Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO HALF BACK PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the Ontario Half Back Program which I announced on November 23 last is now successfully launched in two important industries in this province. As members are aware, this incentive program, which proved so successful last year in promoting Canadian authored hooks and Canadian magazines to the public of Ontario, began on Tuesday, May 1, as a promotion for Canadian recordings and Canadian films.

From May 1 to September 30, the public will have the opportunity to apply non-winning Wintario tickets as discounts on the purchase of recordings by Canadian artists and admissions to Canadian films. Each non-winning ticket will have a value of 50 cents on these purchases. In the case of records, up to four tickets may be used for recordings by Canadian performers costing $3.95 or more, and in film admissions a sliding discount schedule will allow the public up to a 50 per cent discount on all admission prices.

I am particularly pleased by two features of the program. The first is the fact that due to the tremendous support for the program from all segments of the Canadian film and recording industries, over 250 theatres and more than 600 record stores in all regions of the province are now participating in the program. This will assure that all citizens of the province have access to the Half Back program, which is fundamental to its success.

The other feature in which I take pleasure is the fact this program, which is unique among all lotteries in the world, returns the benefits of Wintario revenues directly to the citizens of this province who wish to use this special incentive.

The program has been and will continue to be extensively promoted across the province through the efforts of the industries involved, through public service announcements and editorials, and on radio, television, newspapers and information material supplied to the 850 participating theatres and retailers and to Ontario ticket agents across the province. The efforts of my ministry in conjunction with promotion by the industries are directed to informing the citizens of the province about this program and providing them with the opportunity to participate in it.

The size and the potential of the new Half Back program can be judged by two very significant facts. In preparing for the program, my ministry has assembled a list of Canadian recording artists which contains approximately 2,000 names, encompassing all musical forms from jazz to classical. This is the first time such a comprehensive listing of Canadian performers has been compiled.

The other fact is that we know from the film community that Canadian feature films are now being booked for showing in communities in this province which have never before exhibited Canadian films.

I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that the Half Back program, which is the largest public promotion ever undertaken in Canada on behalf of Canadian films and records, will encourage greater awareness and greater appreciation of the talented artists and the achievements of these two important cultural industries.

FORT ERIE LANDFILL SITE

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The media has been giving some coverage to the disposal site at the town of Fort Erie. The amount --

Mr. S. Smith: Could I have a copy, please?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think we have given it to the page. Do you want me to stand down, Mr. Speaker, until --

Mr. Roy: Try to get organized, Harry.

Mr. Speaker: The standing order is quite specific and I think it would be preferable.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You can’t find the waste dumps and you can’t find your own statement.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think it’s there now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister may proceed.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Thank you.

The media has given some coverage to the disposal site at the town of Fort Erie. The account given by the Globe and Mail on May 2 suggests comparisons between this landfill site and the one at Love Canal in New York state. To put the situation in the proper context, let me describe what industrial wastes are actually being disposed of at the Fort Erie site.

There are three local companies which use this municipal facility to deposit industrial type waste. The first is Pratt and Lambert, which sends 10 drums a week to the site. These only contain about one gallon each of paint sludge; that is a maximum of 10 gallons of paint sludge per week.

The company also disposes of such solid wastes as paper containers and paint filters. The company has not used caustic materials for the past two years. Before that time, these materials were recycled. Any waste paint solvents today are taken to Buffalo for recycling and disposal.

The second company, Lucidol, disposes of two or three open drums of solid material used for purifying water. This innocuous substance is known by the trade name Celite. It is the same material that is being used for cleaning up the water in backyard swimming pools. The company also disposes of five or six empty drums each month, as well as paper and cardboard wastes.

The only Hooker plant wastes sent to the site are broken and damaged empty drums and floor sweepings, which may contain small amounts of solid phenolformaldehyde moulding compound, used for making plastics such as bakelite.

I want to draw attention to the fact that these wastes are solids, not liquids. Our waybill system, our site monitoring and the comments of the company officials and site operators, confirmed by my staff, indicate no industrial liquid wastes are deposited at the Fort Erie landfill site. The Globe article said the site operator bad found drums containing caustic liquids which reacted with water and caused a workman’s gloves to burn.

Last year, our staff worked out a system with the site operator that if any suspicious liquids or substances were found, the ministry was to be notified immediately. Our concern is as much for the safety of the operator as for the safety of the environment.

According to this system, when one of these suspicious drums arrived at the site the operator notified our Welland office, and we identified the liquid as a bleaching agent that had come from Lucidol. While we felt the material was not hazardous to the environment, there was some risk to the operator.

The company was notified of the error and has taken steps to avoid a repetition by establishing a system of clearly identifying individual drums for quick recognition by the site operator. The other two companies have also adopted this system.

Mr. Speaker, there are several points which I would like to stress. First, the municipalities have the responsibility for proper management of waste disposal sites, and that’s the way it will remain. We feel this responsibility belongs where the landfills are; namely, in the municipalities.

Second, the ministry is responsible for ensuring the municipalities do that job and for ensuring there is no threat to the air, the water or public health though careless management practices.

Third, the waste disposal site at Fort Erie is in no danger of turning into another Love Canal. As the Premier (Mr. Davis) said so clearly in the House the other day, we must address these problems in a clear and responsible way. It concerns me greatly that every site seems to be compared to the Love Canal. This is indeed a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

I want to stress that all of us should take care in our perception of what constitutes hazardous wastes. It is certainly true a precise definition may be elusive, as has been discovered by environmental authorities in both the United Kingdom and in the USA. In fact, in recent meetings with our counterparts in other provinces and with our American friends, this question was central to the discussions.

It has become too easy to equate industrial wastes with hazard and toxicity. While there is no doubt that a relatively small fraction is both hazardous and toxic, the overwhelming amount of industrial waste is neither. It is the hazardous fraction we must carefully recognize and concentrate our efforts on. It is for this reason that our waybill system is tightly enforced and continually being improved so emphasis will be given to the management of any substances that pore a public hazard.

These are the conditions that prevail, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I certainly hope this matter will be placed in the proper context in the minds of both the public and the honourable members.

NAMES OF PHYSICIANS

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker: I want to rise on this because on May 1, I got an answer from the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) in response to a question which I put on the Order Paper on April 9 regarding the legality of publishing the names of doctors who are opted in and opted out of OHIP. I had asked this question of the minister on March 27 and again on March 29, and the minister had said it was his understanding that this would be a violation of the Health Insurance Act, and he subsequently said the matter was being checked out.

I received an answer from the minister on Tuesday stating no legal opinion was obtained prior to the minister’s remarks stating his opinion.

My question is this, Mr. Speaker, to you:

Having twice raised this matter in the House and having had the minister say he would check it out, can the Speaker assure himself the House has not in fact been misled, since the minister has given information to the House without having sought a legal opinion either prior to or subsequent to the matter raised?

I have two other points to raise as well, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That one is dearly something that should be raised in question period. You really haven’t clarified anything. The only way you are going to elicit a response or a clarification is by way of a direct question to the minister. That’s not the chair’s responsibility.

Do you have something else?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, also on a point of clarification, which I would like to direct to you: Last April 14, a year ago, the same minister said the Ministry of Health had the means to follow the distribution of physicians, not only in numbers per hundreds of thousands, but as between specialties and general practice, and between opted-in and opted-out physicians.

[2:15]

I have asked and was assured by the minister that he would provide some of this information over the course of the last six weeks. It has not been forthcoming. On Monday, April 30, in response to Order Paper question 85 from my colleague, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), the minister finally responded and said the ministry does not keep physician opting-out records on a community, town or city basis.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you, could you possibly resolve this contradiction between what the minister told us he was doing a year ago and his written answer now which indicates be was not giving correct information to the Legislature?

Mr. Bradley: That is a question for question period.

Mr. Speaker: No. Clearly that is policy which is the responsibility of the ministry.

Mr. Bradley: Let him use the question period.

Mr. Speaker: It is not up to the chair to elicit responses from ministers. is your prerogative to ask a question at the proper time and this is not the proper time. If you are dissatisfied, you may file another inquiry of the ministry or you may ask it in the normal course of events during question period.

Mr. McClellan: What if the minister won’t answer?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to respond to questions on this but with respect, the member knows that in his questions or the other members’ questions they asked for it on a community basis and we do not keep it on a community basis. A month or so ago, I gave the member some figures on a county or regional basis. I have always acknowledged that, but the member asked for it by community in which people live and we do not keep it that way.

Mr. Speaker: As I pointed out earlier, these are things that may legitimately be raised in question period -- which we are getting into now.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of the Environment:

Can the minister explain why he feels so confident in giving us these repeated reassurances about sites that have accepted hazardous wastes from time to time? Does he not recognize that on March 27, I had to give him a list of sites which was different from the lists he had given to the resources development committee, and it took him until April 19 to give me the certificates on them? On April 24, I asked him whether Hooker had been sending anything into the Fort Erie dump, and only by reading the Globe and Mail did I get an answer.

Specifically, how can the minister assure us about the Fort Erie site when the waybill system did not exist before 1977? How does he know whether Hooker did or did not dump dangerous chemicals into the Fort Erie site and why has his ministry, at least until this week or so, not been doing regular studies of the leachate and the ground water in that area so as to monitor what might be coming out of that site?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: On the first part, Mr. Speaker: I think what is perhaps confusing to the leader of the Liberal Party is simply this. When I was asked for a specific list of sites receiving wastes at that moment in time, we gave that list. That, if you will, is a snapshot of what was going on at that precise minute in time. The previous list he refers to is at quite another moment in time and I think the leader knows that. Some of those sites were closed in the interval between the date on which we gave a list of those sites accepting wastes and those on the previous list. A list can have quite a degree of variation --

Mr. S. Smith: You included on the list ones which were closed.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- depending whether one is asking for a situation at a given moment in time, whether one is asking for an historical list, or whether one is asking for a list that has some permissions given to a site to accept certain wastes.

The member talked about not having the list. I think he was indeed in possession of the certificates on one of the days he raised the issue in the House. He knew full well what happened to those 13 sites and had the certificates of approval for them.

With regard to assurance, the program in the ministry is simply this: We are monitoring a large number of sites. As the leader knows, we have a very extensive program to find other sites, ones we have not monitored yet. I think it makes no sense to dig through all the sites of Ontario looking for these things. The more sensible approach would be to carefully monitor the leachate from those sites and that we are doing. That is the reasonable approach, the logical, the pragmatic approach at this time, and that is what we are doing.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, does the minister know that another of the sites which I had to discover for him and his ministerial officials was the old Burlington site? Does he know that has now been turned into a public park? Is he aware that our questioning of town officials indicate that Niagara Chemical and Alchem, another chemical company, were dumping into that site when it existed? Can he tell us whether he has up-to-the minute leachate information and whether they have been continuing to take leachate information, surface water information and test wells on that site over the last several years? And why, when my assistants call them, will the minister’s officials not answer our questions on the Burlington site, another one the minister didn’t seem to know about?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I take a little exception to the leader’s suggestion that we don’t know about these sites. As I have said before in this House, I don’t know all of the locations of all the sites of Ontario but --

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is exactly what we are saying.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- the members should not infer from that the ministry doesn’t know. Indeed, the reason the Leader of the Opposition now knows of some of these sites is because he has called our office, been given that information and then has the nerve to stand in this House and pretend to have found them.

Applause.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of privilege -- and it alarms me that the minister should be so misinformed; it really alarms me.

Does he not know that I got that list of sites from a federal report which was in --

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That we gave you -- that we gave you.

Mr. S. Smith: No. No. Which we got from the Ministry of Natural Resources and which the Environment ministry didn’t even have a copy of. Does the minister not know that?

Applause.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, in the kindest and gentlest of terms, that is not so.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has told us that the waybill system is the one protection there is, and since it is like closing the stable door after the horse has fled, can the minister explain how he can give the House the assurance that the waste disposal site at Fort Erie is in no danger of turning into another Love Canal, when his own assistant deputy minister, Mr. Bidell, said this week, and I quote: “Nobody can say with any certainty that something dangerous wasn’t dumped 50 years ago,” and suggesting that there may well be this kind of problem, but that we do not yet have the facts?

What does the minister know that his assistant deputy minister does not know in giving us those assurances? And if the minister has no substance for making those assurances, will he stop trying to calm this matter down and start getting on with the identification of all the dangerous sites where there may be toxic or hazardous wastes across Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Let me go over that one more time -- one more time. I said some time ago in this House that it was my unconditional belief there would not be a Love Canal in Ontario. I said it was my belief. The insinuation is that I know; I did not go that far, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, to the contrary, I said it was my belief, but because I couldn’t be unconditionally positive and make it a statement of knowing, we would do everything we possibly could to locate those sites. Our ministry has set aside $59,000 -- I think that is the correct figure -- to look into every nook and corner of Ontario this summer to find those sites.

Mr. S. Smith: Ask the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We have said to the members opposite, if they know --

Mr. Cassidy: That is $30 apiece for 2,000 sites.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Well, we know where vast numbers of these sites are now. We are talking about finding the sites we don’t know of. We know of literally hundreds and hundreds of sites; we issued certificates of approval for hundreds of sites, so we know of all kinds of sites; we are aware of those. We are certainly not going to go out and look for sites we are already well aware of.

