Earlier, I mentioned the workload; so let me cite some comparative figures for the five districts. Wingham has a budget for 1978-79 of $775,000 and operates one provincial park, with a full-time permanent staff of 21. Owen Sound, to the north, has a budget of $2,702,000 and operates five provincial parks, with a permanent staff complement of 69. Chatham, to the south, has a budget of $3,161,000 and operates eight provincial parks, with a full-time permanent staff of 72. Aylmer has a budget of $1,095,000, with a permanent staff of 32. Simcoe has a budget of $1,641,000, with a full-time permanent staff of 32.

Wingham has the lowest budget and the smallest permanent staff complement of any in the district. Yet the Wingham district has the greatest potential for growth in forest management of any district in southwestern Ontario, because it is only 25 miles from the Greenock Swamp, an area of 3,167 acres for forest management. This forest area has been designated by the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority. Wingham has been more involved in the Greenock Swamp study than any other district. It is only natural that the Wingham office should be in charge of that area, particularly since the swamp is 60 miles from Owen Sound but only 25 miles from Wingham.

As a matter of fact, the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority, at its annual meeting this year, passed a resolution suggesting that management of its Greenock Swamp forestry property should be switched from the Owen Sound office of the Ministry of Natural Resources to the Wingham office. The suggestion was that it was proving more costly for men and materials to be brought in from Owen Sound when Wingham was closer.

The Wingham district is already into Bruce county, and so my proposal would give Wingham roughly half of Bruce; the rest would be in Owen Sound. It would also mean that Wingham would have three provincial parks and Owen Sound would have three as well.

Mr. Conway: If Jimmy Auld doesn’t shut them all down.

Mr. Gaunt: That’s a much better distribution of the workload.

I am glad to see my friend, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld), in his seat. I hope that these comments will be heeded. I ask the minister to look at this particular proposal closely. I am hopeful that the necessary boundary changes will be made. I’m quite prepared to pursue the matter further in estimates but I’d like to ease the work of the Chatham district. I suggest that the Wingham district could also handle the operation of the primary provincial park at Grand Bend. That’s worth considering and I ask the minister to do so.

Mr. Conway: You mean the minister who closed all our parks down.

Hon. Mr. Auld: It seems to me that I have heard about this before.

Mr. Gaunt: Good. I am glad the minister is looking into it. Perhaps by estimate time you will have a report and we can discuss it further. Because I think there are some good points to be made in favour of altering those boundaries, as I’ve suggested.

Mr. Conway: Leave some of my parks open, Jimmy, please.

Mr. Gaunt: I want to turn now to the matter of the hospital bed cuts, particularly as they affect my own area -- particularly Wingham.

At present it appears that the government doesn’t seem to know what its aims are in terms of institutional care, only that there is an overall surplus of active treatment beds in the province and too many patients in active treatment beds. But to many people it looks as though we’re seeing cutbacks in hospital bed allocations before any expansion of alternative facilities. Budget methodology does not, at present, recognize relative efficiency of hospitals.

In the Wingham and district hospital, the average length of stay is below the provincial average -- 8.7 days as opposed to 9.7 days for the other 31 hospitals in the same category, that is the 100 to 199-bed hospital size. Its occupancy rate is 78 per cent; that’s the optimum for a 100-bed hospital, as per the government guidelines. The bed allocation formula pays no attention to the average per- patient cost of treatment a hospital provides.

The ministry’s own hospital statistics for 1977-78 shows the standard ward rate for active beds at Wingham as $95.72. That is well below the rates of other, larger hospitals in the area. For instance, University Hospital, London, at $220.05; Kitchener-Waterloo General Hospital, $130.38; Victoria Hospital, London, $192.83; and McMaster Medical Centre, $341.66. It makes little sense to care for patients in the more expensive hospitals when Wingham is well equipped, as it stands now, to do so. And that’s quite apart from the extra travelling costs involved -- ambulance transportation and family visiting, and so on.

Wingham’s gross operating costs per diem for 1977-78 were $117.89. This figure is below the average gross operating cost for all 10 groups of active treatment hospitals, regardless of size.

Wingham and district hospital has been saving the government money by consistently operating efficiently, within a given limited budget, in the period January 1, 1973, to March 31, 1978. The Ministry of Health liability over the period rose four per cent over the actual cost increase. A total sum of $228,921 was returned to the Ministry of Health. During the same period productivity rose each year.

While the ministry denies that efficient hospitals are being penalized, while those that are inefficient are being rewarded the fact remains that the methodology which imposes a $12,000 per excess bed constraint does not address itself to cost efficiency and cost effectiveness of all Ontario hospitals.

The minister, in a letter dated March 16, in response to an earlier letter I wrote him on March 1, indicated, and I quote: “I cannot agree that the efficient hospitals are being penalized while those that are inefficient are being rewarded. The budget adjustments related to surplus active-treatment beds were applied on a province-wide basis, and each hospital centre was treated in exactly the same way. It is considered that this is the most equitable method of distributing the limited funds available.”

There is no question that the formula was applied on a province-wide basis. My point is that this very fact brings inequities into the system; and the fact cannot be denied that the ministry has been penalizing the efficient hospitals in favour of the inefficient, insofar as the constraint of $12,000 per excess bed is concerned.

Wingham is considered to have a surplus of 14 beds and so would be penalized by $168,000; if it were not for the ministry’s commitment that no budget would be cut below the 1978 level, this would have left the hospital more than $33,000 under the 1978 level.

It is hard to see how it can possibly be denied that the ministry’s simplified methodology militates against the efficient hospital. It does, and it penalizes the efficient; no other conclusion is possible under the circumstances. Yet there are many other factors involved which bear witness to the total inadequacy of reducing health care to formulae on the number of beds per 1,000 people.

Some communities in this province, including my own, have ageing populations well over the provincial average: 12.9 per cent of the population in Huron -- it is 13.3 per cent in Bruce -- is aged 65 or over, compared with the provincial average of 8.6 per cent. It is obvious that we are facing an ever-growing utilization by those aged 65 and over. In 1968, Wingham and District Hospital statistics revealed that the 65-plus population represented 25 per cent of all active admissions. By comparison, in 1978, they were 32 per cent of active admissions and, furthermore, utilizing more than 50 per cent of all active days of care.

It is unlikely this trend will either level off or reverse itself and, therefore, because of the high incidence of active treatment of those aged 65 and over -- not to mention the high incidence of extended-care and chronically ill patients in the community -- bed closures will cause an imbalance in occupancy.

At present, there is a serious lack of designated chronic beds at Wingham. There is a total of 39 chronic patients in the hospital, 33 of whom are over the age of 65, but only 18 designated chronic beds.

Another consideration is that certain communities face large influxes of tourists during the summer months; as a result, hospital admissions swell in the summer. It is not at all clear how the ministry, in calculating its bed allocation for each hospital, takes into account admissions of persons from other parts of the province or other parts of Canada, or from the United States, in determining a hospital centre’s referral population.

The active-treatment bed allocation method guidelines issued by the data development and evaluation branch of the Ministry of Health and dated November 1978, does not outline how the tourist complement is taken into account in calculating the referral population of a given hospital centre.

[4:00]

My legislative intern, Margaret Evans, whose work I must acknowledge publicly, has done a great deal of work and research in this particular matter and when she called the ministry to try to determine its method of calculating and allocating a waiting figure for a referral population with respect to those from other parts of Canada or the US, the information was very vague. I suspect that the ministry really doesn’t have any firm way of determining what that figure should be. It’s more of a by gosh and by gum calculation than any scientific or well-thought-out weighting formula.

The minister has indicated that the reclassification of surplus active beds to chronic care will be considered in those areas where there is a demonstrated need. However, in the meantime, apart from the 10-bed cushion for hospitals with fewer than 100 beds, there is no easement of the reduction on a prorated basis for hospitals which cannot reduce beds and/or staff to meet the dollar reduction imposed with effect from April 1.

I still don’t know how the ministry is going to handle the matter having to do with the allocation where a hospital hasn’t got an agreement from the ministry as of the April 1 deadline to switch some of the closed-out active-treatment beds to chronic care. And, where that $12,000 per bed penalty is being assessed now, I wonder how the ministry is going to revise that when each hospital board, as I think is going to be necessary, comes in to the ministry and sits before the ministry and the minister, trying to sort out what its new revised designations are going to be in terms of a switch from active to chronic beds.

Is the ministry going to levy the penalty and make the hospital pay the penalty from April 1 until the switch is made if indeed it is made, and then refund that money? Or how is that going to be handled? We don’t know that. I think the minister should clarify that point.

Surely before beds are cut, the Ministry of Health has a responsibility to have in place alternative forms of service of equal benefit. Yet alternatives that do exist, such as nursing home care, home-care programs and so on, are totally inadequate. At present, there are only seven pilot chronic home-care programs in the province and there are insufficient active home-care programs to meet the needs of many communities facing cutbacks in hospital bed allocations.

I mentioned last Tuesday in the emergency debate in the Legislature the situation facing Huronview, the county home for the aged in Huron county. At the moment, 292 beds are being occupied out of a total of 310, of which 148 are for patients who require extended bed care, that is to say, at least one and a half hours of nursing care per day; 78 are for those requiring some nursing care and only 66 for those capable of totally caring for themselves. In addition, there are 27 people on the waiting list, 14 of which require extended bed care. The point is that for all practical purposes the home for the aged is now being turned into a chronic hospital.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It’s the same in Fort Frances.

Mr. Gaunt: If the county home is to be returned to its original purpose, more chronic hospital beds have to be designated in the county and more nursing home beds approved.

