Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

REPORTS

STANDING PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE (CONCLUDED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the interim report of the standing public accounts committee, dated March 31, 1979, respecting the Royal Ontario Museum.

Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, to make some of the members who weren’t here last Thursday aware of the circumstances, the standing public accounts committee at its meeting on Thursday morning passed a motion, moved by the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson). The motion has been read. I don’t know that it’s necessary to read it again, but I’ll be happy to do so. It reads as follows:

“The committee recommends that the Royal Ontario Museum furnish the committee with the most current monthly financial statements and current budget of the Royal Ontario Museum for analysis by the provincial auditor, such statement analysis to be returned to the committee within three weeks and preferably two weeks.

“The committee further recommends that the Minister of Culture and Recreation, the Deputy Minister of Culture and Recreation, together with the chairman of the board of the Royal Ontario Museum and the director of the Royal Ontario Museum, attend the committee’s deliberations of the matter.”

The purpose of the interim report was to provide authority for the provincial auditor to look at the current year’s material. At this time, he is charged with the responsibility for the period 1977-78. Under the present legislation, the provincial auditor does not personally audit the books of the Royal Ontario Museum. The committee felt that it would be in the best interests of everyone if we could explain this and get some answers to arrive at a full understanding of the current dialogue that is taking place with regard to the museum.

Without going into some of the confusion that arose last Thursday, the intent was to merely obtain clearance for the auditor to do his work and give the public accounts committee the benefit of his advice.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Doesn’t he have authority under the Audit Act now?

Mr. Hall: Under the new act he will have the authority in the 1979 year, but not in the year that is involved.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to support this motion and make a few very brief comments on it.

In the first place, the matters which were of concern to the public accounts committee were the payment to consultants of about $300 a day or $500 a day, in the sort of open-ended contracts under which nobody seemed to know what they were doing, what would be the total amount of money spent and what we would have received in return.

What bothered me about that motion was that when it was introduced last Thursday, this Legislature wasn’t asking the Liberal Party, the NDP or the Tory party to investigate the books of the Royal Ontario Museum. It was asking the auditor of the province of Ontario to investigate the books of the Royal Ontario Museum, and the Tories over there, that collection over there, balked at it.

Mr. Nixon: That’s not much of a collection of them here tonight.

Mr. Makarchuk: They had an opportunity on Thursday to introduce a motion so that the auditor could start working on it immediately and they refused to do it until today. That bothers me, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Welch: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable House leader.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the member for Brantford knows very well why this matter has not been debated until now. Rule 30(c) provides that when reports come in from standing committees containing recommendations with substantive matters the person bringing in the report moves the adjournment of the debate. The adjournment of the debate was, in fact, moved. The order has been called. I think it’s very unfair to suggest the government has opposed this particular matter. How does the member come to that conclusion until such time as the question is put tonight?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I should remind honourable members, of course, that was the opinion given by the acting House leader (Mr. Grossman) while he had that responsibility, and it is one with which we in fact concur.

Mr. Makarchuk: In speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned the acting House leader had the opportunity to enter that same motion which would have been acted on at that time in the House. He had the option but refused to do it. I think that has to be made clear as well. The government has the power to introduce motions.

Mr. Kennedy: That’s not so. You don’t have an option in standing orders.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The procedure we are following is in order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The procedural aspect of this question has really been dealt with, I hope, to the satisfaction of all members who were present last Thursday. We’re dealing with the substance of this report and I hope members will confine their remarks to that.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, to conclude my remarks: the concern, of course, is that up to $4 million has been spent to this time by the Royal Ontario Museum on various groups, bodies, consultants, fund raisers and so on, including members of the Tory party, and I would like to know exactly what we have got. What does the public of Ontario have in return for this funding? I hope the auditor will enlighten us on that point.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to the motion?

Mr. Peterson: If I may, at the outset I would like to address my remarks a little bit to the procedural aspects of what transpired --

Mr. Speaker: No, I’ve ruled that it has been dealt with.

Mr. Peterson: -- and how it got to this House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: As long as you’re dealing with the substance of the report.

Mr. Peterson: After you hear them I’m sure that you will agree with me that they are totally in order.

I, personally, am one who would like to thank the acting House leader of the time, and the House leader now for calling this order so quickly recognizing that we did have a difference in which we were all as members of this House, involved. Legitimately, the government did not have to bring this matter forward for some longer period of time than has in fact transpired. I am one, although I participated in that particular procedural debate, who recognizes that in the circumstances the government has acted very fairly and I appreciate that very much. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that time is of the essence, and I think the government recognizes that.

We are not here tonight by virtue of this particular motion to cast aspersions or point fingers. Nevertheless, we all know the situation through press reports and through a great deal of controversy about this particular issue. As legislators we are responsible for this particular venerable institution. I hasten to point out that I am one who has a great respect for this institution. I believe it has to survive and it has to survive well. Personally, coming from London, Ontario, my first memories of Toronto are of visiting the dinosaurs and the mummies, some of whom now sit on the Tory benches.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Now you just visit the mummies.

Mr. Peterson: Those are some of the first and most glorious memories I have.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That was when there were more Tories.

Mr. Peterson: I’m a little disappointed that they’re now running the government in this province.

But let me say that I don’t think any of us are here by virtue of this motion to cast aspersions or to look for blame. What has transpired is that this matter has come before the social development committee. To the best of my knowledge, and I may be wrong, there has been no resolution of the problem. I think there are enough unanswered questions that this modest and unassuming motion coming from the public accounts committee is a good one.

Mr. Nixon: Authored by the member for London Centre.

Mr. Peterson: I say in some modesty that it was my motion, but I say also that it was voted for unanimously.

I am concerned about this. Again, I thank the House leader. Time is of the essence for several reasons. They are in the middle of a very important fund-raising project, as I understand. They have raised about $6.7 million of a target of about $10 million; that means about $3.3 million is still to come. As legislators we don’t want in any way to jeopardize that money.

We also recognize that the books of the Royal Ontario Museum have been fully audited, as I understand it, with an unqualified opinion from their auditors, Clarkson Gordon and Company. We are not suggesting there are surreptitious or untoward things going on in the books of the ROM. What we are suggesting is that with the new concept of value for money perhaps there are certain things and certain legislative input we could provide, and hopefully once and for all, on a non-partisan basis, clear up some of the questions we are facing.

Obviously it was a matter of some concern to some of my colleagues on the committee that the director of the ROM was not there and that the minister was not there. One of the matters this motion deals with is bringing the responsible people, such as the chairman of the board, before the committee. If there are problems, then obviously a lot of responsibility rests with the executive director as well as with the minister and the deputy minister.

What has happened is that we have had sort of half-answers -- I wouldn't use the word “half-truths” -- and shaded kinds of opinions coming out of the ministry on what is going to transpire. Is it going to close; is it not going to close? What is the minister’s opinion? One has the clear impression that the minister didn’t know until recently that the museum may close. We have had a myriad of opinions on that. It won’t close or it will close for one year; for 16 months or possibly for four years. I think all the press attention to this has been a little bit damaging to the museum. I say on behalf of my colleagues that we have a strong commitment to this organization, It is a world-class institution of which we are justifiably proud on our side of the House. But there are enough questions that the matter has to be dealt with on a nonpartisan basis. My colleagues feel this is best done before the public accounts committee and it is best done as quickly as possible.

As I said earlier, this is not an internal audit. What this will do is deal with the latest financial statements and the budget and make sure they are relatively on track. We are concerned about the fact that there have been press reports and some evidence to indicate there will be a very substantial deficit over the next year because of a potential closing while the renovations are going on. We are also concerned about the fact there have been deficits for the past three years. They have eaten into the general reserves of that particular institution. One only has to look at the budgetary practices of this government, and transpose those on to an organization like the museum to realize it is headed for trouble in that not-too-distant future unless we address our minds collectively to that problem and do something about it.

There is no question that over the past three or four years the government has been very parsimonious with this great institution, but no more parsimonious than it has been with various other institutions and we may have to look at the whole method of funding; we may have to look at the whole structure of how the Royal Ontario Museum is funded.

[8:15]

When I look at some of the details -- and I do not want to go into great detail -- I see, for instance, a grant of $124,000 from Wintario last year to the ROM to build up audience, an audience development grant. When I see such a $124,000 matching grant given to the museum, which obviously has to come up with an equivalent amount of money at the same time as it is running a deficit of $300,000 or $400,000, I have to ask, where are the priorities? Should we be putting that money into an advertising and publicity campaign when we are about to face a closing?

There are a lot of things, albeit we are facing one of the most confused accounting systems I have ever seen in my life -- which may be somewhat justified, because there are general accounts as well as trust accounts and expansion accounts. It seems to be very much a matter of judgement which particular item is put into which particular account. It needs a great deal of explaining. I am not suggesting it is in any way dishonest, but there are certain judgements brought to bear on this matter that need a great deal of explanation and probably subject themselves to a great deal of second-guessing.

Because of grants such as the audience development grant and because of this kind of handling of the situation, the matter has to come before a legislative committee once and for all so that we can look at it collectively and apply our judgement.

I think I speak with frankness when I say my colleagues from the New Democratic Party probably share the same kind of view I have; we share the same respect for this organization. My friend from Brantford has some very serious reservations about the $4 million or so that has already been spent on consulting fees, particularly in view of the fact that it is a $44-million project, for which we have never had a commitment from the federal government for the last $15 million or so. That is a little bit scary.

We would like to know a little bit more about the psychology of a board -- let us not forget that 15 members of that board are appointed by this government; there has been a lot of controversy about that -- which has made some judgements that cause serious people to say, “We need, and we are obliged to have, an explanation.” Let us not forget that out of the $44 million for the expansion program, all but $10 million -- presumably raised by the private sector -- is public money, administered entirely by a board, 15 of whose members are appointed by the government and three of whom are appointed by the membership. That in itself is cause for alarm.

If we did not present this report to the Legislature, we would be less than responsible in my judgement. That is why I am asking all members for their support. We have asked the provincial auditor to move as quickly as he possibly can. If he is not satisfied with certain things, this may drag out longer than we would ideally like. In any event, we have an obligation to move quickly and to put this matter to rest, if at all possible, or to solve the matter as it stands.

I have two other thoughts I would like to share with you, Mr. Speaker. I was very unhappy with the board structure at the ROM -- and this will be debated later, I assume -- and I compliment my friend from Dovercourt, who presented a bill to change the board structure. I might argue with some of the numbers, but I think it is a progressive move and something I look forward to. I hope it is debated in this Legislature later. I think the board structure is archaic. I am a little harsh when I say it is a repository for political hacks, but I am not very far off when I say it could be brought into far more responsibility and accountability than it has at present.

