Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 10:03 am.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PUBLIC SERVICE NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the members that a tentative settlement has been reached in the negotiations with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, representing the 51,000 employees in the bargaining unit. The union will recommend acceptance of the settlement at ratification meetings which will be held in various locations across the province, beginning next week.

Mr. Kerrio: Is that a profit-sharing plan?

Hon. Mr. McCague: It has been agreed by the parties that details will not be released --

Mr. Kerrio: The leader will be sorry.

Hon. Mr. McCague: -- until the employees have had an opportunity to consider the proposed settlement.

[Later (10:20)]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, might I revert to statements?

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to revert to statements?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: This time will be added to the question period.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes. I apologize, Mr. Speaker. By the way, it was not a riding event that I was at; it was a very interesting meeting with a prenatal teachers’ group which happened to be held in Don Mills.

Mr. Nixon: What was the minister doing at that meeting?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Why was I there?

Mr. Van Horne: Share it with us.

Mr. Bolan: What’s her name?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I was a scout once, and they said something about being prepared.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the members that our helicopter ambulance service has been extended in its present form for an additional year, until March 31, 1980.

Over the past 19 months, as a pilot program, this service has proven its value for the transport of critically ill patients over a medium range, within a radius of roughly 100 miles of Toronto. The helicopter utilization committee, composed of representatives of the Toronto teaching hospitals, the Ontario Medical Association and the ministry, has recommended continuation of this service.

To date, the helicopter ambulance service has transported 222 critically ill people to hospitals in Toronto. Approximately 35 per cent of the 222 patients transported were premature newborn babies. In the recent bus tragedy near Barrie, the helicopter ambulance proved a vital link between the Royal Victoria Hospital and the Toronto teaching hospitals, transporting four young patients.

The helicopter ambulance service is also beneficial to small communities where hospitals cannot support the medical specialties or the equipment required for all critically ill patients. It allows physicians, without having to leave their communities, to transport patients in safety, with the help of critical-care personnel and specialized equipment, at greater speed than by standard land ambulance.

We are convinced a medium-range air service is a necessary part of our ambulance system. Now we need to assess ways to broaden the area served and the nature of service provided. In that context, we will look to taking advantage of both the flexibility of helicopters and the availability of fixed-wing aircraft. We must also examine the best way to provide such a service, be that by charter, contract or in co-operation with other government agencies, or a combination of these arrangements.

The estimated cost of the helicopter ambulance service for the extended year of service is approximately $1 million.

The helicopter ambulance service has received considerable positive support from both the public and the medical profession. We believe it is essential to extend this service so that we can continue to meet the air and land ambulance requirements of this province.

[Reverting (10:06)]

ORAL QUESTIONS

FEDERAL ENERGY BILL

Mr. S. Smith: I will direct a question to the Minister of Energy. Regarding the Ontario intervention on the federal energy bill -- the intervention delivered by the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), the parliamentary assistant -- can the minister tell us whether he ever read that intervention before it was delivered; whether he, in fact, approved of it; and where it was he read it and when? And could he tell us whether that intervention was written by a member of the ministry or by a consultant to the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I read the intervention. I read the final draft and I read two previous drafts. I agreed with it, although it was being rewritten during the plane trip to Ottawa by the parliamentary assistant and deputy minister for delivery to the House of Commons committee that evening.

I might say we were notified by Telex the preceding Friday afternoon, I believe, that if we wished to appear the committee could accommodate us. They had originally suggested Wednesday afternoon or perhaps Thursday afternoon. We indicated that we couldn’t be prepared by then and they finally kindly agreed to receive us on Thursday evening.

I guess the final version that was delivered was a joint effort of a number of people, including myself, the deputy minister, and the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister says he approved of it and allowed the parliamentary assistant to deliver the report. Will the minister not confirm that apart from any last-minute commas or little changes that may have been made on the plane the bulk of the report prepared for his review, and which eventually found its way into the presentation, was, in fact, prepared by a consultant, rather than by a member of the ministry? If so, could he tell us whether or not that consultant was Ralph Hedlin, the chairman of the “Elect Joe Clark committee” at the Tory convention? And can he tell us how much was paid for that consultant’s report?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can certainly inquire. I frankly don’t know. I’m glad to hear, though, that Mr. Hedlin was involved in the “Elect Joe Clark committee.” I think we will all be happy about that in a month or two.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: The minister referred to his deputy minister. Could he confirm that this is the same person who was deputy minister when the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) was Minister of Energy -- when the former minister indicated that he had been “mugged in the corridors of power by the deputies and the mandarins from the Premier’s office”? Is this the same deputy who assisted in the writing of that report?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The present deputy minister has been deputy minister for some time. There have been several ministers, but only one deputy, for some time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: A new question.

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to direct my second question to the Minister of Health, but I don’t know if he is going to be here. Perhaps, with the consent of the party to the left, I could wait for the Minister of Health and deliver my question at that point after the two questions of the leader of the third party.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: We got into trouble a little earlier by deferring leaders’ questions, so you can take your turn in the go-around.

Mr. S. Smith: If the members of the New Democratic Party cannot agree to something as simple as that, I will take my first turn.

Mr. McClellan: With respect, there was no disagreement.

Mr. Kerrio: Oh yes, there was. Your leader shook his head.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I sought that from the House the other day and it was refused to me. I do not see why that privilege should be given to one party and not to the other.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre has the privilege of putting his first question.

HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question which I wish to address to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development in the absence of the Minister of Health.

Last Tuesday, I mentioned the case in this House of a Mr. Nicola Laurella, a pensioner who now is threatened with a collection agency for a bill of $167 from his surgeon, a bill which is a surcharge on top of the amount paid for his operation by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. I want to tell the minister that clearly is not a unique kind of case.

Between February and November of 1978 a Mrs. Ljuba Morog, also a pensioner, and now deceased, had three operations from two doctors. Her family now is facing doctors’ bills of $426.58 in addition to what OHIP had paid --

Mr. Speaker: What is the question?

Mr. Cassidy: I will come to the question in a minute.

Mr Speaker: No. You will come to it now. What is the question?

Mr. Cassidy: -- and is being asked to --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order!

An hon. member: Fling him out.

Mr. Cassidy: Since these two people are both threatened by collection agencies --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order! The honourable member and leader of the New Democratic Party has been around long enough that he knows how to put his question, given his journalistic background. Now, put your question forthwith.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain why, in the discussions with the Ontario Medical Association, the government has failed to reach agreement that no physician will charge interest on overdue medical accounts and that in no case will any physician in Ontario submit his or her bill to a collection agency; and will the government act now to stop doctors using collection agencies to collect these surcharges from patients?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, when the honourable member put this question to the Minister of Health last week, the minister said that he was as concerned as the honourable member and that he would look into the situation. The minister will be in the House very shortly, and he may have an answer for the honourable member at that time.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary: Since the minister does not appear particularly concerned, and since during this minister’s tenure a regulation was passed which allows doctors to charge interest on overdue accounts --

Mr. Speaker: What is the question?

Mr. Cassidy: -- where previously that had been a matter of professional misconduct, will the Provincial Secretary for Social Development intervene with the Minister of Health to protect the patients of Ontario against these unjustifiable and unacceptable practices by doctors?

Mr. Swart: Yes or no?

Ms. Gigantes: Not a word.

Mr. Cooke: You’re the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Some minister!

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ontario Centre with his second question.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Health, I have a question for the Premier.

The government statement yesterday with respect to the Ontario Medical Association agreement has been interpreted as meaning that all medical services in public hospitals in Ontario will be provided at insured Ontario Health Insurance Plan rates. Can the Premier clarify that this is the case and that in future all medical services in public hospitals in Ontario will be provided at OHIP rates; and can the Premier say how that will be achieved?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the legitimacy of the question. I would only observe to the honourable member that if he had demonstrated a certain degree of flexibility in acknowledging that on occasion a minister is delayed for some reason or another, and that this question should appropriately be put to the Minister of Health, and if the Leader of the Opposition had been given the right to ask his questions when the minister arrived the leader of the New Democratic Party would then be able to do the same thing.

[10:15]

Mr. di Santo: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. Really. Where are the rest of you today? Are you all out canvassing in Wentworth and Scarborough West?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you all canvassing in Scarborough West?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question dealt specifically with a health-related matter. If the Premier wants to refer the question to the Minister of Health that’s his pleasure to do so, but not to ramble all over the ballpark.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Where was I rambling. All over the ballpark?

Mr. Warner: No beer in the ballpark.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The distinguished member -- and I say that in the loosest sense of the word -- from wherever -- Ellesmere is worried about beer in the ballpark. I really was concerned about their health. That’s why I was rambling a little bit. But you’re quite right.

Mr. McClellan: Question, question.

Mr. J. Reed: Name the Premier.

Mrs. Campbell: Name the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The question should properly be put to the Minister of Health, and he will be here shortly. I know he will take great pleasure in answering it for you.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: When the Minister of Health gets here you can direct your question to him. The question was taken as notice and there can’t possibly be a supplementary to a question that was taken as notice.

Mr. Kerrio: And you’ll take your turn.

Mr. Speaker: You’ve had your second question.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order. I would ask you to clarify the matter about the deferral of questions or the answering of questions which are referred by a minister to another minister at a future time.

Mr. Kerrio: Another ballgame now.

Mr. Speaker: No. I think it’s quite clear what the procedure is during question period.

Mr. Sargent: Tell us about it.

Mr. Speaker: You’ll have an opportunity to place your question at a later time or if the question was referred to a specific minister, when he answers there will be ample opportunity for supplementaries.

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS

Mr. Van Horne: I have a question for the Solicitor General. In the light of his legal branch director’s recent indication that he is considering suggestions for amending the Retail Business Holidays Act, 1975, can he tell us when these amendments will be made?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I can’t, Mr. Speaker. I’m not familiar with the document to which the honourable member has just referred. We’ve had a number of submissions with respect to this legislation and they’re still being reviewed very carefully, but I can’t tell him when any amendments are likely to be introduced. I think it’s unlikely during this session.

Mr. Van Horne: Supplementary: I’m referring specifically to an article in the Toronto Star, March 3, 1979. There’s an indication in that article that the Solicitor General is open to suggestions for amendments and particularly as there has been some harassment of operators of such things as flea markets, that he would specifically consider amending section 3 to add exemptions for coins, tokens, paper currency, postage stamps and crafts.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes. This matter is under active consideration. I thought the question was directed to when legislation was likely to be introduced. I’m just advising the honourable member that it’s unlikely to be introduced this spring. But we are reviewing these suggestions and I think we can say we have a very open mind on the subject.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Cassidy: Now that the Minister of Health is in the House -- and I do understand he had an engagement in his riding -- I wish to ask a question of the minister to clarify the statement he made yesterday with regard to his discussions with the Ontario Medical Association.

The statement by the Minister of Health has been interpreted as meaning that all medical services in public hospitals in Ontario will be provided at insured OHIP rates. Can the minister clarify his statement of yesterday and assure the House that that is in fact the case and that in future all medical services in public hospitals in Ontario will be provided at the insured OHIP rates, and can he tell this Legislature how that will be achieved?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let me see what I’ve done with my extra copies of my statement from yesterday. I’ll be glad to send a copy over to the honourable member. I think ifs fairly clear. It states that the services will be available at opted-in rates where the individual insists. Also connected with that, of course, is the reinforcement of the principle that the individual must agree beforehand in order that they can proceed to be treated and subsequently billed on an opted-out basis.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary will relate to the OHIP fee schedule.

Mr. Cassidy: To the first question that I asked of the minister; that is correct.

Mr. Speaker: To the first question, yes.

Three minutes will be added to the question period.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary in response to the minister’s reply: The minister is saying that the right to insured services in hospital at insured rates will only be available if the patient insists. Can the minister explain exactly how patients who may be intimidated by a doctor, or who may suffer from language difficulties or other problems, will be able to insist? Can he assure the House that this right to health at the insured rates will be available from all medical practitioners within a hospital, or will it only be from some?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it will apply to every citizen of this province. As I indicated, the two principles go in tandem. First, we have the right as individuals, if we insist, to have services provided at the opted-in rates. Secondly, if we do not agree beforehand, we do not pay. I think that will cover the situations which concern the member.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister be a little more explicit about what he means by “insist”? Surely he recognizes that people who are about to undergo surgery, for instance, and are visited by the surgeon and/or the anesthetist the night before the operation and asked with a steely-eyed glint whether they insist on not paying the full fee, are hardly in a position to stand up for what might be their economic wellbeing.

Would the minister agree that if there is such a so-called “insistence” to be done, it be done in the pre-admission formalities or at the office of the hospital by merely ticking off whether you are willing to pay more than the OHIP rate, and that the patient should not be forced to have to stare down the doctor in dire circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as you know, and as the honourable Leader of the Opposition knows, the medical association and the hospital association have undertaken to come up with a mechanism. I would anticipate that in practical terms the kind of situation the member described is what would pertain.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not the steely-eyed part.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I could arrange some surgery for the member for that, if it would help.

Mr. Conway: Can you imagine meeting the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) under those circumstances.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, you’d be fortunate to have her services. She’d likely take one look at you and say, “I won’t operate.”

Mr. Conway: Blundy would have me next.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is interrupting. I can’t finish my answer.

Mr. Speaker: He is indeed. Perhaps you could have a private talk with him.

An hon. member: It’s the vest.

An hon. member: Where is the Minister of Education anyway? Is it her day off?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I said, in practical terms that’s what will happen inasmuch as most surgery comes under the elective or urgent category, which is planned ahead of time. In the mechanism which will be developed, I’m sure we will provide for that.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health. In his fumbling around for an answer to the problem which he helped to create --

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is just no charity in your heart at all.