Mr. McKessock: Right on.

Mr. Gaunt: Given the ministry’s attempt to close several hospitals a few years ago, it is not surprising that there is a basic mistrust of the ministry’s motives. It is easy to see the current reductions as the first step in a chain of bed cuts that will eventually force small hospitals to close by making them too inefficient to operate.

People are asking themselves whether the ministry will stop at its current formula of 3.5 beds per 1,000 referral population after 1981. This fear and suspicion was expressed by one of my constituents in a letter addressed to the minister. He said: “Your bed cutting policy is a devious means to an end. The cost of operating a lab, physiotherapy department, kitchen or a whole hospital for a continually decreasing number of beds will become prohibitive. What will be your Health ministry’s final decree? Closure.”

Smaller hospitals lose their visibility as they become unable to support ancillary services such as surgeons and specialist consultants. Specialists only retain their high level of specialty skills through practice, which emphasizes the fact that hospitals such as Wingham must maintain their current bed levels to attract and allow specialists to practise their skills in the care of sick and injured.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It’s the same at LaVerendrye in Fort Frances and in every small community in the province.

Mr. Gaunt: I am sure it is. The problem really is that this government doesn’t understand small and rural communities across the province. The council members of the township of Ashfield, an area served by Wingham and District Hospital, have expressed their concern that if Wingham and District loses its viability, Ashfield will be unable to retain its “three dedicated doctors of the highest calibre” in their area. Incidentally, I should add that the doctors to whom reference is made there all reside in the town of Lucknow and practice there and those doctors service the township area of Ashfield.

This fear has been echoed by the township of Culross, which states in a letter to the minister that the Wingham hospital has always served it very satisfactorily and has helped keep a resident doctor in the immediate area. I feel that with the forecast cutback in beds over the next three years, they stand a good chance of losing their present doctor to a larger centre, thereby creating travel problems and so on for patients.

The only way for hospitals facing a $12,000 reduction per surplus active bed from its base budget to avoid an operating budget deficit is to close down a number of beds and cut back on personnel, even if at present the occupancy rates of these beds is high. The shortfall between the provincial allocation of funds and the increased operating costs at Wingham is likely to be as high as $200,000. Avoiding a deficit for Wingham would mean a loss of between 10 to 15 full-time equivalent jobs, not a small matter in a small rural community.

The area served by Wingham hospital -- north Huron, south Bruce -- is subject to severe snow conditions each winter which make travel not only dangerous and difficult but at times impossible due to road closures. While severe weather conditions make it difficult to reach the Wingham hospital, travel to a more distant hospital -- that is to say London, which is 120 kilometres away -- is simply out of the question.

In addition, Wingham is located at a busy junction Of highways 4 and 86 which connect the metropolitan areas to the south and east with the vacation and recreation areas that lie to the north and west of Wingham. Travellers from London, Sarnia and Windsor and American visitors who cross at Detroit and Port Huron utilize highway 4 summer and winter as they travel to the Bruce Peninsula, the Blue Mountain ski area and/or make connections for the ferry at Tobermory.

Travellers from the golden horseshoe area travel highway 86 to the resorts and cottages along Lake Huron’s shore or turn north on highway 4 to enter the Georgian Bay tourist region. In the 1977-78 season there were 119 traffic injuries requiring hospitalization at the Wingham and District Hospital. This tourist traffic, coupled with the daily school bus traffic -- 3,163 pupils are bused to and from school daily -- makes the possibility of traffic accidents a very real and grave concern. With large numbers of people moving through the area on weekends, traffic pressure becomes greater, resulting in the increased likelihood of multi-vehicle, multi-injury type accidents. With the depleted bed complement, it is not unrealistic to foresee loss of life as a result of limited facilities.

A great many of the hospitals serving smaller, rural communities were built through the efforts of local people. The pride and loyalty in these institutions is born out of community contribution to the original construction and, later, expansion and improvement.

Hospital care involves physical, spiritual and emotional aspects. Proper personalized care can be provided in a local hospital -- and provided best in a local hospital.

The kind and personal attention the patient receives in a smaller hospital is rarely matched by the coldly efficient city hospitals. As put by the board of governors’ brief to the minister: “May we remind you, Mr. Minister, with all the respect your office commands, that such ministerial edicts tend to destroy man’s group relationships in which lies the greatest sense of personal and community responsibility. This is inherent in rural, community living.”

Incidentally, that brief will be submitted to the minister this Friday. The Wingham and Goderich hospital boards are meeting with the minister this Friday, April 6, and hopefully some of these matters can be resolved at that time.

It is not that people are questioning the complexity of health care in this province or the need to curtail unnecessary spending. There is no doubt that a positive move toward preventive health care is essential. We should be looking at ambulatory care facilities, such as community health centres, as an alternative to easily, acute care hospitals. In fact, hospital officials at Wingham have, for some time now, been discussing with ministry officials the possibility of setting up a health centre in Wingham.

At present there are 29 health service organizations across the province in which traditional fee-for-service practices have been replaced by salary and capitation payment methods. Unfortunately, the future viability of these health service organizations is uncertain, because no long-term financial commitment has been made to them by the ministry.

There is a need to re-allocate resources away from acute care hospitals to alternatives that can operate at much lower cost. But only if alternatives are in place, such as home care, domiciliary care, nursing homes, extended care hospitals, rehabilitation hospitals, convalescent hospitals and self-care hospitals. We don’t have enough of them now. In this way, Mr. Speaker, we would be replacing one with the other. So during the transition people would not be denied the service or their rights to adequate medical services.

For the reasons I cited, I cannot accept the Ministry of Health’s program. I think it is short-sighted and inappropriately researched. It is causing untold anxiety for people throughout this province who are concerned about losing jobs, or who are concerned that if they get sick there won’t be a bed available for them. Medical staffs throughout the province feel that their ability to treat patients and deliver a first-class health system is being threatened.

I urge the minister to reconsider.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat saddened by having to participate in this debate this afternoon; in particular, over the kind of issue that is before this House -- the issue that has been, I think, put forward by most members who have participated in this debate so far. I anticipate it will also be put by many other members before the debate is completed, because we have a major problem on our hands. It is the kind of problem that we would rather not have.

[4:15]

In many things that we discuss in this House, we are discussing something that perhaps inconveniences someone, or treats someone unfairly, or deals with income distribution, but in the matter of the health care policies of this government we are dealing with something far more serious. It does indeed deal with all of those things. It talks about someone facing an inconvenience, or facing a delay they would perhaps rather not face. It talks about economic whacks at people who are least able to afford that kind of a whack. Chronic care fees are an example.

No matter how politely we might want to deal with the matter, we can’t get away from the basic notion that in the field of health care at some point in time, with some examples, people are going to die because services are not provided. I have heard on a number of occasions the Minister of Health slap the opposition members on their little hands for daring to suggest this is true. I suppose if we wanted to retain within the chambers of this House a degree of polite awareness with one another, we wouldn’t talk about this because it is not just embarrassing to the government, it talks about things that no normal, civilized human being would want to talk about. That is people dying, or, if they don’t die, then at least people being very sick and not getting the kind of care this society can provide those citizens. There isn’t any nice way to put that. I know it probably causes the current Minister of Health to throw up each and every day before he comes into this chamber. That is too bad. All he has to do is change the policies of his ministry and of that government to solve his own personal health problems.

I want to deal with -- not at any great length but to make the point -- the matter of the hospital cuts. I listened again to the Minister of Health say, “Well, these are not really cuts. Everybody gets the same dollar amount as they did last year.” Not true. People are trying to take the same hospital dollar allocations this year and provide the same level of services they did last year.

They can’t do that unless there is at least an increase in there to show something to reflect what inflation is doing to everybody’s pocketbook. It has just the same effect on a hospital budget as it does on the personal expenses of the members of this House or the general population at large. It is for real. It costs more money this year to buy the same goods or services purchased last year. If he says everybody got the same dollar amount this year, I don’t care how he slices that, he is taking money away from programs that are very necessary.

The other thing that immensely disturbs me about the approach of this government is it is extremely simplistic. I grant a bed-ratio formula sounds impressive. It sounds as if some very smart person, skilfully trained in the art of medicine, has devised a simple formula which will work in all cases. It won’t. It doesn’t. It causes very severe problems.

It has been my pleasure in the last little while to spend some time visiting many of the hospitals that will be hit worst by this kind of a cutback program. Unfortunately, they are concentrated in the northern parts of this province and in the rural parts of this province. I readily accept that in many parts of Ontario -- to be specific in the urban centres, in Metropolitan Toronto -- it is possible for the ministry to close down some wards. It is possible for the ministry to close down some beds. It is possible for people to get on a TTC car -- pay a little more -- to get to medical services. It is possible for them to take half an hour and go in an ambulance to another hospital if one is full. All of that is happening.

We have had occasions in this House where we have explored the rather ridiculous situation of ambulances picking up patients, trying one hospital for space, not finding it, trying another one, and trying a third. That is happening in Toronto. I am sure, this afternoon, but it is possible for that to happen here. If one cannot get in this hospital, one can go across town and get in another one.

That is not possible in the northern part of this province and in many of our rural areas. That is why this dumb, simple, stupid and mean formula is wrong. It does not recognize there are many parts of this province that are not south of Bloor Street and do not have the kinds of options available for example, within 10 minutes walking of this House. It ain’t there. You can’t get there from here.