We are searching out those sites we don’t know. Indeed, we said to the members of the House, “If you are suspicious of a certain area, we will investigate it for you.” Now, I think that that clearly says that we have a very vast knowledge of the sites and, based on an untold number of samples taken and analyses done, we have not found any sites that are of the nature of Love Canal, or even close to it. We have every reason, therefore, to believe, with that vast amount of knowledge in the Ministry of the Environment, it is highly unlikely we will have a Love Canal in Ontario. It was at that point in time I said it is my belief there will be no Love Canal. I stand firm in that belief.

I repeat again, if I had only left it at that point, and did nothing more, I think the member’s criticism would be valid. When we go the next step, that is, to search out, as I said, every nook and corner of Ontario to find those sites, then I think I have every right to be firm in my belief and that the people in Ontario have every reason to believe we’re doing everything possible to guarantee that that belief is well founded in fact.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a supplementary question to the minister relating to the Fort Erie dump. Based on the report of 1974 from Environment Canada -- and apparently the information was gathered through his ministry -- can the minister tell me the definition of a hazardous site? Can he tell me what chemicals we are discussing? This is perhaps before 1974. I would like to know what sampling his ministry has done in this particular waste disposal area, when it commenced studies and monitoring the waste in that area and what is the final analysis of any chemical toxicity.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: When I started my statement, I glanced to see if the member for Erie was in. I didn’t see him right at the very beginning. I know he was here when I concluded, so I’m not sure whether he heard that part of my comment.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, I heard it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I can’t add then to what I said in my statement.

Mr. S. Smith: Since 1974, you have never sampled it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If the member would calm down, I am saying that we have tested lots of areas around that site and downstream in other areas.

Mr. S. Smith: Not the groundwater or the leachate.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think the Leader of the Opposition would agree that it’s probably impossible for us to test every ditch in Ontario, and that’s literally what we’re talking about.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s a hazardous waste site.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If he asks for a specific site, if we think a test is necessary -- we’re doing those testings and we’re doing them by the hundreds of thousands a year. One would think almost by his projections of the facts that we weren’t doing many tests. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. S. Smith: It was listed as a hazardous site in 1974 and you are not doing any testing.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the Minister of the Environment gave his statement, he made it quite clear that there are now only solid wastes going into that landfill site, according to his statement. However, in January of this year he supplied me with a list of landfill sites formerly receiving liquid industrial wastes. Fort Erie is listed there as receiving small quantities of liquid and solid resins. It seems to me that this could be a potential Love Canal if it was receiving liquid industrial wastes formerly, according to the minister’s own list supplied to me in January of this year.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The point I am trying to make again and again is that the potential exists in a lot of places. That’s the point of the analysis program that is going on. We must make these analyses and we must make them in tremendous numbers, and we’re doing that. We won’t be satisfied when we have tested a site once or twice, we will do it on a continuing basis for many years. That is the very significant problem the ministry has.

Long before this ministry became involved in certificates of approvals for sites, they were opened almost at will. It now means that we have a colossal job on our hands, because no one cared and took the time at a much earlier date to look at these sites. We recognize that as a huge job we must address ourselves to, and there is no doubt that we are doing so. We’ll find the sites and we’ll test them -- both.

[2:30]

We can’t turn back the bands of time. There’s no question about that. If we could, we certainly would have far fewer sites in this province than we had in the last century, but we can’t do that. The obvious thing to do is test those sites on an ongoing basis. It will take a fantastic amount of money; we’re prepared to spend it. It will take a lot of personnel; we’re prepared to put those people to that use, but it will not be a small problem and it won’t be finished overnight.

There’s no way you’re going to come to a definitive answer a week, a month, a year from now. It just won’t happen. It will be an ongoing process for years to come.

HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Minister of Health: Given the fact he rather unceremoniously has had to change his mind on his previously firm statement concerning the use of credit cards in medicine, can we assume when he says he’s against balance billing he, in fact, means what he says and he will stick to his guns in this very important matter?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have not changed my mind on the question of credit cards.

Mr. Cassidy: You’ve changed your position.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What I indicated to the members a couple of days ago --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- would be interesting to discuss at this point. The kind of unusual power which is granted to a minister and the Lieutenant Governor in Council under the Health Disciplines Act, should only be used sparingly and when it’s appropriate.

What I indicated a couple of days ago was that my opinion in that matter has not changed but the level of utilization does not constitute a threat. Therefore, I don’t think it’s appropriate at this time to use that unusual power, which has been used infrequently.

All the options remain open if it does become a threat.

Regarding the question of balance billing, what I have said is I think the present system in this province has served the province well and we do not plan to change the basic philosophy of the health insurance plan or to accede to the kind of system which operates in the province of Saskatchewan, for instance.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary:

Do I take it the minister’s statement on balance billing is also an expression of his personal opinion, as the matter of credit cards was, or is he seriously going to make it clear to the medical profession in Ontario that balance billing is not what is supposed to be on the agenda for negotiations? For the negotiations, the minister is supposedly talking about guaranteeing access within SHIP rates to all the citizens of Ontario. He is not supposed to be talking about balance billing. Is he going to make that very clear?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think what is clearly on the agenda for this year is to make the new mechanism for the negotiation of fee schedules work properly. Once we have finalized the agreement, we will begin negotiations for 1980, with the chairman of the new committee having the authority to act in the role of fact-finder. That’s what’s on the agenda.

If the honourable member thinks the medical profession is going to drop the issue, he’s sadly mistaken. This has been their policy for years. I fully expect they will raise it from time to time.

What I’m saying in the simplest possible terms --

Mr. Swart: You will give in.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- is this government has no intention of changing the basic philosophy of the health insurance plan.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since balance billing was proposed in a speech by the outgoing president of the Ontario Medical Association as an example of the philosophy he thought Ontario should have in the area of health care, and since he’s stated his philosophy quite explicitly -- that is, he believes, on behalf of doctors, there should be private money coming in, and he’s said let the people decide the level of health care they want and they can afford -- can the. minister say whether it is the philosophy of the government to allow a two-class system of medical care? That’s the way the doctors’ proposals will lead this province unless there’s firm action by the government now.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, there is not now and there will not be a two-class system of medical care in this province.

Mr. Warner: You’re not going to do anything about it.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, speaking, as the leader of the third party does, of philosophies, may I ask the minister whether he has received representations from the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Dennis McDermott, to say what Mr. McDermott said on television on Monday night; namely, doctors should form a union, bargain hard, and if they don’t get what they want, go on strike? If the minister has received such representations, how has he responded? And does he know whether the other half of that perfect union, the NDP, supports Mr. McDermott in this regard?

Applause.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any communication from Mr. McDermott. I’m not sure whether that holy or unholy alliance is of one mind on this matter.

Mr. McClellan: Tell us about Joe Clark and federal deterrent fees.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: For that matter, I don’t know whether Mr. McDermott agrees with all of the items in the green paper published by that party almost a year ago, a paper which expresses their philosophy of health care and indicates the kind of things they would like to do to this province in terms of the organization of hospitals and the provision of health services. I doubt that he would agree with that, because I don’t think many people in this province would agree with that green paper either.

Mr. Warner: Better quality health care to begin with.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary; the member for Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: Representing the perfect union, might I ask once again for the minister’s comments on the description by the OMA that his negotiating process is a sham and a farce? Would that the rest of organized labour had that kind of a contract.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As in so many things, the member and his research staff are about two months behind in their reading of the press clippings. That comment was --

Mr. Breaugh: That’s a nice answer, but would the minister try to answer the question now?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’ll get to it. Keep your cool.

Mr. Breaugh: We’re just impatient with the minister, that’s all.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t want to have somebody treating the member for an ulcer or something.

Mr. Breaugh: I will treat the minister free of charge; no balance billing.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, I’ll bet the member would.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The one occasion on which that comment was made to me was during a clinical day at one of the leading teaching hospitals in Metropolitan Toronto. It was in the context that, during the period when the government of Canada had imposed the AIB controls --

Some hon. members: Wrong.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- including a ceiling on the average annual increase in position salaries, that was a sham. I suppose to an extent I probably have to agree, inasmuch as we knew how far we could go on the average annual increase that had been laid down by the government of Canada. What was left to negotiate was the distribution of the increase as between the specialties in order to live within it.

That is the context in which it has been put to me by the president of the OMA. The new negotiating mechanism providing for the chairman to have the authority, on the call on one of the parties, to act in the role of a fact-finder, I think, ensures to all concerned that we are bargaining in good faith and that the results will reflect that.

Mr. Speaker: A new question, the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to return to the Minister of Health to ask a new question about doctors opting out on the charges to patients. I am reminded of that comment of Alan Blakeney that sending Conservatives to Ottawa to defend medicare is like sending Dracula to guard the bloodbank.

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the Minister of Health explain precisely what is the difference for Ontario citizens between being double billed for medical services under balance billing and being extra hilled for medical services by doctors opting out, when the surcharge in both cases is an average of 42 per cent? If it is against the minister’s philosophy of OHIP to allow balance hilling, will the minister not admit, as the select committee pointed out last summer, that opting out contributes a direct challenge to the principle of universal access to medicare in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all I want to say, with respect, I don’t think the member has any way to support that assertion of the average being 42 per cent. I’m not sure from what the member has extrapolated that but, with respect, I don’t think he has any statistical base.

Mr. Swart: What is it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the difference is -- let’s compare a plan the member and his party have been saying is so great. Let’s compare Saskatchewan where, since 1962 --

Mr. Warner: Why doesn’t the minister try answering the question?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: They don’t want to look at Saskatchewan, all of a sudden.

According to the latest figures I’ve seen, in Saskatchewan today, under the plan they’ve had since 1962, 30 per cent of the billings are balance bills. As the members understand, in Saskatchewan the physician bills the plan for everything and can balance bill.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Oh, yes. He can stream by service and he can stream by patient in Saskatchewan. He’s been able to for 17 years.

Mr. McClellan: You’re going to have to retract this.

Mr. Warner: Wrong again.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The difference is that in Ontario, as the members know, as of the end of March -- I won’t have the figures for the end of April for two or three weeks yet -- 18 per cent of the physicians had opted out or had given notice of opting out, the three-month provision.

One of the Order Paper questions the member asked of me was what percentage of the claims in OHIP in the previous three fiscal years were opted out. I thought it was very interesting that in fiscal year 1975-76 six per cent of the claims were opted out when, if memory serves me correctly, around 12 per cent of the physicians were shown as opted out. In 1976-77, it was six per cent. In 1977-78, five per cent of the claims submitted to OHIP were on an opted-out basis.

One of the points I have repeatedly made with the member is that the act of opting out in and of itself does not threaten the universality of the system. Secondly, it does not mean that all patients are billed at the opted-out rate.

The final point is that one of the things that assists in that regard is the mechanism in our hospitals whereby billing groups do bill the plan directly.

That’s the comparison. I would venture the guess --

Mr. Warner: You’re not going to answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- and I won’t have the figures for three or four months, because claims can be submitted up to six months after the provision of service -- I won’t have the claims until the end of the fiscal year, but I would venture to say that while at the end of March the books showed 18 per cent of the doctors billing the plan -- not of all doctors in Ontario; that point needs to be reemphasized, too, but of the doctors billing the plan; there are another few thousand more licensed to practise medicine in Ontario who aren’t calculated in there. Of the doctors billing the plan, 18 per cent were shown as opted out, but probably the percentage of claims opted out was down around nine or 10 per cent, much lower than that party’s Valhalla called Saskatchewan.

Mr. Martel: That’s not true. We were there three weeks ago.

Mr. Warner: That’s not true. Wrong again. You come in here wrong every day.

Mr. Cassidy: On a supplementary, the minister has misrepresented facts once again. In the first place, I will give him, as I have given the House already --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: I will give him figures to show --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. The honourable minister is taking far too long to answer the question, and the editorializing over here doesn’t constitute a question.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since most rebilling in Saskatchewan is only about six per cent of the total --

Mr. Bradley: Is that a question?

Mr. Kerrio: Is that a question?

Mr. Cassidy: -- and since the surcharge of doctors using the Ontario Medical Association fee schedule averages 42 per cent -- and we can produce the figures to show it --

Mr. Swart: We know more about it than the minister.

Mr. Cassidy: -- I would like the minister to answer this question: Whether a doctor balance bills or opts out, it doesn’t really make any difference for the sick person or for his family, since they have to pay directly out of their pockets a sum equal to 42 per cent more than what OHIP will pay for the service --

Mr. Speaker: Is the question: “Will the minister agree?”

Mr. Cassidy: No, the question is: When will the minister act to stop the injustices that are created by the surcharges coming from opted-out doctors; and when will the minister act to ensure that every citizen in Ontario gets the right to insured medical care at the OHIP rates without having to pay a surcharge?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have run out of copies of the March 29 statement to send the member. He clearly doesn’t want to understand that.

Mr. Warner: You’ve done nothing.

Mr. Samis: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The other thing is that I have seen him flip-flop over there. One day he is going to bash everybody into the plan; the next day he’s against draconian measures; the day after that he was going to go to Hamilton to tell the world how all the problems were going to be solved; now he is all over the place again.

Mr. Warner: Sit down.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, I think the statement I made on March 29 answers the points the honourable member raises. With respect, I think the figures he cites are wrong.