Mr. Warner: -- why did the minister reject the suggestion put to him and agreed upon unanimously by the health committee, including the Conservative members, as to how to handle the problem of the opted-out physicians in the province? Why did the minister reject that suggestion out of hand?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In point of fact, we didn’t. If the honourable member will take out his copy of the select committee’s report, he will recall that there were concerns expressed about this and the select committee said that one area in particular to be addressed was --

Mr. Warner: It suggested a multi-year contract along the lines of the province of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that of general practitioners’ incomes. If the member will take note of the recent schedule, and even prior to the recent schedule in fact, the increases for general practitioners have been significantly higher than even the average overall increase.

The member undoubtedly saw some of the recent press. I said this to him at the select committee, if he will recall, when I was there on September 15 last for a lengthy discussion with the committee at which time we engaged in discussion on a number of subjects. I indicated that we wanted to give more emphasis to the general practitioners’ income as a means of encouraging them to stay within the plan and to also take note of the pressures on the physicians’ income.

Mr. Warner: You can’t evade the question that way. You are evading the question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member will recall that we did discuss at some length the question of the Quebec plan.

Mr. Warner: You rejected it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I indicated to the member that I thought it was inappropriate to Ontario.

Mr. Warner: Your Conservative members agreed.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On this side of the House we can disagree. I was just telling my colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) yesterday about the time seven years ago when I sat over there as a backbencher, when I voted against the government, and a member of that party came over to me and said, “God, I wish I could do that. I can’t vote against my party. I can’t disagree with them.” Over here we can disagree.

Mr. Mackenzie: Hallelujah.

Mr. McClellan: You can do it again when you’re a backbencher again.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On that one I, as the minister responsible, have to say I don’t agree. The present plan we have in operation works extremely well. The members opposite have taken a few examples -- they are no less important because they are few in number -- and tried to take the specific and make it into a general condemnation of the plan.

Mr. Warner: You’re playing games.

Ms. Gigantes: You’re looking bad.

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you sit down?

You’re playing games. You’re playing games with a serious question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: When last year we paid claims for 56 million services to the health insurance plan --

Mr. Warner: You may as well sit down.

You’re playing games with a serious question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- the member’s arguments cannot in any way possibly be logically construed to condemn the health plan.

Mr. Renwick: Why didn’t you pay that? What has that got to do with it? It wasn’t your money that you paid out.

Mr. Mackenzie: It wasn’t your money. It borders on dishonesty.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Mackenzie: It wasn’t your money at all.

Mr. Renwick: What were you going to do with it, bank it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. S. Smith: With regard again to the negotiating process outlined in the statement the minister made, does the minister have any concern about the fact that --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. I don’t know whether Hansard picked it up, but the member for Hamilton East made the side comment that “it borders on being dishonest.” I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Mackenzie: I said, “It borders on dishonesty.” That’s not the minister’s money; that’s the people’s money and he knows it.

[10:30]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am keenly aware of that, more so than the member.

Mr. S. Smith: Does the minister share my concern about the negotiating process in which the OMA is recognized, as the minister stated, to be the sole negotiating agent with regard to the OHIP schedule? Does the minister not recognize that the OMA is counselling many of its members to opt out? In fact, if they are to be the negotiating agent on behalf of the opted-in doctors, there is a certain difficulty in the bargaining process.

In particular, can the minister assure us that if agreement is reached in this bargaining committee, the OMA, as part of the agreement, will advise its members to opt in? Otherwise, does the minister not recognize the OMA might be party to negotiating a set of OHIP fees and then turn right around and tell its members to opt out, leaving us no farther ahead?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As the honourable member knows, it has been the stated philosophy of his profession for decades, generations, that physicians should deal directly with theft patients. That notwithstanding, the bulk of the profession deals directly with the health insurance plan for theft billing.

With respect, I think it is slightly incorrect to say they are counselling opting out. To my knowledge, they are not engaged in any campaign to promote opting out. I know sometimes this can be distorted in the reporting of the answer to the question, but if asked, they will state honestly theft principles are, their philosophy is and always has been, that they feel they should deal directly.

That notwithstanding, the bulk do deal directly with the plan. It is 82.1 per cent currently.

If the new negotiating mechanism works as well as we hope it will to arrive at reasonable settlements that will be seen to be reasonable, that will have a very positive impact on the whole question of the option activities of physicians.

Mr. Cassidy: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, surely the problem is not whether the doctors wish to bill the patients directly or bill through OHIP. The problem is now that opted-out doctors are charging an average of 42 per cent higher than the OHIP fee schedule, and that is having to come from people who in many cases are not in a position to afford it.

Since this began by talking about doctors in hospitals, can the minister assure the Legislature that every doctor practising in a hospital will provide services at the OHIP rate to patients even if, as he says, they have to insist?

We think it should be a right, but if people insist, will every doctor provide that, or only some?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We believe it should be a right for a patient to choose his doctor and for the doctor to choose his option status.

Again I would point out, when he considers the number of times in a given day or a given week and a given month of a given year these services are being provided, compared to the kinds of situations he is trying to take from the specific to the general, the plan has worked well.

Mr. M. Davidson: Where did the patient get the right to choose?

Mr. Warner: Try answering the question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What we have done is indicate the principle of access to services on an opted-in basis is and has been ingrained.

Mr. McClellan: There should be one fee schedule.

Mr. Cassidy: Every doctor should be able to provide the services.

Mr. Renwick: You have weaseled.

Mr. Warner: Try answering the question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, this is interesting. Last week the member for Ottawa Centre was for opting everybody in. As of Tuesday, he was against draconian measures. As of Wednesday, he was going to tell the world and Hamilton the solutions of the New Democratic Party to health care.

An hon. member: You were so mixed up you didn’t know what he was saying.

Mr. Samis: The campaign is not on yet, Dennis.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: He is like the old politician who said, “Here are my principles. If you don’t like them, I do have others.” He is flip-flopping all over the place.

Mr. Cassidy: And you are steadily dismantling the system. Yon are taking it away. You spend $2 million a year on those hospitals.

Mr. Swart: We are saying what we said in 1960: there should be one fee schedule.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Renfrew North with a new question.

Mr. Conway: I had intended a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A new question.

Mr. Cassidy: Take it, Sean.

LAKE ST. CLAIR COMMERCIAL FISHING

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources.

The minister is aware of a recent meeting between officials from his ministry and the sportsmen’s group in the Windsor area. The great concern of the sportsmen’s group is that the ministry is going to allow commercial fishing to resume once again in Lake St. Clair.

Can the minister, at this time, tell us his decision? Is there going to be commercial fishing this year in Lake St. Clair?

Hon. Mr. Auld: That is correct. I believe I announced some time ago the ministry was prepared to re-establish a commercial fishery in Lake St. Clair when the fish inspection branch of the federal Department of Fisheries advises us it will allow those to be sold when they meet the contaminant standards.

The commercial fishery we were talking about though will be based on coarse fish only -- species such as carp, bullheads, bullfinch. There are a number of species like this which have a market, particularly in the US, but which individual anglers are not particularly anxious to catch.

Mr. Kerrio: How do the fish know which nets to go into?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The real concern in the area, I believe, has to do with the possibility of commercial fishing for yellow pickerel. I have indicated there would be no licences issued for commercial fishing of yellow pickerel and also that we would not be permitting gill nets, so they would be using live gear and any pickerel that would be caught could be returned to the water.

Mr. Kerrio: What pickerel? There are no pickerel there.

Hon. Mr. Auld: We still have not heard from the federal people but in the view of my staff, it will improve the anglers’ fishing by keeping a balance between the sports species and the so-called coarse fish species.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Health. You must be aware, aren’t you, Mr. Minister, that your budget limitations of --

Mr. Speaker: Do you mean is he aware?

Mr. Swart: Is he aware? I said, “Are you, or aren’t you?” That perhaps is a question too, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister aware that his budget limitations of one and a half per cent to the Welland County General Hospital have forced them to close 30 out of their 287 active treatment beds effective two days from now? Does he know that 27 of their active treatment beds are occupied by non-active treatment patients, most of them chronic care, and there’s no place else for them to go because the chronic wing is operating at 99.7 per cent of capacity and there are additional chronic cases still in the community which are eligible for admission?

In view of this will the minister reinstate funds in the Welland hospital so it can operate some of those beds scheduled to be closed as chronic care beds?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if the local health council in assessing that situation were to be able to show there is a need for additional chronic beds, we would indeed add them back in.

Mr. Swart: A supplementary then: can I ask the minister whether he will provide the additional funding for those beds that are being used for chronic care to stay open until he gets a report from the health council? If not, will he tell me where he is going to place the 12 chronic care patients occupying 12 of those exact beds that are to be closed two days from now?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m sure they’ll stay right where they are until their condition is such that they can be discharged from the hospital --

Mr. Warner: With some funding? With the needed funding?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- as we are doing in any number of centres. When we receive a report indicating a need for additional chronic beds, at that point we will work with the individual hospitals to add it back in.

Mr. McClellan: Right on top of things, Dennis; right on top.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: For instance, my friend from Huron-Bruce (Mr. Grant) and I are meeting a week today with a group of hospital people from his great part of the province, and that’s exactly what we’re going to talk about with them -- how to do an assessment of need for additional chronic facilities --

Mr. Warner: The Artful Dodger.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- which can then he added back in over and above the four active treatment beds per 1,000. It bears repeating again. When we talk about the planning standard for active treatment beds we’re talking about purely active treatment beds. If there’s a need for chronic or rehab beds over and above that, we want to see those needs met --

Mr. McClellan: You could be replaced by a computer.

Mr. Mackenzie: Say you are not going to close them then.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- and we’re prepared to add them back in.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the budgetary cutbacks take effect next Monday, actually on Sunday, and there is probably a good deal of confusion in the minds of hospital administrators, if not in the mind of the Minister of Health, as to what they should do when there is pressure from the medical people and the community at large to continue the utilization of some beds -- even four or five beds -- simply to relieve the transition for a few weeks, who is going to pay that additional cost? It would simply be an overrun on the local budget with no resources to pay it.

Is the minister saying that if in the opinion of the local authorities they must overrun the budget cutback, at least by a few weeks, he is prepared to give them that amount of flexibility, as he did in part in Brantford when they applied for it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Brantford is a very special case inasmuch as the hospitals there have been working together for more than a year now on a hospital rationalization study. As the member knows, I gave them assurances that certain amounts of money would be added back, but not until they sign a rationalization agreement. Any deficit above that would be recovered from the savings as a result of rationalization.

Mr. Nixon: If they don’t sign, who is going to pay?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As of midnight tomorrow night, the fiscal year begins and the budgets have been allocated. What I am saying is that at this point every hospital knows very well the budget formula and the implications of it and they are responsible for living with those budgets.

I am looking ahead to the future through this fiscal year and beyond. Where additional chronic needs are identified and, for that matter, where additional extended care needs are identified through the local planning process, we are quite prepared to meet those needs and to add them back in. In many cases, that will mean the conversion of active-treatment wards to chronic ward’s, staffing them accordingly and setting up proper chronic programs.

TURKEY QUOTAS

Mr. Yakabuski: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the large numbers of inquiries we are having from individual farmers in our own ridings and across the province with regard to the raising of turkeys, could the minister bring us up to date as to where this matter might stand at this time?

An hon. member: You are raising all kinds of them over there.

An hon. member: Gobble, gobble, gobble.

Hon. W. Newman: Listen, you turkeys. Yes, we have had a lot of discussion with the Ontario Turkey Marketing Board over the period of the last number of weeks. Many members on all sides of the House have written to me and many of our own members have brought their concerns directly to me. As a result of the Ontario Turkey Marketing Board meeting yesterday, I believe a satisfactory solution was reached last night by the board which will have to be confirmed by regulation. I would like to make it clear that every fanner or every producer in this province will be allowed to grow 50 turkeys -- no permit, no licence, nothing.

Mr. Van Horne: Would you settle for 49 and a goose?

An hon. member: And a partridge in a pear tree.

Hon. W. Newman: Sometimes the members opposite make more noise than they do, but I would like to finish answering the question.

I could say something, but I won’t because we have some young ladies in the gallery.

For those producers who up until 1979 were producing more than 50 birds and up to 400 birds, the Ontario Turkey Marketing Board will provide a new basic quota so that they will not be hurt. Any producers who were producing -- and there are a few -- prior to 1970 who never did get involved with the board and can substantiate that they were producing at that time and how many birds they were producing, will be allowed a quota.

Mr. Sargent: That’s a fowl statement.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Bradley: I have a question for the Attorney General. It is a question which could equally be directed to the Minister of Education but it deals with crime to a certain extent. In the light of the fact that there were media reports and there are continuing media reports of violence and vandalism, particularly in secondary schools in the province of Ontario including a contention by a Hamilton secondary school principal that drugs, booze, vandalism and defiance of authority are in every school --

Mr. Speaker: I have heard no question.

Mr. Bradley: -- would the minister indicate to the House whether he has, in consultation with the Minister of Education, discussed this matter and planned any legislative or regulation activities which would deal with this problem, particularly from the point of view of law enforcement?

[10:45]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The Minister of Education is away at the present time, so I haven’t had an opportunity of discussing --

Mr. Conway: You are fairly fortunate in that regard.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- with her these recent news reports. But I would say that I have no legislative initiatives in mind because my own personal view is that these very distressing media reports really reflect growing forms of alienation in society, which are the product of a whole host of problems and of social ills.

Mrs. Campbell: You are a law and order man.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would be very pleased to hear any suggestions from any of the members of the Legislature as to how one can effectively alleviate the growing incidence of violence and of vandalism.

Mr. Cooke: How about some jobs?

Hon. Ms. McMurtry: It is a matter that has concerned law enforcement authorities and the courts in recent years.

Mr. Nixon: The Premier appointed Judy LaMarsh to deal with it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have urged the crown attorneys in this province to seek stiffer sentences in relation to vandalism, for example, because of the serious problem and the enormous cost that it represents to the taxpayers. We have pressed for tougher sentences in relation to crimes of violence as well.