It also does not recognize that to change a place from a hotel into a hospital requires some equipment, requires some staff, requires some training and some financial obligations. Then you have made it into a hospital. It isn’t just a place providing bed service; it is a hospital where you can get reasonably decent treatment. You need that core of financing to make it a hospital.

For example, when I walk down the halls of the Smooth Rock Falls Hospital, the minister can open or close all of the beds on that floor; it makes no difference. If they need them, if there is an accident in that community of 4,500 people, they will open them up. The minister can’t close a ward in the Smooth Rock Falls Hospital, because there is only one ward. He can’t cut the nursing staff in half, because there is only one nurse; and there are only two doctors. There are very serious ramifications all through the north.

I spent some time in Sensenbrenner Hospital in Kapuskasing. It’s a fine little institution. If the ministry had been active in putting community programs in place, if the ministry was prepared to fund a chronic home care program in Kapuskasing, if they were even to go so far in their wonderful free enterprise spirit of getting things done as to see that there were chronic care beds in private nursing homes in Kapuskasing, the minister could understand how accommodations could be made. We are told that alternatives are possible. They are not possible in that hospital.

That is basic hospital care, with a lot of problems that are familiar to many of the hospitals in the north about training and keeping nursing staff, about attracting physicians to the area, of seeing that they get the use of specialists. But it also lives with the very real fact that is true across most of northern Ontario, which is, there isn’t any chronic home-care program; there aren’t many chronic care beds in that hospital. There isn’t any alternative to the use of active treatment beds, which is very expensive -- $130 a day to look after chronic care patients. There isn’t any other place to go.

If this ministry wants to go up to Kapuskasing and decide that a number of very good and workable programs that have been tried out in many other parts of Ontario ought to be applied to Kapuskasing, then we can talk about making some cutbacks in the hospitals. But until it does, it is taking away the only source of care in that community. There is a serious problem there. And it runs through Kirkland Lake and Little Current, New Liskeard, Haileybury, Espanola, Chapleau, Hearst -- you name it. And here are all the cutbacks that they are looking at. Cutbacks that can’t be made. They can’t be made this year, and they are looking at even worse situations over the next two or three years, except that the ministry hasn’t had the courtesy to really tell them what is going to happen then.

We are embarked, for some reason -- and it is beyond me as to why -- on a program of cutting back on services that are needed most. We are embarked on a program of identifying communities that have minimal health care now, and hurting them more than any other. I don’t understand it. I would like to find an eloquent word for it, but there isn’t one. It is just plain dumb. These are highly-paid civil servants in the minister’s office sitting around down here deciding what they can do to make the Treasurer of Ontario happy, and doing it, and damn the consequences.

I’ll bet there isn’t a member of this House who isn’t in the process of arranging for his local hospital board to come down to Mecca and pay the little trip to the minister’s office. Why the hell are we doing that? Why is it our responsibility to look after that? If the government wants me to be the Minister of Health, make me the Minister of Health and I will be happy to carry out those kinds of programs. Why are members parading in here? Why are all these people being dragged down from across the province of Ontario to plead at the minister’s chair for some common sense? Why do they have to do that? I don’t know.

I give this minister one small iota of credit. He is not as stupid as his predecessor who actually went to those communities and tried to convince them in their home bailiwick that this was a sane and rational idea -- I think frankly it was more likely a lack of guts and brains. But at least this minister didn’t do that. No. In this case, he brought them all down to the Sheraton Centre -- at government expense, I take it -- to let them hear the bad news in friendly circumstances. That was unfortunate, because that, I think, denied the reality of the situation. It is apparent to me, at least, that this Minister of Health is not prepared to look at that. He may well have seen the same hospital wards that I have seen, but he isn’t prepared to react, in my view, in even a sensible and rational way.

The bed-ratio formula -- Mr. Speaker, for once in my life I am at a loss. I don’t have a loss of words; I do have a loss of words that I can use in this House. I am afraid that is about the point I am at with this minister. This program makes no sense. This bed-ratio formula clearly was picked out of the air by a civil servant and applied unilaterally across Ontario; it does not fit, and the minister knows it.

Frankly, I am pleased to see that, at least with a slight battering on the back of his small head, he is backing off. In Brantford he is backing off. In a number of other places I see he is saying, “Well, maybe I didn’t really mean it in quite that way.” But the announcements were quite specific -- hospital by hospital, cut by cut, almost line by line.

The initial provision of health-care services in many parts of this province is at a level it has never been at in some years. In communities that were just beginning to have their little general hospitals, which they put together brick by brick, where many of their citizens went out and attracted physicians and nurses and raised money through the local organizations to buy equipment for those hospitals, citizens are seeing the hope that they would have decent medical care go down the drain because of the act of this minister. I think that is ruinous.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to select material to use in this address today, particularly when I have said that I want to focus mainly on the Ministry of Health. I cannot tell you one single thing that the Minister of Health is doing these days in any field under his responsibility that makes much sense to anybody. I do not want to go into the details because I will do that at another point in time, and I know that individual members want to bring up the cases of their particular hospitals and what he is doing to them.

Let me switch, then, and talk about this other matter that has been raised about doctors opting in and doctors opting out, how much doctors are being paid and the latest front-page story on who filed what tax return last year. There are problems in all of this which I think we all recognize. I do not think there is a member in this House who can provide, publicly or privately, a simple motion that will make all the doctors happy in Ontario, that will see the patients get proper medical service and that will see that the $4,000,000,000 that we spent last year on health care was well spent. Nobody has a single, snappy little thing to do that will solve all these problems.

I think we are done a disservice by this minister, though, when he attempts to polarize the opposition in this House, to oversimplify and to deny that there is a serious problem. Last Tuesday, when I sat in this chair, the Minister of Health said: “There is no problem with doctors opting out. None.” That was one of the few days when I have seen the Premier of this province watch one of his ministers hang listlessly on the vine and not run to his rescue with one of his great interjections. On that particular day the Minister of Health was up for the entire question period, blowing in the wind; and, for all of his staff, he had no answers to anybody. I sensed that at least on that occasion the Premier of Ontario was embarrassed by his boy wonder; he left him there.

On Wednesday, I understand, there is something called a cabinet meeting around here. Some place, in some magnificent offices adjacent to the Premier’s office, the most important decision-makers in Ontario gather. Apparently last Wednesday somebody discovered that there was a problem with doctors opting out of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan and that the boy wonder had better do something about it or they were all going to be in a jackpot. Maybe Eddie Goodman was there; I do not know who these powerful people are.

At any rate, on Thursday I watched the same guy who told me on Tuesday that there is no problem -- never mind Peterborough, with 68 per cent of them out; never mind Stoney Creek, Amherstburg or any of the other examples, there is not a problem. On Thursday, not only was there a problem but, of course, this kid also had the solution.

I would have thought the Minister of Health in this province was responsible for the provision of fair and equal access to the system. On Thursday, though, I found out that, while there was a problem, that really was not his ball of wax. In fact, the Ontario Medical Association was going to help him out, and it was going to be assisted in its task by the Ontario Hospital Association. Both are very distinguished groups, I must say; both, I am sure, are very concerned about health care in Ontario. But neither one of them was elected as Minister of Health in Ontario.

When we ask what the Minister of Health himself is doing about this, the answer is zero -- not a thing. Others are doing that for him. Frankly, I do not know how they are doing that, and neither does he. I do not know the details of the provision of medical service under that new program, which was announced so grandly last week, and neither does he.

[4:30]

Mr. Wildman: Neither do the doctors.

Mr. Breaugh: Neither do the doctors. I suspect that what we have so far is the recognition that times are tough, things are bad and somebody better do something. It won’t be the Minister of Health. It will turn out to be the OMA and the OHA and their problem. I see there are some unfortunate disputes entering into the picture already. The Ontario Hospital Association, I am told, says that doctors have to provide that service at the OHIP rates inside the hospital and outside the hospital. From statements I’ve read by the OMA, that isn’t the way it read that agreement. There may be some complicating factors.

If one has a problem, there’s now one Zenith telephone number one can call in Ontario. I sure wouldn’t want to be manning that telephone because there’s going to be a multitude of problems rolling into that one little red telephone.

I think there is a need for serious discussion now of alternatives to the fee for service basis. I spend a fair amount of time discussing the matter with doctors these days and I see their argument about filling out those little billing procedures, sending them down to the nearest OHIP office and waiting to see if anybody is going to process that claim this week and waiting six to eight weeks or four to five months to get payment for work they’ve done. I see arguments over what the bill should be. I see doctors showing cute little forms where there is a minor error on filling out the form, but the whole claim has been rejected in the process. The doctor has to have the accountant fill it out and send it back in again. I understand their frustration with that system.

I could not give to the public at large or even to my own little self a rationalization of the OHIP billing procedure. I understand the premise was cost control. But I don’t see how one can control costs if one doesn’t have the authority to pay or not to pay the bills that come in. They don’t have that. I’m not sure that what we have in place really isn’t anything but a massive paper-shuffling routine, somewhat akin to what they do at football games in the United States at half-time where they have card shows. I don’t see anything of a productive, positive nature in that whole billing process. I support the doctors in their frustration with it and on the insensitivity with which doctors are dealt with by OHIP itself.

That’s further complicated by the fact that this government has embarked once again on another one of its famous cutback programs, and part of the people cut back are the people processing those claims. It’s taking longer and longer to get the same little billing process to work because there are fewer and fewer people working in the system. I understand their frustration.

Let me put this as delicately as I can. I have less concern about someone who’s making $55,000 a year and trying to battle inflation than I have for my industrial workers averaging $13,500, thank you very much, and battling inflation. I’m not saying I’m not concerned; I’m saying that the degree is not quite there.