There is one other thing that has to be addressed, and I hope the public accounts committee can have a major influence on this. Through the press and through anonymous letters, we are all aware of what we at least perceive, without being able to prove, as deteriorating morale among the curators and the curatorial staff of that museum. That disturbs me very much, because we do not like to see that in any institution. On the other hand, the board of directors and the director were faced with an anonymous letter from the curatorial staff, which I regard as a cowardly and snivelling act. If they have anything to contribute to this debate, they should be called before the public accounts committee. If we knew who they were, or if they had the courage -- I assume they will probably read Hansard, because they have an interest -- I would hope those people, whoever they are, would come forward, come before our committee and present their point of view, because this seems to be the forum of last resort. All of my colleagues, from all three parties I say with pride, are quite prepared to deal with this fairly and dispassionately. This hopefully will put to rest any of the false rumours and let officials at the ROM get on with the great job they have ahead of them of providing the kinds of services they do for the people and for the children of this province.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to prolong this debate here tonight at all.

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you just resign?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I look forward to saying what I will want to say at the time we appear before the public accounts committee. As I indicated in the statement this afternoon to the House, I welcome, and I know that Mr. Hermant the chairman of the Royal Ontario Museum board and Dr. Cruise the director of ROM welcome, the opportunity of appearing before the public accounts committee and having the provincial auditor take a very good hard, detailed look at the financing, financial arrangements and financial administration of ROM. We do this, really, essentially because of the feelings we have that this I is the only way to help dispel a great deal of the cloud of suspicion I feel has unfortunately and artificially been built up around ROM and its management. We do this to get to the bottom of the kind of aspersions that have been cast repeatedly. We’ve just heard again tonight from the honourable member for Brantford what I think are irresponsible aspersions.

Mr. Makarchuk: You are irresponsible when you waste public funds and you’ve been doing that all along.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We will find out when the provincial auditor takes a good look at it. I would only like to say that I too feel very much as the representative for London Centre has indicated, for heaven’s sake, let’s keep our approach to ROM on a non-partisan basis, because ROM is far too big, far too important an institution for Toronto, for Ontario, for Canada, and for the world to --

Mr. Makarchuk: Every time you get caught with your fingers in the pot you say “Let’s be non-partisan.” Baloney.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: -- be playing the kind of cheap politics the honourable member for Brantford has been playing. His groundless aspersions, I am sure, are going to make him look a bit silly in about two weeks’ time; I can guarantee him that.

Mr. McClellan: What is going to happen in two weeks? You are going to be stuffed and mounted in two weeks.

Mr. Grande: You brought it to this point.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Anyway, without getting into the argument here any further, we are delighted we welcome the full and open investigation to which the provincial auditor is going to submit ROM.

Mr. Warner: I am sure they have a place for you in that building, underneath the totem pole.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I just want to address myself briefly to this matter. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was not able to be at public accounts last Thursday when this matter arose.

However, I have gone over the Hansard for that time dealing with the matters in regard to the Royal Ontario Museum. There were certainly more questions raised in the committee than answered. The exercise we are going through will be a very healthy one indeed, as the minister amongst others has pointed out.

I think it’s important the point be made that in fact, this is a de facto expression of the new Audit Act we passed in December 1977. That particular act provides that the auditor of the province could look at the expenditures of the government in terms of value for money, a concept that is relatively new in Canada, in regard to ensuring the taxpayer’s dollar is spent with due regard for economy and efficiency. In very basic terms what that means is that the auditor can follow the dollar of taxpayer’s money -- whether it be by grant, subsidy, transfer payment, whatever -- to the donee and its ultimate disposition to ensure the taxpayers are getting their money’s worth.

I think probably this is the first opportunity the public accounts committee will have had to put that principle in the act to a very practical purpose. I think we will find the powers under the Audit Act, in section 9 and in section 12 particularly, will be to the benefit of the people of this province.

I gather from the minister’s remarks in the House tonight and in a statement earlier the government is prepared to accept the motion of the public accounts committee and so direct the auditor to do this investigation into wrong. This is an occasion of the very first importance and I hope the government will be as amenable when the public accounts committee comes up with others.

Mr. Grande: I thought maybe I would never be recognized, but thank you, Mr. Speaker; I rise to support the recommendation from the public accounts committee. I think it is the very least that needs to be done, and it needs to be done very fast. Of course, let us not forget that the person responsible for bringing the situation to this point, bringing about the loss of credibility the museum might suffer, is the Minister of Culture and Recreation; it results from his inaction.

Back at the beginning of April, there was evidence presented by the director that was given to the social development committee. The committee accepted that evidence in good faith and two weeks later we find that all of those facts and figures were wrong, in essence. At that time the minister was flippant with the press, saying: “I am going to go to the bottom of this,” et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum.

But in effect the minister sat and did nothing until the whole thing exploded into the press. Then the minister and the government really had no option. Giving it to the public accounts committee is the very least that should have been done. What the minister should have done at the end of April, when he found the museum was not giving him, as he claimed, the facts and figures as they existed, is call for an inquiry into the museum, both in terms of finances and in terms of the low morale that existed. We don’t need 15 or 20 unknown curators sending a letter to the Legislature because they do not want to go through the existing structures for fear of losing their jobs. That’s exactly the way the situation is. I know the minister does not like to hear these things but that’s exactly the way it stands.

I certainly don’t know, to this point, whether or not there’s mismanagement of the museum. I certainly don’t know whether there is overspending, or whether there is, as some people allege, feather-bedding. I certainly don’t know whether the freeze on hiring that was supposed to be established in 1975 was established or whether in the years 1976-1977-1978 we added 40 to 50 more people at the museum. I don’t know if these things exist, but I suppose the provincial auditor will take a look at that and at whether there’s been mismanagement of the finances.

[8:30]

What I do know is that the morale at the museum has been at the lowest point in its history. What I do know is that the minister and the ministry did not take this problem sooner and do something about it and I think the minister should accept full responsibility for that, for having come to this particular point without action.

I do know for a fact there were meetings supposedly between the administration of the museum and the minister. I do know for a fact the minister said that he would keep the people in the social development committee updated in terms of what is happening in those meetings. And I do know for a fact I did not receive any information about those meetings.

If the minister wanted to heal the problem at the museum in some kind of a backroom fashion, well, that is fine; if that is his style, that is his style. However, once the social development committee, a committee of this Legislature, received financial information that was not correct; once the layoffs that were supposed to have occurred were no longer going to occur; once the minister had a meeting with Dr. Cruise at the museum and the minister supposedly promised funds to go to the museum, and then we find out from Dr. Wright, your deputy minister, that no such agreement was reached, then something is wrong.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, just to keep the members of the Legislature updated in these kinds of things, there was a statement that the director of the museum made to the staff which said: “I am personally delighted to report that our board of trustees, particularly through the finance committee and the Minister of Culture and Recreation, the Honourable Reuben C. Baetz, have become convinced of the absolute necessity of avoiding layoffs of the Royal Ontario Museum staff numbers as a result of the current fiscal stringencies. Consequently, extraordinary arrangements will be made by both our board and the minister to assist us in our efforts to retain the fullest possible staff complement throughout the 1979-80 fiscal year. Mr. Baetz will issue a press release on this subject before the end of the week.”

That is when the minister was supposed to act. The date of this memorandum is Friday, April 27; in other words, two and a half weeks after the social development committee hearing. That clearly was the time at which the minister could have acted, but the minister allowed the credibility of the museum, of the staff, of the administration of the museum, really to go downhill from that point on. That is the reason why, if the museum has suffered any loss of credibility, the Minister of Culture and Recreation should accept full responsibility for that. The least -- I repeat, the least -- that the minister and the government should do is to allow the provincial auditor to audit the financial statements of the museum.

I hope that the minister, some time within the next two to three weeks, will take a look at the private member’s bill I presented in this Legislature. I think it makes a lot of sense. I think the day is gone when boards that work on behalf of the public and make public decisions should remain virtually closed with no public access to them, and the board at the museum is one of these many boards.

I just leave the minister with this thought. I hope he takes a look at the private member’s bill and I hope he will introduce legislation to make sure that that becomes a reality. With that, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for your indulgence.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: Aren’t we taking it in rotation? I don’t mind if the --

Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister has already spoken.

Mr. McClellan: Read the Order Paper, Reuben. This wouldn’t have happened to your friend.

Mr. S. Smith: It is interesting that the Royal Ontario Museum is now before us for discussion. It is a very great institution and one to which I am sure all of us are very dedicated, one whose health we all wish to preserve and whose future we wish to flourish.

But it is interesting as well that it is one of those places to which this government over the last 36 years has been appointing its friends to operate. I point out they have this at Ontario Place, at the Ontario Science Centre -- at Ontario Hydro, believe it or not, which is after all larger than most governments in North America. They have this basic situation after 36 years where partisans and friends of one party have been settling into sinecures in various posts in Ontario.

At the Royal Ontario Museum we have almost the archetype of that particular type of sinecure. We have a situation, perfectly obvious now to the population of Ontario, where the finances, although no one is suggesting irregularities or wrong-doing of any kind -- certainly there is no one in this House who would suggest such a thing -- where the finances appear to be, to put it mildly, in a shambles; where this House can be told one day in one of its committees anticipated receipts that the museum may expect, and be told two weeks later those figures are out by several hundred per cent.

We have a situation where among members of the staff, both the maintenance and curatorial staff, there is very real fear that because of the expansion certain expenses are being incurred -- either expenses due to certain movements within the museum or certain functions that have to be performed -- which would not otherwise have occurred had there not been an expansion. There is a concern, which I know the auditor will look at, that certain expenses which ought properly therefore to be related to the capital expansion are being covered out of operating revenue. And there is a fear among the staff that these moneys might more properly have been used -- if in fact it be the case that such moneys have been transferred to capital purposes -- in both salaries and other expenses within the museum operating budget. The auditor will undoubtedly be able to help us with regard to that.

But for me, in the opposition, the most fascinating aspect of this is to pass by the museum day after day and to see buses by the dozen lined up there with school children and with adults going to the museum to obtain the kind of experience, the kind of education, the kind of enlightenment which can only come from such a great institution. One sees the tourism component; the great addition which the museum represents to the tourism of the province of Ontario and the city of Toronto.