The courts do not always respond to our pleas in this respect, but we are continuing to do our best.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary: In the light of the fact that a specific problem exists with intruders into the school buddings, which apparently cannot be dealt with adequately under the Education Act or the Petty Trespass Act, would the Attorney General then look into those specific areas and deal with that specific problem, recognizing that the other problem is much broader?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, I would be very pleased to discuss this with the Minister of Education upon her return. Again, I would just make one further observation: In this particular problem, I think the honourable member can appreciate that the police resources are stretched very thin at the present time.

I say that because there is some suggestion that there should be more police resources allocated to schools to keep out these trespassers. The presence of police officers on school grounds can perhaps create the wrong impression, but I will be discussing this matter with the minister.

Mr. S. Smith: They don’t have to be police.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Would the Minister of Energy explain to this House why the Three Mile Island nuclear accident could not happen in the Ontario Hydro system, in spite of the fact that internal working documents of the Atomic Energy Control Board and the interorganizational working group, of which Hydro is a part, which were tabled with the Porter commission and with the select committee on Hydro, provide clear evidence that the emergency core cooling system of the existing Ontario Candu plants are not satisfactorily reliable?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think I missed the beginning of that question.

Ms. Gigantes: I asked for an explanation.

Hon. Mr. Auld: It will take me a little time to get the various information together. If I may, I will take it as notice and try to report back shortly, next week.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It has been taken as notice. There will be ample opportunity then.

Mr. Cassidy: As the Minister of Energy, he should know there are people across this province who want to know if it could happen here.

Mr. Speaker: He hasn’t responded. He has taken the question as notice. There will be ample opportunity when he responds.

Mr. Cassidy: What kind of Minister of Energy is he?

Hon. W. Newman: A very good minister.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the Minister of Energy not have any communication with his own people?

DEER HERDS

Mr. Kennedy: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. In the light of a radio news report recently that said the deer herds of Ontario are dwindling and in view of the harsh winter that they have been through, would the minister comment on the success of remedial measures or feeding measures that have been taken and also tell the House if indeed deer herds are dwindling as was reported?

Hon. Mr. Auld: It has been a very difficult winter in a number of parts of the province for deer herds. Remedial action has been taken by the ministry in three main areas, cutting browse and providing other feed in the form of grain in the deer yards, and making tracks -- because of the high snow and little or no crust -- so that the deer can move around and get to their food. I do not have the final total, but I would think that something in the order of about $100,000 has been expended for material and casual labour to do these things.

It is not yet apparent what damage has been done. There has been some problem, as usual, with dogs chasing deer because of the fact that the deer cannot manoeuvre in deep snow. But we are a little more optimistic now than we were, say, about six or eight weeks ago. As honourable members are aware, part of the problem is that when deer are unable to protect themselves by moving away, particularly from dogs, the does are liable to lose their fawns. That is what happened, I understand, a year ago. How much of that has happened this winter we do not know yet.

The only other thing I would want to add is that I am delighted to say that we have had a great deal of volunteer assistance from individuals -- sportsmen, hunters and so on -- who have been helping our own staff in getting these things done.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain why it is that he should have kept himself as well informed as he is on the question of deer herds, but that two days after the worst nuclear power plant accident in North America --

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Cassidy: -- he should not have sought any information from his staff in his role as Minister of Energy?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member would like a very short explanation, I can tell him that the Pickering operation and the Bruce operation --

Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness, the honourable minister took that question as notice. He cannot go back to it.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question to the minister: In view of the fantastic potential of spills and leaks in this province, and in view of the fact that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Ontario Hydro are famous for their coverup of the spills that we have had in this area, why does Hydro not have a team down there now finding out what the hell is going on? I phoned them yesterday, through our research department, and they have done nothing about it yet.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, Hydro does have people down there.

Mr. Sargent: Where are they now? In Harrisburg?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have not heard what room they are in at the hotel, but I know they are there.

Mr. Sargent: Who is down there?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I do not have the names of the people down there. I was informed yesterday that Hydro sent people down as soon as they heard about it.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Grey-Bruce take his seat?

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, does he not think he might advise a spokesman for Hydro not to do propaganda on TV, saying Candu is absolutely safe and Three Mile Island cannot happen, until he assures himself that is true and until he looks at the documents which indicate that it is not?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, any comments made yesterday by any spokesman for Hydro about this event, to my knowledge, were based on information which was conveyed to that spokesman by the media and which came from press reports over there. My understanding is that Mr. Morrison had indicated that, based on sort of hearsay, he could make certain comments I think it is always a mistake to try to answer a hypothetical question.

As I say, Hydro has people there. The United States authorities are making an investigation.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the Minister of Energy might undertake to create a public statement regarding the two different technologies that apply in this situation, and the fact there was a problem with this pressure container type of light-water reactor in the United States; and that while Candu may have its own set of problems, whatever they are they are not necessarily parallel in any way.

I wonder if the minister would undertake to make some sort of factual statement which would help the people of Ontario to really understand this whole question, to understand that the problem really results from the fact that information is not getting out from either Hydro or AECL to the public about the technology.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I thank the honourable member for his informative question. It is quite true that while there are some similarities in the machinery, the processes are quite different -- enriched uranium and light water as opposed to natural uranium and heavy water, and quite different steam pressures involved. Our plants all have a vacuum building which is connected to the reactor room, so anything that leaks goes into the contained room, where it can be dealt with.

Mr. Sargent: You have had numerous occasions of spills at the plants, too.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Just as a matter of interest, the system which is used here -- well, I agree with the honourable member that I should give a complete statement --

Ms. Gigantes: You better go back and find out.

Mr. McClellan: Come back when you know.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- once everybody knows what we are making a statement on sad what we are comparing.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Philip: A question of the Minister of Health: Can the minister inform the House what action, if any, he is contemplating to fulfill the promise made by his assistant deputy minister, Dr. Dyer, to representatives of the administration and board of the Etobicoke General Hospital at a meeting last June in which Dr. Dyer promised to try to provide additional funds for that hospital as savings were created in other areas? One of the justifications for his promise was that the ministry’s own study, published in November 1978, indicated that at that time there was a shortage of hospital beds in the borough of Etobicoke.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As a matter of fact, I had the great privilege of speaking at the annual meeting of the auxiliary of Etobicoke General about two weeks ago Tuesday, I think it was, and I also toured the hospital. Prior to that, I had also had some discussions with the chief administrator of the hospital.

Members of my staff, if they haven’t already been in to talk with him will be talking with him very soon, in particular about two aspects of the operation of that hospital; namely, obstetrics and psychiatric beds. We will work with that hospital, as we have in the past, to assist them in meeting theft needs.

It is part of the Metropolitan Toronto hospital centre, and the hospital centre as a whole is, roughly speaking, right on target with our planning standards. But I recognize that the Etobicoke General in particular is in a growing part of Metropolitan Toronto and one that bears constant scrutiny. That is why we are working with them, particularly on obstetrical and psychiatric needs.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary: I am pleased the minister recognizes the problem of the obstetrics ward, which I believe has been allotted 29 beds and is now averaging 40 to 43. I wonder if the minister will be taking into his considerations the fact that the Etobicoke General Hospital in 1974 went on its own cutback and austerity program and trimmed the budget and the operating expenses of that hospital considerably before the ministry even decided to go on its cutback program?

Will the minister also advise us what he plans to do about the present situation where the Etobicoke General Hospital is now about 3,000 patient-days over budget?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The Etobicoke General Hospital is, by the last report I had, managing its budget very well for fiscal year 1978-79. I would anticipate, given the excellence of the board and administration of that hospital, that will continue in the future.

[11:00]

Mr. Philip: Why don’t you answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have. I think it is a well-run hospital. As regards their past performance, I think I’ve mentioned in this House before that since I have been minister we have been progressively updating and revising the budget formula to try to find even more equitable ways to distribute the available sums of money. Through 1978 we worked very hard at trying to see if we couldn’t develop a formula that would tie in with the peer group comparisons, which members would receive from time to time -- we send them out to all the members -- that compare all the hospitals by various standards.

We have found, frankly, that if we had been able to do that it might have taken account of the kind of argument that one hears from hospitals that feel they are more efficient than most. Frankly, we were not able to come up with such a formula that wouldn’t have been so bureaucratic and really just unworkable.

What we did instead was to bring in the new financial incentives that provide for the use of moneys resulting from efficiencies to be applied against agreed-on new programs, to be applied against unanticipated deficits, to be applied against capital cost associated with the costs of making an operation more efficient or of providing a new and agreed-upon program.

In addition, four or five months ago, in recognition of the fact that we had not been able to arrive at that kind of a formula, we asked the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Council of Administrators of Teaching Hospitals to form a tripartite group with the ministry to come up with an entirely new budget formula for the future to take into account these and many other concerns. For instance, recently we have also discussed in this scenario what is of particular concern to me, the problems of the very small hospitals.

NURSING HOMES

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Health. In view of the commitment of that ministry to alternative care, and in view of the fact that on December 12, 1978, the minister stated: “I am advised we will likely be able to table the recommendations flowing from the report on nursing homes of 1977 on February 1 or about February 1,” when is he going to table those recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker. I regret that we did not make that deadline. Frankly, the reason is very simple, that all of the same senior people who would work with me and advise me on those matters are the very same senior people who have been working with me and advising me on hospital matters, and that has taken a great deal of time. It has not been completely put aside; work is progressing on that. Rather than pin myself to a specific date I will just say that it will be done as soon as possible.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: In view of the concerns of the public at large about this matter, and the minister’s commitment in closing hospital beds to alternative care, is it not top priority with him to get those recommendations forward so that we can look at them this session?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the recommendations as such came forward in the fall of 1977 and I, frankly, have not heard reactions from those. I don’t want to be unkind, but I don’t think I have had reactions to those recommendations from anybody over there.

The question is severalfold. First of all is the review of the act and the regulations. The other is in regard to the supply question. The member’s concern would be Metropolitan Toronto. We have asked the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto to do an assessment of the nursing home bed needs of Metropolitan Toronto so that we can determine how many nursing home beds should be added in this area.

DEPARTMENT STORE TAKEOVER BIDS

Mr. Samis: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

In view of the two recent bids by the Thomson interests and the Weston interests to take over the Ray, and in view of the fact that Ontario is the largest retail market in Canada, can the minister tell the House what position, if any, his ministry is taking on the takeover bids and what he intends to do in terms of making meaningful representation to the federal minister on the whole matter?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, for some days, even prior to the current activity, the Ontario Securities Commission has been keeping a watching brief on the situation just as it did at the time of the purchase of Simpson’s by Hudson’s Bay and, prior to that, the attempted acquisition of Simpsons by Sears Roebuck.

Secondly, in terms of what the province might do: it really depends upon the culmination of the present flurry of activities surrounding the acquisition of Hudson’s Bay by one or more parties. Indeed, there may not be any acquisition.

Mr. Samis: In view of the vague answer, could I ask the minister -- and I realize this question is partly out of date, in view of Mr. Trudeau’s action -- that is, the incumbent federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did say he intended to proceed with the reintroduction of a competition bill. Could I ask this minister if it would be his policy to support a reintroduction of such a bill? Does he recognize the need for such a bill, in view of the recent spate of corporate takeovers and the ever-increasing concentration of power in the hands of fewer and fewer people?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, I want to correct the record. My answer to the honourable member was not vague.

Mr. McClellan: Yes it was.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If no takeover bid has been achieved how can he ask me what I am going to do about it?

Mr. Samis: I asked what your stand was.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Secondly, on May 23 I will be absolutely delighted to support any and all activities of a Conservative Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Ottawa.

Mr. McClellan: Lord help us.

Mr. Kerrio: Things can’t be that bad.

ENERGY FROM WASTE

Mr. J. Reed: I have a question of the Minister of Energy: Recent press releases by the Ministry of Energy indicate there is a renewed interest --

Interjections.

Mr. J. Reed: -- in creating energy from waste in resource recovery. The observation is that this is now the second ministry that has taken up this issue.

I wonder if the minister could tell us, first of all, the size of the commitment to energy from waste. Secondly, does this indicate that the government is prepared to change the financing base which in the past it has had through the Ministry of the Environment? Is it going to broaden that base so that now municipalities can get into energy from waste projects on a choice basis, or on a broader basis?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can’t give the honourable member the figure for next year’s budget, but I will have it, I would think, in another couple of weeks. However, we are very interested in energy from waste. We are discussing with the government of Canada a joint program. In fact, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is discussing with all the provinces a share program which would include these kinds of projects. It is still not clear just on what basis that would be done: whether, for instance, it might be a program that was available to every municipality; or whether it would simply be a program that would pick one or two projects of each kind, as pilot or demonstration projects.

Also, I can’t tell the honourable member whether we will be starting what in effect would be a new, continuing capital subsidy program to municipalities to deal with what has always been considered a municipal responsibility, paid by local taxpayers, for the disposal of waste. There are still a number of questions. In other words, I can’t give answers today to a couple of those questions.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

MINISTER’S COMMENTS

Mr. Cassidy: I want to rise on a matter of privilege. In the House today, the Minister of Health said that I had said doctors should all be opted hack into the plan. I believe he was commenting in some way on my speech last week in East York.

I said then that the government of Ontario must act to guarantee that no citizen has to pay extra on top of the insured rates to get medical services. I made no reference to doctors being forced to opt in. Would the minister please correct that misstatement and not repeat it at every opportunity?

Mr. Speaker: You have already done so.

PETITIONS

Mr. Speaker: Dealing with petitions, yesterday the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) tabled what purported to be a petition pursuant to standing order 33, signed by 20 members, the purpose of which is to refer the compendium of background material on Bill 19 of last session, An Act to amend the Mental Health Act, to the standing committee on social development.

I must point out to the honourable member and to the House that the provision contained in clause (b) of standing order 33 for the referral of reports on petition of 20 members applies only to statutory reports of ministries, and reports of boards and commissions and other agencies reporting to ministers, such reports being for the last reporting period. It does not apply to compendia even for the present session. I must, therefore, rule the petition out of order.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, perhaps with the unanimous consent of the House we could have that particular sessional paper referred to the committee.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: There is no unanimous consent.