Mr. Swart: But you don’t have any of your own.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The fact that I have thought his figures were wrong in the past, or even when I have shown him in the past that his figures were wrong, hasn’t changed his mind.

Mr. Warner: What are your figures?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think that’s probably fruitless to pursue.

With respect, I think what we have in this province is a system which has served the province well, especially compared to the problems they are having in Saskatchewan right now.

Mr. Martel: Six per cent.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No.

Interjections.

[2:45]

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question to the Treasurer arising out of the very substantial increases in hydro rates which were announced earlier this week. in view of the fact that the increase of just less than 10 per cent announced by Hydro will amount to close to an 18 per cent increase for consumers in 1980 because of the withdrawal of Hydro’s anti-inflation rebate, which was coming from the proceeds of export sales, can the minister say if it is government policy that consumers should no longer get this anti-inflation rebate, and how does the government expect consumers to survive inflation when a major contribution is coming from government agencies like Ontario Hydro?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) is far more qualified to answer this than I, hut I can only point out that one can only give a rebate on earnings when earnings are made. If we are able to export power to the States as we did last year for a period of crisis -- showing, by the way, that it is rather nice to have some surplus in Ontario -- we will be glad to see that Ontario residents participate in that profitability, because after all Ontario Hydro produces power at cost,

Mr. Cassidy: Since the statement by Chairman Robert Taylor of Hydro indicated specifically that Hydro expected a continued high level of profitable export sales, and since it was those export sales which gave Hydro the wherewithal to make the anti-inflation rebate, is it government policy that Hydro should no longer pay the anti-inflation rebate in order to protect consumers, or is it now government policy that whatever it says about inflation it is prepared to soak the consumers of hydro in Ontario to the maximum possible extent?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I just came back from Great Britain, as you know, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell you something: they would dearly love to have power at the cost we have in Ontario; they would dearly love to have the availability.

Mr. J. Reed: The question that was asked -- and I will ask it again -- was: Does the government have a policy regarding those rebates that come from export sales, since the public indication is clearly that those rebates are going to be cut off? The question is, what is he going to do?

Hon. F. S. Miller: If we realize those rebates were a part of the Anti-Inflation Board Program, we realize they were like many other kinds of cost reduction measures or price reduction measures taken in response to the AIB program of the day. Now if power at cost is produced by Ontario Hydro, eventually any profit made by Hydro will reflect itself in a lower rate.

It can reflect itself in a lower rate in one of two ways, as I would read the problem. One can continue to borrow at the current rate and rebate the cash profits in a given period of time, or one can reduce the borrowings abroad and therefore reduce the eventual cost to future producers. So either way, whether it is rebated immediately or whether it is used to reduce borrowings for expansion, profitability from foreign sales can only help Ontario users.

MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTIBILITY

Mr. Peterson: A question to the Treasurer, welcoming him and the other minister back from London, England, with new, expanded horizons: Has the ministry done a calculation on the potential loss of revenue to Ontario from the various mortgage interest deductibility programs suggested by some federal parties?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am sure that work is done. I cannot produce it by memory, but I know this matter came up many months ago, not just recently. At that time I made some comments about it. It is not easy to be precise in that area, but I know at that time I saw some information based upon some relatively quick calculations of the cost of that program.

Mr. Peterson: Do I assume then from what the minister is saying that he fundamentally disagrees with this kind of approach because of the lost revenue to the province? Or does he have some kind of agreement with these various federal parties to recoup that lost revenue?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I don’t think we stated that at the time at all.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The $300 million or $400 million.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It’s obvious that any major change in federal income tax programs or rules, impact upon Ontario and the other eight provinces that subscribe to the federal provincial agreement. Therefore, if in their wisdom any federal government makes changes in the way personal taxes are calculated, then the receiving provinces will have to either profit or lose according to those changes. Of course that leaves us with the final decision in balancing our revenue needs. Where do we find those reductions?

Mr. S. Smith: Three hundred million dollars.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think it’s the kind of question every treasurer or minister of finance is faced with to decide what specific changes will help the taxpayer most.

Mr. Peterson: What’s your position?

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is it indeed a fact that the federal Conservative plan would cost Ontario $300 million?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I said I could not remember the figures, therefore I cannot say.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware of the circumstances surrounding the death last Friday of a constituent of mine, a 68-year-old woman who was found dead in her home by police after her doctors had been trying for two days to get her into a hospital bed and no beds were available?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know about that particular case. I have some material here on things that were said the other day by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), and my experience, so far, is that when one looks at the complete picture, often it’s a little different from the scare headlines or this kind of tactic he is using.

Mr. Breaugh: He’s asking you to do an inquiry.

Mr. Samis: Do you have to politicize everything?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What I’m going to do, with respect, is give the honourable member’s colleague a written answer to questions he asked me the other day and I’ll release the answers that have come to me from my staff. If the honourable member sends me the name of the woman, I’ll look into the matter. But, with respect, I think that the honourable members opposite are being highly irresponsible in the kind of impression they are trying to leave.

Mr. Cassidy: You’re being irresponsible in cutting back the system.

Mr. Isaacs: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The case was brought to my attention because of the concern of the woman’s doctor and I want to ask the minister whether he agrees with the view of this doctor that maybe the shortage of beds is getting to the point where it’s costing people’s lives?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, there is no shortage of beds in the Hamilton area. That’s why I say, with respect, taking into consideration the literally millions of admissions to hospitals each year, the millions of services that are provided each year through OHIP -- 57 million services paid for last year through OHIP -- that the kinds of things the honourable member and members of his party are trying to do for their own political gain are really at the expense of the very fine people we have in the hospital system.

CHRONIC-CARE BEDS

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Recently a meeting was held in Thunder Bay by the ministry staff, the McKellar hospital board, the St. Joseph’s hospital board, and the Thunder Bay District Health Council regarding the shortage of chronic beds in the city of Thunder Bay.

Mr. Wildman: Didn’t you just hear him? There’s no shortage of beds.

Mr. Hennessy: Does the minister have anything to report on this situation?

Mr. Breaugh: Political gain; how crass can you get?

Mr. Hennessy: I’ll just repeat it. Does the minister have anything to report on this situation? Please, boys, hack in your cage.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: This is a case where this honourable member has been working with us to try and resolve what is acknowledged to be the need for additional services of various kinds. There was a meeting, I understand, about 10 days or two weeks ago in the area --

Mr. McClellan: Over what? Tell us, over what?

An hon. member: Surplus of beds?

Mr. Hennessy: Quiet, quiet.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- following on a meeting which was held in my office about three weeks or four weeks ago. The gentleman on my staff responsible for this matter has been ill the last three or four days. I expect I will have that report by the --

Mr. Peterson: You wouldn’t even put him on the research staff.

Mr. Cassidy: Can you get a bed? You won’t get one at home.

An hon. member: They’ll have a surplus up there.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It’s going to be interesting to play back to that party some of the things they have been saying over the years in their green paper and elsewhere about health care. They would drive health care in this province right into the ground.

Mr. Makarchuk: There won’t be any health care to drive anywhere by the time the minister is finished with it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the honourable member recalls -- and he was at the meeting in my office -- it was acknowledged at that meeting by the mayor of Thunder Bay and the others present that in that particular situation -- and we do try to deal with every community on an individual basis --

Mr. McClellan: You wouldn’t say there’s a problem though, would you? There are no problems anywhere.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- there was no problem with the planning standard for active-treatment beds and that what is needed is to make accommodation for longer-term care needs, all the while recognizing that 100 beds will open at St. Joseph’s Villa in the next couple of months.

I will have an answer for the member, I hope, by early next week by the time my staff person has recovered.

Mr. Breaugh: You can’t even answer your own back-benchers now.

Mr. Swart: What was his question?

Mr. Peterson: What was his affliction?

DOMGLAS DISPUTE

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, last Friday in my absence, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) directed a question to the Minister of Health.

Mr. McClellan: Elgie for Health.

Mr. Conway: Elgie for Health.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Thanks, I don’t need friends like you. I have a great deal of respect, admiration and regard for the Minister of Health. Thank you for the offer but I think he’s doing a first-class job.

Mr. Martel: What do you say privately?

An hon. member: There are a few millions who think otherwise.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s called toeing the party line.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Anyway, if members opposite will just turn down the volume for a minute, the Minister of Health in turn referred that question to me. Yesterday I spoke with the president of Domglas who informed me that there had indeed been a misunderstanding and that, as of yesterday, the company is willing to transfer union funds to the insured carrier of the extended health and drug coverage to ensure that workers remain covered during the dispute. I believe this solves the problem brought to my attention.

TORONTO CORE PLAN

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Could the Premier advise this House as to why he and his cabinet, having generally approved the central area plan for the city of Toronto, directed a rehearing of the application of one Stanley Garden, seeking an exemption from the plan for property located on the west side of Avenue Road, north of Bloor Street, an exemption which could destroy the effect of the plan? In answering, would the Premier tell me whether he is aware that the vague wording of the order in council has caused great concern to the local residents? Would he at least agree to consider requesting cabinet to clarify the recommendations made to the OMB regarding the density to be permitted for the site?

Mr. McClellan: The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick didn’t do his homework.

Mr. Breaugh: Maybe he did.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the concern with respect to the wording. If there is some question as to the intent as reflected in the wording, we are always prepared, if there is some doubt, to clarify it. We will take a look at it. That’s no problem. But I think it must be clearly understood that the decision of the cabinet in terms of the principle or what cabinet felt was the equitable approach to this will be maintained. If there is some doubt about the wording, I will certainly have a look at it.

[3:00]

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: Were the Premier and his cabinet aware that at the time of the application the developer was in arrears in taxes to a sum of over $300,000, moneys which could be used to advance his purposes at the OMB, while the ratepayers of the area have to face an additional $18,000 to appear? Since the ratepayers are concerned with the accountability of their member -- I am one of them, but the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) shares the responsibility for the Annexe -- could the Premier advise this House, and through this House the minister’s constituents, as to his position with reference to this recommendation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am always reluctant to extol the virtues of one of my colleagues --

Mr. S. Smith: In his case I understand the Premier’s reluctance.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but in that in part of the question the member made reference to one of my colleagues, I would only say to the member for St. George that I rarely have met anyone in my political experience who puts the interests of his constituents ahead of almost everything else. In fact, on some issues that has been of some difficulty to the government, if memory serves me correctly. I think the member for St. George probably subconsciously wishes she were held in the same high regard and, as important, affection as the member on this side of the House is held by his constituents.

So, to answer that part of the question, yes, he does. He reflects their interests and discharges his obligations to his constituents extremely well.

Now what was the other part of the question the member was asking?

Mr. Roy: It’s not that important; you can sit down.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member’s colleague said the other part of the member’s question wasn’t important, so I’ll sit down.

Mrs. Campbell: I’m afraid my colleague doesn’t perhaps --

Hon. Mr. Davis: He said it, I didn’t.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was really long. Could the Premier capsulize the answer briefly?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn’t know there were tax arrears. I don’t know -- I’m just going by my own experience -- that the question of whether a person has or has not paid his taxes totally has ever been taken into account in terms of an appeal of this nature. I don’t recall that having been raised -- I don’t recall it ever having been raised in any appeal we have had. I may be wrong in this, but I don’t think so. It has never been part of the petition documents.

HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES

Mr. M. Davidson: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is it the minister’s intention to sit idly by and allow the injured workers of Ontario to suffer while a dispute regarding fee schedules takes place between the Ontario Medical Association and the Workmen’s Compensation Board? If it is not his intention to do so, what does he plan to do to resolve this situation?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Any questions about negotiations between the medical association and the WGB about the fees paid for those services should go to the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Speaker: Is the honourable Minister of Labour prepared to respond to that question?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Would it be proper to ask the member to repeat the question? I’m afraid I didn’t hear him.

Mr. M. Davidson: In the case of the Minister of Labour I won’t put in the part about sitting idly by.

Some hon. members: Elgie for Health!

Mr. M. Davidson: Is it the minister’s intention to allow the injured workers of Ontario to suffer while a dispute regarding fee schedules takes place between the Ontario Medical Association and the Workmen’s Compensation Board? If it is not his intention, what does he intend to do to resolve the situation?

Mr. Laughren: Nothing.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Nothing refers to what the member does on the weekend.

I am glad the member brought this question to my attention. The problem has concerned me particularly since I read in the paper what he did. As he probably knows, the OMA presented a brief to the Workmen’s Compensation Board recommending that the full OMA fee schedule be paid by the board on behalf of injured workers.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, it has been this government’s view that physicians doing work for injured workers bad to put in extra time and fill out extra reports, and do an extra amount of work which warranted some extra compensation. As a result of that at the present time the physicians receive something in the neighbourhood of 10 per cent more than the government OHIP fee schedule. This, of course, was not in line with what the OMA wished, and they presented a brief to the compensation board requesting a change.

This request was not granted, because it was the board’s philosophy that the extra funds being paid by the board were sufficient to compensate physicians for the extra work they were doing.

I had a meeting last week with the OMA about this problem and have agreed to carry on discussions with them. But I have concerns about paying the full fee schedule amount.

I have no further answer at this time.