It is absolutely astonishing to me that any minister who would take on responsibility for a portfolio which involves that museum and who would see the countless thousands of people who depend upon that museum, directly and indirectly, would contemplate that museum might actually be closed to the public for purposes of renovation. In fact, I would have difficulty understanding it being closed for a week or for a month, let alone for years at a time. In the name of improvement of this institution, it would appear that certain planners have taken it upon themselves to consider its closure.

The amazing thing to me -- and one never knows in this world what responsibilities might be thrust upon one at some point --

Mr. Foulds: Don’t be too hopeful, Stuart.

Mr. S. Smith: -- just thinking about the matter of administration of government, one has to ask is it possible, is it conceivable, that a minister would hand out some $17 million or more for purposes of expansion and that no one in his ministry will bother to sit down with the group that is asking for that money in such a vital institution, to look over carefully, possibly with a fine-tooth comb, the planning for which that money is being apportioned. It is absolutely outrageous that when we rise in this House to ask the minister whether he was even told about the contemplated closing of that museum, he was for weeks unable to answer that and was unable to tell the members of this House whether he even knew that such a closing was contemplated, let alone the length of it.

On this day as we stand here now, we heard earlier that government policy is to have a minimum disruption. In the first place, it is interesting that the government has any policy on this particular matter. There has been precious little sign of it up to now during the last three and four months of this debate. The government’s policy is one of minimum disruption, whatever that means. We have that word from a minister who couldn’t even tell us here a couple of weeks ago whether he knew that the museum would be closed for the purpose of this expansion.

We have heard from certain experts that the closure might be now necessary because it would cost a lot of money to stretch out the process of making these improvements and expansions. Consequently, it might be a situation where the public should be told to expect the closure now or else pay more money for a lengthier expansion procedure later.

That is going about things completely backwards. First, the government should start by saying the museum is not going to be closed. Secondly, it would say: “Here is the amount of money available.” Thirdly, it should demand a plan to expand the museum within the budget available. Instead, they did things completely the wrong way round. They first gave out the money without looking at a plan. After that, they were told that it would be closed. Thirdly, they said: “My goodness, if it isn’t going to be closed, we won’t be able to do as big an expansion as we wanted to do in the first place.” What a fine way of painting the people of Ontario and the government of Ontario into a financial box!

It is beyond any dispute that the ministry, and particularly this minister, has failed in its duty to make certain it knew what the plans of expansion were in every detail, with every “C” crossed and every “I” dotted, before it assured anyone of the kinds of millions of dollars of public funds which were assured to the museum for its expansion.

One final word: We are told that the museum board is going to be able to give facts and figures to the auditor and that this cloud which the minister says has artificially been placed over the museum will be dissipated. The cloud is over the museum because of the utter incompetence of the minister. The cloud is over the museum because no one has bothered to make certain that a proper plan was presented before the money was handed over, instead of after the money was handed over.

The cloud should be removed from over the head of the museum, but the best way to do it would be, first of all, with a change of the government of the day. Secondly, until that happens there must surely be some fresh air brought into those cobwebbed halls of those Tory partisans who now consider themselves to be the directors and who over the years have been the directors of that public trust

Surely the time has come to have the public interest represented on that museum and to have certain elected people, if that be appropriate -- and I think it is very appropriate -- as part of that board. It is important that the membership, as suggested by the member for Oakwood, have more representation on the board. I would go even farther than he and have some elected people there as well. It is not good enough for someone to be on that board representing the curatorial interests or the maintenance interests or the interests of those who meet at the Ritz-Carleton or outside Holt Renfrew from time to time to discuss these matters.

Mr. Nixon: Sometimes inside.

Mr. S. Smith: It is important that the interests be maintained of the ordinary citizen, the students, the children, the people who go to that museum to learn and the people who depend on tourism. Someone on that board must be protecting the interests of those people. At the moment, there is no one on that board assigned the job basically of protecting the interests of the ordinary citizens of Ontario and it’s about time we had some elected representation on that board to do so.

[8:45]

I am pleased that all three parties, and in this I give credit to the government party, have agreed that the provincial auditor should be looking at these matters and I have every confidence that his investigation will be the kind of investigation which, as my colleague from Rainy River has pointed out, will show the value and the benefit of the new Audit Act, and I salute the fact that all three parties have agreed on this. But, lest we forget, I want to make it very plain that the problem lies in the minister, in the ministry, in their procedures, in their appointees on the board, and ultimately with the government of the day.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I thought there was rotation and we have had, since I spoke, one speaker there, one speaker from one opposition party, another speaker from the other opposition party, and no speaker from the government.

Mr. Speaker: Anyone from the government side who wants to speak and has not already spoken may do so. Members only have the opportunity to speak once in a debate. If anybody else wants to participate I would be happy to recognize him.

Do you have a point of order?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Do I have permission to speak again sometime in this debate?

Mr. Speaker: No. The minister has already spoken.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: To respond to some of this drivel that I hear from across the floor.

Mr. Speaker: No. This isn’t a government-sponsored bill.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Drivel. That’s all it is.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The chair has been very tolerant up to this point in time. I must remind all honourable members that the motion before the House is: “Your committee recommends that the Royal Ontario Museum furnish the committee with the most current monthly financial statement and budget of the Royal Ontario Museum for analysis by the provincial auditor, such statement analysis to be returned to the committee within three weeks, preferably two weeks.

“Your committee further recommends that the Minister of Culture and Recreation, the Deputy Minister of Culture and Recreation, together with the chairman of the board of the Royal Ontario Museum attend at the committee’s deliberations of that matter.” That is really what is before the House.

Mr. McClellan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I hadn’t intended to speak, I had actually come into the House to speak on the next agenda item which is the report of Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital, but because the Liberal Party is obviously wanting to string this debate out to avoid discussing the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital and their health critic is not even in the House, I will deal with this issue.

Mr. Speaker: Is the member going to deal with this issue or the next one?

Mr. McClellan: I’m dealing with this issue.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. McClellan: I just wanted to put a couple of concerns on the record in addition to the one that I just did put on the record, and that concern is this.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. If there is any situation here that has happened in the last few days that might constitute imputing of motives, that came closest to it.

Mr. McClellan: Far be it from me to impute motives, Mr. Speaker.

The issue before us is important. The issue came before the social development committee on April 11 for the first time. I had thought that I was the person on that committee who would first question Dr. Cruise about the state of the museum’s finances but I was wrong. The member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) from the Liberal Party had asked Dr. Cruise a question before I questioned Dr. Cruise about some doctor at the museum who was doing research connected with the Sportsmen’s Show. That was their contribution to the discussion.

The thing that concerns me very much is this: when I had the opportunity to question Dr. Cruise in front of the committee he gave information to me and to other members of the committee which turns out not to be accurate, not to be accurate at all. I don’t understand that kind of a state of affairs.

I had asked Dr. Cruise, “What’s happening at the museum?” -- as bluntly as that. I asked him to present us with the financial picture of the museum as of April 11, 1979, and Dr. Cruise came forward with what appeared to be a fairly plausible explanation of the museum’s financial affairs and indicated that with the payment of additional revenues in the order of $600,000 all of their problems would be solved. That turns out not to be true. It simply turns out not to be true.

I don’t know what the minister thought when he discovered that non-factual information had been given to the committee. I don’t know why the minister chose to treat it as flippantly as he did, as though it was some kind of minor peccadillo that could be shrugged off, when officials under his jurisdiction give fallacious information to a committee of the Legislature.

The minister isn’t even listening. I call attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the minister even now isn’t paying the slightest bit of attention. I’m sure he hasn’t heard a word I’ve said.

Mr. Nixon: He’s desperately perusing the rules.

Mr. McClellan: He may well be reading the rules of order.

Mr. Roy: That’s not fair. He’s just trying to learn procedure now.

Mr. McClellan: He may well be reading the rules of order to try to figure out how to behave in the House. He’s certainly not listening to the debate.

I welcome the resolution that’s in front of us because it will give an opportunity for a thorough scrutiny of the museum’s affairs as well as of the transparently phony information that was given to the committee.

The minister still isn’t listening.

This minister is a rare specimen. He moves into the ministry and within a matter of weeks the multicultural program is in a state of shambles; his officials are --

Mr. Peterson: Put your hands in your pockets, will you?

Mr. McClellan: I’m Italian. What can I do? The officials seem to be distorting the program for crass political purposes. The next thing we look at under this minister’s jurisdiction being the museum, we see such a can of worms that it is indescribable; it is incomprehensible to members of the Legislature.

The minister has a rare genius. He is a walking catastrophe. Everything he touches turns to chaos and discombobulation.

I hope he has found the appropriate page of the standing orders. It’s difficult to debate with such a stolid fellow.

At any rate, I support the motion. I hope we can pass it quickly and move on to the next item, which is the closing of Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I, too, hope that the motion can be passed quickly. But the member for Bellwoods, having entered the debate, has prompted me just to put forward one or two ideas, particularly since I see the provincial auditor in the gallery. I really welcome his presence because I hope some of the thoughts put forward from all sides will be of some assistance, perhaps small assistance, to him in carrying out the responsibilities that will descend on him following the passage of the motion.

The motion says in its middle paragraph:

“The committee recommends that the museum furnish the committee with the most current monthly financial statement and budget of the Royal Ontario Museum for analysis by the provincial auditor.”

My colleague, the chairman of the public accounts committee, has properly brought to our attention that that analysis is something more than adding and subtracting the figures to see how the balance comes out. It has to do with an objective judgement as to the quality of the services we are deriving from the expenditure of the money -- in fact, the quality of the administration and leadership of the Royal Ontario Museum.

I have always been impressed with the way the provincial auditor, who is a moderate man in all things, has seized on responsibilities such as this that have come to him properly from this House through the public accounts committee. I have felt his advice in this connection could never be identified as anything but moderate, intelligent, incisive and, certainly, very fair-minded. He has this reputation which means that his recommendations through the committee, and through the committee to this House, will be very significant indeed.

But I should also say I’m not nearly as sanguine as the minister in his comments that in two or three weeks from now we will see that all is well at the museum. My leader has pointed out in very strong and vivid terms the concern that all citizens have when we read the projections for the closing of that institution for some undetermined period of time, which will mean the facility will be cut off from the citizens, and particularly the students, of the province. As a matter of fact in some respects, the Royal Ontario Museum may very well be in some jeopardy because the government, through its expenditure of public funds in building the Ontario Science Centre and Ontario Place and the upgrading of the art gallery, has created many alternatives that vie with the museum for the public dollar and for the students and others who would go there.