Mr. Cassidy: It was blocked by the Conservatives.

Mr. McClellan: By the Minister of Health.

Mr. Cassidy: It was the Minister of Health who blocked it.

Mr. Gregory: What is the member going to be when he grows up?

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS

On vote 903, Regional Priorities and Development Program; item 2, Northern Roads:

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Chairman. For the convenience of members, particularly those from northern Ontario, who may wish to be fully informed of the request we are making today, which is in the amount of $3.1 million, I would like to read into the record a short statement which clarifies the need for this request.

We are requesting your approval of an additional $3.1 million appropriation for northern roads, which is part of our regional priorities and development program. You will recall that when the 1978-79 estimates for my ministry were before the Legislature we asked for your approval of a total of $46.9 million for northern roads construction. These supplementary estimates of $3.1 million will bring the total appropriation for northern roads construction to $50 million in 1978-79.

Approximately $1.5 million of the additional funding is required as a direct result of the unusually good weather conditions which were experienced in the late fall and early winter months of last year. This weather permitted contractors to continue work beyond the normal closed period of mid-November to well into December.

Mr. Chairman: Order. I’m sorry to interrupt the minister, but there are a number of private conversations by members and others under the galleries and I wish the members would refrain.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This could thereby increase significantly expenditures on both carryover projects from the previous year and new projects tendered in the current year.

A further $980,000 expenditure was necessary to expedite a resurfacing program on Highway 11, from Beardmore easterly. The 14.6-mile resurfacing project was necessary in order to salvage the existing road base, which had deteriorated more rapidly than expected.

A reconstruction project on Highway 65 from the north junction of Highway 560, Elk Lake, northerly for 10.5 miles was accelerated in order to maintain a continuous program on Highway 65 following the last project which had been completed in 1977. This project resulted in an additional expenditure of $620,000 in 1978-79.

House in committee of supply.

[11:15]

Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question in this connection and it relates to this item.

Mr. Minister, you will recall that a year ago in this supplementary budget the then Treasurer, the honourable Darcy McKeough, in dealing with the OHIP difficulty, tabled a supplementary budgetary statement in which he indicated that the government would effect one of its cuts to make moneys available for that OHIP premium decrease, as it was then. He indicated on April 25, 1978, that $9 million would be taken out of the Ministry of Northern Affairs and, in particular, the regional priorities program. I personally felt that was an unhappy choice, but that was the Treasurer’s decision.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You were part of it.

Mr. Conway: I was certainly part of the overall decision.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The north will remember that.

Mr. Conway: The choice, in this instance, was not something recommended by me and I felt particularly unhappy that the then Treasurer took such an insensitive view of northern Ontario.

What I wanted to know, since it was a decision taken by your government at that time -- I was looking at this particular supplementary estimate and it reminded me of the progress of that cut. Does this $3.1 million in any way relate to difficulties growing out of that $9 million cut? Could you indicate at this time whether that $9 million cut that was talked of in that vote was taken out of or shifted hack into this vote? Whatever became of that?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’m pleased the honourable member has brought this up. I would have to remind him that it was the opposition parties that forced the government into that position, that forced the Treasurer’s hand in removing $9 million from the Ministry of Northern Affairs’ budget. I regret, as you do, sir, that that had to happen, but nevertheless that was the decision of this Legislature. The Treasurer did it, but I just want to reassure the honourable member that the $9 million was taken out of the regional priorities and the community priorities budgets, not out of the road construction program.

Roads, as you are very much aware, are important to those of us who live in northern Ontario, and I am particularly pleased that I am able to come back two years in a row for supplementary estimates for the road construction program. It’s that kind of enthusiasm that we have in this ministry to get on with a needed program -- much welcomed, I might say, in northern Ontario.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, as a northerner I’m certainly pleased to support any revenues the minister might be requesting from the Legislature for road construction in northern Ontario.

Certainly the construction of highways has long been neglected in that part of the province. Some of the people in the southern part, of course, don’t understand what a road really means. It is one of our main development tools. Without proper highways, we are not going to develop properly.

The main highway, the Trans-Canada, goes through the northern part of the province -- Highway 17 being part of the Trans-Canada Highway system. I would like to refer a couple of questions to the minister relating to a couple of projects which I think have high priority on Highway 17, in the extreme northern part. I’m referring to the area between Terrace Bay and Marathon, and some resurfacing west of Schreiber, and between Wawa and Montreal River Harbour.

These two stretches of Highway 17 are in dire need of repair. I just wonder what the delay is in getting at these two projects.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’m pleased to advise the honourable members of the Legislature that I will be in Thunder Bay on Monday to table in northern Ontario the capital construction program for the coming fiscal year. If memory serves me correctly, I think at least one of these areas to Which you refer is in that construction program, but I’ll make sure you get a copy on Monday afternoon.

Mr. Germa: I would like to ask a further question relating to Highway 17, and the problem at the Garden River reserve with obtaining right-of-way from the band council. Can the minister bring us up to date on that particular project?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: My colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) has been in constant discussion with the Garden River hand. My last information is they are making progress. How fast it is going to develop is not known at this time, but I can report some progress.

Mr. Germa: This project has been in the works for several years now. I am a little frustrated with the delay. I wonder if the ministry, the government, is sincere in obtaining right-of-way. Why hasn’t it taken assertive action to ensure the right of way is available?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have to recognize the rights of the native people. As the honourable member is very much aware, this road does go through the middle of a federal Indian reserve. Discussions and negotiations are lengthy and protracted, and it is with that kind of an attitude we move into these discussions. We don’t want to ride roughshod over our native peoples; they should be involved in the negotiations.

I just further repeat, we are taking this program seriously. There is a commitment to put a four-lane highway between Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie and in no way do we intend to back away from that commitment.

Mr. Germa: We have a unique situation, Mr. Chairman. The town of Killarney, while it is only 32 miles from the town of Espanola, has no direct communications link with Espanola. In fact, all communications are through the city of Sudbury, some 75 miles removed, to the extent that children going to secondary school have to spend over three hours a day on a bus.

For many years the Ministries of Transportation and Communications and Northern Affairs have been rumbling about a road which would connect the village of Killarney with the town of Espanola and would open up a whole new avenue for these three or four hundred people living in the town of Killarney.

Could the minister explain why we haven’t got some action on this particular project?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As the honourable member is very much aware, the proposed road link would connect Killarney with Whitefish Falls. It is an issue which has been discussed in many circles of northern Ontario. The cost benefits of that road are undergoing some very careful review at the present time.

The honourable member is further aware the road would pass through the Killarney Provincial Park, which raises some concern with the Ministry of Natural Resources.

I can report to you that there is a very intensive study going on at the present time that will look at the cost benefits of putting a road through this very difficult terrain. I am not aware of the exact timetable, but I would be glad to find out and let you know.

Vote 903 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: That completes the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

On supplementary supply for the Ministry of Correctional Services, page six.

Mr. Conway: If it walks, pension it; if it doesn’t, pave it.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

On vote 1502, institutional program, care, treatment and training:

Hon. Mr. Walker: I would like to make a few remarks of interest in clarifying the request for $2.8 million in supplementary funds.

The primary reasons for the overrun are --

Mr. Conway: Can’t you balance your budget, Walker? Come on, we need some old line Tories over there.

Hon. Mr. Walker: -- expanded community resource centre programs. This was announced by my predecessor as a means of alleviating severe overcrowding in many of our institutions. During the year, 10 additional community resource centres were opened providing 188 additional bed spaces at an additional cost of $665,000.

It was planned at the time of the announcement to extract these funds from the budgets of the institutions. As you understand, when you remove 188 inmates from the institutional system, they do not come from one specific institution, hut from across the whole system. However, the reduction in the number of inmates in our longer-term institutions has allowed us to close down a number of units within individual facilities.

In 1978-79, we experienced an overall seven per cent increase in the use of our jails and detention centres. However, the facilities in Toronto and Hamilton experienced a 25 per cent increase in their utilization. The ministry’s problem is that it does not control intake when the police arrive at the front door of an institution with an inmate and a warrant of committal. The institution has no choice but to accept that inmate. We cannot say there “no room at the inn.” The increased workload for the three Toronto facilities and the Hamilton-Wentworth detention centre necessitated the use of unclassified staff and overtime, at a cost of $800,000.

As a result of the decision not to raise OHIP premiums, the government placed a hiring freeze on the civil service in order to reduce expenditures. Although the hiring freeze had the desired economic impact across the government, and in some areas of our own ministry, it did create a real problem with regard to the correctional staff. As you know, our facilities operate on a 24-hour basis and in the interests of public safety must be properly staffed at all times. To maintain these proper staffing levels, it was necessary to incur overtime expenditures amounting to $200,000.

During the past year, community work programs by inmates were greatly expanded by this ministry. Across the province, inmates were escorted into communities to shovel snow for senior citizens and to clear and maintain conservation areas and parks; to help the handicapped and older citizens in many ways, and to perform tasks for the community that otherwise would not have been carried out because of lack of funds. The cost of escorting and transporting inmates amounted to an additional $200,000. I should say that I strongly support this program begun by my predecessor. It has received a very positive response from many of the honourable members, as well as the recipient communities.

It is our intention to expand this program in the coming year. We estimate this initiative provided approximately $1 million worth of service to the community.

We expanded our industrial work programs, primarily in manufacturing mattresses from non-flammable, very low toxicity materials. We also started manufacturing signs for use by other ministries. These supplementary estimates contain an amount of $225,000 which represents the cost of raw materials for these programs. The cost of the materials is recovered by the sale of these items, with the moneys going to the government’s consolidated revenue fund. We are rather proud of our mattress operation. The mattresses we produce are probably the safest in the world. They are certainly not flammable. The only one less flammable would be a waterbed.

We undertook research, in conjunction with the Ontario Research Foundation, in order to determine the most appropriate kind of mattress. When we could not find a suitable producer in our private sector, we went into production ourselves. Now we’re selling mattresses to other ministries, to federal institutions, and we are receiving international inquiries.

The ministry had also to bear the cost of increased OHIP premiums for our employees and these totalled approximately $100,000.

Mr. Bradley: We saved you some money on that.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Two facilities, Kitchener Jail and Glendale Adult Training Centre, were scheduled to close by April 1, 1978, but incurred costs beyond that date for which no budgetary provision had been made. The cost amounted to $610,000. The Kitchener Jail, which was built in 1853, was replaced by converting a maximum security unit of Grandview Training School into the Waterloo Detention Centre. A commitment was made not to occupy the facility until a security wall was completed. The work on the wall was carried out by an inmate work force. Expenditures of $350,000 were incurred because the Kitchener Jail remained open after April 1 while the wall was being completed. Due to overcrowding of the jail, it was necessary to house intermittent inmates in a section of the former Grandview facility.

In addition, part of this expenditure was for the on-site training of staff at the new facility. The overrun of $260,000, with regard to Glendale adult training centre, resulted from efforts to fully to-ordinate the closure of this facility with the transfer of children’s services programs and staff from Hagersville.

Those figures, Mr. Chairman, represent the division and distribution of the components of our overrun of $2.8 million which we are asking the House to approve today.

[11:30]

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Chairman, I will keep my remarks relatively brief in view of the fact that we will be beginning the next year’s estimates in the upcoming weeks.

The interesting point that the minister makes, I think, is the fact that the additional funds are going where some of us in the opposition have suggested that they do go. We are not necessarily delighted with the overexpenditures within the ministry, but at least the money is being channelled into areas which we feel are important, namely, the community resource centres.

What is perhaps a little disappointing is the fact -- and the minister has mentioned some of the reasons -- that the savings have not been effected in other areas. I think we recognize the same thing, for instance, in education; when there’s a declining enrolment, so to speak, in education, you still have certain fixed costs. We recognize that, within institutions where some of the people are removed from institutions for other purposes, the costs are still going to be there, or that you are not having these people going into jails, so to speak, and instead into community resource centres. We recognize that you are not going to realize the same dollar reduction in other areas.

However, I would express the concern of those who are genuine advocates of the community resource centres and the other programs that they consider to be progressive. I would be concerned that there would be resistance to these programs from these who are employed in the existing institutions. Perhaps a little later I could get a comment from the minister as to whether he feels that one of the reasons for a lack of reduction in costs in institutions when he embarks upon community resource centres and the other institutions -- the jails -- might be as a result of certain resistance in the old-fashioned type of institutions. I should not say they are old-fashioned, because some of them are obviously going to be necessary, but those institutions that have existed for a number of years and are called jails.

We recognize, I think, the problems that have existed both in Toronto and in the Hamilton-Wentworth situation. There are some who would question the use of overtime as opposed to perhaps hiring additional employees, but no doubt the ministry took that into consideration before making that particular decision. Those of us in opposition who ask questions in this regard recognize that there was a situation existing in each of the institutions mentioned that necessitated the further use of employees of the ministry. Of course, some of that perhaps results from the fact that the institutions themselves are overcrowded but, as the minister once again points out -- and I do not wish to be an apologist for the minister -- neither he nor his ministry has control over the fact that the police officers deposit these people at these particular institutions.

We would hope that the pre-trial programs that are in the early stages now will eliminate the need for some people to be confined to institutions for long periods of time before actually coming to trial or perhaps actually being sentenced. With the improvement in the bail situation, with the kind of supervision that could exist outside of institutions and be undertaken either by volunteer groups or by others who have a standing in the community of such that they would be trusted with this responsibility, perhaps further savings could be effected. I know that we will get into that in next year’s estimates when we deal with that particular problem.

I think it is significant as well that the minister mentioned that $1 million worth of service has been done in communities. We have expressed some concern that the services provided are not going to be those which would otherwise be done by employees hired by a particular community. With the consultation that takes place with the labour union movement, for instance, and with others, I think the ministry has made a genuine attempt to avoid that particular situation.