Mr. M. Davidson: Supplementary to the minister: Given that the Ontario Medical Association has indicated that if they do not get 100 per cent of the association’s fee schedule they may impose sanctions on the board -- including refusal to fill out board forms, referral of all board patients to the board’s rehabilitation hospital, sending the forms cash on delivery, or keeping the forms until the bill is paid -- will the minister give us assurance at this time that the doctors in this province will be allowed to take no such action until the dispute with the Workmen’s Compensation Board is settled?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in assuring the member that discussions I have initiated with the OMA will continue in an attempt to resolve the matter by negotiation. Frankly, I cannot believe that physicians would behave in what I would perceive to be an irresponsible way --

Mr. Germa: You should meet some of them.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: -- if what has been referred to in that document was in fact the way they felt. But I know those physicians by and large and I know they would not behave that way. However, I intend to carry on discussions with the OMA about the problem.

MILK PRICES

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday some questions were asked about increases in the price of milk. In order they were: What was the increase?

The increase granted by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board to the producer -- that is the farmer -- was two cents a quart.

In addition, there was a two-cents-a-quart increase by the processor, which is the dairy.

That follows the traditional practice that whatever the increase per quart given by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board to the producer, an increase will be sought by the processor. The processors feel the increased costs established by the producers and looked at by the milk marketing board are virtually identical to theirs. Therefore, these price increases follow. They never go beyond what is granted to the farmer. The last increase was two cents in October by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board; at that time the dairies took one cent. The time before that the increase by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, on September 16, 1977, was one cent plus, with some decimals; the dairies and the retailers took one bent.

Before I get into the second part of this question, there was also a question by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) as to why it went up two cents in Toronto and four cents in Sudbury. It has gone up four cents all across the province.

There were remarks about this increase being made effective by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board for the producer on May 1. Three members brought to the attention of the House the fact that stores had raised the price the day before. The reason stores raised the price the day before -- April 30 -- is that traditionally pricing in stores is established for the week. Last October, when the increase went through, the stores lost a day. They did not introduce the price increase until October 3, while they could have put it in on October 2. Therefore, they felt this time they were entitled to pick up the lost day.

While I suppose one could justify that on grounds something like daylight saving -- one loses an hour and picks it up -- it seems to me that puts the consumer at a disadvantage. I have had discussions with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) since the milk marketing board is under his jurisdiction. We are going to work out a synchronization rather than just a calendar month for the primary increase, so consumers will not have to worry about whether they lost a day last year or gained a day this year. I do not know when the next increase will be hot I am assured by the Minister of Agriculture and Food it will be in symmetry.

Mr. Breithaupt: Looking at that synchronization, would the minister consider whether the milk for which the increase has been received as of the first of the month probably is in the system and in the stores two or three days later, so that there might appear to be an overlap of time during which the vendor is receiving a higher price as a result of the award than is being passed on to the farmer, to make sure that there is not a gap in that which might also cause some confusion and unfairness?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it would follow the same inventory control as is in effect at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and as has been used in the gasoline and fuel oil industry.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since there has never been any public inquiry as to the legitimacy of a processors’ price increase following an Ontario Milk Marketing Board price increase to the producers, and since the processors have never even been obligated to justify such an increase in accordance with any sort of formula, on what basis does the minister come to the conclusion, or assert, that they are entitled to the same amount of increase as the producers got, when the producers’ increase has to be justified in accordance with a formula?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that. I said that traditionally this is what happens.

Mr. MacDonald: It isn’t what happens; the minister just gave figures to prove it isn’t what happens.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Will the member calm himself down?

Mr. Speaker, as you know, in the process of raising the price of milk by the Ontario Milk Marketing Board, there is a time period beforehand when the increase -- granted, it is made on the basis of a formula -- has to be justified before the board. The dairies or the processors -- whatever you want to call them -- have every right in that period of time to appeal if they feel those increases are not justified.

While there is not a formal formula in regard to the dairies, I would suggest that the dairies’ acceptance of the producers’ increased costs, since they are virtually identical to their own, constitutes a justification.

Mr. MacDonald: Nonsense.

Mr. Martel: Are their machines being fed hay?

Mr. MacDonald: Even the Minister of Agriculture and Food won’t justify that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh, I think he will. Mr. Speaker, if I may --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the honourable minister finished with the question?

Hon. Mr. Drea: If I wouldn’t be rudely interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I could finish in one sentence.

Mr. Speaker: Well, just ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the simple fact of the matter is that the milk producers in this province were entitled by formula to a much higher increase, and they exercised restraint. As a matter of fact, the dairies probably could have justified the need for a higher increase, and they exercised restraint.

Mr. MacDonald: The Minister of Agriculture and Food won’t defend what his colleague has just said; he can’t.

FIRE INSPECTION

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and it pertains to recommendations by his advisory committee on the Ontario fire code which published proposals in the Ontario Gazette on January 13, 1979. Does the minister agree with the proposal of the advisory committee which would give an absolute right to inspectors to enter into any building which, if there were a refusal would result in either a fine of from $200 to a maximum of $2,000 or six months in jail? Does he agree with the proposal that a warrant or court order would only be necessary if there was a refusal?

Can he, as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, give his undertaking that, before any such power is given which abrogates a basic fundamental right in this province, the approval of the Legislature will be required, rather than just regulation?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I can answer yes to what the honourable member was asking at the end. I want to make it very clear, even though I put out a statement in the House and we put out releases in December, that the reason that report was going in the Ontario Gazette was so it would receive the most widespread comments by municipalities, fire chiefs and so on. We cautioned everyone that this was not a legislative proposal.

Mr. Roy: We understand that.

Hon. Mr. Drea: All right. Secondly, any change in the fire code --

Mr. Roy: We want to catch you before you get carried away.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Just a moment. Any change in the fire code would require the approval of this Legislature, period. I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that I counted them up the other day, and there are now 19 ministries involved in aspects of the fire code. I have very profound feelings about that report. I was only the vehicle for commissioning it.

[3:15]

The comments I have I will bring to the attention of my colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry), because, as the member will notice in that report, while there is also a dissenting opinion one of the recommendations of that report is that responsibility for the fire code -- which of course would have to include the building code -- be completely taken from my ministry and vested in the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

I would say to the honourable member, I think he knows exactly what my feelings are, but in fairness, we published the report of that committee who were laymen, which was not a government report. We published it and asked for the most widespread public comment. That comment is still coming in to me, and I will comment at the appropriate time. As I say to the honourable member, I think he knows my feelings.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her chambers.

Clerk of the House: The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour has assented:

Bill 30, An Act to amend the York Municipal Hydro-Electric Service Act, 1978.

Bill 41, An Act to amend the Ministry of Industry and Tourism Act, 1972.

Bill 42, An Act to repeal the Sheridan Park Corporation Act.

Bill 53, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Bill 55, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1973.

Bill 56, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

Bill Pr2, An Act to revive Portuguese Club of London Incorporated.

POLISH CONSTITUTION DAY

Hon. Mr. Baetz: As Minister of Culture and Recreation, I am pleased to bring to the attention of this House that today being May 3, is celebrated by Polish people the world over and in Poland as a national holiday.

When we think of Polish people today, we tend to immediately think of those few who have become world renowned, such as Copernicus, Paderewski, and more recently, Pope John-Paul II. I would, however, like to pay special tribute to those countless thousands of Polish origin living in our midst, who have contributed so much to make this a better and greater province, and a better and greater Canada.

NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: For some months the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Industry and Tourism and I have been working to try to head off a disastrous event in my home town, the closing of a National Steel mine, called Moose Mountain. That has not succeeded. We are still working on it and I must commend the government for it, yet today, May 3, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), put out a statement in which he makes the following claim: “Under the current arrangement, Moose Mountain will continue operating through to this fall.”

That is certainly not factual and it is certainly not fair for the minister to put this out when in fact, it hasn’t occurred, and isn’t occurring. The people who are going to read it in tonight’s paper will be led to believe that operation is surely remaining open until fall.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable the minister to whom you refer will have an opportunity to respond to your alleged point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: In the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might comment on the statement. I was unaware that such a statement was being issued. Certainly, it is in line with my statement to the House some five weeks ago, but with an inaccuracy to which the member has quite properly referred.

There was never any suggestion that had any authoritative background to it that the functioning of the mine would carry on until the fall. I suggest it is probably a misinterpretation based upon a document the member and I talked about before. I think it is unfortunate the statement was issued today and I am sure it was issued as part of a misunderstanding because most of it is accurate, as was the statement I made to this House some four or five weeks ago.

The member is quite right. We are continuing with our endeavours through the experimental process to see if we can in any way keep all or part of that mine functioning. There are some problems at the moment. We are endeavouring to see if we can help sort them out.

I hope that clarifies the matter for the member.

HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to try your patience on this, but the Minister of Health stated I was wrong when I stated the OMA rates of opted out doctors are 42 per cent higher on average than the rates paid by OHIP.

A speech of mine which was widely circulated gave a number of figures; I will just read three or four into the record. If the minister wishes to refute them, that’s fine.

A standard office visit, for which OHIP pays $1.70 --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will you please take your seat?

The leader of the New Democratic Party has expressed his displeasure about answers the same minister had given earlier and as a result of inquiries of the ministry. Rather than taking up the time of the House to clarify them I think a late show would be appropriate. I’m sure the member knows how to avail himself of that opportunity.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I won’t read these figures into the record, but on the point of privilege, when a minister --

Mr. Speaker: Which one of the member’s privileges have been abrogated?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the minister has misrepresented things I’ve said and has accused me of making wrong statements.

Mr. Speaker: There’s clearly a difference of opinion between the minister and the honourable member. It’s not something that we should take the time of the House to clear up. The member has the opportunity of a late show if he wants to avail himself of it.

PETITION

MINISTRY OFFICES

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a petition signed by 1,248 residents of the district of Timiskaming, which reads as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario as follows:

“That the Minister of Community and Social Services call an immediate halt to the downgrading of the Kirkland Lake Ministry of Community and Social Services office from a district area office to a local office. At the same time, the minister should immediately halt the upgrading of the Timmins office from a local office to an area office.

“The Minister of Community and Social Services should also make a thorough and complete review of the economic significance to Kirkland Lake of the 21 jobs that the community of Kirkland Lake would lose if the Ministry of Community and Social Services district area offices were moved from Kirkland Lake to Timmins.”

As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is signed by 1,248 residents of the district of Timiskaming, including all of the councillors of Kirkland Lake.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 12, An Act to amend the Theatres Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, this bill is housekeeping. It will establish the duration of the licences for theatres, film exchanges and projectionists. Instead of the statutory one year the period will be set by regulation -- it will make the process easier.

Also, it redefines “projector,” since there is a redundancy in that act.

PREARRANGED FUNERAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 73, An Act to amend the Prearranged Funeral Services Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, this bill is housekeeping.

It may be of considerable interest to members of the House that there is a contractual form where the validity of the contract is protected by the government for persons who want to save for their funeral. They put their money on deposit with a funeral director.

The housekeeping involves: (1) That only funeral directors licensed under the Funeral Services Act and directly involved in operating a funeral service can accept moneys in this regard; (2) that the money is held in trust, and they all are, and must include the interest that accumulates; (3) having the discipline for this bill under the new Funeral Services Act, rather than the one that is referred to.

DELILA CONSTRUCTION LIMITED ACT

Mr. Gregory, on behalf of Mr. Jones, moved first reading of Bill Pr11, An Act to revive Delila Construction Limited.

Motion agreed to.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swart moved first reading of Bill 76, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require that all school buses in Ontario be equipped with seatbelts. The bill contains an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act stating that any school bus used for the purpose of transporting children to or from school must be equipped with a seatbelt assembly for each passenger seat. The responsibility for ensuring the seat-belts are used by all passengers, as incorporated in the existing Highway Traffic Act, provides that the driver of vehicles is responsible for those under 16 years of age.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 97, 98, 106 to 110, 126 and 127 and the interim answers to questions 141 to 153 standing on the Notice Paper.

In addition to that, I wish to table the answers to questions 138 and 154 to 163 standing on the Notice Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Perhaps I could take advantage of this opportunity, before calling the orders of the day and pursuant to standing order 13, to indicate the business of the House for the remainder of this week and next week.

This afternoon, of course, we have ballot items 9 and 10. This evening, we will resume the budget debate. Tomorrow morning will be the budget debate.

On Monday, May 7, the House will be in committee of supply to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

On Tuesday of next week we will have legislation both afternoon and evening, continuing with second reading of Bill 59; then into committee of the whole with respect to Bills 54, 57, 58 and 59. Following this, we will take into consideration second readings of Bills 47, 48, 50, 51 and 49, to be followed by any committee work which results from that consideration.

On Wednesday, May 9, the resources development, general government and justice committees may meet in the morning.

On Thursday, May 10, in the afternoon, private members’ public business will be ballot items 11 and 12. Next Thursday evening, a week from today, we will continue with legislation. I would draw the members’ attention to that, a week today in the evening there will be legislation starting with that which is not finished on Tuesday, following which we will, if time permits, carry on with Bills 17, 22 and 34.

On Friday, May 11, it will be the budget debate.

[3:30]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO HYDRO ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

Mr. J. Reed moved second reading of Bill 61, An Act respecting the Public Accountability of Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes.

Mr. J. Reed: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to reserve about five minutes at the end of this debate to wrap up a little bit.

At the outset, I would like to express my thanks to every member of this House who responded to me by letter when I circulated this bill during the winter recess. The response I received was encouraging and, while it was not unanimous from every quarter, I can say the broad base of response was at least not negative. I’m particularly grateful for that.