It has been described recently as the sort of attic of the province. There is everything there from Queen Victoria’s wedding gown to pornographic hieroglyphics on Egyptian vases. And I can assure members that any intelligent 12-year-old can find them.

Mr. Peterson: How do you know?

Mr. Breithaupt: What do they say?

Mr. Nixon: I was 18 at the time.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Which exhibit did you notice?

Mr. Nixon: There has been a recent direct criticism of the museum -- and I don’t want to stray from the words of the resolution -- in Toronto Life. It brought to bear criticism on the minister, particularly for the judgement that has been shown in maintaining the present board -- the very deep concern that many people feel. The board kicked off its fund-raising opportunities at Holt Renfrew -- my colleague and leader made reference to this -- and it was more or less supported by the minister. He said at the opening of Holt Renfrew, the most prestigious and chic store on Bloor Street and many other streets, that through the generosity of his Wintario fund he would match dollar for dollar any money that was raised.

Even in that regard I hope the auditor will look at the efficacy of such a procedure. One cannot fulfil either the leadership of the museum or its clientele from the mansions of Rosedale or the penthouses on the Lakeshore. It’s got to appeal to the people of this city and, in fact, the whole province who perhaps do not associate with the first settlers in Waterloo county or even Brant.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Mr. Nixon: There are a lot of people who came into this province since the honourable minister’s forefathers came here who are maybe not so interested in what the Holt Renfrew set think is chic or where the best parties are given.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I’m not interested in that kind of rubbish. If you want to be nonpartisan --

Mr. Roy: You’ve had your chance to speak.

Mr. Nixon: This is a matter that must concern the members of this House. Members will recall on more than one occasion when the government has taken off the gloves and moved into an organization and put some order into it. I simply recall to the minister’s mind what the government had to do with the Ontario College of Art.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: First Peterson raving on, and now you want to make a big political football of this. Despicable.

Mr. Hennessy: Louder, Nixon, we can’t hear you.

Mr. Nixon: Well, the minister is gesturing. At least I’ve caught his attention. He has apparently decided not to rely on his predecessor, the former Minister of Culture and Recreation, who, I trust, will enter the debate before it concludes.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: We want to end the debate and get on with the public accounts of the province.

Mr. Nixon: I am very much in support of the motion. It is very cleverly and astutely drawn by the member for London Centre. It calls into play the more modern and effective responsibilities the committee on public accounts can use through the offices of the provincial auditor. We are hoping he will look at the information ancillary to these accounts.

[9:00]

For example, there is no reason at all he should not examine carefully the letter from the curators. The fact it was not signed by individual curators and so in that respect is anonymous should not prompt him or the minister to dismiss it. There is no question it was written by the curators and called for the kind of internal audit which must concern us and I’m sure will concern the provincial auditor.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: It was condemned by the other professional staff who said they were disgusted at the sending of the letter.

Mr. Nixon: I have no hesitation in supporting this motion. I have the greatest confidence in the auditor.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Then why don’t you let him get on with the job instead of standing there pulling off a grandstand?

Mr. Nixon: I must say the present minister, who has used up his proper opportunity to enter into this debate and is now interfering with the debate by interjection, is travelling a very difficult path.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: You’re grandstanding.

Mr. Nixon: I believe his ministry more and more is going to be brought to public attention because of the inefficiencies of the administration and the deep concern people have about the use of the funds collected in this province through Wintario.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Why don’t you let the provincial auditor get to the story then?

Mr. Roy: You’re embarrassed.

Mr. Nixon: We are very much concerned, for example, about his decision in support of the museum in such a cavalier way. We want the museum to be supported, but we want it to :be done in a fair and equitable manner.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: You’re wasting the time of this House.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 36, I move that this question be now put.

Mr. Mancini: That’s closure.

Mr. S. Smith: Are we not to hear from the member for Brock (Mr. Welch)?

Mr. Speaker: Is the member for Port Arthur moving the previous question?

Shall the previous question be put?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Why should we cut off debate?

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. S. Smith: Let’s hear from the previous minister. The present minister will tell him what to say.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in joining in this debate briefly --

Mr. McClellan: Where is Sean Conway?

Mr. Foulds: You are filibustering.

Mr. McClellan: Where is Sean Conway?

Mr. Foulds: You’re too chicken to discuss the Health report.

Mr. McClellan: Too cowardly to discuss Lakeshore.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- because it fell to me during my six years as chairman of the public accounts committee to be very concerned with respect to the audits of a variety of operations in the province. I was interested in relating to this motion with respect to the analysis by the provincial auditor that was referred to in the motion.

The chairman of the public accounts committee, my colleague from Rainy River, referred to the Audit Act and referred particularly to section 12 and the opportunity the provincial auditor now has to consider whether funds provided by provincial authorities --

Mr. Lawlor: The more unanimous, the longer the debate.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- are expended with due regard to economy and efficiency. This, I think, is a useful attribute of the provincial Audit Act and it’s one which I think should commend itself to all the members of this House.

A number of members have now spoken on the background and the operation of the museum. I think if we can put that to one side for now to consider the activities of the provincial auditor with respect to these areas we would indeed be well served in doing so.

The provincial auditor, over the years, has had an Audit Act now substantially different from that in effect in the federal field. I recall that, during the years when I was chairman of the public accounts committee, we had a circumstance whereby we really were not given the opportunity to see value judgements made on funds spent within the province. That, I believe, has changed, fortunately for the better. We have not only an Audit Act which involves itself more strongly in that area, but I believe we also have a provincial auditor who is quite prepared to make these value judgements and to advise the House on a solid and mature opinion as to whether funds have or have not been as well spent as they might have been in the public interest.

In the motion which has been brought before us through the vice-chairman, my colleague from Lincoln, and following the remarks and the motion made by the member for London Centre, it would appear we now have the opportunity for the first real use of the new Audit Act. I believe the circumstances have been clearly set out, and all members of the House are quite clearly of a view that there have been no irregularities or any miscreant involvement of the spending of public funds in this matter.

What we are looking at here is possibly a matter of some judgement, possibly a matter of the use of funds in one area when they might have been somewhat more peculiarly relevant to another area in the expansion of the museum, compared with the use of current day-to-day operating funds.

A number of members have referred on occasion to the letter which has been received from a group, apparently, of the curatorial staff in the museum. I do not necessarily share the view that these persons must necessarily reveal their names and make themselves immediately apparent to the investigating committee. I believe it would be a much better thing if they did so. However, if it is their wish to remain anonymous, they of course have that opportunity.

In that letter they have set forward a series of deeply held beliefs and concerns about the future of the museum and the future of the organization of which they are a part. To share those concerns with the House and with the general public is a most important decision. I think we have now the chance to review the statistical and accounting matters within the Royal Ontario Museum, one would hope in the best interest of all concerned. That interest includes those who have sent in that letter. It includes, of course, the many busloads of visitors and school children to whom my leader referred earlier. It also includes, of course, not only the general public of the province, but also all of us more particularly as members of the Legislature.

I am quite of a view that the minister who is responsible in this area is every bit as concerned about the operation of the museum as is any one of us. I do not for the moment view his involvement as being anything less than a general interest in the operation of the museum as he sees it. But we on this side of the House have been concerned about this whole circumstance; we have been concerned about the press comments and the involvement we have seen. Therefore, we welcome the opportunity for an independent and impartial audit of the current operating procedures within the museum.

Much has been said about the operation of the board of governors of the museum and the web and framework that exists across the province, with government appointees in this and many other branches, boards, commissions and agencies which involve and almost infect every aspect of life within the province. However, that has been referred to and I need not develop it further here.

Suffice it to say that I welcome this opportunity to see the use of the Audit Act and the value judgements involved, which the provincial auditor may make in this circumstance if he believes it worthwhile. I believe the analysis by the provincial auditor will be a most worthwhile one, and I certainly look forward to supporting this motion.

Mr. Sargent: A very brief observation, Mr. Speaker: We feel the Royal Ontario Museum belongs to the people of Ontario but, in my years in business, I cannot think of any business in the world with such a great potential for our people that could close for four years, or 17 months -- or any time at all -- for renovations. It is unbelievable.

The incredible situation here is that all through this debate the minister has been talking to the government House leader, trying to find out what the hell was going on and why he could not speak again. Most of us here know that one in the first week. The minister has been here a long time.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I wasn’t up to your tricks. You are filibustering. Why don’t you get on with the next piece of business? You’re a coward to get on with it.

Mr. Sargent: I say to the minister, please hear these two things. In all my years here, he is the only minister I ever saw who won’t answer his mail. He won’t answer his mail at all.

Mr. Peterson: You have got to be able to read to do that.

Mr. Sargent: Second, here, before the public accounts committee, we have the shocking, incredible situation. The minister’s deputy minister said he didn’t know if the museum was going to be closed for a year or four years or whatever. He said the minister didn’t know either.

Mr. Roy: Of course, that is no surprise.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Mr. Sargent: What I am concerned about is this thing spreads through the whole situation of the government. We have the deputy ministers trying to run the show when the ministers can’t give them any guidance. Here we have the minister in charge of the most flagrant political slush fund in all Canada, with his ability to run a business. From all I can see in this whole pattern, he has never yet proven any business ability in Hydro or anything, to divulge millions of dollars of our funds, unless it’s politically motivated. I say that’s my great concern in a thing like the ROM. The minister is playing politics with it.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Did the member for Etobicoke wish to speak? All right. The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I move this question now be put.

Mr. S. Smith: We want to hear from the House leader. We have no more speakers.

Mr. Acting Speaker: I’m sorry, the motion is out of order.

Mr. Nixon: No business has intervened.

Mr. Foulds: Two speakers have intervened.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Well, that’s not any business of the House.

Mr. Foulds: That is true, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Acting Speaker: That came out a little differently than I expected it to.

Mr. Foulds: It came out right on, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, we have no more speakers; I think the House leader of the government wishes to speak now.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Does the House leader of the government wish to speak?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The matter before us this evening is a consideration of two recommendations from the standing public accounts committee, in case that has eluded the attention of honourable members. There are two recommendations to which we have been asked to give some consideration. Perhaps we could start with the second.

The committee recommended the Royal Ontario Museum furnish the committee, the committee being the public accounts committee, with the most current monthly financial statements and budget of the Royal Ontario Museum for analysis by the provincial auditor. Such statements, analyses and so on, were to be returned to the committee within three weeks, and preferably within two weeks.

Second, there was a recommendation that the Minister of Culture and Recreation, the Deputy Minister of Culture and Recreation together with the chairman of the board of the Royal Ontario Museum and the director of the Royal Ontario Museum, attend at the committee’s deliberations of the matter.