I sympathize with them in having to fill out all the income tax forms in order to claim their car as an expense and office overhead and all the staff and associated problems. Those are very complicated things that I don’t have to worry about. I’m saying it’s tough to recognize that the prime, the number one wage earner in the country is having difficulties with inflation. I understand that, but I put that on a scale with my unemployed, with my pensioners, with my students looking for a job, with my organized workers and with my unorganized workers in my own constituency, and I’m running a little short on sympathy there.

What I don’t see is much of an active campaign on the part of the ministry to deal with those problems. I don’t see any alternatives being put forward. We put out a little green paper last year where we discussed a number of alternatives we thought were workable and rational notions.

Having met with medical associations around Ontario, I understand there are a lot of doctors who insist, for some reason that escapes me, that the fee-for-service system is the only way to go. In fact, while they might have taken an oath at one time to provide medical care, there is creeping into all of that a belief that many doctors are medical businessmen, with overheads and all the things that any other business has, and that they are really attracted by the profit motive.

I also understand there are many physicians in the province who simply want to practise medicine and want to do all the things that everybody else wants to do. They want to feed their families properly and see that their kids have a good education and live in a decent house. Primarily, their concern is to practise medicine -- to do the thing that took so long and, so many years in school to become qualified for. That’s their basic concern. A secondary concern is their income.

There are others, I would agree, who may have different priorities. But most of the doctors I know -- and I have to say this as I trust them with my life, so I am not afraid to trust them with my pocketbook from time to time -- are medical practitioners first and wage earners second; it is of lesser consideration to them. I would go so far as to say those are the good doctors. I’m not sure there are any really bad doctors out there. I suspect that doctors are no better and no worse than plumbers, auto workers or anybody else. There has to be a percentage in there who aren’t as noble as most of them would like them to be, but most of them are working long hours, trying to do a difficult job which is becoming more complicated and requires more and more skills as time goes on, and feeling incredibly frustrated, particularly by the dealings with this ministry.

That’s a serious problem. I would like to see some alternatives put out. I don’t think it’s beyond the capability of the ministry’s staff to offer an option which would allow doctors to receive a base salary for providing certain services under certain circumstances. The ministry could certainly talk about hours of work and the number of people doctors serve. It seems quite possible to me that the minister could negotiate a salary, for example, for the general practitioner in the province of Ontario which offers economic security to that person and which dispenses totally with the OHIP billing process and the fee-for-service arguments that enter into the picture.

Though there was supposedly an approved rate negotiated last December, I am aware that there are many doctors in this province who still don’t know what that approved rate is. In fact, the OHIP office doesn’t know it either. They simply tell the doctor to bill at the previous year’s agreed-upon rate and somehow, somewhere, an adjustment will be made and he’ll get his money. That’s a ridiculous way for the ministry to go about its business.

Members will have to excuse my trade union bias in all of this but I’m not totally convinced how to go about negotiating an approved rate and, once the negotiation is set, settled, signed, sealed and delivered, then how one would figure out how much it is. If I ever negotiated a contract for a group of people and said, “Sign here first and accept the agreement now and later on we’ll tell you how much you’re getting,” I think I would be ridden out of the room on a rail. But that’s what happens between the ministry and the OMA. I’m not sure how one gets to the stage of having negotiations and arriving at an agreement and then people decide whether they’re in or out of the agreement. I don’t understand that. I don’t understand how OHIP can change the rates after it has struck an agreed-upon rate. I don’t understand how OHIP was given the latitude to make adjustments in that that are sometimes minor and sometimes major. That’s well beyond my frame of reference when I talk about negotiating a settlement.

There are serious problems concerning doctors. whether they’re in or out of the plan. We have still not resolved the difficulties in the northern part of this province and in many rural parts of southern Ontario of attracting and keeping doctors. I know, for example, we talked about putting in medical schools in the north at Laurentian and Lakehead Universities. We have never gone past that stage.

I have talked to doctors who work in the north and I find that many of those people have needs which they state in more important terms than how much money they make. They need to have connections with medical society, with people who are practising medicine around them. They need to rub shoulders with and go to conferences with and confer with specialists in particular fields and other people in the medical community. That’s difficult to do in rural Ontario in the south and all across the north. Those problems are serious, and I don’t see that the minister is doing very much even to recognize the problem, let alone finding any kind of an answer.

Those are a number of things. Let me close off my comments on the doctors and whether they’re in or they’re out. I start from the premise that doctors are part of this society in which we live. When society collectively decides it needs a socialized form of medicine in this province, then we should be prepared to pay for that. And we do pay for it. We pay through our income tax, through our premium system and now through extra service costs. There’s the use of Chargex cards in doctors’ offices, which runs to about 18 per cent in interest rates on fees for medical services these days. The public pays 90 different ways for good health care. Sometimes they get it and sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they don’t have access to the system.

My basic premise is that doctors belong to this society and should be included in the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. I am prepared to be eminently reasonable about all of this and say there may well be occasions when doctors, for whatever reasons -- which I do not have a short list of now -- should be allowed to opt out of the plan. Sure, why not be reasonable about it?

My concern is not whether we lock doctors into a system or whether we allow them to work in and out of the system at the same time or totally out of it. My concern is with the patients of Ontario and the taxpayers who pay for the system. I am not interested in infringing upon the rights of a doctor to practise medicine as he or she sees fit. I am only concerned with whether the people of this province get good medical care, period. I am not dogmatic about how that care is provided or how the doctors are paid.

In Saskatchewan, where we brought in socialized medicine many years ago, doctors still can bill inside the system or outside the system. In discussion with their health officials, they said: “This is not an academic, second-year university discussion. What we are concerned with is providing good medical care to the population of this province.” That ought to be the end result of all of our deliberations about doctors.

I am stymied by the current minister’s absence of ideas and even his shirking of responsibility in this regard. I do not know why he is doing that, except that on occasion he is shown to be a little jittery in answering questions in this House, I understand full well that, when he decides to do some things, he often tramps upon the establishment’s toes, whether that is a recognized and worthwhile group of people like the Ontario Medical Association or the Ontario Hospital Association. I understand his temerity to take those people on, but surely his prime interest ought to be to see that the people of this province get a good return for their tax dollar and, more important, that the people who need health care get it. I do not see him reacting to that.

Let me deal with one other matter which is a little close to my heart; it is one which I raised in the course of the estimates just last fall and which we seem to have great difficulty coming to grips with in this province.

There is a thing called an HSO. In the usual way this government operates, we couldn’t call it a community clinic, because that is what it is; we have to find another name for it. So they called it a health service organization. There are 29 of them around Ontario. They are surrounded by an aura of mystery. The description of them is one that I think every member of this House, even the current Minister of Health, supports: We have an integrated group of people providing social and medical services in a small clinical setting; it is not a big urban hospital but something that people can relate to. It serves a community that is identifiable and, where the needs of a community are different, it can provide different kinds of services. We are not hidebound by whether it is the Ministry of Community and Social Services or the Ministry of Health that is providing this service; we simply identify what is the need and provide it as best we can.

Oddly enough, in this model too, most of the doctors and professionals providing care are on salary, which is the cheapest form of medical care, from a doctor’s point of view, that we know of. For less money they are providing, in my view and in the view of a great many people, as good or even better care than you can get by any other means of payment. I am beyond myself. Why would the minister pick on the cheapest and best form of physician providing care to a patient and freeze their salaries? He did not disagree with this in the course of the estimates. Why pick on them? It is clear that he has picked on them. In correspondence that we have raised during question period, and in matters we raised subsequent to that, it was pointed out that he has frozen their salaries -- never mind the four per cent increase or six per cent increase, he has frozen them.

In previous years the general agreement has been that, if the OMA fee schedule for general practitioners goes up 6.71 per cent we will transfer that to those doctors who are on salary. It seems quite a reasonable thing to do. Now they are saying, “Unless you have a contract that forces the ministry to provide that kind of pass-through funding, you don’t get it.” That seems to me a strange attitude on the part of this ministry.

[4:45]

On the matter of freezing those salaries, I should note that the minister seems to be a little short of information. When I asked him the original question, he said it wasn’t their policy. Yet, clearly we have a letter from the Boyden clinic where that has been the policy stated by an official of this ministry dealing with HSOs. We have this matter -- and I raised it in the question period today -- of surveys.

There are funny things going on. One would think if we had these HSOs in operation around Ontario we would naturally be interested in evaluating them; and of course we all are. The question is how do we evaluate them? The ministry has struck upon a unique little scheme. They send a couple of people down to these clinics and they sit there and then ask people as they come in to the clinic to get treatment to answer a questionnaire.

Why in the world would a Minister of Health, of all people, ask questions like, “Does your doctor care whether he hurts you during an examination?” That’s like, “When did you stop beating your wife?” There isn’t a good, sensible answer for that. The other question: “Is your doctor’s main interest making money?” Who can answer that? I don’t know.

I go to a very friendly doctor. He’s an opted-in physician or he wouldn’t be my doctor. I think his prime concern is providing good care to me and the members of my family. I’m aware that he likes a few niceties of life and that he’d like to be able to support his family rather well. But I certainly don’t think he wants to hurt me when he examines me -- or that his prime interest is making money. This one is fairly good at the stock market, I’m told. He probably makes more money off that than he does off the practice of medicine.