When we look at the additional expenditure that we see in the Ministry of Correctional Services, I think we have to take into account the fact that approximately $1 million worth of services is being provided to the community at the same time so there is a little bit of a balancing off there. I shouldn’t even say a little bit; a substantial balancing off that can be pointed to with some satisfaction.

The other point I found rather intriguing, being a minister who is probably noted for his great faith in the private enterprise system and a member of a government which has extolled the virtues of the private enterprise system on many occasions, I find it interesting that there is a competition taking place in the mattress business. He says that it simply can’t be done as well otherwise or that there aren’t others prepared to do it. Perhaps that can be expanded upon a little later on today or when we get into next year’s estimates, as to why this situation exists. Apparently you are not receiving competition or no one else really wants it. Therefore, the ministry either is so efficient that competition is not possible, or for some other reason these companies don’t wish to get into that business.

The last comment I would make is in regard to Glendale and the fact that perhaps some criticism -- and the minister no doubt will defend the situation -- might be directed to the fact that perhaps the closing was not planned as well as some would have expected and, therefore, the extra expenditures that resulted might draw one to the conclusion that it was poor planning. The minister and his officials might be able to explain otherwise.

In that we will be dealing extensively with 10 hours of estimates beginning next week, I will conclude my formal remarks and look for some replies from the minister.

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Chairman, the minister is asking for $2.8 million for 10 additional community resource centres. I would like to know where those resource centres will be located and, specifically, whether one of them be in the Sault Ste. Marie area. I visited the Sault jail and it is a dangerous situation. It is not only overcrowded, it is also understaffed and, while we hear about a hiring freeze, I think it goes against all common sense to have a situation where there is an old building, jammed full of prisoners, some of them dangerous, and then have two or three guards to supervise 40 or 50 prisoners. The Sault Ste. Marie area is one that cries out for a community resource centre as an alternative to the present system.

The other thing the minister mentioned was that the Toronto area has had a seven per cent increase in its prison population while Hamilton and some other jurisdictions have had a 25 per cent increase. That tells me that some of the judges are not cooperating with the program of alternatives to imprisonment that this government has been promoting and I would like to focus on this in the estimates by asking the minister to provide the justice committee with a list of those judges who prefer to jail people as opposed to assigning them some community work or to a restitution program; in other words, those Neanderthal judges who believe in the old hanging idea.

It really bothers me that we have 5,000 people locked up in our provincial prisons and half of them are there serving sentences of 30 days or less for minor driving and drinking offences. Even in the Don Jail, the notorious Don Jail, a large number of people are there every weekend serving time for parking offences, for Pete’s sake.

Mr. Nixon: Why don’t they pay their fines?

Mr. Ziemba: Well, maybe they can’t. Times are tough out there, you know. You might not know that, but there is an awful lot of unemployment here in Toronto.

Mr. Nixon: It is amazing the way they can run those cars around without any money.

Mr. Ziemba: Some of them are running those cars around trying to find work.

Mr. Germa: Keep them in debtors’ prison.

Mr. Ziemba: That is what we have got here in this province, debtors’ prisons, people serving time because they can’t pay their fines and the judges who impose those sentences should be exposed. They are costing the taxpayers --

Mr. Nixon: You mean they are making the sentences in secret?

Mr. Ziemba: If there are some enlightened judges I would like to commend them, but there may be others who believe in throwing people in jail for not paying a parking ticket. They are making a habit of this and they are costing the taxpayers $50 a day over a parking ticket that may be worth $2.

Mr. Chairman: Order. I wish the honourable member would return to the item before the committee.

Mr. Ziemba: I would like from the minister, as I said, the list of the 10 proposed community resource centres. I disagree with the minister as far as overtime is concerned. I don’t know whether he has spent much time in jail, but it isn’t the kind of place you want to spend more than eight hours. Tempers can get very short and in some of these prisons that are really overcrowded you are creating a dangerous situation by allowing overtime. I would rather see more staff hired working eight hours each and have a situation that doesn’t deteriorate as far as the relationship between prisoner and guard is concerned.

We have heard an awful lot of brave new initiatives by the former Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Drea) though not much has changed in the meantime. We still have the women in the Kingston prison, although the former minister promised us they would be home by last Christmas. Now we are hearing stories that this Kingston prison, which is a human jungle, is a place where women want to remain. I think you, Mr. Minister, have an obligation to repatriate the Ontario women prisoners. Bring them back to Ontario prisons as your predecessor has promised the justice committee, and the sooner the better. I don’t think because there is a kind of permissiveness allowed in Kingston that you should he going along with it.

I am worried about the money you are collecting from offenders. You collect $25 a week for being involved in the parole program, and are also charging prisoners at Mimico and other prisons rent every month. You smile, but I wonder whether you in fact may be breaking the law by collecting that money.

Mr. Nixon: You are smiling at this important matter.

Mr. Ziemba: The Criminal Lawyers Association has stated what you are doing by collecting this money is imposing another sentence, another fine. I would agree with that. You have $160 stashed away, collected from people serving these intermittent sentences and you make out a way of teaching them responsibility is by making them pay rent. In fact, you may he doing something illegal to extract this money. I don’t think any of them want to be there and it is ludicrous to suggest they are paying you rent for space for the weekend. I think you might want to hang on to that money because you may have to give it back to them with interest if you are ever brought to task for that.

The success of your ministry is based on the fact that you have so many volunteers who dedicate countless free hours to working with prisoners, such as the Salvation Army, the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society and many others. Your new corrections act would limit the scope of the volunteers. Although I haven’t had any complaints from any of these volunteer agencies, I wonder whether you have rethought your ministry’s position with regard to control over these volunteer groups? Some concerns were expressed during debate on that particular bill in this regard. I wonder whether you have had occasion to review your position on that?

[11:45]

I wonder, also, whether any of the $2.8 million is going to be funneled into the probation and parole services branch of your ministry? It seems to me most probation officers lave a caseload of about 90, while the experts claim that 30 or 40 is a reasonable number one individual can handle. I wonder whether this field is being properly funded with this money you are seeking today?

I have a number of other points that I will raise, as Mr. Bradley indicated, during the estimates. We will save them until then.

I objected to the $40 million your ministry spent in 1978 building new prisons. That was a bad mistake. Every one of these new prisons you have built was immediately jammed to capacity. Most of them were designed for 200 prisoners and you have got 400 and 500 --

Mr. Chairman: The honourable member is straying from this particular vote.

Mr. Ziemba: Am I straying from it?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Ziemba: It is interesting, though, isn’t it? Did you ever visit any of these new prisons?

Mr. Chairman: It would be very interesting under the general discussion.

Mr. Ziemba: Yes, you are quite right, Mr. Chairman. In any case, now that the minister has admitted the $40 million was a total waste of money and has gone along with opposition members’ suggestions that alternatives to prison are the answer, I am pleased to see he is putting his money where it can serve the best purpose. It certainly doesn’t make sense to lock up someone at a cost of $50 a day when these alternatives can cost the taxpayers $5 or $10 a day.

With the closing of Glendale, as my colleague Mr. Bradley stated, I think you have admitted that your ministry isn’t interested in rehabilitation any more. I don’t think it ever was. I don’t think rehabilitation ever existed in the provincial prisons. They are just simply holding situations. With the closing of that, I think you have just admitted you are not interested in education or rehabilitation, or any sort of cure-all for the offender syndrome.

I’ll have a few comments, Mr. Chairman, if the minister can explain where the resource centres are going to be located and whether some of this money will be directed to the probation and parole service branch of his ministry.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I thank the members opposite, the member for St. Catharines and the member for High Park-Swansea, for their comments. I will try to answer seriatim the questions they have posed.

The first question raised by the member for St. Catharines involved the fact that the increased expenditure in community efforts had not been properly reflected in our institutional decreases. One would expect that as we remove people from the institutions there should be a corresponding decrease in costs, because there is a corresponding increase in costs for individuals who go into community resource centres. it is fair to say one cannot turn it on and turn it off like a tap and suddenly have a huge saving in the institutions. For instance, the 188 people who went into community resource centres over the last year, during the period when these supplementary estimates stand, were not depleted from one institution. Had they been, then perhaps one institution would be considered redundant. There might be a significant saving of perhaps $3 million to $5 million which would normally be the cost of about 200 inmates.

So the saving is not quickly picked up, because the inmates are spread across the entire system. You will have 15 out of one place and 30 from another. All we can say is that during the year some of the institutions, Rideau and Burtch had closings of units so that there was some saving realized in each institution.

I would, however, like to say it does am pear in our estimates this year. We feel we are reflecting now the changes which occurred over the past year. Of course, 188 inmates didn’t necessarily come out on one day on April 1 last year, rather they came out spread over the year. The saving would not be fully appreciated until a full year is in front of us.

In the new estimates, the institutional figure has increased from $98,404,000 to $101,424,900. That increase is about three per cent. Given that inflation is running somewhat higher, members can see we are starting to show appreciable savings in our institution from that type of activity. We are quite pleased with it and quite confident our estimates for the institutions in the ensuing year, which we will talk about next week, do reflect precisely the point the member made, that there has been some saving, but it takes a while for it to occur.

The next point he raised involved community work. This is done by institutions, whereby the inmate resides in the institution and goes out for some form of community work during the day and is under supervision. There is a certain cost, as he indicated there. As I indicated in my opening statement, the cost is $200,000. That additional cost is offset by the amount of work done by the individuals, as he properly put forward. We had 177,400 hours of service of community work extended during the past year.

We attempted to put a price on that. If we put a price of $3 an hour, which I suppose is minimum wage, though we think it’s worth much more than that, the range is upwards of $600,000. If we put a greater price on it, then it approaches the $1 million mark. That is the offset, and we are quite impressed by the offset. We think it’s very much worthwhile.

It was a deviation of policy over the past year to go into community work and we’re quite happy and very impressed, frankly, with the results over the past year. Really there have been no incidents to be concerned about in all the community work. There were 177,000 hours of community work and scarcely an incident to report. We’re very impressed.

I think the member is well aware of some of the work being done by his own Niagara Region Detention Centre on the Welland Canal, which I believe he encouraged very strongly over the past year. We recognize the resistance of which he made mention. However, it has not reached any proportion that causes any alarm. I am sure all of our correctional officers realize that we have 500 more people today than we had a while back, so it does not appear that we are shrinking the size of our correctional staff.

In fact, what we are really doing is ensuring that through community programs, such as community service orders, people who do not properly belong in jail are not in jail. I think our officers are appreciating that. They now realize that there really isn’t that much difficulty. If anything, we are hiring additional officers, it would appear. The member for High Park-Swansea raised a number of points that I think are worth mentioning. Before I go on to those points, the member for St Catharines was particularly concerned about private enterprise and whether or not I was in conflict of my principles by setting up this industry within our institutions. I have to tell him that my principles are intact. Please be advised that the Mimico mattress-making operation operates with a private enterprise. The name of the company, as I recall, is Sleepmaster Limited, who are the private entrepreneurs in there providing that service. Our inmates work for them. That was a somewhat tendered proposal arrangement that is working extremely well for us.

Mr. Germa: Slave labour, eh? Slave labour for private profit.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The mattresses are really very impressive. Nowhere in the world could we find any mattress more flame-retardant, except, as I mentioned, the waterbed. The one thing about the mattress we now have is that the cotton that goes around it and the cotton within is, basically, sufficiently flame-retardant to avoid the kind of incident that occurred in the Stratford Jail type of situation.

We’re impressed by the fact that we are now selling these mattresses to federal penitentiaries, to other provincial correctional institutions, and inquiries have come from as far away as Italy and Bermuda.

Mr. Ziemba: Who is saving money on it?

Hon. Mr. Walker: The provincial Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller).

Mr. Ziemba: No, no. But it’s a private outfit that runs it, though. Where do they get their cut?

Hon. Mr. Walker: We are quite confident this is a very fine operation. In fact, oar institutional program in Guelph is a private enterprise arrangement where we have an abattoir operated by an outside firm. That abattoir engages between 40 and 50 inmates at any one period of time. The inmates are members of the union and receive union rates of pay and go away with money in their pockets. We have a fine operation; we go away with an excellent service being rendered by the company. They handle all the administration. As you know, in a good many cases when government tackles some form of industrial business that private enterprise should be doing, it usually ends up not achieving the mark. We are impressed by the fact that --

Mr. Warner: Your government. You should feel badly about that.

Hon. Mr. Walker: -- in this case, this particular operation is working very well. Indeed, the meat you may eat today will probably come from the abattoir at Guelph -- meat butchered there. We’re doing something like 1,700 head a week. That’s quite a butchering feat.

In previous years, when the ministry tried to operate it itself, it did not reach that figure. In fact, it was probably doing about 500 head a week. There’s a significant improvement in productivity.

We have other private enterprise operations in our jail system. In Maplehurst, there’s an automotive business. Muffler parts are being manufactured on a contract basis. The lessee leases space from us and pays the inmates and we provide the inmates, who earn a very reasonable rate of pay.

In our food servicing -- our food operations -- something like nine of the institutions have outside catering firms. That’s working extremely well. No complaints about that. However, I’m deviating a bit from the actual estimates.

Let me return to a point raised by the member for High Park-Swansea about the community resource centres. In my statement, I didn’t indicate that any of the money would be going into providing 10 new community resource centres. Rather, my statement was that, during the year, 10 additional community resource centres were opened. None was in Sault Ste. Marie. They were in other places. I could provide you with a list of those.

With respect to Sault Ste. Marie, we are exploring the possibility of a community resource centre there. We already have a form of one operating in Sault Ste. Marie in the front building, which I’m sure you toured back in December when you were in Sault Ste. Marie. I think there are 17 inmates in that particular front-end portion. They are not under maximum security; they come and go under the supervision of the operator of that portion of the facility.