The Minister of Culture and Recreation made it quite clear earlier today that be concurred with both of those recommendations. Indeed, it seemed to me to be quite in order that we would simply call this and agree to this and get on with the rest of the business that has been scheduled for this evening.

The member for London Centre, I think, set the very proper tone for this debate when he said he didn’t wish to see this reduced to any partisan issue. He made quite clear the great respect he and his colleagues bad for the museum, and the wonderful program at the museum. It was echoed by the Leader of the Opposition, who made reference to the long lines of school buses in front of the museum and the tremendous world-wide reputation which this institution holds. He expanded on this whole theme in an effort to impress this House through Hansard and through the media, with the very high respect in which the official opposition held the institution and all who laboured therein. That particular theme was expanded by speaker after speaker as the official opposition was avoiding --

[9:15]

Mr. T. P. Reid: You are a little rusty, but you are not doing badly.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- the second report which is soon to come before the House.

Mr. Peterson: How can you say all this with tongue in cheek and keep a straight face?

Hon. Mr. Welch: There were two matters, however, which the Leader of the Opposition made reference to which I do not feel can go unchallenged. I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition in all seriousness would not call into question the sincerity and the very high motivation of many public-spirited citizens who have accepted appointment to the board of trustees of the museum.

Mr. Peterson: it is your sincerity and your motivation.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Indeed I would think that we should record --

Mr. S. Smith: It’s not their sincerity or interest, it’s your partisanship.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Some of them speak very highly of the Leader of the Opposition, to tell the truth.

An hon. member: Name one.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The point is that they do have a respect for preservation in all its forms.

Mr. Kennedy: Including the Liberals.

Mr. Peterson: Self-preservation in your case.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would point out that we have men and women who have accepted the nomination to be members of this board who have the interests of the museum very close to their heart and hold it in the same high esteem --

Mr. Roy: Nobody denies that.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Your leader does.

Mr. Roy: It’s you people who are trying to make politics out of it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- as members of the opposition. I think it’s unfortunate that that sincerity and that motivation would be called into question or that any of those people would be questioned with respect to their judgement and their interest in and their concern for this institution. I simply felt compelled to stand and speak very solidly in favour of the devotion and the high sense of public service with --

Mr. Sargent: That’s a crock of nonsense and you know it. Talk about the points involved.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- which the members of the board of trustees discharged their responsibility.

Mr. Makarchuk: They are the same kind of bunch we had running Ontario Place when they cleaned it out of half a million bucks.

Mr. S. Smith: What about their political affiliation?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Actually, I am glad the Leader of the Opposition raised that question. We don’t ask people what their political affiliation is.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You don’t have to. You already know. They just all happen to be Tories.

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you call me some time?

An hon. member: You are jealous.

Mr. S. Smith: The CNE and the Science Centre too.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We just don’t ask that particular question. Because of the fact that such a high percentage of the people of this province happen to be supporters of this government, it would be logical that indeed that would reflect itself in this respect.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is 38 per cent.

Mr. S. Smith: One per cent of your appointees aren’t.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The other matter to which I would like to draw the attention of the House, before we call this question, is to remind the members of the statement my colleague, the Minister of Culture and Recreation, made earlier today in the Legislature, copies of which were distributed prior to it being read.

Mr. Nixon: Don’t remind us of that.

Mrs. Campbell: No, they weren’t.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Yes, they were.

Hon. Mr. Welch: In that my colleague makes some reference to the plans because these were called into question by the Leader of the Opposition as to whether or not there were any plans or some timetable with respect to the expansion and the renovation program --

Mr. S. Smith: I asked that three weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- I would draw attention to the statement made by my colleague earlier today, which will now be recorded in Hansard, where he goes on to make certain points about the museum’s expansion and renovation program.

He says in the course of that statement:

“The basic feature of the policy is that work should proceed in three distinct phases and that work on any one of these phases will not begin until all the money for that phase is either in hand or committed. This policy enabled the museum to start building the curatorial centre at an estimated cost of $25.6 million in April 1978. The cost of the curatorial centre has been covered by a $12.75 million grant from the government of Ontario; $6.7 million raised to date from voluntary donations,” which I think is a credit to the people of this province and some indication of their interest and theft support of this great institution, “and a matching $6.7 million” from those who are involved in that great two-weekly game called Wintario.

Mr. T. P. Reid: A game? Is that what it is?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The statement said: Construction of the curatorial centre is the largest of the three phases and will provide the curatorial staff for the first time with theft own offices and laboratory facilities. That means there will be more space for the viewing public and a place for the curators to do their work.”

The important point, as he said, is that “no decision has been made on which of the next two phases, construction of the terrace galleries or renovation of the main building will proceed first.” But he makes it quite clear in his statement that “it is government policy that there will be an absolute minimum of disruption” in so far as the public is concerned.

I felt compelled to remind the House of this statement, notwithstanding the fact it really doesn’t speak directly to the recommendations that are here. I think it a bit unfortunate the very high tone established by the member for London Centre slipped slightly when we got into raising questions with respect to the sincerity and the sense of public responsibility of very dedicated men and women who have served on this board of trustees over the years.

Mr. S. Smith: No one questions their interest or sincerity -- only their judgement.

Report adopted.

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (CONCLUDED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the report of the standing social development committee, dated May 25, 1979, respecting Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital.

Mr. Gaunt: I just wanted to make a few brief comments with respect to this report. As chairman of the committee, I should mention that we had a good many expert witnesses come before our committee. In total, we had some 53 witnesses.

During the period of the hearings we had the administrator and the medical directors of both Queen and Lakeshore, and many of the medical staff; the Ontario Public Service Employees Union made a presentation; we had people from inside the ministry, including the minister himself; we had people in the community in the surrounding area serviced by Lakeshore and beyond, and we had the Ontario fire marshal. In short, we had a host of expert witnesses who came before the committee and offered their views. Some of these views were in conflict, but at least the committee got the benefit of their opinion.

In the end the committee could not come to a complete consensus with respect to its report. As one will see in the standing orders, the Conservative members indicated they felt the closing of Lakeshore was justified, in that the services offered there could adequately be offered at Queen Street.

I suppose the most controversial part of the whole report was the matter having to do with the inpatients in Lakeshore. It was on that point, as well as a number of other points, where the committee did suffer some disagreement.

In terms of the various party positions, I am sure they will be adequately put in the course of the discussion tonight. But in short, in terms of the inpatients, the Conservative Party felt the inpatients could be moved from Lakeshore to Queen and that their care would not suffer in that new facility. The Liberal Party felt they could be moved, provided certain conditions were met. Two of these conditions were that the transfer be accomplished in a well-planned fashion and that the state of the transfer be indicated to the committee when the minister had a final plan for doing so, and that the minister report back to the committee no later than November 30 this year.

As far as the New Democratic Party was concerned, their position was unequivocal from the outset. They opposed the closing of Lakeshore Hospital. They expressed a concern on a number of occasions having to do with the employees and the impact the closing would have on the employees. The dissenting opinion, therefore, of the New Democratic Party is listed in the report and goes on for several pages.

In terms of setting the stage for the debate, Mr. Speaker, I want to say we did have a good hearing. I think it was a good process in terms of finding out the facts and getting all of the information which the committee found to be very helpful in its deliberations. At this time I want to pay tribute to all of the witnesses who appeared before the committee and who co-operated so fully.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, that was fairly set out as to the positions taken by the various people on the matter. Let me say fairly objectively, I trust, that the McKinsey report was the nub upon which everything turned. Here was a major report, made in a scientific way and at arm’s length by the government, as to what the disposition of these psychiatric hospitals is and should be as things stand.

McKinsey was perfectly cognizant of Queen Street, of its capacity or lack of capacity and what that capacity was. It had surveyed that. Certain witnesses before the committee tried to knock McKinsey down somewhat by saying it was not an overall system survey of the mental health needs in all its dimensions in the metropolitan area and in the province itself. To a point that is true.

Nevertheless, with respect to the very hospitals involved, in which McKinsey did an in-depth analysis, it came down squarely in the proposition that these three hospitals -- Queen Street, Lakeshore and Whitby -- were critically necessary into the unresolved future in this regard.

Even in the face of that, on what still seems to me to be one ground, the ground of capitalization -- on money -- the government saw fit to jettison that out of hand without consultation and quite unilaterally, and with bad advice given to the minister, I may say, by his subordinate staff.

Pace to you, Mr. Jappy. And Tom Campbell, I hone we do not meet again in the paths of Glencoe; my ancestors were Macdonalds, and you may have undone us a little bit on that particular occasion. The strong positions being taken internally there strike me as very questionable indeed.

The McKinsey report said this hospital was a vital, ongoing necessity. He surveyed, as was brought forward in the sixth chapter, pages three and four, what the Queen Street situation was. The basic position is stated thus: “Our analysis indicates that of 284 additional beds that are theoretically available, about 125 to 150 could actually be made available for use.” They have extended it away beyond that, using former conference rooms, dining rooms, crowding people in at every angle. Is that the way to treat mentally ill people, in a box-like and concentrated way, loading that hospital when the other one may be maintained?

During the course of the hearings, and before, I offered an alternative proposition to the minister which, with respect, was never considered and never discussed at any point in the hearing; that was a phasing concept. Why did not the ministry in its wisdom, if it were prepared to spend $25 million on new facilities, consider dividing that sum as between Lakeshore on one hand and Whitby on the other? Why could it not set up buildings to meet immediate needs in both respects and then gradually, over the next decade, phase in new operations and new buildings?

If the ministry is right about the retrenchment and about the fact that there will not be increasing inpatient necessities -- and I sincerely question it, but granting for the moment that the ministry is right -- then nothing elaborate would have to be located on the grounds at Lakeshore. I have said a 150-bed hospital probably would meet the needs until about the year 1987 or 1985. There is no burden upon the capital picture of the province in that particular regard.

There was no sense of accommodation to that fairly rational proposition; no answers were made at any particular point. We weren’t crying for the moon, we were just trying to be sensible about it. But the ministry was intransigent. The ministry sets down its adamantine terms and won’t budge.

I hope that Windsor proposition of the last 48 hours is not a reflection of the minister’s mentality, that he stands firm in the face of all obstacles. Does he want me to launch an application to the Supreme Court of Ontario tomorrow with respect to Lakeshore in order to force his hand with respect to the proposition? He might very well, as in the Windsor situation, find himself hung up and even reversed.