But those questions put in that form by our Ministry of Health are an insult to the medical profession. I’m never affronted by people who insult others. I get my share of insults, and if I can handle them others can. I certainly think the Ontario Medical Association and all of those doctors can certainly handle a little roughness around the edges. But I am concerned that there appears to be a concerted effort to hassle these community clinics. It’s beyond me why.

The minister freezes the doctors’ salaries, except when he’s got a contractual obligation he can’t get out of it. He puts this kind of questionnaire out to them, gives them a week’s notice and says “We’ll be in next week to put that questionnaire out to your people.” This one, the Boyden clinic, got their lawyer onto it and went to the Krever commission. The lawyer and the Krever commission agreed that those questions were in violation of Ontario laws and couldn’t be asked. So the minister backed off; but it had already run the questionnaire in two other community clinics in Toronto, agreeing they were in violation of the Human Rights Code, agreeing they were in violation of the Health Disciplines Act, but they’d already done it anyway. That seems to me to be a strange thing.

There appears to me to be almost a constant harassment of these HSOs. Even though the minister agrees it’s a nice model and a good idea and it ought to work -- and in fact it works very well -- they still are harassing them.

Let me run through some of the problems we have uncovered in these HSOs. Basically you must understand, Mr. Speaker, the notion is that a group out there has to identify its community, decide what kinds of services it wants to provide, find a place, get the staff to provide the service. That seems to me to be a pretty tough job for any community group to do, but 29 of them have managed to do it. I would have thought quite frankly it was more properly the job of the Ministry of Health to do that kind of identification of need, and what the catchment area is and do the setup. In this province, apparently, it’s not. I don’t know why, but it’s not.

In fact, in certain places like the St. Catharines clinic they got put out of business by this same ministry. Again, I don’t really know why; I don’t really understand that. I have read the evaluation surveys of that community clinic and understand them, but I certainly don’t agree with their conclusion.

They have this serious problem of paying people. I recognize that maybe their problems are compounded when a doctor, whose sole purpose in life is to provide health care, is prepared to take a salary, and I suppose in that very real sense to risk the wrath of the medical profession. When he gets squeezed one more time, with absolutely no raise, he may be at that point where he decides to give up; I would hope not, but that’s certainly the case.

The matter of how these budgets are struck is a perplexing one. I asked the minister during the course of the estimates to provide me with copies of their budget, samples of them. Let me see, in actual dollar-for-dollar comparisons, how various clinics are being run. He agreed quite openly and very easily; in the course of the estimates, to do that.

That, of course, was in November of last year. I haven’t got them yet, but then the mails are slow.

I asked again in a written question. You may have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that I put a number of matters which were of concern to me on the order paper in the form of written questions. I put those on early in this session. For some strange reason -- well not strange really, because I understand it -- the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton), in charge of children’s mental health, pulled out from those lists of questions that I submitted the ones that were now his responsibility. He was able to answer all of my questions within the 14-day period. The Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) was not able to answer one, not one.

Mr. Wildman: How does that compare with a downward mobility in the front bench?

Mr. Breaugh: The only thing I could do short of that is maybe ask him his name; but I am sure, in this case, if I had asked the Minister of Health his name in a written question on the order paper, he would have sent me back notice that he required more time to research it. Not an answer was there; and they were all questions that were asked during the estimates last year to which we got no answer; questions that we had asked by telephone, by mail. We have done everything but use the pony express to try to get information out of that ministry, and none of it works because he doesn’t want to answer.

The same attitude surrounds the set-up and the financing of these HSOs. They have roughly three kinds of budgets. The one that most people think is a sensible way to do it is to provide a global budget for the operation -- much the same as we do in hospitals or in schools, or for building roads or a number of other things -- plus the salaries. That’s one method that’s in place. There’s kind of an interim per capita technique that’s used for physicians who already had a roster of patients. There’s another one that’s causing a lot of problems; it’s called capitation negation. Bless us, we certainly come up with titles.

Mr. Wildman: What’s that, capital punishment?

Mr. Breaugh: It’s close to that. This is apparently the one which the ministry wants to use, and apparently one of the reasons you can’t get budgets is because they don’t want outsiders sticking their nose in such things and comparing what’s fair and what works. They do that on a monthly basis; so in terms of saying to an HSO, “Buy your supplies in bulk for a year,” they can’t do that because they are unsure of their finances. The amount of money they are paid changes depending on whether someone moves from an area and moves to an opted-out, physician, or even to a physician outside their roster; so that there are complicating factors. It’s hard to determine whether these things are legitimate or whether they work well, how they are financed and what’s the best way of financing, because there is a noted absence of public information and because on the one hand the ministry has been steadfastly saying: “Okay, we will give it to you,” but on the other hand never providing the information. It’s kind of a live from month-to-month, from hand to mouth situation for most of those HSOs.

Try this on for size. There’s one called Lawrence Heights. This is a community clinic providing medical care. It has had no budget increase since 1973. I can’t name you a hot dog stand that’s been able to stay in business since 1973 without some reflection of inflation, additional costs, expanding services. It’s totally unrealistic. York Community Centre has had no budget increase since 1975. Boyden Hill has had no budget increase since 1975. Regent’s Park had its budgets cut in half in 1975.

If this is a good and workable model for the provision of health care, one that we would like to expand and provide across the north for example, where it would certainly be a workable notion, one that we could set in place in Peterborough now to solve the problem of whether people have access to a health-care system, you have to be prepared to pay for it. You certainly can’t do it if you keep on cutting their budgets or holding them to a 1973 or 1975 budget amount. That’s totally unrealistic.

There’s no question there are cases at these HSOs, of staff people who have had to be dropped because they couldn’t continue to carry them. There’s no question there has to be kind of a practice developed of borrowing other services from around that community to see that the thing stays in existence. There’s no question that you have to go to groups of people, like trade unions and community groups, and ask them to cough up money once again to provide health care. I wouldn’t mind that if I wasn’t paying income tax, federally and provincially, for health care; and if you didn’t come back at me and say that you want a premium out of me; and if you didn’t come back at me again when the doctor says he wants more money; and you come back at me again when somebody else wants more money. We pay for health care, a lot, so why are we now going back to community groups and saying let’s run the local community clinic like we run the amateur softball team? I think there has to be a little difference in the priorities in the way that those things are dealt with.

Municipalities are funding health care too. HSOs are paying municipal taxes. There are just a multitude of systems in place; which strikes me, if I weren’t the naive and not suspicious person that I am, that this ministry has got a campaign under way to harass this model of health service organizations out of business. I don’t know why they would want to do that. I’m not suggesting it as a panacea, but in many respects we can provide a better level of health care, a more integrated form of service, at much less money, in an HSO than we can in any other way.

Let me quote just a small quote from the Hastings report, which is another one of those magnificent studies that have been done in this province and tabled in this House and put out to pasture somewhere and not much is happening from it: “Central to the concept of a community health centre is the provision of care through an integrated team of various types of professionals, technologists and other personnel.”

We have to have that and we have to have the financial stability to be able to provide that kind of a service to a community, and that is what is endangered here. If we move to these kind of fancy budgeting procedures that are now being accepted we threaten the life blood of these systems; they don’t know where they are going from month to month.

Once again we have come up with some kind of a magic formula and stuck an impressive name on it. I still can’t figure out what the name is supposed to mean, and I defy any member to give me a quick and easy definition of “capitation negation.” Anyway, it is there and the name is probably impressive and it sounds like it is legitimate; and the end result will be that health service organizations suffer and there is no sane way to explain that.

What seems quite logical is that we provide to these people what municipalities are asking for, what school boards want to do these days, what a number of agencies want: they want to give block funding, global funding. Let them then go to see if they can work on their administration costs, and in most of the HSOs that I am aware of the administration costs are pretty low because there aren’t many people working in administration there.

We might well be able to get into viability in rural and northern areas because you are allowing for local difficulties. We would save money in bulk buying if we got a budget, for example, semi-annually instead of monthly. We would allow some people to be innovative in providing these services, which we almost work against in this province.

It basically comes down to insecurity. People working in these clinics want to provide a good service to a community, want to see that that service is provided at the least possible cost, and it strikes me that they are being harassed. It could be, and may well be, that they are, in fact, a threat to the medical establishment in Ontario.

I wouldn’t like to think that the medical establishment is a threat to anybody. I would like to think that bodies like the OMA, or the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, or local medical groups, are concerned about patient care first and not concerned about professional jealousies over the provision of services to their community. Frankly, I think that is true. I am at a loss to explain why all of these things happen to the HSOs; why they have gone from 12 people down to two in the ministry -- two and a half, excuse me.

I can never figure out how you can have half a person working, but apparently the ministry does. They have gone from 12 people monitoring, suggesting, looking after the HSOs, down to two and a half. Perhaps that is a clear indication of the priority of this program in the minister’s eyes. I think that is sad, because I find in this one not a panacea but a partial solution to providing good medical care in rural Ontario, in northern Ontario, in Ontario where you have a lot of opted-out physicians and you need access to the system.

[5:00]

I think it is sad that we have come to this point -- and I will be raising this matter again in subsequent question periods -- that a model the minister himself says is a good one is being so poorly treated by his own ministry. In many areas where the hospital cuts are most dramatic, it would seem logical then, if the ministry has decided that this won’t be a general hospital as one would have in downtown Toronto but will be a different kind of thing, that one of the ways to accomplish that might well be to move it into the HSO classification and provide that kind of a service.

I really do not have much faith that is going to happen, and many of us are saying much the same thing. We are saying this ministry should put in place community programs because there is a clear consensus evolving within the medical profession itself and among those people who are interested in all forms of health care, whether that is mental health or working with handicapped kids or working with people who have a particular interest, on the model to provide health care. It should be smaller and it should be more responsive. It should be designed specifically to meet the needs of a community, whether that is a geographic community or a community of interests.