I also had the opportunity to circulate this bill outside of the House among some organizations of importance in the province. Through their replies I received a broad base of support.

The truth is there is a recognition, I think since the inception of the Power Corporation Act, that there is a flaw in that act which is fundamental. It’s a flaw which is tying the hands of the Ministry of Energy. This act is designed to correct that flaw.

I would like to read into the record initially the explanatory note so everyone may know just what the reason for the bill is:

“The purpose of this bill is to provide a means of clarifying the functions and duties of Ontario Hydro related to the production, generation, transmission, distribution, supply, sale, use and development of energy resources in Ontario. The bill requires the Minister of Energy on behalf of the government of Ontario to issue a policy directive setting out the policy framework within which Ontario Hydro is to make operational and management decisions. The Power Corporation Act is amended to clarify that it is a responsibility of the board of Ontario Hydro to ensure that the business of Ontario Hydro is conducted within the limits established by the policy directive issued by the Minister of Energy.”

That sounds a little involved, but simply put the intent of this bill is to allow the government, for the first time since the inception of the Power Corporation Act, to be truly accountable to the people of Ontario for the actions of Ontario Hydro.

I think it’s generally recognized by all of the House and all parties that the buck has to stop somewhere. The present situation, as most of us recognize, is totally unacceptable. Under the present circumstances, the Minister of Energy is really not accountable to the people of Ontario for Ontario Hydro, to say nothing of the fact the minister may not even be knowledgeable about Ontario Hydro. The only control the government has -- and it’s a control they haven’t acted on, even though it’s the only one they’ve had -- is in the requests by Hydro for orders in council related to 26 areas which are delineated in the Power Corporation Act. The truth is that the government has really undertaken to rubber stamp those requests for orders in council.

As a consequence, we have the chaos that is so evident at the present time. The government has been trying to shore up the situation by coming to the defence of the overbuild and stating publicly so many times, “Aren’t we glad we have $4 billion too much investment in Ontario Hydro at the present time?” and so on.

The government is faced with a situation where it really doesn’t have much choice but to shore up the situation. The truth is that mistakes have been made simply because, first of all, the government has not acted within its responsibilities as delineated under the Power Corporation Act and, secondly, because it has potentially that other area of active participation which is not now part of the Power Corporation Act.

Mr. Conway: Tell us about Hugh Macaulay.

Mr. J. Reed: Bring back Hugh Macaulay? The act simply allows the government to be reactive, to react to situations that are already in place and to machinery that is already in motion. It does not allow it to be active. Yet it is interesting to note that way back in 1973 Task Force Hydro, which was the creator or the father of the Power Corporation Act, recommended in its own submission to the government that there be a policy framework within which Hydro should operate.

Mr. Conway: That’s not a bad idea.

Mr. J. Reed: It was one of the only recommendations that was not included when the Power Corporation Act was made a reality. It was precisely because it was not that the then leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), in expressing his concerns, made some historic statements regarding the control of Ontario Hydro by the political body accountable to the people. It was because of that, of course, that the Liberal Party did not support the Power Corporation Act at that time.

In 1974, the Premier stated one of the first objectives of the new board of directors of Ontario Hydro at that time would be to implement government policy. The truth is that was recognized before the formation of the Power Corporation Act. It was recognized by Task Force Hydro and recognized by the Premier.

More recently, I might add, I had the privilege of presenting thoughts on the ultimate responsibility for our utility to the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning. There was a great deal of acceptance at that particular think-tank session that the idea responsibility had to stop with an element of government was something which was badly needed. I might also say that I have a letter on file from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture endorsing this bill. There is a definite recognition of the need. I am sure that each member, regardless of his party persuasion, also understands that it is time this act was amended.

Mr. Conway: Even the member for Ottawa West.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Don’t disturb me.

Ms. Gigantes: He has wiped Hydro right out of his mind.

Mr. J. Reed: We have to make the ministry accountable to the people of Ontario. I understand the problem the government faces because it has not even made the ministry a true Ministry of Energy in the sense of ministries, but rather it still continues to exist as a policy secretariat. I expect to a certain extent that ties the hands of the Ministry of Energy as well.

We have had some indication that various Ministers of Energy in the past -- and believe me there have been a lot of them since I have been here -- have certainly had some frustration in operating the ministry. I can understand that frustration. For goodness sake, if the minister is going to co-ordinate the energy policy for Ontario, then I think a logical question to the minister would be what is the energy policy? The answer would be --

Mr. Conway: Malcolm Rowan.

Mr. J. Reed: -- there isn’t any. We all know that.

But in fact if we’re going to move on to better things, if we’re going to develop an energy policy for Ontario, one of the things we have to do is to be able to co-ordinate all of our energy systems. There is a kind of conception that the only energy system we have for Ontario and the only energy system that has a future in Ontario is the electric power system. Anyone who stops and thinks about it for a little while knows that that is just not so.

The reason why the electric power utility is so dominant in Ontario at the present time and why nuclear power is so dominant and, indeed, coming under the kind of scrutiny it’s coming under in select committee at the present time, is the fact that there was a choice -- and I believe a wrong choice to put all of the eggs, the financial eggs, the brains, the talent and so en, into the electrical energy basket; primarily the nuclear energy basket.

The chairman of the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning has called for the development of energy resources on the broadest possible base. That is exactly the policy of this party. For the last three years we have called consistently for the development of energy resources in Ontario on the broadest possible base. I’ve said it many times before, and I have to say it one more time: If the same amount of money or half the amount of money that has been spent in research and development in the nuclear industry were devoted to the development of alternative energies the nuclear question today would be simply a matter of academic debate and would not present the great, deep concern that it presents to every member in this House at the present time.

The reason would be simply that nuclear power would be allowed to take its reasonable place in the energy mosaic in the province of Ontario and not risk becoming the sole energy destiny of the province. I don’t even want to get into the question of radiation or all of that whole special concern that nuclear power has about it; just the business of putting all of one’s eggs in one basket. It’s risky; we have said for years that it’s risky, and it is cow proven that that position is correct. We’ve got to move in the broadest possible way. The only way we can is if we have a strong Ministry of Energy which can co-ordinate those forces and co-ordinate the talent, the financial investment and all of the components that are needed to give the people of Ontario the energy choices that they are going to need from now on into the future.

To spend all of this time in an almost impotent way watching Ontario Hydro do its will, being accountable to virtually no one, is really not the path that we have to chart towards our energy future in Ontario. I would urge in the most serious way that every member in this House give the deepest consideration to the support of this bill. I realize it may be a little difficult for some members of the NDP because they were so supportive of the Power Corporation Act when it first came in.

Let me say to those members that we should always try to remain flexible enough to recognize when legislation can be improved. From the point of view of the government, I would say, the Premier supports this. The Premier supports this and it’s on public record. Task Force Hydro supports this. It’s on public record. The Federation of Agriculture supports this. That’s on record. Anyone who sits down and thinks about it for 20 minutes has to support this.

Mr. Speaker, it’s with great pride that I rise this afternoon to present this bill, and I hope that when this debate is finished every member in this House will see fit to support this most necessary revision to our energy system.

[3:45]

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this bill; I will tell you now that I will support this bill.

As the proposer of the bill has told us, Mr. Speaker, everyone has to support this bill because there is no content to it at all. I mean how could one possibly be against it?

The essence of this bill is to say that we shall create the legal method by which the government shall govern in the energy field -- the legal method by which the government shall govern what happens with Ontario Hydro, that public institution in this province.

There is absolutely nothing in this bill one could disagree with. Why, even the Premier supports it. It is obviously no threat to the government whatsoever.

I think the proposer fails to understand that this government does have an energy policy. It’s a totally inadequate energy policy. It’s an out of date energy policy. It’s an energy policy that creates nuclear installations as a kind of public works way of providing regional development. That’s the kind of energy policy we have from this government. It has nothing to say when it comes to other forms of energy -- or practically nothing to say about it.

Mr. Conway: What, pray tell, is Carleton East, if not an experiment in public works?

Mr. T. P. Reid: At least for one member.

Ms. Gigantes: Carleton East is the very heart of this province, I will have the member know. The heartbeat of this province goes on in Carleton East.

My honourable friend has suggested that the Minister of Energy in Ontario has not been, is not now and has never been, in all his various forms accountable to the public of Ontario for Ontario Hydro. But that’s for a very good reason. It’s that this government prefers to have it that way and writing any kind of legislative accord, any kind of changes to the Ministry of Energy Act or the Power Corporation Act, as they are now before us, is not going to alter that.

This government is going to pursue a policy which, as my honourable friend has suggested, means that the Minister of Energy is not knowledgeable about Ontario Hydro affairs because that’s what the Premier and the cabinet of this government want. They like it that way. And make no mistake about it, this proposal -- even if it were adopted, even if it went through all readings -- would mean not an iota of difference at all to how this government will behave when it comes to Ontario Hydro -- absolutely nothing.

My honourable friend from Halton-Burlington has suggested that the Minister of Energy, in his many forms, has always had his hands tied. By whom, I ask?

Mr. Conway: Reuben had his tongue tied.

Ms. Gigantes: By whom? By the cabinet; by the policy makers in the government of Ontario, that’s by whom. I would suggest a stronger description of it. I would say that at least two Ministers of Energy to my knowledge have not only had their hands tied, they have been chopped off at the knees --

Mr. Conway: Names please.

Ms. Gigantes: -- when they have tried to institute policy. I will name two. When the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) was our Minister of Energy, he announced to us in fine phrases how he was going to get every bit of information from Hydro. No information was going to be concealed. Everything would be not only known to him but known to the public.

He didn’t last long. And then his colleague suffered an even worse disgrace.

Mr. Conway: Mugged by the mandarins.

Ms. Gigantes: Absolutely mugged by the mandarins.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to suggest to you that this legislation is not going to change at all the way this government deals with Ontario Hydro. It can’t do any harm. If it ever gets into place, I suppose, at least then the Liberals would be committed to supporting a government --

Mr. Conway: What is your position?

Ms. Gigantes: -- that actually held Ontario Hydro accountable as a public corporation, and I would like to suggest to you that the attitude of the government and the various Ministers of Energy we have seen reminds me very much of a program my brother used to watch when he was young. It was the Yogi Bear cartoon. The way Ministers of Energy operate in Ontario, or have operated in the past and still do, remind me of the duck in that cartoon. I don’t know if you recall that duck, Mr. Speaker, but he was dealing very often with a being a good deal larger and more powerful than himself, and whenever he wanted to make a threat he would say, “Have you ever seen a duck faint? It is a terrible sight.”

Mr. T. P. Reid: That’s better than your normal voice.

Ms. Gigantes: That was supposed to wring the hearts of those he wished to persuade and get them to change their attitude towards him and what he wanted. Well, that is the way our Ministers of Energy behave.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Now we are getting insight into the NDP caucus.

Ms. Gigantes: Some of them have dared to say they were going to be ducks with a louder voice and they were chopped off at the knees. There is nothing -- nothing -- in this legal document that is going to change that. The government will go its merry way, but there is nothing one can object to, either, in this bill before us, Mr. Speaker, so I will give it my unenthusiastic support.

Mr. Conway: Marriage has made her so reasonable.

Mr. Ashe: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is quite amazing how the mover of this bill --

Mr. Warner: Here comes the dull edge of the guillotine.

Mr. Ashe: -- has seen fit to misuse and abuse some of the facts and statistics. My honourable colleague from Oriole (Mr. Williams) will be filling in some of the background of the policy of this government --

Mr. Warner: You have to be kidding.

Mr. Ashe: -- over the years relative to the subject matter.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We could build a plant at Atikokan before he finishes his speech.

Mr. Ashe: I think you will find the honourable member who moved the bill, of course, has been somewhat lacking in his research documents that provided the material for his comments. Mr. Speaker, the bill is entitled the Ontario Hydro Public Accountability Act. First of all, I must admit at the outset I was somewhat perplexed by the title of the bill, which appears to relate neither to its content, nor in fact to its stated purpose --

Mr. Warner: You would be perplexed by a bag of jelly beans.

Mr. Ashe: -- as set out in the explanatory notes the honourable member put on the record today. It accompanies the bill, but I find the two very hard to relate.

Certainly the title suggests Ontario Hydro is not accountable for its activities. Surely, however, nothing could be further from the truth. Ontario Hydro has shown itself time and time again to be highly accountable --

Mr. Conway: Oh, yes. Didn’t that select committee in 1973 prove that?

Mr. Ashe: -- not only to the government, but also to the Legislature and to the general public for all aspects of its operations.

Mr. Conway: I wish Mr. Cronyn understood that.

Mr. Ashe: We need only look at Ontario Hydro’s participation and openness in providing information and testifying in a variety of forums in order to appreciate the extent of its accountability.

Mr. Conway: Yes, they told the truth, didn’t they, then?

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I would just like you to appreciate just a few, and I am just relating a relatively few examples --

Mr. Conway: Remember when they misled the select committee?

Mr. Ashe: -- in response to questions raised in this Legislature on rates and other issues before the OEB, on electric power planning issues before the Porter commission --

Mr. Conway: The Moog building. Canada Square.

Mr. Ashe: -- and on virtually all aspects of its operations before the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs, among other things.