Is the minister going to force all these hospitals -- and every one of them is in some degree of turmoil and constriction as a result of the minister’s policies -- to make application to Supreme Court judges to override his mandate? It was unheard of that a judge should have to move in, in face of doctors’ affidavits, in order to foreclose what is an infliction on human beings, placing in severe jeopardy -- so the courts must have seen -- human lives.

I don’t propose to do any such thing. As a matter of fact, I am going to relent just for a moment and give the minister an ounce of credit over against a pound of punishment. The ounce of credit is that I understand in the last day or two he has agreed to keep all the outpatient facilities on the grounds; that he is retaining immediately at least 50 members of the staff who had got their notices; that he is meeting very shortly again in order to make accommodation for the other 60 people who are being laid off. In other words, he is extending some kind of clemency and sense of proportion in this particular regard. These things he should be given credit for.

As things stand, I would ask the minister to go slow with Lakeshore, very slow indeed. He is going to find -- like it, lump it or blast it -- that he is going to need the facility in two years. At the present time it is taking in more patients all the time; Queen Street can’t accommodate them, so patients continue to enter that hospital. The minister’s answer, no doubt, is that Queen Street’s accommodation is not quite ready to take the load. I put it to him that Queen Street will never be ready to take that load. As the weight comes on the minister is going to have to accommodate.

Let the minister keep those buildings ready; he will have to use them. But, again, I am gratified to have the outpatient facilities there which will keep that volunteer staff occupied to some great degree. It is not what it should be, but it is a small concession and one doesn’t look gift horses in the teeth any more, because the teeth are usually bad.

[9:30]

The hearings themselves went on for four weeks. I listed about 25 pieces of major testimony. I don’t want to derogate from anybody’s testimony, but some came from people the minister called in to bolster the defence. May I put it, Mr. Speaker, that overwhelmingly they said -- I would say 22 of the 25 -- the hospital ought not to be closed, or that it should be closed only under very severe conditions which the minister doesn’t hope to meet.

Overwhelmingly the evidence was the hospital ought not to be closed. I don’t think this is an unfair statement. It came down through the psychiatric establishment in this city, and people from the Minister of Health’s (Mr. Timbrell) own hospital. Their strongest evidence, and it was bloody weak by the time the day ended, came from Ottawa. The minister sent one of his emissaries down. They were talking about how wonderfully they worked in community medicine, except we discovered they sent 250 of their difficult cases off to Brockville. This is a backup facility, precisely the role Lakeshore plays with respect to this whole catchment area.

The sensible thing, and the minister won’t deny it, is if the capital funds were at all available or he was willing to make accommodation or adjustment with those capital funds, Lakeshore would not be closed and couldn’t be closed. He would have followed the nostrums and the McKinsey not necessarily with respect to the full expenditure that was involved, but with respect to the retention of the facilities themselves at least for the indefinite future. The new easement areas in order to pick up the slack at Queen Street, would have been designed and put into motion, et cetera.

The two different complexes of mental hospitals that are involved here have quite different approaches to the mentally ill. Lakeshore has a far more informal, accommodating, almost gentle way of dealing with patients, over against the more rigorous, perhaps, as they tout themselves, the more highly professional one which is tied in with the university, et cetera, concerned with research, and concerned with aggravated forms of mental illness upon which teaching facilities arise. They are quite different in their tenor and structure.

It is not even today too late for the minister to back up, retrench, modify, and even change his mind. I doubt if he is prepared to do that. I think he feels his own personal prestige and whole role as a minister is at stake. Nothing would more enhance his position, his designs to be Premier perhaps, in any event the role he plays as a cabinet minister, a man of stature, a man of generosity and vision, than to back up. Some of the inpatients may have to be transferred, but I suggest he retain a substantial number of those people there as this situation is tested out.

I won’t inveigh against the Liberals tonight. I was deeply disappointed at the time The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) made a marvellous -- as my friend puts it -- Churchillian oration. You should have heard him. I’ve seldom heard a better speech in this House, but of course, it was in committee. It was a ringing thing. To be honest, the honourable member never committed himself to excluding, except there were certain sentences in there which led to no other conclusion.

I wish, secondly, he hadn’t consulted with his leader quite so often. He is sitting in his office like some eminence grise co-ordinating events out there, manipulating for maximum political effect, masquerading the position by setting up opportunistic and qualifying clauses all over the place so we didn’t know where the blazes they stood at the end, nor do we really tonight know where they stand. I have seldom seen such a piece of legerdemain performed, but that may be the style. If it is, I think it’s self-defeating, politically and otherwise.

Before I sit down I want to make a special appeal to the minister. The child and adolescent care unit of that hospital is in an invidious position, caught between two stools -- I use the word in all its implications -- between the minister’s department and the other. The funds are being taken away from both directions, and they’re caught in the middle.

I think the date of their appearance before us was May 9. In the Hansard of May 9 they set forth their whole position and the crunch they find themselves in -- which I’m sure the minister doesn’t wish them to be in. He would have to speak to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) about how to straighten that out. They happen to be the victims, out on the periphery of the whole thing. If the minister would give some attention to that I would be very pleased.

Finally, I want to say to the minister, he was dead wrong about the fire. I think he’s a little chastened about that, at least I trust he is. As a matter of fact, I think out of the fire of the bearings he might have emerged a somewhat more humble man -- not humiliated; that’s just the opposite -- humble, in face of the decisions he will have to make and the quality of the feed-in to those particular decisions. I want to say a word to the union. They were splendid. Without them we wouldn’t have been able to carry on. On two occasions they supplied major briefs; made their appearances and gave us the best -- and I think all members of the committee would agree -- objective background about the whole thing.

Finally, I want to remind the minister there were over 30,000 petitions submitted to him in the course of the hearings -- 30,000. They come from the whole area, including the area of the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy), up through Etobicoke. That is not to be easily discounted.

Mr. Acting Chairman: Mr. Lawlor moves that the motion for adoption of the report of the standing social development committee, dated May 25, 1979, regarding Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital be amended by striking out the words “be adopted" and substituting therefor the following words: “be recommitted to the said committee for reconsideration.”

Mr. Lawlor: If I may speak a word on that particular point. “Your lordship” will notice that in the report submitted by this committee we were forced to do an end run. The basic propositions are set out, the public ownership aspect. Then, when we come to what I consider the central issue -- that is, the inpatient transfers -- the party split in three directions. I really don’t know if that’s according to Hoyle, according to the way in which the orders are read. I’m using the clerk’s argument against my own drafting, at the moment.

It remains indefinite, undefined. The crunch point is obscured. There is no central resolution. It is suggested in the Liberal amendment to that “that the committee re-examine and discuss the whole matter no later than November 30 of this year.” That’s fine. I should be delighted to discuss it again.

On the basis of the evidence we heard from all quarters, including the Mental Health Association, I wish that certain facilities, including housing, nurses’ care in homes, a dozen outpatient facilities, et cetera, to which people are going to be relegated, were all in place and this is what was called for. And that’s what we’re looking forward for them to do. But none of that is resolved, nor did we go into any great definition as to what precisely these facilities might he.

I would think that the committee should reconvene and give this a more thorough scouting, and try to set up better definitions for the minister, guidelines for what should follow. It needs, God knows, to be led by the hand here and there.

[9:45]

The committee performed journeyman’s services in this particular regard. We’re quite prepared to go on. Therefore, in the light of the indefinition in this report and the inconclusive nature of the crucial part of it with respect to inpatients, I would think this House should very well consider sending the committee back, possibly in the summertime, but in any event, in order to give further consideration to this whole issue, so some greater sense can be brought in and the minister be far more informed than he is at present.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Mr. Lawlor’s amendment will be voted upon on termination of the debate.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased, following our consideration of this issue before the committee, that it had been referred to the committee. It certainly gave those members a very good insight into the whole situation.

Mr. McClellan: It was something of a shocker too.

Mr. Kennedy: We had an excellent group of witnesses and interested parties who came before us and, in some respects, it’s too bad that all members of the Legislative Assembly weren’t able to be a part of those hearings.

Mr. McClellan: It’s too bad the minister wasn’t there.

Mr. Kennedy: The nature of committees being what they are, this is the way these things are done.

I do share with the member for Lakeshore that our chairman, the member for Huron-Bruce, set out very succinctly the conclusions and the way we operated.

I can’t share the thought with the member for Lakeshore with respect to his motion that the inpatient situation was inconclusive. This was one which indeed was conclusive, as members will see from the report. There was a division. The Liberals shared the same views as the Conservatives that the inpatient phaseout take place. The NDP opposed that, although over the course of the discussions there was the suggestion by the member for Lakeshore, if I recall correctly, and I do recall correctly, that if this was necessary there be a very, very careful phaseout of the facilities at Lakeshore.

Change isn’t easy --

Mr. McClellan: This was disruptive change.

Mr. Kennedy: -- and I know the members listened very carefully to the briefs presented and the opinions expressed. A conclusion was reached and I see no point whatever in referring the report back to the committee for further consideration.

I wanted to make a few comments to members who, as I said, weren’t able to share the discussions we had.

In order to continue to deliver the high quality health-care services that Ontario has enjoyed, we have to adopt and respond to the need for change. I couldn’t agree more that planning and co-ordination is needed in this very sensitive and important operation of transferring patients from the accommodation they’ve grown used to to Queen Street, to Hamilton and perhaps later to Whitby -- who knows?

Mr. McClellan: Yes, who does know? That’s precisely the question. Who does know?

Mr. Kennedy: From discussion with Dr. Fisher, I understand the movement so far has gone very smoothly and the patients are quite settled into their new accommodation at Queen Street.

Mr. Philip: Irrelevant. They’re also contributing to the revenue of the TTC.

Mr. Kennedy: We need inpatient services as part of the component for the total health-care system, hut the field of psychiatry, as we heard, has advanced beyond the days of custodial institutional care in favour of community programs and outpatient services.

Mr. Philip: What do you mean by services?

Mr. Kennedy: Over the past 15 years, the number of admissions to psychiatric facilities has increased but the number of beds actually required has decreased significantly. This reinforces the continuing trend towards treatment in the community with the resulting decrease in inpatient admissions.

In line with this trend, all existing community outpatient programs are to remain in the Lakeshore community with no decrease in function -- in fact, expansion. This was expressed on several occasions by the minister. There is, of course, the increased funding of some $1.3 million which will further enhance the provision of outpatient programs.

With the opening of the 216 additional beds at Queen Street, the inpatient capacity is 632 beds. There was concern expressed about the size of this, but this is the way it is constructed and it’s really not out of line with other psychiatric hospitals in Ontario. London has 544 beds; Whitby has 500, which will be replaced with the same number; and Brockville has 529.