That is a better way to provide service. The ministry agrees with that, but we do not see any of those programs in operation, except on a pilot program basis or on a sampling basis. I don’t understand how the minister gets away with having a chronic home-care program in seven places in Ontario and not in the rest of Ontario. I don’t understand, in legal terms, how he does that. I don’t understand how he survives in political terms and has that, but he does.

The best I can get out of him is that if he ever gets any more money out of the trees he will expand that program around Ontario. To me, that is like saying that one can only have a heart attack in certain places in this province because those are the only places where we have cardiac units. It is dumb; it does not make any sense; there is no rationale behind it. There isn’t even a feeble political apology that makes any sense that he can use; he just does it that way.

I am concerned that there are not any differences when it comes to paying the tax. I am not aware of any great program at work which says that if one lives in downtown Toronto he pays taxes to this level, municipal taxes to this level and a premium to this level because he has much more sophisticated services around him, but if one lives in Kapuskasing or Smooth Rock Falls or Cochrane he pays less money because he has fewer services. No matter where one lives in this province one pays the same tax rate, one pays the same premium rate, one probably pays pretty close to the same municipal tax rate that might get diverted into health care. One pays the same no matter where one is, yet the level of service is far different. We all clearly recognize that. There isn’t much going on in that ministry to level that out and to make it more even.

In those places where we have found a model that works, as with health services organizations, we see those are the things that are subject to the most abuse. It is almost as if the current Minister of Health is taking the whole ministry to self-destruct, and at some point in time he will blow up; that nice little peach-fuzz face that we see sifting across from us will be no more and the entire ministry will disappear. That is tragic and certainly to the extreme. I admit I would pay $9.80 a day to watch that act, but it is far too drastic for me.

Talking about the chronic care deterrent fee: why would the minister pick on chronic-care patients? The minister knows that of all the programs in operation around Ontario the one that is in poorest shape everywhere is chronic care. We have chronic-care patients in active-treatment beds at $130 a day when we know that we could take them across the road to a clinic or a specialized community home, or even a different ward in that hospital, and reduce that cost substantially to downwards of $25 to $30 a day. Why pick on chronic-care patients? Did they decide to be chronic-care patients? No. If they had any place to go wouldn’t they go there? Yes. Why nail them?

I recall that great and glorious day when he announced those two deterrent fee programs for psychiatric care and for chronic care. He did note that the one requiring psychiatric care co-payment would have to be legislated. I haven’t seen that one yet. I imagine it may never come. I heard a couple of statements by his assistant saying, “That one isn’t going to fly, so we are not going to do that one.”

Certainly when he announced the chronic-care deterrent fee there weren’t any guidelines attached to that. Things were pretty loose. It took a few days of media exposure to get him to change his mind on that and now there are a number of people exempted from those chronic-care deterrent fees. There are a number of unfairnesses in that. Who is going to sort out the unfairnesses? Not the minister; the local hospital administrator is going to get stuck with that job, thank you very much. Are they going to keep the money for doing the dirty work? No, that money goes to the ministry.

It seems that no matter where this Minister of Health turns he picks on the worst example that one could find to punish. I do not understand that. I do not understand why chronic-care patients, of all the people that he could pick, are the ones who are centred out for deterrent fees. It is most unfair and is not sensible. It is not even rational. That he picks on small northern hospitals and hospitals in rural Ontario to bear the brunt of his big fight on hospital cutbacks, again makes no sense. He picks on the lowest paid physicians and says: “We will freeze your salary and let others get an increase.”

I am at a loss, clearly, to understand where this ministry is going, except to say that in my view it is going to hell on a bandwagon and the faster it gets there the better off we all will be.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on the speech from the throne this afternoon. In so doing, I would first and foremost like to compliment you, sir, on the fine and even-handed way in which you are discharging your duties as the Speaker of the House. I think your patience and tolerance and understanding is well exemplified in the way you deal with all members of the House, even our rambunctious colleague and friend from Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) on most occasions.

Mr. Nixon: More even-handed than the NDP.

Mr. Williams: Indeed, I would first and foremost compliment you on the way in which you are discharging those duties.

The most difficult consideration I have had in speaking to the speech from the throne was to single out one of so many topics that are raised in the very substantive speech from the throne, which is I guess the longest speech, and I would say of course the most substantive speech, ever presented to this Legislature. It has taken a great deal of time to select from the speech a number of topics which I feel I can, within the time permitted me, deal with in some depth. It was a difficult decision to try to select an area I felt I could concentrate on this afternoon. Hopefully, I will do some justice to the topic I think is of some major concern to the people living within the Metropolitan Toronto area.

Some aspects of the speech that caught my attention were ones that dealt essentially with environmental matters. The speech does touch on matters dealing with land and airborne contaminants that are tending to pollute our great lakes, and of course it made reference to the acidic precipitation phenomenon that has recently come to light and which has been discussed and debated at some length in this House. The speech, as well, touches on the whole well-publicized topic of the spills of toxic substances and how we should deal with them in a safe manner to prevent the adverse effects of such unfortunate incidents.

We had a great deal of debate in this House in recent months on the matter of liquid industrial waste and the problem of containment of PCBs. Most recently, of course, we have been involved in the debate on the great concern all of us have with regard to the safety factors that relate to the operation of any nuclear power program. This, of course, arose out of the tragic accident that has occurred in one of our neighbouring states to the south.

All of these certainly have received a great deal of attention. I might say they have all been very difficult problems, with no easy answers or solutions, notwithstanding the fact that members of the opposition would tend to imply to this government that they have the answers and they can be provided forthwith.

I must compliment the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott), who has discharged his portfolio so well in dealing with all of these complex and difficult issues. I think he is dealing with them in a very forthright, honest and knowledgeable manner. The ministry obviously will continue to give leadership and direction in this very important field.

The one area within the field of environmental concerns that gives me great concern is one of a more parochial nature in that it pertains to the Metropolitan Toronto area. It is a type of situation that also has built into it a crisis. It is a more insidious type of situation that has gained little publicity in recent months, yet it has all the earmarks of the same type of environmental problems which have been under debate and which I have identified in my earlier comments.

This crisis I am alluding to is more conventional in nature and yet perhaps even more substantive, if not equally so, than all the others I have referred to. It is the solid waste disposal problem that confronts the Metropolitan Toronto area.

Metropolitan Toronto is indeed at a critical stage in endeavouring to deal with the problem. It is one that has been gaining a head of steam in recent years but has really not had the attention I feel it deserves, at least as far as publicizing the crisis is concerned. I do not believe the public at large within the Metropolitan Toronto area measure the garbage disposal problem in Metropolitan Toronto in the same light as they express concerns and fears with regard to these other types of environmental problems. Yet the solid waste disposal problem should be of equal concern to all the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto, because it is as imminent as these other problems and probably will have a more direct personal effect on the people of Metropolitan Toronto if the crisis is not dealt with within the immediate future.

To put in proper perspective the nature of the problem and to make you aware of exactly how the problem has arisen, Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch for a few moments on the historical evolution of the management, control and responsibility for solid waste disposal within the Metropolitan Toronto area.

In the earlier years it was a problem that had to be dealt with on an individualized basis by each of the municipalities, certainly before the creation of the Metropolitan Toronto corporation. The population of Metropolitan Toronto in those days was not nearly as great as it is today, with our 2,250,000 people.

[5:15]

As the need for a federated metropolitan system of government came to be perceived as being the necessary means of dealing with regional problems of local government in all areas, at that same time it was recognized that the handling of waste disposal within the metropolitan area bad to be looked at on a regional basis.

Even though this was perceived early on, after the creation of Metropolitan Toronto the responsibility for waste disposal was still left with the individual constituent members of Metro. They endeavoured, within their limited financial and other capabilities, to deal with the problem reasonably well. But the sheer volume of solid waste was building up as the population grew and the ability of these municipalities to deal with the problem on an individual basis was quickly being lost. It was for that reason that, as early as 1956, not only after the creation of Metro, concerned officials and representatives of the local governments embarked upon rather in-depth studies and began to encourage the province to consider setting up regional responsibility with the Metropolitan Toronto government.

After a number of studies had been undertaken, representations and recommendations were made to the province. As a result of these the province did agree to give certain limited powers to Metropolitan Toronto to assist the municipalities in handling the garbage disposal problems within their respective boundaries.

But the province did not directly give full responsibility for the handling of garbage to Metropolitan Toronto. It occurred in two stages. First in 1956, when the Metropolitan Toronto Act was amended and Metro was given the authority to assist area municipalities in the matter of refuse disposal. This proved to be not totally satisfactory. Consequently, after further encouragement from the local municipalities, the province reconsidered the matter. It was through this action, along with further submissions from the Metro governments individually, as well as from the royal commission that was set up in 1963 to study the Metropolitan Toronto concept under Carl Goldenberg, that the real problem came into clear focus. The individual municipal governments within Metro, as well as Mr. Goldenberg in his report, recommended to the province that the Metropolitan Toronto government, being responsible for regional needs, had to be given that authority to deal with garbage disposal.

So it came to pass that the necessary enabling legislation was enacted and given effect from January 1, 1967. On that date the Metropolitan Toronto government took fall authority and control over that complex area.

One might ask what the capability of Metro was to deal with this problem on assuming these responsibilities, and what had been accomplished by the individual municipalities before the authority was passed over to the senior level of government.