Sault Ste. Marie presents a very difficult problem. As you can appreciate, it’s the crossroads of America, in many respects. It’s the crossroads of Canada, being on the TransCanada Highway. It’s the crossroads, from the United States, of that eastern seaboard road that comes north. There, we have a lot of inmates who do not have community ties. They’re basically on the road, going to and from somewhere. Without those community ties, they have basically to be incarcerated awaiting their trial.

Mr. Warner: It’s like a description of some cabinet ministers.

[12:00]

Hon. Mr. Walker: It seems to have more than its share of serious criminals on remand there at any one time. It’s not unusual to have upwards of 10 people in the remand area accused of severe crimes such as murder. That makes it very difficult to give much thought to CRCs in a large way.

With respect to the 25 per cent increase in days stay within the institutions in the Toronto area, which is quite different from the seven per cent across-the-board increase across Ontario, the 25 per cent increase has been somewhat alarming to us. We did not expect that large an increase. We had, based on our previous experience, budgeted for two per cent. In fact, it turns out across the province to be a seven per cent increase. The Toronto area has been mildly alarming to us because the increase in days stay has been 25 per cent in Toronto and Hamilton.

You made reference to what the judges are doing. We are impressed by the degree of co-operation that the judges are extending at this very moment. During the months of January and February, I spoke with almost all of the provincial court judges in Ontario at four of their sentencing seminars spread throughout the province -- at Kingston, the Sault, London and Toronto. In the process of that, we had a very good and frank discussion. We’ve noticed since then a significant increase in community service orders.

I’d like to give you these figures. In the first nine months of operation there were 1,000 community service orders. I can recall late in December saying that we’d had 1,000 community service orders applied. These are people who would otherwise have gone to jail in most cases, some perhaps not, but in most cases they would otherwise have gone to jail and the judges had seen fit to put forward community service orders. That was until December 1 -- 1,000 community service orders.

I can say at this very moment that we have just under, a fraction under, 1,000 community service orders actually in place today, and considering that some community service orders last maybe just a few weeks or a few months, you would probably have, at the rate we’re going now, upwards of 2,000 to 3,000 community service orders a year. We are impressed by the fact that the judges in the last two months have responded magnificently to a request that they consider additional community service orders. It’s a new program. A year ago it really wasn’t that well known, obviously, so in speaking with the judges we were able to share with them our experiences and how best CSOs worked and how they might make use of their CSO co-ordinators.

In that regard, we placed a number of CSO co-ordinators around the province to work with the courts. That has had a very significant effect. We can now say that we have 1,000 people on CSOs today and our view is that we’re going to surpass 2,000 for the entire year, or at least the fiscal year that we’re coming into. I suspect we will hit around 2,500 CSOs. We are impressed that the judges are responding, and my suspicion is that that is going to show dramatically on the amount of days stay in the Toronto area.

We don’t know precisely why the days stay had increased. We think it may have been somewhat related to more serious crimes being dealt with. It’s possible that judges who gave two-month sentences a few years ago were giving three-month sentences in the past year. For some reason they are increasing the length of stay. Of course, that has quite an effect on our budget. We are simply the recipients of whatever the judges may do. If they sentence twice as many people to jail we have to provide space for them, and it’s very difficult. It causes very difficult problems at some of the institutions. The Sault is one, and there are other places in the province, such as Barrie jail, that have that type of situation. We have had some very difficult times responding to the number of people coming in.

You made reference to the federal penitentiary at Kingston, the prison for women. You have, of course, gathered in the last few weeks that there is disinterest on the part of some of the people in the prison for women to come to, say, Vanier or some other facility in Ontario. You suggest that I have an obligation to repatriate those people from Kingston. I’m not sure I really can say repatriation is the proper word, because it’s from one edge of the province to the other edge of the province. We’re not really repatriating them.

I suppose what you’re saying is that Ontario has a responsibility to look after all women who may be Ontario women in jail, rather than arbitrarily applying the two-year rule, that those serving less than two years would be in an Ontario institution and those sewing more than two years would be in a federal institution. I suppose that then raises the question: Should we be looking after all the men as well?

Mr. Ziemba: No. It’s something the former minister (Mr. Drea) promised us.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Yes. I have to tell you there have been discussions during the year on the question and we are in a position where we have not really had too many advances made to us. We have discussed it with the federal people. I talked to the federal Solicitor General not too long ago, a week or so ago. It was a very casual chat for just a few moments in a courtesy visit I was making. I got the impression he wanted to sit down and spend more time trading turkey on the question. He was very anxious to encourage a move.

Of course, we’ll hear more about that in the future, but obviously if we’re going to discuss it with the federal government we have to see what they’re saying in respect to cost. That’s a very healthy cost for us to look after the people from there. There would be about 66 women from the prison for women who would quite possibly come to Ontario. Before that can be done they have to solve the problem with British Columbia and with Quebec, as to what they would do with respect to French-speaking people and what they would do with respect to the western women, where they would go. Those issues probably have to be resolved I before we solve cur problem with them.

If they do come to Ontario’s jurisdiction, we would have to provide a maximum security facility for some of them, and Vanier is not a maximum security facility. We would have to provide different programs, because people who are in jail for seven years or more require a different approach from those who are in jail for maybe 15 months. We have a lot of serious problems and a lot of cash questions to deal with.

Thank you for your comments about the volunteers; we agree with them. They are excellent and make a real contribution. We have rethought the question of section 9 of the act which was I passed, and we have indicated that we do not intend to emphasize the question of volunteer control. I made that very clear just a day or two ago to a meeting of our private agencies, including the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry societies.

One last point: You made reference to our estimates of $2.8 million and ask if any of that goes into probation and parole. We have a new budget coming in as of April 1 and we will be attacking those next week, but, in short, let me just say that our community programs have increased by 25 per cent in dollar value from last year’s estimates to this year’s estimates. I think that probably answers your question quite well. The institutional cost has only increased by three per cent.

Vote 1502 agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

On vote 2402, land management program; item 8, conservation authorities:

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, there are two actual projects involved in the conservation authorities item of $4,975,000.

The first item has to do with property acquisition, and it is part of the waterfront plan for 1977-81, phase two, of the Metropolitan Toronto Conservation Authority. In that plan, a total of $11 million in provincial grants towards a total cost of $22 million for property acquisition in phase two, to be expended over a five-year period, was agreed to.

In 1977, $1.4 million of that was flowed. In 1978, with this amount included, there will be a total of $5.6 million. It is anticipated that within the next three years we will again be at approximately the $1.4 million level, to give a total of $11 million.

Specifically, in here there is $4.2 million, which is one half of the total price for the acquisition of the Guild Inn and the 88 acres of land which go with the inn along the Scarborough Bluffs; also included are four residences and an administration and storage building.

The other item is $755,000, which was allocated to the Chesterville dam and reservoir project on the South Nation River and the Chesterville channelization project.

The dam project is expected to be completed and operational in 1979, and the increased costs associated with that component relate to accelerating the contract to have the structure available for the spring of 1980.

Money was applied to the Chesterville channelization project, which is a flood relief channel immediately upstream of the town of Chesterville and which will provide some relief from summer and late spring flooding in the Chesterville area. It is anticipated that the Chesterville channelization project will take approximately three years to complete, and construction funding is currently contemplated for federal and provincial financing.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, further to the conservation vote in the amount of $4,975,000, at this point I am more concerned about the conservation of life.

About an hour ago in the House I asked the minister, “Why in the hell don’t you get somebody down to Harrisburg to check out what is going on down there?” He told me, “We have someone down there.” Those were his words. I said: “Who are they? Where are they? When did they go?” The minister did not rise to answer my question.

I challenge the minister at this point. I have been talking to Mr. Dennis Dack, the head of public relations for Hydro. He said to me, “We have no one down there.”

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I say to the member for Grey-Bruce --

Mr. Sargent: With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious matter.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order. We are dealing here with supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources. It has nothing to do with energy at all.

If you have risen in your place to speak to these estimates, and not to anything in the energy field, I would ask you to limit your remarks to that.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, it is important. If the minister has misled this House, we should know about it at this point. Give him a chance to defend himself now.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Now is not the time to do that. If you want to ask any questions on natural resources, we would be very pleased to have you continue, but not on the matter of energy.

Mr. Sargent: I appreciate that we are talking about natural resources, Mr. Chairman, but human life is one of the main factors in natural resources. It is all tied in together.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I am afraid you can’t stretch that over into this vote.

Mr. Sargent: I would challenge the minister to answer my question.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I would advise the minister not to answer that question. If there are any questions on natural resources --

Mr. Sargent: It is very important, in view of what is going on in the nuclear field, that we know exactly what Ontario Hydro and this minister are doing about it. If he has misled the House, we should know about it.

[12:15]

Mr. Deputy Chairman: You will have your opportunity on Monday to question the minister in the matter of energy.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, in the interests of saving time I’d like to say something. As it happens, about half an hour ago, I learned I had misunderstood the information given to me yesterday. I called the Speaker to ask him how I might deal with that, it was suggested it might not be improper to rise when I was dealing with this and indicate that in fact what Hydro had indicated to me was that it was monitoring the situation closely. They did not tell me they had a person there. I misunderstood. In fact, I am told the authorities investigating that situation in the US would not have other observers with them. Hydro, as I say, is monitoring the matter very closely.

Mr. Sargent: They’re not there.

Hon. Mr. Auld: There is no one from Hydro on the site in Pennsylvania and I want to apologize for making that mistake. I had intended when we had completed this estimate to make that statement.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Warner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The minister obviously knows a great deal about deer. That was quite an explanation in the House this morning.

The moneys have been spent for the acquisition of land in order to try to complete the waterfront project. It’s a good project. It will enhance the beauty of Metropolitan Toronto. I am pleased to see the project going ahead. In Scarborough, we have benefited already from Bluffers Park. The landfill project has provided us with an access to boating facilities and to recreational facilities which we didn’t have before, so the project has been of benefit to us.

Similarly, I would take it that the acquisition of the Guild Inn site is of benefit or will be of benefit to residents of Scarborough, particularly those who live in the southerly portion of the borough. It preserves a little spot of history that I think a lot of us in Scarborough would prefer to preserve.

My question to you is: Keeping in mind that these projects are important, or at least projects we would like to see go ahead, why did they take precedence over the preservation of the bluffs? There are a couple of spots in particular where restoration is needed, and where some work has to be done in order to try to preserve the bluffs area. I understand some of that work would likely involve landfill, and of course an expense would be involved. I’d just briefly like to know why that project didn’t take priority over the projects you’ve cited where the money was spent?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, this of course is a separate project, I know the honourable member agrees with me that the conservation authority gets support from ourselves and also from the constituent municipalities and decides its own priorities. However, I have had some concern about the situation to the west of the Bluffers Park restoration project, which has been very successful. I have been in touch with the authority and I am informed they are going ahead this year and have reallocated some of their normal budget funds for work to start on the area to the west where there is quite severe erosion. In fact, the erosion is right up to the south edge of one of the streets, and I’ve observed it myself.

That is being done, but I just want to reiterate this is separate from the property acquisition project. My recollection is there has been discussion going on with the Guild Inn company for some time. It just happened, I guess, that it came to fruition now rather than next year or two years ago. It is part of that separate project, which is waterfront property acquisition.

Mr. Warner: One final question: When should the acquisition be completed? When will all the lands required -- I take it this is only part; it’s not the end of it -- be acquired?

Hon. Mr. Auld: It is a five-year program which is anticipated to finish in 1981.

Mr. Warner: Is there any estimate of how much more money needs to be expended between now and the completion of the project?

Hon. Mr. Auld: In the amount that was allocated over the five-year period, in 1976-77 when this was put together, there would be approximately $4.2 million that we have undertaken to put forward in the next three years.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, the minister has answered all my questions -- not quite as vividly as his description of the deer but none the less appreciated.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister briefly for his views on some matters pertaining to conservation authorities which have come to our attention recently and which I believe would have some bearing on the amount to be voted.

The recent floods, and the reaction of the conservation authorities to them, have left a lot of people in doubt as to the efficacy of the flood control and warning system of the Grand River Conservation Authority and, to some extent, of the Thames Valley Conservation Authority. I believe the staff in each case is competent, and I believe the people from the municipalities and those appointed by the government by order in council are competent and certainly committed to the good of the responsibilities normally associated with conservation.

Having said that, however, I would like simply to say that in the area I represent, confidence in the conservation authority is somewhat reduced and is continuing to be reduced. There were people involved in the community, such as myself, the works manager for the town of Paris, members of the council of the town of Paris and the former mayor, who publicly indicated they felt the warning system was inadequate and that the conservation authority had not taken the responsibilities and initiatives that it might have taken during the unexpected flooding caused by the ice jam.

It came down to this: The people in the town wanted the ice jam dynamited. The chairman and the officials of the conservation authority said: “This is only done fur grandstanding or public relations reasons. In fact, it can do no good. Furthermore, it can only be done by the municipality itself.” Also -- and this was in direct reference to me -- the chairman indicated he felt I should know better than to indicate they might dynamite it, since the dynamiting would of course come directly under the Attorney General’s (Mr. McMurtry) responsibility. I naturally phoned the Attorney General, and he said he had never heard anything about it. To be fair, the chairman has more or less withdrawn the indication he’s sorry I didn’t know such an obviously well-known fact, because evidently he is the only person who knew anything about it.

I am not here to have a big fight with Mr. Bauer, who has served extremely well as the government’s appointee on the board for many years. But for him and the officials to indicate there is nothing they can do under those circumstances, and whatever dynamite is used is strictly for public relations reasons, seems to me to be irresponsible. I say that deliberately. If it is for grandstanding purposes, then they certainly should not do it anywhere -- and they have done it at the mouth of the Grand previously, as well as at the mouth of the Thames even this year.

The idea that it should be done by the municipality is absolutely absurd because the flooding is usually caused by an ice I am that may very well be and almost always is in a downriver municipality and it backs up. What is Paris going to do about an ice jam that is in Brantford township? I do not even want to talk about it, it is so patently absurd.