Second, it’s important we keep in mind the limitations in the terms of reference of the McKinsey report. It did not include Hamilton where, indeed, we have additional accommodation

The McKinsey report had to be looked at in the light of these broader aspects and in the integration of the mental health care system, which involves both these units and, of course, community services.

They can be accommodated at Queen Street, but this doesn’t mean the total catchment area formerly served by Lakeshore now will be served by Queen Street, Hamilton is available and Whitby is also available for some on the eastern edge of the catchment area.

Mr. McClellan: Maybe they have room in Montreal. Maybe there is some room in Fort Erie.

Mr. Kennedy: The concern about the very sensitive issue of the movement of inpatients is being looked after by this interhospital committee, which has on it the chiefs of psychiatry, the chief medical officers and representatives from the hospitals. This is proceeding, and has proceeded, very smoothly.

Mr. McClellan: You are ignoring all of the evidence.

Mr. Kennedy: We just simply wouldn’t have it any other way. It is in this area where we parted company with our Liberal friends. In their part of the report, they said they didn’t want further movement until there was a full report to the committee on the movement of patients. I think this really is beyond the ability of individual members, to intrude into the activities looked after, and opinions expressed, by the medical authorities. I think that is their job.

All the testimony we heard and my experience in working with the excellent group of volunteers who first brought this situation to my attention is that indeed that staff is very competent, very dedicated and very sensitive to the needs of patients. I have full confidence the medical profession, the union workers and all the employees, do work with a great sensitivity on behalf of the patients.

Mr. McClellan: Tell us about the one big institution, the total institution, 700 beds.

Mr. Kennedy: Having said this, I couldn’t agree more with the need for the planning and co-ordination. From what I have heard, if it continues in this fashion, there will be very few problems in the moving of the in-patients as it takes place.

I want to say as well, I attended a union-sponsored meeting, and I join with my friend from Lakeshore in this, in paying tribute to their interest and dedication. They sponsored this meeting at the Port Credit Legion. At the meeting there was a resolution which was presented by Mayor Hazel McCallion, which was unanimously carried, it provided that the closing of Lakeshore be suspended until planning had been completed to ensure once again that this was looked after.

I immediately addressed myself to the problems of the employees of the union, and to the other two issues raised at that meeting. One was the land, the site, be retained in public ownership. I would refer members to the Hansard for that committee of April 23, when the minister made some additional comments which responded to those concerns. One was that the site be retained in public ownership. This will be done. That was a big concern the night of that meeting.

The second was the problem of the outpatient services. This was again addressed by the minister on April 23. Indeed, it was said there would be no sharp close-out of those facilities or movement of them. There is going to be a transition which will ensure not only the retention of these services in the area, but an improved, enriched program.

I know there are others who wish to speak. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to add my appreciation to those who came before us and spoke frankly and forthrightly to the issues, and to the volunteers who work on behalf of the patients and, of course, to the union which presented two briefs, as the member for Lakeshore said.

As I said at the outset, I am sure in the overall health picture, we resist change. It is a 90-year-old facility. Those inpatients are going to be carefully moved. The outpatient services will be expanded and I am sure we can achieve this to the overall betterment of this aspect of health care in Ontario.

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in this debate on the report of the committee that looked into the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital closing. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, it was a very thorough investigation of the proposal to close Lakeshore.

I really was impressed with the people who came before that committee. We had psychiatrists, other doctors, many professional people, volunteers in the community, and neighbours in the community, who came and brought us their views.

[10:00]

There were at times many conflicting views given on the particular question we were concerned with and on which we had to make a decision. But I do want to say that the people who did come before the committee were most helpful and the staff at

Lakeshore, in my opinion, were very responsive and dedicated people, people who could really be called people-caring people. They really gave me that impression.

After hearing many delegations the members of the committee had the opportunity of going to the site of the Lakeshore hospital, to those very, very beautiful grounds on the lakeshore, to look at the buildings, which were admittedly old buildings but which to my surprise were very clean and well kept inside. They were very well kept for buildings of their age.

Then of course we went to the other end of the spectrum and went to the Queen Street property where the new Queen Street hospital is located. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was pleasantly surprised with what I saw at Queen Street. I had been given to believe by many of the people who appeared before the committee that the Queen Street Mental Health Centre was a hospital that was going to be completely inadequate to take care of the inpatients currently at Lakeshore. The place is most spacious. I have no doubt in my mind that the Queen Street institution will more than adequately handle the needs of the inpatients of this area who are mentally ill.

Another thing that we learned of course was that 25 or 30 years ago a mentally ill person was committed to a psychiatric hospital and almost always stayed there, perhaps for life. Many never did come out. Now that is not the sort of psychiatric treatment that is given in today’s world. As I understand it from the people who came to speak before the committee, there are many, many ways of treating many, many different kinds of mental condition.

So now the situation is reversed from what it was 25 or 30 years ago. We now have very few inpatients in the hospital in bed, but we are having more and more patients come for treatment of a great many different kinds of mental illnesses.

The problem with the whole exercise was this. This was just typical of the Ministry of Health and this Minister of Health, who sits down with a little group of his colleagues and decides what is the best for the people of Ontario. Regardless of the views being expressed by the people in the community which is to be served, things are put forth by the ministry such as the closing of beds or, as the minister has stated, “We’re not closing beds, we’re just giving them another name.” Go on out and ask the people in the small communities of Ontario whether he is closing beds or whether he is just giving them another name.

Mr. Bradley: They’ll tell you.

Mr. Blundy: They’ll give you the answer, “We don’t know what he is doing with the beds, hut we can’t get anybody into the beds in the hospital on many occasions when it is necessary.”

Mr. Bradley: Left them lying in the hallways.

Mr. Blundy: Let them lie in emergency all day; let them have to wait six or seven weeks for elective surgery, but we’re not closing beds; that’s what the minister says, so that’s what we have to take for his consideration.

Now, here in the case of the Lakeshore hospital, knowing full well that psychiatric treatment has changed over the years and that the input now is to programs in the community, bringing the people from the community into the institution for short periods of treatment and then returning them to the community again, the minister said that they were going to save $2.6 million in this fiscal year by closing Lakeshore hospital. He said that he would use $1.3 million of that money, as well as other funds that had been earmarked, for community alternatives. But as long as the committee was sitting, we saw very very little evidence of what was being done in the community. As one member of the committee, I was convinced in my own mind that I saw no problem whatsoever with moving the in-bed patients in Lakeshore to Queen Street, but the problem was that we had absolutely no guarantee, and to this day have no guarantee, that the services in the community that are serving the people of Etobicoke and all that catchment area are now sufficiently planned or are in place.

As far as I can say, my position at the time of the hearings of this committee was that I would vote against closing Lakeshore and I would vote against moving those in-bed patients to Queen Street until such time as I didn’t just have to take the word of the minister that it is going to be done, but saw in the community actual development to provide the community alternatives of which so many people spoke.

There are many things that are hatched out of the nucleus of Lakeshore in the community. There is the child and adolescent care unit, of which so many people spoke so highly. They are in a building. The day that we visited them, they said: “We don’t know where we are going to go from here. No place has been arranged for us. No alternate building in the community has been found that is satisfactory.” We were really crushing the aims and the hopes of those people in that child and adolescent care unit. There is the alcoholic treatment unit which is a wonderful facility for that area of the greater Metropolitan Toronto area which is going to be missed very greatly, if it is not set up before Lakeshore is closed.

The retention of the lands in the public domain is wonderful because it is a beautiful site and, whatever the use may be in the future, it must be done. It may be that there would be further psychiatric hospital accommodation placed there. I do not know. One thing that was sure for those who sat and listened to the experts as well as to the volunteers and to the interested people in the community, they had a great regard for Lakeshore and they gave us to understand that because the Lakeshore hospital was there there was going to be help for their people in the community in a variety of ways.

I know that there are other people who wish to speak in this debate and I am going to close now, but I would like to make just two points. The matter of psychiatry and the treatment of the mentally ill are altogether different than they were when Lakeshore was built. We have to have much more contact with the patient in the community and in that way we must have facilities for them in the community. Thus far, we haven’t seen them.

Secondly, I believe that the Ministry of Health made a unilateral decision in this matter and wanted to rush into this situation. By having the hearings on the closure of Lakeshore, I believe we have prevented that from happening to a great extent. I personally will vote for a position that the in-bed patients at Lakeshore be not moved to Queen Street until it has been clearly demonstrated to us all that the alternatives that are needed in that catchment area are there or are immediately planned for.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I rise to speak about our committee. It was the first committee I sat on in the Legislature. It was some initiation. It was useful to me because I have had some experience in the community health field and I thought I could play a useful role with our other caucus members. I found the exercise interesting -- and I began to think of it as an exercise at the end, rather than something that would come up with a useful conclusion.

The chairman, I thought, chaired very freely and on occasion even allowed us to badger witnesses in order to get extra information from them. I was myself guilty of leading witnesses on occasion.

I was particularly impressed by the participation of the other members of my caucus, the members for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor), Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta). I thought they all brought particular expertise to the testimony that was helpful in drawing out the most from the various witnesses.

I think the McKinsey report that came before us and the bulk of the witnesses who appeared before us all led us to inevitable conclusions. The inevitable conclusion is that the hospital should not be closed -- at least not until we know what the impact would be on the community.

To me -- and I guess it is just learning how partisan politics works -- it defied all logical thought that we could come up with a conclusion other than the one we did. I was disappointed with the Tory participation in the committee meetings; I thought a number of Liberals participated well, but I thought the rationale at the end, on the basis that the hospital Should only be moved if certain criteria in moving patients could be met, was specious and that we already had seen some patients being moved, we knew the methodology, and we could easily have had that tabled with us. I am afraid that in the political battle in which we were involved in the last days of that committee we may have jeopardized the health of a number of people in this province who should not be affected by our antics.

I would like to proceed by condemning the government for a lack of planning; destruction of a very respected institution for no real reason except money; lack of knowledge about community resources and how they fit into the network of community health needs; the overcrowding of Queen Street, making it unnecessarily large and jeopardizing, as I said, the health of individuals in this community.

I would like, if I could, to get on the record a number of people who spoke before us.

There is a personal indictment I would like to register with the minister, because I think it is with him that the responsibility lies for the lack of planning and the causing of this sort of fait accompli that we are presented with. He ignored the McKinsey report and we have already had that alluded to -- how comprehensive a document that was. He told our committee the only other document he had looked at was a set of building improvements for fire and safety which had been provided to him. From that point on, he played catch-up politics, responding to emergency situations as they came along, and fried to maintain his argument throughout.