It is interesting to note that at the time Metro did take over this responsibility, there were within Metro Toronto five incinerators, two landfill sites and five transfer stations which had been set up.

I might indicate that there really are only two basic ways and means of disposing of solid waste, burn it or bury it. A variation of the latter has evolved in recent times through sophisticated technology where, primarily through the initiative of this government and the Ministry of the Environment, we have developed ways and means of trying to some extent to deal with the problem by waste recovery techniques. This is a variation on which I would like to, and will, elaborate upon at some depth in a few moments. But, essentially and basically, there are only two means by which we can realistically and effectively deal with solid waste disposal: incineration and the burying of the waste in landfill sites.

In other jurisdictions the opportunity does exist to bury solid wastes in a fashion other than burying it in the ground that is to bury it at sea. This is one of the very significant ways in which the city of New York sees a way of dealing with the problem when hundreds of tons of solid waste, properly contained and sealed, are shipped out to sea every day of the week and dropped into the Atlantic Ocean in designated containment areas.

We don’t have that opportunity to rely upon burying of waste at sea in this jurisdiction and I don’t think it was ever considered, or should be, that the Great Lakes should be used for this purpose. We are restricted to the burying of garbage in landfill sites, that is, to use the crass term, in holes in the ground.

At the time that Metro came on to the scene on a full-scale basis, as I indicated a moment ago, there were five incinerators operating within Metropolitan Toronto; the Grand Street, Wellington Street and Commissioner Street incinerators, all of which were located in the city core area. The Grand Street incinerator actually was out in the Mimico Creek area.

Mr. Nixon: My God, this is uplifting.

Mr. Williams: That was somewhat west of the downtown area. In addition to that, there was the Ingram facility in North York, and more recently the Dufferin Street incinerator, which was also constructed in North York. I might point out that in those days each of the municipalities had to find the capital resources with which to build these facilities within its own community or municipality. In addition to the ones I have cited, there was the old Forest Hill incinerator the village of Forest Hill had and there was the Symes Road incinerator.

Today there are three incinerators in Metropolitan Toronto. There has been a marked decrease. Why, one might ask? Some of the incinerators I have named were totally inadequate for dealing with incineration today, based on the sheer volume of waste created every day in this metropolis.

Some of the facilities were totally inadequate, from a technical point of view, to meet the necessary environmental standards. Others were totally undersized and totally unequipped to deal with the problem we have today.

For this reason, it was necessary indeed, based on directions from this government, to close down some of those facilities. Decreasing the number of incinerators within Metropolitan Toronto meant that the growing volume of waste had to be transferred increasingly to the other option, that is the development and use of landfill sites.

In Metropolitan Toronto we are creating about 2,000,000 tons of solid waste annually. If I may illustrate how much waste that means, you could put it in the exhibition ballpark, pile it higher than the CN tower, and still need room for garbage elsewhere. That’s the magnitude of the problem, Mr. Speaker. It’s a serious problem and one that has to be addressed here and now.

Within that period, as I have pointed out, reliance on incineration methods has decreased. Therefore, of necessity, reliance on landfill operations has had to increase.

In the early years there were a number of small sites operated within the Metropolitan Toronto area; sites operated for as short a term as six months and maybe as long as a year and a half to two years.

The only two major facilities developed and operated within the Metropolitan Toronto area -- which in fact have kept Metro Toronto free of vast volumes of solid waste -- are in the northwest, the Factory Road site, and, in the northeast the Beare Road site.

Now, as we all know, the Factory Road site is finished. It is no longer being operated. It was finished last year. The Beare Road site will reach its capacity within the next 12-month period.

Mr. J. Reed: Two more desert areas created.

Mr. Williams: The Beare Road site, of course, once it is finished will be converted into a recreational facility. It will accommodate a viable skiing operation, operated, I presume, on a municipal basis. It will accommodate the recreational needs of many people in the east end of this great metropolis. This only reflects the fact that once many landfill sites are completed they are converted to productive, usually recreational, use.

Mr. J. Reed: Have you heard about the gas problem?

Mr. Williams: Many landfill sites that were formerly holes in the ground, or abandoned quarries, have been converted through the landfill program into productive, useable land resources again.

Mr. J. Reed: Nonsense.

Mr. Williams: Many of these facilities have been converted, as I say, to recreational uses and the Beare Road site is a perfect example.

Mr. J. Reed: Ask about the trouble they are having.

Mr. Williams: But, Mr. Speaker, the real, major concern is the fact that by the end of this year there will be no more landfill sites within the 240 square miles of Metropolitan Toronto. Now the very fact that we are on borrowed time in this regard is self evident because through the initiative of the Metropolitan Toronto government, of course, steps have been taken to try to deal with this short-term crisis by working with this government to find other landfill facilities within reasonable proximity of Metropolitan Toronto.

[5:30]

Mr. J. Reed: It generates 50 megawatts of power.

Mr. Williams: Indeed, a number of what they call transfer stations have been developed in Metropolitan Toronto in order to provide the technology and means by which garbage could be taken from the local municipalities by the equipment that’s operated by the different municipalities to the various transfer stations within their areas and taken by the larger Metropolitan Toronto vehicles out to the existing landfill sites at Beare Road and beyond. At this point of time, Mr. Speaker, there are seven transfer stations operating within Metropolitan Toronto. There are three of them which in fact are former incinerators which have been closed down for one or more of the various reasons I cited earlier.

There is the Grand Street facility which has been converted to a transfer station. There’s the Symes Road facility and also the Wellington Street facility. These three, having been closed down a number of years ago, are now being used for this purpose; but because they were not designed specifically to be transfer stations but rather incinerators they do not really have the suitable facilities to handle solid waste in large volume. The only transfer stations that are really designed to cope with the volume problem are those that have been specifically built for that purpose. I refer specifically to the Bermondsey transfer station in the northeast corner of North York and to the new Victoria Park station that has also been constructed and gone into operation in the northeast sector of the city of North York.

In addition, the existing Ingram incinerator, which is still operating in North York, is serving in a dual capacity as a transfer station. The new Downsview resource recovery plant is also serving in this capacity.

I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that since 1967 not one incinerator has been built in Metropolitan Toronto; that’s over a decade ago. In fact the last one to be built was while the local municipality still had responsibility to provide for solid waste disposal.

I had an opportunity to be a member of the then township of North York council which was wrestling with the problem at that time because it was a quickly growing municipality with a dramatically increasing population and resultant increasing volumes of solid waste. The only resources we had available to us within the township at that time was the heretofore referred to Ingram Avenue incinerator. That incinerator was located in the west end of North York and was not adequate to deal with the total problem within the township, so the municipality on its own initiative had to embark upon a stepped-up program of either landfill operation or to provide additional incinerator facilities.

Mr. Lawlor: Are you going to deal with the watts from waste program?

Mr. Williams: I certainly am; give me time.

Mr. Lawlor: I sit here with bated breath.

Mr. Williams: So you should, it is going to be a revelation.

The township at that time decided to embark upon the construction of what is now known as the Dufferin Street incinerator. It was the last significant and major incinerator to be built within this region in the past decade.

After Metro Toronto assumed the responsibility, it is not that they did not themselves consider embarking upon an expanded incinerator program in the way of providing the capital dollars and plant and facilities, in fact one of the major undertakings of the Metro Toronto government after it assumed that responsibility in 1967 was to consider the construction of a major facility in the southwest of Metro, in Etobicoke. At that time consideration was given to the construction of the Kipling-Homer Avenue incinerator which would have had the capacity to deal with 1,000 tons of garbage on a daily basis. That project did not get off the ground, although it had a great deal of potential. Not only would it have been the most modern and sophisticated facility in the Metro area, but it would have had complementary facilities that would have had reclamation components built into it.

Mr. Lawlor: Put it in your riding.

Mr. Williams: Of course that is the whole problem with the matter of waste disposal. “Put it in your area”; that is what you hear all the time. No one wants to deal with the problem. They think there is a magic answer to it, that it is going to go away.

Mr. Lawlor: I take it that you are welcoming the next one, are you?

Mr. Williams: These are the same people who in dealing with the energy problem will say --

Mr. Lawlor: I will tell Godfrey you want one.

Mr. Mackenzie: Get the industry engineers up there tomorrow.

Mr. Williams: -- “Energy conservation will solve our problems; we don’t need new Hydro plants, whether they be conventional or nuclear. The problem is going to go away, just exercise greater conservation.”

Mr. Lawlor: Williams wants the garbage; Williams is offering --

Mr. Williams: This is the distorted perspective that I want to correct here today. I wouldn’t want the public perception to persist in that fashion, and I am amazed to hear it coming from an informed member --

Mr. Lawlor: Why don’t you lend yourself to the undistortion?

Mr. Williams: -- of the Legislature who would be taking that type of attitude.

Mr. Mackenzie: Let’s show leadership, bring it to your riding.

Mr. Lawlor: Wait until it happens to you, Williams.

Mr. Williams: It is just incomprehensible that we would have these kinds of remarks coming from members of this Legislature. This is why I felt it so important for me, tonight --

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, that holier than thou.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Williams: -- to bring the whole issue before this House and publicize the urgency of this problem of crisis proportions that is confronting Metropolitan Toronto.

The members of this House don’t seem to be paying attention to it and certainly are not talking about it; and they should be. They should be getting away from these distorted views of, “Don’t worry, the problem will go away; just put it in somebody else’s backyard.”

Mr. Lawlor: If your government would take the proper methods and use the Kingston experiment they might do something.