Mr. Conway: Smith and Cronyn. Remember the select committee report? It was highly suspect.

Mr. Ashe: Can we get a cork for this fellow, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Conway: Well, you want the accountability record.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ashe: Indeed, I would go further and suggest few agencies of government have been more exhaustively probed, prodded --

Mr. Conway: And well it should be.

Mr. Ashe: -- examined, audited and monitored than Ontario Hydro has been, particularly in recent years.

Mr. Conway: Yes, by the opposition. It was an unaccountable tyranny from Adam Beck down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North doesn’t have the floor.

Mr. Conway: Well, it is hard to take that.

Mr. Ashe: It is accountable. To suggest otherwise is, of course, to ignore the reality I have already indicated previously.

Mr. Conway: It was a tyranny from Adam Beck down.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, perhaps that is why world over it has renown as being one of the strongest and most reliable utilities that exists. The member doesn’t know the facts and misuses and abuses the figures. That is his problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Ashe: He has his head in the sand all the time, anyway, so he might as well stick it back in again.

Mr. Conway: You are just a modern-day version of Adam Beck.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for Halton-Burlington had a different motive, in fact, in introducing this bill.

Mr. Mancini: He is the provincial version of Joe Clark.

Mr. Ashe: Perhaps he is more concerned with the need for interference by the government in the day-to-day affairs of Ontario Hydro than with Ontario Hydro’s public accountability. Clearly, this bill indicates a desire to intrude into the day-to-day affairs of Ontario Hydro, not really in fact to make it more accountable.

From the remarks of the honourable member, both during this debate and on previous occasions, and from reading the bill and its explanatory note, other purposes of this bill appear to be -- and I say “appear to be” -- first, to require the government to issue a statement setting out Ontario’s energy policy as well as the respective roles and responsibilities of the government and Ontario Hydro in relation to those policies. Second, to give the government the power to issue policy directives to Ontario Hydro and to require that Ontario Hydro conduct its business in accordance with such policy directives.

I would like to outline a number of the provisions of current legislation governing the Ministry of Energy and Ontario Hydro which address these purposes now. I would also like to refer to several actions which have already been taken by the government or which are under way at present.

First, the Ministry of Energy Act provides that the minister is responsible for, among other things, reviewing energy matters in relation to the energy needs of the province of Ontario; second, advising and assisting the government in its dealings with other governments relative and relating to energy matters; third, making recommendations for effective co-ordination of all energy matters within the government with a view to ensuring the consistent application of policy in every area of concern regarding energy; and fourth, making recommendations regarding priorities for and the development of research in all aspects of energy of significance to this province.

In discharging these responsibilities the minister makes frequent statements to the Legislature on policy matters. The ministry also makes and communicates energy policies in a number of other ways. For example, the report entitled, Ontario’s Energy Future, published by the ministry in 1977, gives indeed a rationale and long-term framework within which policies are developed dealing with energy supply and demand matters.

Specific policy statements which have been communicated to the Legislature or its committees have covered such matters as: crude oil and natural gas supply, demand, transportation and export; energy pricing; energy conservation; development of renewable energy resources, such as solar energy, energy from waste and byproduct power; provincial jurisdiction and responsibility in energy matters. Specifically in relation to electric power, policy statements have been made in such matters as, to name a few: nuclear fuel waste management; export of power; Ontario Hydro construction programs; municipal utility restructuring; guidelines for the credit, collection and cutoff practises of utilities; electrification of remote northern communities; and many others too numerous to list.

This list of policy statements, which is by no means complete, demonstrates that the Minister of Energy is fulfilling his responsibilities under the Ministry of Energy Act. It also demonstrates that all of the energy matters mentioned in Bill 61, and more besides, have been addressed by the government in public statements.

Let me turn to the legislation governing Ontario Hydro, the Power Corporation Act. The Minister of Energy is responsible for the administration of this act, but under its provisions the business and affairs of Ontario Hydro are under the control and direction of the Ontario Hydro board.

While the honourable member who was the author of this bill may not appreciate it, there are very good and compelling reasons why Ontario Hydro’s business operations and day-to-day affairs should be kept at arm’s length to government or legislative interference. I am sure the member will blush when I mention the operation of a known institution called the Canadian Post Office, but I think the post office is a perfect illustration of what can happen when legislators and bureaucrats become too directly involved in the operations of business corporations.

We do not need that kind of nonsense in the operations of Hydro. Certainly in the case of Hydro the corporate structure has been designed in a way to allow the corporation to adopt the best principles of enlightened commercial enterprise, and this has worked to the best interests of taxpayers and the power consumers in this province.

I might add that it is important for proper business operations for the government to respect the integrity and responsibility of the persons appointed to serve on the Hydro board of directors.

[4:00]

I submit that you cannot ask persons of the quality of those who serve on that board to be mere figureheads. They must be given the power to act within the scope of a broad policy framework such as the government provides, and from that they make wise business decisions.

This authority is not without its specific limitations. First, the members of the Hydro board are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Secondly, approval of that Lieutenant Governor in Council -- cabinet, of course -- is required before the board may exercise a number of its powers; for instance, the acquisition of most real property, borrowing of money, issuing of securities, construction of electrical facilities, export of electricity. These, I believe, are the kinds of limitations referred to in Bill 61, but they are already clearly set out in existing authorities and legislation.

As most members are aware, a memorandum of understanding between the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) and the board of directors of Ontario Hydro is now being developed. This memorandum will elaborate on the respective roles and responsibilities of the ministry and Ontario Hydro and will set down both the formal and informal working relationships between the two.

Government policy on energy matters, when it has some bearing on Ontario Hydro responsibilities, is now and always has been communicated to Ontario Hydro. I am not aware of any major deviations by Ontario Hydro from government policy. On the contrary, Hydro has continually demonstrated a willingness to work within the framework of government energy policy. The memorandum of understanding will clarify for honourable members how Ontario Hydro is working effectively and will continue to work effectively within the framework of government energy policy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that I started at three minutes after, and there was about a moment in between.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Ashe: I would challenge that you’re correct in that, Mr. Speaker.

Some hon. members: Are you challenging the chair?

Mr. Ashe: Some people can tell the time and some people cannot.

Some hon. members: Throw him out.

Mr. Ashe: In any event, in summarizing, I hope I have covered the points and suggested why the government cannot support this bill.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I find it incumbent upon myself to apologize to you for that last remark by the honourable member. Perhaps he does not understand the rules of the House and the respect we pay the chair; but I take personal exception to that remark, and I think he should apologize to you, Mr. Speaker.

Some hon. members: He should apologize.

Mr. T. P. Reid: However, in speaking to the bill, I sat with some disbelief listening to the honourable member who just spoke and who has indicated -- as we have heard time and time before -- that Hydro follows the direction of the government. That has never been anybody’s perception around here; at least it has never been quite so badly put by anybody.

What my colleague’s bill intends to do is to spell out very clearly, in a very legal manner, exactly who is running the shop, as my friend from Grey-Bruce would say. I do not know whom the honourable member thought he was kidding, but surely we are all aware that the appointment of Mr. Macaulay to the top post in Hydro is doing by the back door what my colleague wants to do by the front door; in other words, to have some kind of direct involvement with the province in energy matters as related to Ontario Hydro.

There used to be a great fiction years ago, and in fact when Mr. Gathercole was chairman of Hydro; I recall him coming to a select committee -- I don’t know; about 10 years ago --

Mr. Breithaupt: I was chairman of the public accounts committee then.

Mr. T. P. Reid: My colleague informs me that he was chairman of the public accounts committee then; I didn’t know we had any money those days, 10 years ago, to look after.

But I recall Mr. Gathercole appearing before the committee at that time. Two memories remain with me. One is that Hydro was then really an emanation of the Conservative Party as much as it was providing power at cost in Ontario.

Mr. Gathercole spent most of his time before that committee trying to defend and justify and protect the government. The then minister, whom I will not name at the moment and who supposedly had authority over Hydro, was very upset when he heard exactly what Mr. Gathercole had been saying, because as the minister said he was quite capable of looking after himself.

There’s something else I remember from that, and that is simply when Mr. Gathercole was before the committee I made a comment to him that caused him some distress. I compared Hydro to Frankenstein’s monster. When Mr. Gathercole asked me: “What do you mean, Hydro is a Frankenstein?” I said:

“The Ontario Legislature created you but we can’t control you.”

That is simply the purpose of the bill put forward by the member for Halton-Burlington.

Energy has fantastic importance in our economy and in our lifestyle today, and will have incredible impact in the next few years because of the shortage of energy supplies of one kind or another. Hydro has fantastic economic impact through the cost of hydro; through the cost of energy to produce that hydro; and simply the sheer magnitude of the borrowing by Ontario Hydro on the capital markets of the world, particularly in the United States and also in Canada. They seem to be looking at the overseas market as well -- some $400 million worth of bonds at a time -- and that has to affect seriously, if not the credit rating of the province of Ontario, certainly the ability of the province to borrow funds in those markets, because there’s only so many dollars to go around.

Hydro’s bond-raising issues should be coordinated, and we’ve said so many times before, on this side with the overall financial and fiscal policy of the province of Ontario. They are just too large to ignore and to keep at an arm’s length relationship when they can have such an adverse impact on the position of the province and its ability to borrow in these markets.

To come back to the principle of the bill, we heard during the hearings of the select committee that Hydro has one method of forecasting and the Ministry of Energy has another method of forecasting. Who has the responsibility, in the province of Ontario for deciding where we are going with our energy policy?

Is it Ontario Hydro, which really is an operational branch? They build, design and they operate; but is it, and should it be, particularly at this time in the history of the province of Ontario, left solely on its own to be a policy-setting mechanism? Should Ontario Hydro alone be charting the course for energy needs and requirements and the methodology by which we’re going to produce that energy in the future? Should that be left solely up to Hydro?

That is the gist of what Mr. Ashe, the member for Durham West, was saying. We say no, that should not be the case. If that is the case, we don’t need a Ministry of Energy and all the high-priced civil servants we have there.

I say the government should have a direct and legal and legislative relationship between Ontario Hydro and the Ministry of Energy, and through that ministry to this Legislature. The Ministry of Energy should work in conjunction with Hydro if you like, but the Ministry of Energy should have the responsibility for setting the policies, for setting the parameters of what energy will be produced. The ministry perhaps should decide the price, but certainly the method and whether it will be from nuclear or alternate energy sources such as gas, oil, solar or whatever it be.

We all know we’re just marking time before that in fact happens. As I said -- and the Premier (Mr. Davis) has been quoted on this -- instead of doing it in straightforward, through-the-front-door style through this Legislature, the Premier has used the back-door method. Recognizing the importance of energy in this province and how badly the relationship is now working, recognizing the crucial importance of Hydro, he still chose to do it by the back-door method, by appointing a friend and confidant to the highest position in Hydro.

I am not casting any aspersions on Mr. Macaulay’s competence or otherwise, and I don’t pretend to suggest he cannot do the job, I merely state that the Premier has recognized de facto, but in a very roundabout way, the fact that the government has to have its finger on what’s going on at Hydro -- through the Premier it would appear rather than through the Ministry of Energy, which is another strange way to go about things; perhaps he has no faith in his Minister of Energy.

Mr. J. Reed: Believe it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What’s probably closer to the truth is that he’s talked with his Minister of Energy and he can’t understand what he is saying any more than we can. The Premier has recognized that while Hydro should be left alone to operate on a day-to-day basis, the ultimate responsibility and accountability for energy policy in the province rests with this Legislature. He recognizes that the decisions are too crucial and too important to be left to Hydro alone. Surely all my colleague’s hill does is recognize and give legitimacy and legislative approval to that very fact.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, before I begin I wish to echo the initial comments of my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid). I, as a member of this assembly, did not appreciate the disrespect shown to the chair by the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe).

Mr. M. N. Davison: He should come back and apologize.

Mr. Warner: I rise in support of the bill put forth by the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. Reed). I assume all of us this chamber recognize that this member has lad a long-standing interest in the affairs of Hydro. He has developed some considerable expertise in the matters and speaks knowledgeably on many occasions. He has brought part of his work to fruition with the bill.

I feel this bill is worthy of support, but I think before the dinner hour the government will rise to block this bill. One of the reasons it will block this bill is because they don’t know what to do. Ontario Hydro is out of control as far as the Legislature is concerned and the government knows that. There is not a member occupying a seat in this assembly who doesn’t realize that Ontario Hydro is out of control.

The member for Durham West, when he spoke, trotted out many of the details to try and prove we know what’s going on with Ontario Hydro with respect to its policies on development and on pricing. But there’s only one way we ever got that information and that was through forcing a select committee on Hydro affairs. When he established that select committee -- and under very able chairmanship I might say -- we were able to get to the root of some of the things we’ve been trying to find out for quite a few years.

I think we’re also aware we’ve had at least one Minister of Energy who had to resign. He personally felt he had to resign because Ontario Hydro wasn’t responsible, it wasn’t responsive to the assembly. He couldn’t get the facts.

[4:15]

Members over here would rise during question period and put forward important questions to which there were no answers because the people at Ontario Hydro either wouldn’t give him the information or gave him false information or misled the minister. Finally, he realized it was pointless to try to carry on. He was a pawn in the hands of the Ontario Hydro people; so he quit to resume his duties as a private member in the assembly.