The thing that concerns me is that these conservation authorities now are mature. They are old, Many of the people on their boards have been there a good long time; they have gone forward and built very large structures to house their administrative staff. They have spent the money, for example, to put remote-reading water level gauges in many places in the river system that read back at their headquarters; but really, if there is an emergency they seem to be wound up in red tape or simply have their feet set in the usual inertia situation associated with very comfortable public servants.

It is true that 99.9 per cent of the time they need do nothing except go around and in a very responsible way indicate that the conservation authority is looking after its responsibility; but when the river gets on the rampage, then we expect some of these people, who are adequately paid no doubt, to have a plan and to come down and say: “This is what we are planning to do, people, and we are going to do it. We are going to take the responsibility; and if it needs a helicopter we will get a helicopter”; instead of telling the public works person in Paris that he should contact the police, who might have a helicopter and it won’t do any good anyway.

The organization always seems to be looking for reasons why they can’t do anything. I am very much concerned, because although the minister has a large number of officials who could probably make the public relations speeches as well as the conservation authorities, his responsibilities lie directly in northern Ontario largely and really the value of the conservation authority is becoming a remote question.

The minister may have even seen that the report of the royal commissioner looking into local government in the Waterloo area recommended the abolition of the conservation authority. I do not join in that recommendation at this time, but I tell you, Mr. Chairman, it is time we had a very careful look at what the conservation authorities are supposed to do. They run great parks; the park at Pinehurst in the Grand River Conservation Authority is one of the finest in Canada. But we have to remember that there is a federal parks board, a provincial parks board, a municipal parks board -- and whether we really need them all, I don’t know. The park is run by the authority and they do it very well, but they should bring forward other initiatives in the community.

They have taken a very strong role in planning decisions; as a matter of fact every proposal in the flood plain -- which is an extremely large area indeed, including almost the whole of the town of Paris, for example -- any planning decision has to go to the conservation authority. They have a map and they have very competent people -- I know some of them, recent graduates from some planning course in Ontario -- who have mapped out where the high water level would be if Hurricane Hazel had dumped on the Grand River and they have drawn the line. Everything in there seems to be under their veto and control.

We can argue that this may or may not be a good thing. Maybe the town of Paris should be moved up into the hills in preparation for the once-in-a-century flood. And maybe that is your policy, as long as there isn’t a flood. It is not mine. It really concerns me, because it has dislocated so many of the planning decisions, both with delays and what amounts to veto.

I have written to the chairman and indicated that the impression we have is that he runs a “nay” saying organization; and very properly he wrote back and disagreed -- in very moderate tones, as is certainly proper. He even indicated at one time, being critical of the mayor of Paris, that the present mayor of Paris was getting exercised about the former mayor of Paris because he happens to be a candidate for election in the present campaign. It may be that the very fact the chairman is not ever a candidate for election means that his approach to public affairs is so far removed from the reality in the community as to be approaching uselessness.

I am getting concerned about the conservation authorities and I just want to indicate my concern to the minister. We will talk about it again sometime, I think.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate a little of what was said by the previous speaker, that the conservation authority, with the staff they have and the planning ability they should have, should be doing some monitoring. It seems to me they should be able to tell within a day or two what is going to happen.

[12:30]

I know that in the Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority area in 1937 they had the worst flood they ever had. We had no conservation authorities and the people lived through it with losses and so forth. But now that we have a conservation authority, the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, and we have planning, it seems to me that we should be able to monitor the levels all the way up the system and know pretty well what is going to happen, with the studies and with the things that have happened over the past number of years.

It seems to me that the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) would be here today if he knew this was on, because it is very important in Dover township. There was a major catastrophe in that township in the last flood just a few weeks ago. It caused great disruption to that township. We know it is excellent farm land because the dikes pumped it out. That is probably some of the choicest land and the most productive land in Ontario. That disrupted that municipality a great deal and it is going to be a long time getting over it.

It seems to me that conservation authorities should be able to monitor what is going on in the upper levels of the Thames River. They should be able to tell within a few days lower down how long it takes for that water to get down. There should be some warnings and something should be done.

I think this is very serious. It seems to me what the conservation authorities in our own area are mostly doing is buying up land. I don’t think they are doing much studying as far as any flood control is concerned. They may have some studies made on it. If they have, they haven’t reported them as far as I am concerned. They are mostly interested in buying park land; which is nice to have, but in areas where the possibility of flooding comes once in a while I think they should be looking at that much more seriously.

Hon. Mr. Auld: If that is the last of the comments, I might very briefly say that we have some concern too about communications in these flood emergencies. That is why I established the committee which is presently working in the lower Thames area to look at, among other things, the question of communications and responsibility and how these things are carried out.

I won’t attempt to comment on the question of methods because I am not an expert in dealing with ice jams and floods and so on. We have some concern about this and I am expecting that we will learn about some things that happened, and hopefully find ways of improving them. I am tempted to say that the conservation authorities were originally set up specifically to deal with flood problems.

Mr. Gaunt: They have gone far beyond that now.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think as a result of having to acquire flood-plain lands for reservoirs and one thing and another, and then finding they were not necessarily used for that purpose all the time, they have expanded into the recreation field with the approval of the municipalities, which are paying their share obviously. But I think we have to concentrate on the primary objective and the original intent.

That is what we are looking at at the moment; and we will be looking at more, because of the fact that there are not unlimited funds and there is still remedial work to be done. In fact as far as the Grand is concerned, which is not involved in this estimate, but just for the information of the honourable member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), I am told the environmental study on the dam is almost completed and will be completed in a month or so. When that is available there will be the Environmental Hearing Board hearings. Staff of my ministry are meeting with staff of the authority in a preliminary way to look at what may be involved in financing and so on, assuming the project is to go ahead. In fact, they have a meeting next week.

Vote 2402 agreed to.

On vote 3101, ministry administration and health insurance program; item 11, health insurance.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: A number of unforeseen factors have developed since the ministry’s 1978-79 estimates were prepared. Vote 3101, item 11, health insurance, will therefore require $66 million in supplementary funds for the current fiscal year.

During February and March of the 1977-78 fiscal year, there was an unpredictable surge in OHIP claims. The impact of this surge carried over into this fiscal year and, since it occurred subsequent to the preparation of our 1978-79 estimates, the base calculation for the estimate was understated. The OHIP estimate was based on some anticipated service reductions, but after lengthy consultation with the medical profession regarding the impact of these planned reductions on overall patient care, it was deemed inappropriate to proceed with the reductions.

The original estimate provided for a 1.1 per cent increase in the use of medical services. However, the actual increase experienced this fiscal year is in excess of two per cent. There was no provision in the 1978-79 estimates at that time for the January 1979 average fee increase of 6.6 per cent. To improve service to the public, the ministry wishes to reduce the inventory of claims submitted, but not yet processed, to a minimum. The funds requested for the claims inventory reduction represents eight days normal processing volume.

The factors I have outlined will result in actual OHIP expenditures of approximately $1.024 billion, compared to the 1978-79 estimate of $958 million.

Mr. Conway: I want to use this opportunity this morning on the supplementary estimates as presented by the Minister of Health to elicit a few comments from I him about this rather topical and timely issue of payment for physicians’ services in the government plan.

I was rather interested in the minister’s comment that among the reasons for the rather substantial $66 million additional amount was, to use his phrase, “an unpredictable surge in OHIP claims” submitted during the course of the previous year. What certainly strikes me in this instance is that on the one band some of us are encouraging -- and I make no apologies for that -- increases on a sectoral basis within the physicians’ community. I want to reiterate my concern about the rate at which general practitioners are presently being paid. But as we increase that -- and the minister pointed out that some of the $66 million is a result of 6.6 per cent increase in the fee schedule -- we seem to be experiencing, on the other hand, a phenomenon of, to use his figures, a rather substantial surge in the rate of utilization. If that is not an, then the minister can take this opportunity to correct me.

Clearly, the present situation within the OHIP program in Ontario is one that is increasingly unsatisfactory to a number of people in this House and outside. I am, for one, deeply concerned about the redress that has been offered most recently by the minister. It is a step clearly in the right direction; I want to make no comment to the contrary in that connection. He has moved, finally, I think in the right direction, to establish a sense of government initiative with respect to a developing deterioration, apparent or otherwise, in the general community.

I look at the minister’s statement of yesterday and I see difficulties, administrative and otherwise, that concern me a great deal. I sincerely hope he is able to deal with the medical community, as he indicates he is going to be able to, in developing new mechanisms to control the opted-in opted-out problem that has developed.

In that connection, since we are dealing with that vote in particular, I was most impressed yesterday by the minister’s response to what was really an administrative inquiry on my behalf with respect to the burden placed on the system by substantially increased percentages of opted-out physicians. I see the very distinguished general manager of OHIP here and I am sure be will be able to answer some of the points I would like to raise in this connection.

Doctors really opt out at rates of what is now 20 per cent, on average, despite the fact I think the figure used is 17.9. My sources indicate the actual percentage opted out is in the neighbourhood of 20 per cent; roughly 22 to 24 per cent in the specialist category and 13 per cent in the GP category. The minister shakes his head very strongly in the negative, but that information comes to me from informed sources outside the ministry but well within the medical profession, organized medicine in particular, and I presume they would know what they’re talking about.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Is the honourable member saying the overall rate is in excess of 20 per cent?

Mr. Conway: I am saying I had informed information presented to me that the actual per cent of opting out is more properly in the neighbourhood of 20 per cent, since the denominators being offered by the minister are apparently not totally accurate ones. If that is incorrect, then the minister can indicate how that figure of 17.9 per cent opted out is being arrived at. Perhaps he might take this opportunity to elucidate for us how he sees what his officials indicate is the relative breakdown between specialists opting out versus general practitioners opting out.

In that connection, it strikes me one of the serious concerns for those of us in the Legislature is that, administratively speaking, with so many more doctors opting out surely the burdens being placed on the OHIP administration are not only increasing in terms of work load but clearly have to be increasing the cost within the system. As you stop dealing with one physician on behalf of all his patients, upon his opting out you start dealing with, in a payment sense, his 800 or 1,500, or however many, patient episodes with which he is being associated with respect to the plan. Obviously, the cost of sending out 800 cheques or 1,500 cheques on a monthly basis has to be greater than it was previously where the doctor was opted in and the payment was being made on a monthly basis.

If, as the minister suggested yesterday, there really has been capacity at OHIP to &al with this and there is no additional burden, I have to wonder just how much unused capacity there is at OHIP, because I would think from what has been made clear to me in recent months there is a substantial increase in the opting out. I was never aware there was a substantial amount of unused capacity in that connection. I was aware as well, from another source, that it costs roughly three or four times as much to process the claim of the patient of an opted-out physician on a per unit basis as it did to process the claim of a physician and a patient who are entirely part of the plan. If that is not the case, I would appreciate being told how it is possible to have no additional burdens on manpower or overall costs in that connection.

I found it interesting yesterday that we finally got a statement from the government, a government which I imagine must have had some very rigorous late-night sessions with organized medicine, I on Wednesday in particular, to try to stem the tide. To the minister’s credit, he did exact from organized medicine one or two concessions I hadn’t heard them publicly admit before. There seems to be, in his statement of March 29, 1979 a concession finally extracted from organized medicine that they will yield their previously sacred right to apply a means test. If that is indeed a concession won, it seems to me it’s one that is so obvious that it should not have ever been required, but it’s certainly something that should not be let go of.

[12:45]

I do sympathize with the difficulties facing the government in this connection, because the relationship between this government and organized medicine has been a very close and intimate one. I was thinking the other day of how, when the former Premier (Mr. Robarts), the member for London North, retired in 1971 he apparently said in his final press conference that perhaps among his greatest failures as Premier was the way in which he allowed this province to be brought into this medicare system, which was, in his own words, a Machiavellian scheme of the federal Grits and he would have liked to have had it otherwise.

This government’s commitment to medicare is, from where I stand, an uncertain one, on the basis of a number of past and present experiences. That it should have taken this minister and this government this long to make a few things clear and to extract a few commitments from organized medicine is, in my view, an indication of that uncertainty. The minister may not share that view entirely, but I want to make that point at the time.

My leader drew attention to this today. Let’s not make any mistake about where it is the Ontario Medical Association stands in all of this. Ed Morand, Bill Vail and such luminaries in that association are well known to me.

Mr. Hodgson: That great Liberal Vail.

Mr. Conway: The member for York North proffers some advice about their partisan political connections. He is a far greater seer in that connection than am I.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: If I might interrupt the member for Renfrew North for a moment, I understand there was some hope we might complete these estimates today, being the last day of the fiscal year. If that’s not so, that’s fine, but I wanted to be sure that we allowed equal time to the third party and a little time for the minister’s reply.

Mr. Conway: I wasn’t aware of that.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I just understand that’s a hope.

Mr. Conway: Your injunction is well made. I shall restrict my remarks accordingly.

I want to say one or two things about organized medicine with respect to this plan, and I hope the government understands. The OMA, in my view, has never really varied from its early position that it doesn’t like medicare, it doesn’t want medicare and it is committed to the abolition of medicare in a direct or phased-in mechanism. I have never heard anything to the contrary.

I find it remarkable that, indeed, we have the government saying in this document yesterday that the Ontario Medical Association is going to become the sole negotiating agency -- and it’s not surprising that it should. But again, as my leader pointed out in this morning’s question period, I am totally confused as to how they are going to negotiate for two groups of people, one opted in and one opted out, and how they are going to negotiate with a government that ostensibly maintains its commitment in the long and short term to getting government out of medicare. I see in this scheme all kinds of inherent difficulties.

I hope this minister, who according to recent press accounts has certain unofficial campaigns under way, will undertake in the public interest one official campaign, and he will make it clear to organized medicine on behalf of the people of Ontario that medicare is a fundamental social commitment of this government on behalf of the people who, in my view, share a very strong majority commitment to its being sustained.