Mr. Williams: The off-the-cuff interjections by the members are really starting to highlight the nature of the problem; the distorted thinking and the illogical, irrational approach that is being taken to the problem.

Mr. Lawlor: It is beginning to get a bit dull around here.

Mr. Mackenzie: Highlighting the distortion across the chamber, like the distortion that is speaking.

Mr. Williams: We have heard debate in estimates in his House in the past from some members of this House suggesting that we don’t want more landfill, we don’t want incineration; they are all going to contaminate the atmosphere. But they don’t have the alternative answers. They think that watts from waste is going to be the panacea, the total solution to the problem. That is an Alice in Wonderland attitude, but we have to face realities. Most certainly through the initiative of this government and the Minister of the Environment great strides have been taken to introduce the new technology in the resource recovery field --

Mr. Mackenzie: Now we are hearing Alice in Wonderland, and he is Alice.

Mr. Williams: -- and I will be dealing with this matter in some depth. But I want to make it abundantly clear that --

Mr. Lawlor: Williams just went through the looking glass.

Mr. Mackenzie: This is cruel and unusual punishment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Warner: Another filibuster.

Mr. Williams: -- that capability alone is not going to solve the problem of waste disposal. The basic fact of the matter is that of the 2,000,000 tons of garbage generated in Metropolitan Toronto every year, approximately 70 per cent must continue to be handled by conventional means. That means either incineration or the operation of landfill sites.

Interjections.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, there is no alternative answer to that basic fact of life. We have to face up to that problem and we have to face up to that problem realistically.

This minister is making great strides in endeavouring to minimize and reduce the reliance on incineration and landfill operations through the resource recovery program. But it will not replace those two basic components in the waste disposal program of Metropolitan Toronto. No matter how many millions of dollars this government chooses to put into the resource recovery program, no matter how quickly those dollars are spent to build capital plant facilities, they could not, even if unlimited numbers of such facilities were to be built between now and the end of the century, be built in time to even begin to cope with the problem. For this reason alone we must continue to rely on the conventional facilities available to us, and make provision for additional such facilities as the need dictates. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the need is here now. It is an immediate and critical need.

Mr. Lawlor: Lord, man, it has been around for over 10 years and you have been reluctant to face it. What kind of a government --

Mr. Williams: If, in fact, the government had not, through the Minister of the Environment, approved the Pickering landfill facilities, the crisis today would be such that garbage would indeed be starting to pile up, as private compost heaps, on the lawns and in the backyards of the members from Metropolitan Toronto and the rest of the citizens of this fine metropolis. The member for Lakeshore would probably be one of the first to find the need to develop a compost heap in his backyard to deal with the vast quantities of garbage that I’m sure is generated from his home, as from every other home in Metropolitan Toronto. The crisis would have been beyond redemption if, in fact, the Pickering facility had not been opened.

The fact of the matter is that when the Beare Road site is completed this year the only operating facility with proximity to Metropolitan Toronto will be the Pickering landfill site.

Mr. Lawlor: You know the experimental project at Queen’s University in Kingston which your government wiped out, they cut off all the funding.

Mr. Williams: At this point of time even the vast capacity of the Brock West facility, now expanded from approximately 7,000,000 to 8,500,000 million tons, even that facility will be completely filled with waste by 1983. Until new landfill locations can be located, engineered, developed and brought on stream, or new incinerators built, the only thing keeping us from the brink of disaster in this area is the fact that the Pickering, Brock West, Brock North and Brock South facilities can carry us through, but to no later than 1985.

[5:45]

We are indeed living in a world of make-believe if we persist in putting off this problem. It has to be dealt with immediately. This is not to say or imply that the Ministry of the Environment is not aware of this situation and is not doing something about it because indeed it is. I will be elaborating on this matter as to how our ministry is dealing with this problem.

Mr. Lawlor: He must be really aware, otherwise you wouldn’t be speaking in such horrendous terms.

Mr. Williams: I want to point out at this time how the provincial government has come into an area that has been largely reserved up until recent times to the local municipalities, and most recently to Metropolitan Toronto. I must say that the problem is one that needs joint consultation, joint involvement, and a joint undertaking though the whole process by local governments and the provincial authorities.

This team effort has been evolving and developing at a considerable pace, and none too soon. The province has started to realize that since it came into the field in 1970, when legislation brought into existence -- the waste management legislation which subsequently became the environmental protection legislation -- from that time forward this government has taken an ambitious and aggressive stance in dealing with this problem, working in liaison with the Metropolitan Toronto authorities.

Mr. Mackenzie: Alice in Wonderland.

Mr. Williams: In dealing with this problem, one of the first steps the ministry took was to assist in expediting necessary environmental approvals for the Pickering facility. Were it not for that facility now being available to us the crisis would have hit much sooner and would have reached much greater proportions.

One of the first steps the ministry took after entering into this field was to commission a major study to be undertaken, which came to be known as the metropolitan area waste management study. This study was undertaken by two firms of consultants on a consortium basis. James F. MacLaren Limited and M. M. Dillon Limited collaborated on the undertaking of this major study, which was published in 1976 and which I believe brought the whole matter and concern for solid waste disposal within the Metropolitan Toronto area to a new plateau.

This study clearly identified the needs, the existing shortcomings and the directions in which this government, working in league with the Metropolitan Toronto government, had to move if we were to continue at least to keep pace with the growing volume of solid wastes and the need for disposal thereof. This study made a number of recommendations, some of which were directed to local government and others which placed responsibility on this government for finding solutions.

The report clearly pointed out that there had to be a greater consultative and co-operative effort among local governments. I would point out that this particular waste management study was developed not only to deal with the Metropolitan Toronto waste disposal problem, but as well with the problems of the adjoining regional municipalities of Peel, York and Durham. For that reason, it was called the metropolitan area waste management study, because a broader area geographically was taken into consideration in recognition of the fact that the whole problem of solid waste disposal could not be confined within the political boundaries of any one municipality or region. It was most appropriate that such a study was undertaken and given as broad a base as it was, because to have done otherwise would have meant a study that at least would have been unrealistic.

One of the major recommendations of the study was that the four regions involved in that study should prepare a detailed master plan for solid waste management to provide for integrated solid waste management systems.

The Ministry of the Environment responded to this situation by setting up its own committee, which has been identified as the Metropolitan Toronto and area waste management committee, and which is under the present chairmanship of Mr. Cockburn, who is the director, central region, of the ministry. This committee has the responsibility for endeavouring to co-ordinate the activities of the four regions that come under the umbrella of this particular study, and a great deal of progress has been made in attempting to have a better co-ordination of effort between these municipalities.

One of the problems that has existed in the past was that local governments tended to want to retain the responsibility for waste disposal until they found that the problem had become so big, and the cost associated with dealing with the problem so great, that they no longer had the financial capacity and other technical resources to deal with the problem.

For this reason the study recommended that the regional acts should be amended to give full authority to York, Durham and Peel to be able to deal with the problem on a regional basis, as Metropolitan Toronto currently has that authority.

One of the interesting anomalies that exist at the present time is that, while the regions of Durham and Peel have authority to deal effectively with the problem, the region of York has been denied this right, I guess just through circumstance when the legislation was being prepared. But, in any event, York region has been denied the responsibility and authority for dealing with solid waste within its jurisdiction.

This in itself has created some problems which have required the Metropolitan Toronto and area waste management committee to set up another resource committee to deal specifically with Metropolitan Toronto and York region to see if they together could not resolve this problem and deal on a joint basis with the problem of finding the necessary landfill sites or incinerator locations to accommodate the waste disposal that will be generated by those two regions over the next two decades.

At the present time the waste management committee that I have been referring to has determined in its ongoing studies that approximately 3,500,000 tons of solid waste will be generated within the region by 1985 and almost 4,500,000 tons by 1995. The projections indicate that by the turn of the century the four regional municipalities within the area study will be generating in excess of 5,000,000 tons of garbage per year. This is a massive problem that requires extensive capital investment, the development of massive capital resources to deal with it.

Mr. Lawlor: How can you speak for this length of time without once mentioning the word “recycling”?

Mr. Williams: After the dinner break, I will be dealing with the resource recovery programs that exist and are on stream within the Metropolitan Toronto area and that are being developed through the initiative of the Minister of the Environment.

I think the member for Lakeshore will have his illusions shattered when he learns how actively and aggressively the ministry is making headway in the whole matter of resource recovery.

Mr. Lawlor: I’m sure I’ll be pulverized -- into garbage.

Mr. Williams: I hope the member will be first in his seat after the dinner hour to hear words of wisdom and become informed and brought completely up to date on what is happening in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

Mr. Lawlor: You wrap me up like a bale. I’ll be shredded.

Mr. Williams: In the few minutes left to me before the dinner recess, I would like to dwell further on the magnitude of the problem that exists, as identified by the waste management study that was undertaken.

It is quite clear that the local municipalities, even at the regional level, cannot on their own initiative cope with the problem any longer. The Ministry of the Environment, through its initiative and in co-ordination with these municipalities, has to come to grips with this existing crisis. The only means by which they can do so is on an ongoing basis, whereby a great deal of capital dollars and technical input has to he brought forward and provided on an on-going basis.

After the dinner hour, I will elaborate on how the province specifically will be making its initiative and endeavouring to at least contain the crisis that currently exists. It is no more than a matter of containment. It is not a resolution of the problem unless we are prepared to recognize and, as a government, assist the regional municipalities in providing the necessary conventional waste disposal facilities which are lacking at this present time.

Mr. Acting Speaker: This might be a reasonable time to ask the honourable member to break his speech.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.