I’ll say quite frankly that I admired his candour and I admired his honesty.

I think that this afternoon, if the government does as I believe it will do, rise and guillotine this bill, it is making a serious error, a very serious error. In fact I’ll use the argument used by the member for Durham West. He tried to tell us in his own way about the problems of Canada Post. Actually he has it backwards. The reason the federal government is having difficulty in sorting out the mail service is because the post office is not a crown corporation. It’s more than an arm’s length away and it isn’t automatically responsible to the Parliament of Canada. If it were a crown corporation, the Parliament of Canada would have a much better way of bringing better service to the people of Canada through the post office.

I’m suggesting that we have gone to the point of establishing what is a pseudo-crown corporation, but the member for Halton-Burlington has put forward some suggestions which will strengthen Ontario Hydro and which will help to bring more sensible answers to the people of Ontario. They want to know why it is that Ontario Hydro is going to raise the rates next year.

Why is it? What’s the rationale for their being raised by 14 per cent or more? We don’t know and we aren’t able to get any straight answers from the Minister of Energy. They sure can’t argue that it’s the inflation rate, because there is no indication we’re going to have an inflation rate in Ontario or Canada of 14 per cent next year. What are the answers?

The Minister of Energy should have those answers and they should be straight answers from Ontario Hydro. He should be able to rise in the assembly and give those straight answers. He’s not in a position to do so.

I may be wrong, but I believe the member for Halton-Burlington is providing, in his bill, the opportunity for the Minister of Energy to apprise himself of the facts and relay them to this assembly, and of course to the public of Ontario.

I won’t take any more time, Mr. Speaker. I believe other members may wish to participate. I support the bill; I think it’s a move in the right direction so that the people of Ontario can better understand the secret policies of Ontario Hydro, a corporation about which they thought, because of their tax money, they had a right to know what was going on.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in the debate on Bill 61, An Act respecting the Public Accountability of Ontario Hydro, I would say at the outset that, in my view, the bill initiated by the member for Halton-Burlington has precious little to do with accountability.

He started out trying to justify this bill by naming alleged supporters of the bill. It’s my understanding that the Ontario Municipal Electrical Association, which represents utilities from all regions of this province, has taken sharp exception to this proposed bill. As I understand it, the OMEA feels that the people of Ontario, indeed, have benefitted from Hydro’s political independence over the years and that Hydro should be left free from acts and decisions based more on political expediency than on the provision, at cost, of an efficient, safe and reasonable source of electrical energy. They also feel that the bill would make the Hydro board redundant except in the most trivial of decisions.

The member for Rainy River has had the audacity to accuse this government of using individuals as a vehicle for somehow establishing back-door policy for Ontario Hydro.

Mr. T. P. Reid: On a point of order: The member for Oriole is out of order, Mr. Speaker. I didn’t accuse anybody or abuse anybody as an individual. I merely stated that the Premier was doing it by the back door rather than the front door. That certainly is not an abuse.

Mr. Warner: Withdraw the remark and then resign.

Mr. Williams: That is exactly what I said; and in my judgement this bill is little more than a back-door attempt to cite Ontario Hydro guilty of inappropriate management policies and this government guilty of providing no clear energy policy with which to safeguard this province’s energy interests.

Mr. J. Reed: I will accept the latter.

Mr. Williams: Neither position is consistent with the facts. Let’s examine the record for a moment.

It was the Conservative energy policy of the Whitney government in 1936 that created Hydro in the first place. It was the Progressive Conservative energy policy of the Frost government which understood the need for a uniform electrical infrastructure across a rapidly-growing province and accordingly committed Ontario to a plan of frequency standardization.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, it was the Progressive Conservative energy policy of the Robarts government that sensed the need for a transition from traditional sources of energy supply and initiated the landmark Pickering nuclear project, one of the most efficient producers of electricity in our history.

It is the energy policies of the current Progressive Conservative government which have committed Ontario to the values of conservation and security of supply and which have supported vast energy projects, such as Syncrude at crucial moments in its early development, and which now continue to support the exploration efforts of Polar Gas.

In short, the energy policies of successive Conservative governments are not written in little directives; they are in fact part of everyday life in this province and form an integral part of the fabric of Ontario’s growth. while successive Progressive Conservative administrations have shaped the province’s energy destiny, all have had the good sense not to interfere with the daily management of the Ontario Hydro corporation by way of a continual stream of daily memos or policy directives, or whatever other label one wishes to use. The simple fact is we have given Hydro the mandate to choose the best managers it could find and build a system based upon the best technical capacities and instincts of free-thinking individuals. Certainly we have provided a policy framework, but the consistent arm’s length approach of this government has enabled us to imbue the managers of the system with a vitality and confidence that would have been unthinkable had we adopted the yes-man approach reflected in this bill.

Let’s take a brief look at Hydro as it is. Hydro has grown as Ontario has grown, assuring individuals and industries alike that Ontario’s energy future is safe and reliable. Most important in this competitive world, Hydro has managed to provide its real owners, the people of Ontario, with electricity at rates which compare very well indeed with those of other jurisdictions.

It is also a fact that while no one could have predicted that OPEC would quadruple the price of oil in the spring of 1974 and while no one was able to predict recent events in Iran, Hydro’s management of the system over this volatile period has protected our energy interests. I honestly wonder whether the people of Ontario would have been better served by the interfering hand of political expediency.

That is not to say that polities and Hydro never mix. One need only look at the work of the select committee on Ontario Hydro to recognize just how accountable Hydro really is.

While we are on the topic of select committees, I should mention that last year’s three-party investigation into the Bruce heavy water plants found that allegations of mismanagement were groundless. It concluded there was no need to make recommendations to Hydro on the management of its construction projects because Hydro had demonstrated that it was fully capable of managing them.

Mr. J. Reed: That’s more garbage.

Mr. Williams: Others of course have criticized Hydro’s load forecasts as if Hydro’s crystal ball should have told it about middle east policy developments before they occurred. Others criticized the safety of Hydro’s nuclear program as if Three Mile Island were located somewhere in Ontario. If I were to accuse Hydro of anything, I would accuse it of being run by dedicated but imperfect human beings.

Mr. Laughren: An unfair accusation.

Mr. Williams: But accusations from all quarters is not what Hydro needs, not what tone of the finest organizations in Ontario deserves. Hydro needs the continued support of Ontario and it is getting it. As my colleague the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) has indicated, the Ontario Municipal Electrical Association stands in support of Hydro and is therefore opposed to this bill. I stressed that strongly at the opening of my remarks because the sponsor of the bill suggested that there was support from all quarters for this legislation.

As the member for Durham West further stressed, this government stands to support Hydro in a clear, open and non-interfering fashion. That is why we have chosen to go the route of a memorandum of understanding between the Minister of Energy and the board of directors of Ontario Hydro. This should clarify for all members of the House that Hydro does indeed work within the framework of government policy and will also, I trust, emphasize to the men and women in Ontario Hydro that this government has every confidence in their good judgement, integrity and reliability.

Mr. Speaker, despite its title, the bill before us does not involve the question of accountability. It proposes a new relationship between the Ministry of Energy and Hydro that, if anything, would not clarify but rather blur the distinction between the two agencies. The Ministry of Energy’s responsibility, as under the Ministry of Energy Act, clearly includes energy policy formation, while Hydro’s separate responsibilities under the Power Corporation Act contain well-defined constraints to Hydro’s autonomy.

While Hydro bashing may be fashionable in some quarters, the plain truth is that Hydro works. It has reliably filled its mandate of delivering safe, ample and relatively low-priced electricity to Ontario consumers for over 70 years. To support Bill 61 would seriously impair an effective working relationship which this government enjoys with Hydro. I must, therefore, on these grounds, oppose the bill before us today.

Mr. Gaunt: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps there are others who would wish to speak and I won’t take the full seven minutes. However, I do want to make a few comments with respect to my friend’s bill and to support him in his proposal. I want to indicate that, in terms of Hydro’s accountability to this Legislature, Hydro has never really been, in terms of its past record, high on accountability. They have operated, and tended to do more of this in recent years, under a cloak of secrecy, a cloak of secrecy which has evolved and increased over the past number of years.

[4:30]

I recall in the 1960s when Hydro, which was at that time a huge operation, would come before the committee of the Legislature with their graphs, figures, high-priced help -- very competent people, don’t misunderstand me, very competent indeed -- and they would spend an hour or two before the committee. At the adjournment hour the committee would really be no more well informed about Hydro matters than they were before, simply because they did not understand the operation of Hydro; they did not fully comprehend what Hydro was about. A two-hour session of that type was in no way what one might call an accountability session. It was simply an opportunity to meet Hydro personnel and perhaps discuss some matters of local or regional concern, and that was about the extent of it.

That went on until, in 1973, Hydro wanted to build a new office -- actually the plans were formulated long before 1973, but the whole matter blew up in 1973 -- and we had what is referred to as the Moog inquiry, about which I am sure the Acting Speaker, the member for Humber, will have long memories, because he chaired that particular committee. Essentially, matters were raised at that time which indicated that the operation at Hydro was not going as smoothly as we had been led to believe, and certain matters were raised at that time that infringed on the public good; therefore, a select committee was set up to study those matters.

At that time I think it became pretty clear to all of us that Hydro was set apart and was operating unto itself and, While most of the time it was operating in the public interest, there were times when it was not operating in the public interest. So the checks and balances to which my friend from Durham West referred this afternoon simply were not applying them to the fullest extent; they even apply today to a lesser extent than they did then, because Hydro now is a crown corporation and we do not even have the same checks and balances over its operation that we did at that particular time.

It became obvious to members, certainly to the members on the committee as well as to other members, and to the public, that when the Legislature attempted to seriously question Hydro as to its operation and what it was doing, Hydro officials tended to resent that interference. There are many examples that could be cited to substantiate that Hydro felt they had the expertise, they did not want to be interfered with and they did not want some two-bit politicians interfering in their day-to-day operation. That attitude permeated the hearings at that time, in 1973, and I think it has permeated the relationships that Hydro has had with the various Ministers of Energy since that time and, through them, with the Legislature.

Frankly, I thought at the time it was a mistake to set up Hydro as a crown corporation. I felt that it was not the route to follow, and I think history has proved that it was a mistake. My friend from Rainy River mentioned that the only way the Legislature can get control over Hydro, or at least inject some accountability into its operation is to appoint one of the good, faithful, loyal party workers from the Premier’s office to head up that corporation. I would say that isn’t really a move to inspire confidence in Hydro’s operation. I suppose it is better that the Premier have some day-to-day contact and some day-to-day control of Hydro’s operations, or at least if not control that he would logically be apprised of what is going on there on a day-to-day operation, I suppose that is better than not having any control.

Mr. Acting Speaker: May I ask the honourable member to terminate his remarks now, as he has had seven and a half minutes, so that his colleague, the member for Halton-Burlington may have four and a half minutes?

Mr. Gaunt: All right, Mr. Speaker, I will do so. I just say that I support my colleague’s bill. I think it brings some accountability into the system and it is worthy of support on all sides.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to defer a couple of minutes to the member for Downsview who would like to speak. Would the Speaker permit that and allow me to wind up in about three minutes?

Mr. Acting Speaker: As long as the member for Huron-Bruce is content. I cut him off while he had 10 minutes to go. If he is content, then the member of Downsview just carries on and you will have three minutes.

Mr. Gaunt: I agree, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. di Santo: I would like to comment briefly on this bill because I really don’t understand the paranoia of the members of the Conservative Party. I don’t think this is a very strong bill which will remove any power at all from Hydro. What this bill is trying to do is to avoid many of the mistakes that we have been confronted with in the past, which is the very reason we are sitting now on a select committee.

In fact one of the propositions of the bill is for the government to give some public directives to Ontario Hydro. We know now that such a line does not exist now. It doesn’t exist perhaps because of the Power Corporation Act. As a matter of fact, when the deputy minister came to testify before the select committee after Christmas, he said, the ministry cannot do anything because the Power Corporation Act gives the power to Ontario Hydro.

Strange as it would seem, as far as the forecast goes, the Minister of Energy has been forced to set up his own forecasting body within the ministry. Even more strangely, the ministry came up with a forecast much lower than that of Ontario Hydro. Despite that, the minister is unable to give directives to Ontario Hydro. So I do think there is a need for some accountability from Ontario Hydro and for that reason I support this bill.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. First of all, I can’t let the moment pass without responding to the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) who was talking about the great Conservative governments of the past. I want to point out to him that when the Tory government of the day led the transition to 60 cycle, it was the last jurisdiction in North America to change to 60 cycle. I also want to point out that when he talked about the great Tory government that introduced electric power into Ontario in 1906, it was 26 years after electric power had become a reality in the province of Ontario. Once again it brought up the tail end.

I would like to thank all the members who spoke in favour of this bill. I just wanted to say that the Tory government members to the embarrassment of the Premier -- it has got to be embarrassing and he won’t have the courage to come in here tonight -- are going to stand up and block this bill. I want to put that on the record so that the public of Ontario will know, as of this bill, exactly where the official opposition stands with regard to Ontario Hydro in the next election.

FUNERAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Foulds moved second reading of Bill 60, An Act to amend the Funeral Services Act, 1976.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve whatever time I have left for a windup at the end.