If this minister wants to, on behalf of any campaign, enhance his public reputation he would do well, in my view, to make it as clear as it can be made clear to special interests in this sector that government will not retreat from its commitment to medicare, a social value system about which all of us feel very strongly. I hope the minister understands that. I believe yesterday’s statement showed some signs of his at last coming round to understanding that. I hope he will go forward and make it clear, in a public way, where he stands on behalf of this Legislature of the people in respect to those special interests which continue to maintain a position of dismantling medicare in Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: I have to say that I cannot share the optimism of the member for Renfrew North about the agreement, announced yesterday by the minister, concerning his discussions with the Ontario Medical Association.

I do want to make a few comments about the supplementary estimates; about what is happening within medicare; and about the continuing danger that the whole system will be dismantled while the government stands by and tries to reassure the public that nothing is actually happening.

I would point out, with regard to this particular supplementary estimate, Mr. Chairman, that in the current fiscal year with this supplementary estimate the remuneration to doctors will rise by 11.5 per cent overall; a half a per cent up or down -- I don’t have my calculator with me. In the two years from 1976-77 to 1978-79, the overall increase in remuneration to doctors in this province by the people of Ontario will be of the order of 28 per cent.

I do want to point out, however, that doctors who chose to opt out from last year to this year are, in addition to those big increases which are taking effect under the OHIP plan, taking further very substantial increases. To the point, in fact, where the fees of OMA doctors are, on average, about 42 per cent higher than the fee schedule of the Ontario Medical Association.

For example, the surcharge on a general assessment, under the OMA schedule, is 37 per cent over OHIP. For an appendectomy it’s 39 per cent; for a minor assessment, the surcharge is 49 per cent; and, for a routine consultation, it is 52 per cent.

The following are, on average, 43 per cent higher, Mr. Chairman:

A standard office visit under OHIP $7.70; under the OMA opted-out fee schedule, $3.30 more. A house call under OHIP is $14.65; under the opted-out schedule it is $6.35 more. An appendectomy under OHIP is $132.55; under the OMA schedule, it is $190. For an obstetrician providing services for a pregnancy, the difference is $100 -- a surcharge of 43 per cent in each of those cases.

The minister keeps on saying, “You’re bringing up individual cases.” The individuals whose cases we have brought forward cannot comfort themselves with general averages. Because they are finding in their communities that there are no opted-in doctors who are genuinely accessible. Or they are finding, in the case of their particular hospitals, there is no opted-in surgeon accessible. Or they are finding out that in their particular cases their doctors are not prepared to have any mercy at all when it comes to insisting on bills being paid; or about going to collection agencies.

Here is another example, Mr. Chairman. This is the ease of a Toronto woman who went to her allergist on referral from the GP and was billed extra. It took about 10 minutes in the doctor’s office. The doctor’s consultation cost was $73 and allergy tests cost $14.30. The total remuneration from OHIP was $60.80. The surcharge she had to pay was $26.50, or 44 per cent over the OHIP rate. This woman has refused to pay the bill. But, as others in her situation have found, there is a grave risk of harassment from a collection agency and possibly a risk to her credit rating. That’s one of the fears people have brought before us.

I want to comment on the answer given about this problem by the minister in his statement yesterday.

First, he said clearly patients should have the option to go to a doctor of choice. That will not be an option, Mr. Chairman, as long as certain doctors a patient might choose levy very substantial surcharges on that patient. There cannot be freedom of choice for the patients if they find that they cannot afford to pay any opted-out rates. Therefore, they can only choose among those doctors who are still opted in; particularly in places like Amherstburg and Tottenham, where no physician is opted in at all. Or, as in the case of the many hospitals at this time, where substantial numbers -- or all doctors in particular specialties -- have opted out of the plan. The principle of choice is not a reality until every doctor in the province is providing care at the insured rate.

Secondly, the minister indicated to the press two days ago that all doctors would be providing services in hospitals at the insured rate. It’s clear that the wording of the statement --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, with all due respect, I think I was very clear on the point that the services would be available on an opted-in basis. If I inadvertently said that I certainly apologize, but I think I’ve been very clear every time I’ve commented on that matter that services would be available. I did not say or even mean to imply that all doctors would be opted in.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister has been clear within the House, and certainly in re-examining his statement I found it said what I thought it said. However, the impression that was left with the press was clearly different.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You’ve been a reporter.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister will say that was, in fact, not correctly reported. I’ve had that happen to me as well. Therefore, I’d like to talk about what the minister has had to say in the House.

It’s clear then, from the statement and from his confirmation now, that only some services in hospitals, which are publicly funded, will be provided at the insured rate, not all services; only some patients will be assured of that service -- that is, those patients who insist -- and only some doctors are guaranteeing that they will be providing services at the insured rate, because the minister once again has indicated that he is not about to insist that every doctor practising within a hospital has to provide services at the insured rates.

That, it seems to me, is a long way away from the guarantee of universally accessible service at the insured rate, which we thought we had for the past 10 years under medicare.

The minister said in the House on Tuesday that it was illegal to publish a list of opted-out and opted-in doctors, and he has maintained that position. He has not yet explained how it is then legal for the Ontario Medical Association to publish the names of certain physicians who are opted in or opted out. I have checked with my colleague from Riverdale, an eminent lawyer, who assures me that if an OMA hotline gives the name of an opted-in or opted-out doctor that is every bit as much publication as if the minister were to publish the lists. It’s certainly clear to us that section 44 of the Health Disciplines Act is there to protect the confidentiality of information about patients, and not to prohibit this kind of valuable information for consumers.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If I may help the member, it’s the Health Insurance Act.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m sorry, with the time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to finish what I have to say.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The minister will have an opportunity to reply.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I was just trying to help him. He has the wrong act.

Mr. Cassidy: I beg your pardon, the Health Insurance Act is the act the minister referred to. It’s section 44 of the Health Insurance Act. Thank you.

I had the chance of checking informally with people from the OMA yesterday, senior people, and it is clear that this is not a brand new service which is suddenly going to be accessible to everybody in the province. They said, “Look, if somebody calls up asking for the name of a physician who is opted-in we’ll give him the name of one or two, and if he calls back we’ll give him the names of a couple more.” I was not able to find out what would happen in those communities where no doctor is, in fact, opted in.

Third, my friend from Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) will tell the House that when a trade union bargains and is the sole negotiating agency for its workers, it makes a commitment that all of the workers whom it represents will, in fact, honour that agreement. That’s what collective bargaining is all about. If you want to apply this to a profession, people in the teachers’ federations are very familiar with that because when they bargain for their members everybody abides by that agreement.

If the minister had told us that since the OMA was becoming the sole negotiating agency it had also made a commitment that every doctor in the province would respect and abide by the fee schedule resulting from the bargaining, then that would have been very welcome. We think no doctor in the province should charge more than the agreed-upon rate. The minister himself has said that the remuneration will be accepted as fair by both the people of Ontario and the medical profession. There is no cause then to have anybody in the province charged an unfair rate by a doctor who decides to charge more than the agreed-upon rate.

However, it is a factor that there are doctors who are not even members of the OMA at this point. It seems to me it would be very difficult to bind those doctors.

I want to conclude. We are going to ask that this debate be continued early next week, perhaps only for a short time. It does make it difficult if a minister has not had a chance to reply.

[1:00]

Mr. Nixon: If you conclude, he could make a statement.

Mr. Cassidy: There is a suggestion I might conclude in a minute and then have the minister make a statement.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Being five minutes to one, if you will complete your statement in a minute, that will allow the minister four minutes to reply.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Perhaps you can help me. I think the honourable member is suggesting that somehow we can extend the fiscal year.

Mr. Conway: Not even you can do that, Dennis.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I think we are wasting valuable time.

Mr. Cassidy: I understand your vision is a bit blurred as far as the clock is concerned.

Mr. Nixon: I am sorry about this, but mine isn’t blurred as far as the clock is concerned. There is plenty of opportunity to debate this. I don’t know if you want to go over, we just don’t do that. You are the people who don’t do that.

Mr. Cassidy: With great respect, if the House leader of the Liberal Party doesn’t wish to even give the Minister of Health an opportunity to comment on a $66 million budget --

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, who made the ruling that this bad to pass before the end of the fiscal year? It doesn’t make sense to me. We passed a resolution last night empowering the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) to pay all the bills. We can pass this supplementary estimate a year from now if we want to. What is the rush, other than to get it over?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: There was just a hope that it might be cleared up.

Mr. Nixon: I hope too.

Mr. Cassidy: It might be proper, then, if I adjourn the debate. I am sure the House leaders can agree on a definite period of time to continue this debate sometime during the course of business, either next week or perhaps after the throne debate is concluded. I would so move, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Nixon: Why don’t we just carry the vote?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am looking for some advice. My understanding is that can’t be done. The agreement among the House leaders was that we would conclude --

Mr. Nixon: There was no agreement.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- by one o’clock and carry all the estimates.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The time for adjournment has come and since there is no agreement, I would ask the minister to move the committee rise and report.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have been passed a note and I am looking for some advice. We cannot issue cheques without funds and we cannot do that without approval.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved that the House extend its hours of sitting this afternoon to conclude the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Would the member for Ottawa Centre try to keep his remarks brief?

Mr. Cassidy: I would have liked more time. However, I was commenting on the real concerns we have that so far we have only begun to find solutions. I would say the full question of medicare remains in grave jeopardy, despite what the minister had to announce in the Legislature two days ago.

Just under a year ago, it was professional misconduct for a doctor in the province to charge a patient more than about 11 per cent above the OMA rate, the OHIP rate, unless he informed the patient in advance. It is now permissible for a doctor to charge up to about 42 per cent more without incurring the risk of professional misconduct.

We have suggested, and I suggest again to the minister, the regulations to the Health Disciplines Act should be amended because the OMA already says in principle that physicians should inform the patient if they are opting out of OHIP.

That adherence in principle is not proving effective in practice. Since the OMA is opposed to those kinds of regulations anyway, even if a doctor is charging more than the OMA rate, it seems to me this is a case where it is up to the minister and the province to protect the health of consumers of Ontario and ensure they get a fair deal and ensure not just that they have access to medicare at insured rates if they insist, but that in fact they are provided medical care at insured rates without having to go through enormous tortuous difficulties in order to get it.

I would remind the House that under the premium assistance plan of the government which exists right now, under which premium assistance is available not as a privilege but as a right, there are approximately 330,000 people who do not exercise that right -- who do not even insist, in other words, that they get the premium remission -- despite being of very modest means.

The other day, when I was in Peterborough where close to 70 per cent of the doctors in the city are opted out, an old fellow came up to me and said, “Old people have their pride, and they don’t like to ask for favours.” Some people on small incomes are literally afraid to ask, or they may not know that they can challenge a doctor’s bill or that they can insist in advance that they get the services at the Ontario Health Insurance Plan rate.

In our opinion, the idea that a patient has to insist and lay it on the line, risking not being able to see that doctor because the doctor refuses to see that patient, is not good enough. Surely under an insured medical scheme in Ontario, every patient in the province should have access to medical care and should be able to choose from all the doctors who are available and know that he can get the care at insured rates.

Our principle should be, therefore, that no medical service should be provided while requiring a patient to pay a surcharge in Ontario. That is a principle which the Minister of Health and the government of Ontario should have been defending. We have seen them try to pass the responsibility on to the Ontario Medical Association, on to consumers and on to people who might get health clinics started in various communities.

It is about time that the Minister of Health and this government stood up to defend medicare.

We fought for it for many years; it has done an enormous service for all our citizens for many years. For God’s sake, let’s keep it intact in Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order: I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the procedure to go past the normal point of adjournment is going to lead to nothing but difficulty in the future. Since you have indicated the clock is five minutes fast, I would suggest that we could very well carry this. Nov that the leader of the third party has heard with about five people sitting --

Mr. Cassidy: You want to muzzle the minister after agreeing to the minister’s motion.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, I want to muzzle you; you give me a pain in the neck.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s not covered by OHIP.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, he can make a statement any time. We have just been rehashing the old baloney that we have heard three or four times.

Mr. Cassidy: Boy, are you ever sensitive. If your party were committed to medicare, you wouldn’t --

Mr. Nixon: The money has already been spent. In spite of the fact that the government House leader’s third assistant sent in a note saying “We cannot pay anybody,” the money has already been paid. We have every authority to pass a resolution later in the week. There was no agreement to carry the thing. It is a supplementary estimate anyway. Let’s hear from the minister during statements on Monday or some time.

I tell you, Mr. Chairman, if we carry on here -- we do not even have a quorum; there are three or four interested taxpayers and somebody from the press gallery, so this may be headline news somewhere -- if you call this democracy, I call it a ridiculous charade.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All right. Mr. Minister, having noted what the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has said, you would have opportunities to make statements.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would be very brief and simply say that there are a number of points which I can respond to in estimates --

Mr. Nixon: Heaven help either of you. If you don’t want this session to continue --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I can do estimates later this spring or whatever.

Mr. Nixon: You have objected to it every time, you and your House leader.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: There is just one statement that the member for Ottawa Centre made. He said it was his understanding about what medicare was supposed to be all about -- I’m quoting him; we can check the Hansard report -- that it was universally accessible service at the OHIP rates in hospitals. That is exactly the principle we have been operating under and exactly the principle we reaffirmed yesterday.

Mr. Nixon: A stereotyped response to a stereotyped attack.

Mr. Cassidy: You’re really hurting, aren’t you, Bob?

Mr. Nixon: Hurting? It’s boring; it’s not hurting. You’re a bore.

Vote 3101 agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Timbrell, the committee of supply reported certain resolutions.

Clerk of the House: In the absence of Mr. Edighoffer, Mr. MacBeth from the committee of supply reports the following resolution:

That supply in the following supplementary amounts and to defray the expenses of the government ministries named be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Dispense?

Reading dispensed with. (See appendix A.)

Resolution concurred in.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Timbrell, the House adjourned at 1:11 p.m.