I think a good argument as to how this decision was actually a Treasury decision and not a Health decision, is the fact that Whitby Psychiatric Hospital is going to be built exactly on the basis that was designed by McKinsey. If the minister can accept McKinsey for one side, I don’t see why he can’t accept it for the other, and I think that came out well in testimony.

Mr. Wildman: It had something to do with the partisan makeup of the riding.

[10:15]

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is possible. It could also be said that the minister at least misconstrued -- I would not say misled us -- but at least the talk about Lakeshore as a firetrap soon was discounted by all on all sides. But, unfortunately, that idea was implanted in the minds of the media. That is why they did not cover us through our hearings and hear the testimony that came forward. That is why they are not here tonight to understand why this decision is wrong. People felt this was an old set of buildings that should be torn down.

I would like to register that Mr. McMullen, the administrator, said the fire and safety conditions were second to none. Mr. Taylor of the Etobicoke fire department and Mr. Bateman of the Ontario fire marshal’s office both said it is a safe building. Those are sources the minister did not even go to before he made his statements, which I think caused a lot of uncertainty and concern around the community of Lakeshore.

Even as late as the last day he appeared before us, the minister made the argument that he had asked for the destruction of 13 buildings in Whitby which were in similar condition. Those buildings had not been occupied in years; there was no similarity at all. No one would disagree that these buildings on the Whitby site should have gone down.

I would also like to register that Mr. Anderson of the Southeastern Services at Queen Street indicated there were four fires at Queen Street during the same period that there happened to be one arsonist at Lakeshore.

I think it can now be seen that the minister went overboard in trying to prove his case when he asserted that Dr. Maharaj of the alcoholics unit said it would be fine to break off his detoxification centre from his alcoholics unit. That is something he definitely did not do, and he registered with our committee that he did not agree with that.

It came to us after the fact, after we were told there would be no layoffs, that there were people in the behaviour modification group who were being laid off -- something that supposedly the ministry people did not know; an after-the-fact kind of thing.

The child and adolescent group came before our committee and said, “We are caught in a squeeze here” -- the squeeze members have heard about already. The next day the ministries suddenly had a meeting with this group which had not been consulted beforehand. Catchup politics.

The Queen Street medical advisory committee sent an open letter, complaining they were not being properly consulted. The same day we had our meeting -- the first day they could possibly convene a meeting -- they were pulled into the ministry’s office and talked to. They came before us in a very chastened and very different form than their letter had indicated.

The dialysis group was going to go to Whitby; it was going to stay onsite at Lakeshore. Goodness knows where it is going to be now. It depended what suited the day.

Hamilton beds were never raised in the initial statement. All of a sudden, to make it easier to fit the bed situation into Queen Street, Hamilton was brought up as having 100 beds available. We also found, in talking to the director of Hamilton, that we could discount that.

The minister also obviously had no idea about the real bed availability at Queen Street. He was coming in with total numbers of beds and was not talking to us in terms of the specifics, such as the fact that there are four towers; that some of those buildings -- in fact, this geriatric group was already overcrowded when the first movement of patients was made. Even Don Anderson of Southeastern Services, another witness, said they should not have more than 30 to 34 geriatric people on those wards, and they were having 50.

At the end the minister had nerve enough to blame his ministry. On May 15 he said he was disappointed with the internal communication lines. He turned on them, saying they were doing this catchup politics, when in fact the responsibility lay with the minister.

I would like to say that the loss of Lakeshore as an inpatient facility is important. It is a fulcrum for psychiatric services in Lakeshore. Fifty per cent of the patients lived within a five-mile radius. Lakeshore had the highest inpatient-outpatient ratio of any institution in the province. The need for inpatient backup was listed by Dr. Maharaj, Dr. Bond and Dr. Olson. Continuity of care is the ideal form for mental health care.

I was going to try to list a number of things in community programming to do with the lack of funds put forward, the minuscule amount that the $1.3 million in community services extra money would provide. There is $156 million going into health and psychiatric institutions in this province, and even with this $1.3 million, only between $5 million and $10 million is going into community care programs. Every witness who came before us told us that would be as expensive, not less expensive, than maintaining people in institutions.

We also knew that there was an 85 per cent occupancy rate now with moving these people into that hospital, 85 per cent being considered full capacity; and it is in the largest growth area in the province.

I would just like to conclude by commenting on the statements by Mr. Richardson, a government witness, so there will be time for at least one other person to speak to this. What we have is a ministry of casualties, a ministry of sickness, rather than a ministry of health. By allowing this to go forward with a lack of planning and a lack of real community involvement, or a 5-to-6-year program of moving things from institutions to community programs as suggested by two witnesses we have jeopardized health care in this province.

One witness even said that the blood of those people would be on our hands. I think it is only reasonable that we should turn back to that committee, and hopefully to a wider committee, before any changes are made, for a full discussion of what is involved in deinstitutionalization.

Mr. Speaker, I support our amendment and say I feel we have only broken the surface of the problems in this whole mental-health field.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, as I rise tonight to join the debate on the closure of the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital I couldn’t help but follow some of the comments that incline towards discussion of the physical nature of the premises. I think that is critical to the debate.

I visited the premises, as did other members of the committee; but I visited with a lot of attention to the physical aspect, sensing as I did that we had to make a comparison between the Lakeshore and the new facilities, as have been mentioned in the debate, that were available and had the vacancies to the required extent.

What I discovered in this visit bore out what reporters had said. One notably, an Etobicoke writer, said he found that Lakeshore was dingy, depressing and antiquated. I was struck with the same impression as we looked it over. Indeed, it was very foreboding.

I noted that the member for Lakeshore set about his business in the debate earlier by pointing out that the minister was astray in his comments about the premises being a firetrap. The last speaker made the same comment. In fact, he called into question comments by the minister. As I remember the testimony given to us in the committee by the fire marshal, it was very clear that while he put aside some of the arguments about fire starting in some of the areas, and clarified for us the physical structure of the building, parts of which were built as far back as 1877, he nevertheless did point out rather clearly --

Mr. Lawlor: He also said this was a firetrap. You’re standing in a firetrap.

Mr. Jones: To the member for Lakeshore, he also pointed out how many floors were condemned and closed for lack of access. If, when we are talking in the context of the safety of the patients, lack of access is not one of the key concerns I don’t know what is, where the life and limb of these patients is concerned.

As we heard the testimony, and as we read the reports, we were mindful that there were immediate recommendations of some $2.5 million being needed to be spent, and, ultimately, something in the neighbourhood -- depending on which report -- of $22 million to $50 million; the range was that broad. Again, we had to look at the comparison with the other premises that had vacant beds and we had the situation of premises that were very new, very bright and cheerful, known as the Queen Street facility, where there were swimming pools -- a bright cheerful facility conducive to patients making their recovery.

The other comment I can’t help making as I look at this, Mr. Speaker, is that the Lakeshore premises had all kinds of other problems that struck you on your visit. They had the tunnels that one visited; where the maintenance people, in fact the superintendent of maintenance, talked of the kind of repairs they had tried to effect. You saw the roof leaking, the paint falling; and certainly a lay person or anybody could clearly see the alternative between the two premises.

It is true, as my colleague the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) pointed out, that we heard a lot of emphasis on the need for premises and the change to smaller, community-based facilities; the minister made all the appropriate comments and commitments in that direction. So when we hear in the debate tonight the proposal by the member for Lakeshore that we should maintain the premises, as has again been stated in the debate for chronic-care patients, I can’t help thinking of those people I saw huddled on those beds in that very dingy, indeed very dark and very depressing premises that the member tonight stands and proposes should remain open. At the same time he puts out his concern about how these people were unsettled and disturbed as they were moved from Lakeshore to the premises on Queen Street.

Mr. Lawlor: What a government apologist you are.

Mr. Jones: How is this consistent with the member’s concern, when those premises were so very clearly in such a situation?

Mr. Lawlor: The place is disintegrating right before our eyes. It’s got another 20 years.

Mr. Jones: As a matter of fact, I remember the director of nursing came before us, Miss Latimer. What did she say when we talked about the comparison? She said, rather clearly: “That’s like comparing the Royal York Hotel to the YMCA.” Does the member recall those comments?

Mr. Lawlor: That’s the one witness you have who wasn’t a psychiatrist. That was the nursing consultant.

Mr. Jones: Indeed that was her comment.

Mr. Suttis, who was head of the maintenance, talked about the 40 per cent that had to be spent on maintenance.

Mr. M. Davidson: You’re supposed to be a bright light; now you look like a dull bulb.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lawlor: What a great lawyer you are; you pick the only piece of evidence you’ve got.

Mr. Jones: No, no; if time permitted, we have pages of evidence that is pretty clear.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There isn’t anything any more basic in this chamber than that everybody have an opportunity to be heard.

Mr. Turner: Members opposite never could stand the truth.

Mr. Jones: I would just like to conclude by saying that when the member for Lakeshore comments about other shreds of evidence that go to the argument for the closing of this facility, we have to look at the Ontario Hydro comment; we do indeed have to look at the McKinsey report on the kind of dollars that would have to be invested in it; and we have also to look at the fact that this other brand spanking new facility was there, spreading out and spawning into the community, as it is doing, with the commitments of the minister to bring about an advance, of not only the $1.3 million but the other kinds of studies that have to take place to accommodate this transition to a new kind of care.

Mr. McClellan: You learned nothing in a month of hearings.

On motion by Mr. Foulds, the previous question was put.

The House divided on Mr. Lawlor’s amendment to the motion that the committee’s report be received and adopted, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Blundy, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Campbell, Charlton, Cooke, Cunningham, Davidson, M., Davison, M. N., Di Santo, Eakins, Epp, Foulds, Gaunt, Grande, Hall, Johnston, R. F., Lawlor, Lupusella,

MacDonald, Makarchuk, Mancini, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G.I., Newman, B., Nixon, O’Neil, Peterson, Philip, Reid, T. P., Renwick, Roy, Ruston, Smith, S., Sweeney, Warner, Wildman, Worton, Young, Ziemba.

Nays

Baetz, Belanger, Brunelle, Drea, Gregory, Havrot, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J., Jones, Kennedy, McCague, Newman, W., Parrott, Rowe, Snow, Taylor, G., Timbrell, Turner, Villeneuve, Welch.

Ayes 44; nays 21.

Reordered for standing social development committee.

The House adjourned at 10:42 p.m.