First of all, I want to thank legislative counsel David Phillips for the help he gave me in drafting the bill. He was extremely helpful and useful, as is that office constantly with private members’ bills.

The purpose of this bill is to bring some modest reform to the Funeral Services Act in order to provide consumer protection in this much neglected area. There are seven amendments in the bill. Basically, there are five points I am trying to achieve. The number of consumer representatives on the Board of Funeral Services is increased. The responsibility for the bill is moved to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations from Health. Other than funeral directors may provide removal services, funeral supplies and advice in respect of funeral services. Embalming may only take place by the express consent of the purchaser or if the body of the deceased is to be transported out of Ontario. Finally, the bill makes it mandatory for a funeral director to provide an itemized price list for funeral supplies and services supplied to the purchaser. Those points, and only those, are what the bill hopes to achieve.

Let me emphasize two things the bill does not do. First, it does not impinge in any way on the rights of the florists of the province of Ontario. Let me explain about the florists. Over the past two days I have received countless phone calls from London, Toronto, Thunder Bay, and all I over the province, from florists complaining that the bill inhibits their right to sell flowers for a funeral. Let me stress that it does not do that. It in no way impinges on the right of florists to sell flowers for funeral purposes at any time, at any place; before, after or during the funeral.

Mr. Gaunt: Only if we nationalized all the funeral homes.

Mr. Foulds: Not even then. I want to stress that, because, frankly, I think there has been a province-wide campaign instigated by the funeral directors to frighten the florists of the province so that they have mounted this lobby over the last few days in opposition to the bill.

Secondly -- and I have received a few phone calls on this -- let me also say that the bill is not designed, and I stress not, in any way to do away with funerals or with traditional funerals, which is alleged in some of the complaints I have received. It does not do that.

Mr. Watson: Having said that, there are exceptions.

Mr. Foulds: There are two other preliminary points I would like to make. Let me stress that my own personal dealings on those two occasions in the last five or six years where I have had to deal with funeral directors in Thunder Bay have been entirely amicable and satisfactory, both in terms of service and what I expected to have to pay.

Let me comment about the matter of procedure at the outset. Last week members on the government benches rose to block a resolution by my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. M. N. Davison) with regard to consumer protection on food prices. I plead with government members and with members of all parties not to veto this bill on consumer protection.

Why do I feel the bill is necessary? First of all, the purchase of a funeral service is usually by the next of kin of the deceased. At the time of purchasing the service, which, by and large, is still at the time of the death of a relative or friend, the person who is purchasing that service is under tremendous emotional stress. It is not the best of times to be purchasing goods or a service. At that time one is in a state in which one is most likely to give in to the tendency of impulse buying, to get the matter out of the way. It is also a time when one is likely to spend excessively in order to recognize and satisfy one’s sense of grief at the loss of the person who has died. This bill is simply designed to tip the balance so that the consumer has a fair chance at that time. Frankly, the proposed makeup in the board of directors is designed to tip the balance in favour of the consumer.

[4:45]

Many people in our society, and I might add a growing number of people in our society today, want to bury their deceased relatives or friends with dignity and simplicity. Many of those people belong to memorial societies, many do not. This bill is an attempt to provide fairness to the purchaser of a funeral service whether or not he or she belongs to a memorial society.

First of all, let me deal with the move of the responsibility for the legislation to Consumer and Commercial Relations from Health. Basically, the present Funeral Services Act does not deal with public health or safety. It is a regulatory act basically governing the business practices of funeral directors. Both in the case of governing the business actions and behaviour of funeral directors and in the case of consumer protection, which my bill seeks to introduce into the present act, it is time we moved into the 20th century and moved this bill and the original act out from the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, where it remains largely for mythical reasons, to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, where it rightfully belongs.

Just as an aside, I might add that the Minister of Health is in enough trouble these days trying to look after the sick and the living without having to worry about the dead as well. Other acts, such as the Public Health Act and the Cemeteries Act, et cetera, can rightfully look after whatever minimal health hazards there are associated with the disposal of bodies at the time of death.

Second, it is my contention that acts set up to regulate the selling and purchasing of services -- and I point out that we already have in the present act with regard to the funeral industry -- should be balanced in favour of the consumer. Therefore, the balance of the board of funeral directors, while having a substantial representation from the funeral industry so that expertise can be properly obtained, the present bill nevertheless provides that the majority of representatives by one person, a five to four ratio, are lay representatives who can, in turn, rationally and without vested interests, look after the consumer’s interests and yet rightfully judge the input that they get from the interested group of funeral directors.

Third, I want to deal with the reason I have made it mandatory for funeral directors to provide an itemized price list. Just the other day I received in my mail, as did every member of this Legislature, several bulletins from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Those bulletins had to do with consumer protection, asking consumers specifically when they were dealing with getting home renovations or driveway improvement that they get an itemized price list from the contractor ahead of time.

If it’s importance in the case of that, I suggest that in the case of a consumer contracting for a service for a funeral, I believe it is even more important for the customer to get an itemized price list. But because the customer at that point in time, when he purchases the service, may not wish to appear either disrespectful to the dead or, to put it bluntly and in the vernacular, he or she may not wish to appear to haggle or to be cheap, or that the person may not know that he or she is entitled to an itemized price list, it is not the occasion for the onus to be on the consumer to ask for an itemized price list. In this time of stress on the consumer it should be the responsibility of the seller to provide such an itemized list. That is why I have made it mandatory for the funeral director to provide an itemized price list to the purchaser.

Fourth, and specifically with regard to embalming, as Mr. E. R. Good, former MPP for Waterloo North, pointed out in the Legislature in his contribution to the debate on the original act which is now in place, and I quote from Hansard, page 5458, December 7, 1976: “There is no law which says a body has to be embalmed if it is going to be buried or cremated within a reasonable length of time before it becomes a health hazard.”

For whatever reasons, this is not widely known in Ontario, and most people, when purchasing a package of funeral services, automatically purchase embalming. I believe it should be mandatory for the funeral director, the person supplying the service, to point out to the purchaser before the service is purchased that the specific service of embalming is not mandatory in Ontario and it is not necessary in order to respectfully dispose of a human body. In other words, it is not necessary for burial.

Finally, it has always seemed to me to be ridiculous that funeral directors alone should have a self-established monopoly to provide funeral supplies, as presently happens. For example, is there any logical reason why coffins can only be sold by funeral directors?

Plumbers are not the only ones who sell bathtubs. Bathtubs can be purchased at hardware stores, department stores, and furniture stores. Similarly, parts for automobiles can be purchased at hardware stores, automotive parts stores, by catalogue, or at department stores as well as at automobile dealers and garages.

Therefore, I believe that those other than funeral directors should be able to provide advice about funerals and should be able to provide the supplies and removal services. The hill we have before us today introduces a healthy amount of competition into the funeral industry, and make no mistake about it, it is an industry. I also believe this bill introduces a fair amount of consumer protection for those purchasing a funeral.

Last of all, I want to point out that in my own community of Thunder Bay the memorial society there still has difficulty in getting prices in writing for services or supplies and they do not have as wide a range of supplies as are available in places like Toronto. They are, for example, unable to get an unlined, plain casket. The funeral directors in that community simply will not supply it. They will supply a plain cloth which is more expensive than the unlined by about $200.

It is time to change the Funeral Services Act from an act that serves to protect the interests of the funeral industry to a bill which starts, in some small measure, to serve the interests of consumers. I urge all members to begin now with this modest attempt at reform in order to provide consumer protection. I ask all members to consider voting for and passing this bill.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate. If time permits, I would like to go through several sections of the proposed changes and make comments on them. Perhaps the members opposite won’t agree with them all, but maybe they could be appreciated by members of the third party.

I notice that while section 1 makes necessary changes to definitions, it doesn’t, under subsection (d), describe what constitutes funeral supplies. I do, however, get the distinct impression that funeral services, as defined, means a little more than the actual practice of embalming. I always thought in the past that funeral services included such things as advice regarding funeral arrangements and provision of removal services. The net result of the definition supplied in section 1 of Bill 60 is simply to discriminate against the licensed funeral directors because while low-cost funerals would not have to be licensed, more expensive ones would be. I really don’t understand this particular disjunction.

Section 2 in itself is a unique lesson in wording, since it contradicts the definition of a funeral director given in section 1. One of the four licensed directors has to be unlicensed under the present reading and this is impossible. Regardless, I would like to make some comments on section 2.

First, when the Funeral Services Act was drafted in 1976, two extra lay representatives or non-licensed individuals were added to the board. This was done specifically for the purpose of ensuring that individual and different representatives of the public would sit on each of the licensing, complaints and discipline committees. It was felt at that time the licensing committee should have the added benefit of a new person since there was a rather heavy workload placed upon it.

Second, because there were already two additional representatives added to the board in 1976, the expense to the government of additional representatives seems unwarranted.

Mr. Foulds: How much is it? I was here during that debate and the member wasn’t.

Mr. Watson: I have reread most of that debate and some of the same arguments were presented then. I’ll be presenting them later on.

I think it warrants mentioning that the funeral services board would have a larger percentage of public representation than any other similar governing body in Ontario if we were to pass this bill and legislate the inclusion on the board of five persons not licensed under the Funeral Services Act.

The determination of the member for Port Arthur to create this unprecedented situation, obviously shared by his colleagues, becomes meaningful only when viewed in relation to the Memorial Society of Canada.

As the former member for Waterloo North, Mr. Good, suggested two years ago, all of the third party’s arguments are really those of the memorial society.

During the debate on the Funeral Services Act, which I have reread, the third party quoted from several letters but never once mentioned the registration of a specific complaint against any of the funeral directors. However, the point is that the Board of Funeral Services deals more with technical matters governing the conduct of funeral homes. These matters deal with the training of embalmers, the setting of exams and the marking of papers. Therefore, it just makes more sense to have on the board a fairly large representation of expertise.

Theoretically, too, the Memorial Society of Canada, having disposed of the restrictions placed upon it through the passage of this bill, would have little to gain by a place on the board. As they are neither unbiased members of the public nor funeral directors, I question what justification there would be for their place on the board. You might as well give the Canadian Consumers Association representation, as the third party attempted to do in 1976, because they also are an interest group.

And how about the various religious groups? There are a lot of people who have their own religion, which I respect. I’m sure they would like to have representatives on the board so that they could do things exactly the way they wanted to do it.

During that debate, however, it was mentioned that if we were to make an exception for one group we would have to include all the others. I don’t think we want to do it in this case.

Mr. Foulds: Why?

Mr. Watson: With regard to section 3 of Bill 60, I would like to say that the intricacies of administering the act, and policing it, places the registrar in close contact with the licensed personnel. A clear and complete knowledge of funeral services, practices and the operation of a funeral service has been of very great value to the registrar. As on all other regulatory boards, the registrar should be a person qualified under that particular act.

Mr. Foulds: He can be under the amendment.

Mr. Watson: He can’t be under the amendment.

Mr. Foulds: Yes he can. He only has to get six approvals --

Mr. Watson: Section 4 of the bill, which is really the crux of this whole matter, is an amendment which will allow memorial societies to sell directly to the public cheaper caskets for funeral services.

If my understanding is correct, memorial societies at the present time have three particular grievances. They object to being licensed since they would then have to obtain certain equipment and adhere to certain requirements or regulations which funeral directors must comply with. Second, memorial societies wish to sell to the public a standard casket constructed of materials less expensive than the 3/8 inch pine currently in use at crematoriums and funeral homes. Third, the memorial societies are engaged in the dispute over the fact as to whether or not provision of the funeral supplies and other services to their own membership constitutes holding themselves out to the public as providers of the same.

[5:00]

One of the primary concerns the society mentions is the less expensive caskets and, that consequently low-cost funerals are not available in some areas of the province. However, this is not the contention of the Board of Funeral Services, which advises me that low-cost as well as more expensive caskets must be displayed on the premises of each funeral home. Of course, the casket which memorial societies prefer to sell would not be displayed since it is not constructed of the three-eighth-inch pine considered best for purposes of cremation.

Also, I think there must be some argument as to whether memorial societies, if licensed, would be required to provide more elaborate services to persons outside their own membership.

I am not too sure I have any strong feelings regarding the types of materials or supplies used in funeral services or, for that matter, how funerals are conducted in terms of cost. However, I would state two things here. First, less expensive funerals are available at present to anyone who asks for them. The problem seems to be that there is a stigma attached to the so-called cheap funerals and that people often feel obligated to spend a lot of money at funeral homes. The freedom of choice, nevertheless, is still there.

Secondly, this section of Bill 60 does not properly protect the consumer, as has been suggested. While memorial societies may very well stick to standard, low-cost funerals, it would be possible for all kinds of other groups or individuals to engage in providing funerals under the guise of selling funeral supplies. The integrity of these people would not be guaranteed.

Commenting on section 5 of the bill, I would mention that it is my understanding that a great proportion of the complaints received by the complaints committee deal with the manner in which a licensed funeral director conducts the funeral services. It is often possible to settle those without going there.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to sum up by saying that the service now provided by funeral directors in this province is very much respected and dignified. I would like to see the act stay where it is, in the Ministry of Health. I am happy with the present act.

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, as a licensed funeral director in Ontario, I suppose that --

Mr. Roy: You know what you’re talking about.

Mr. Blundy: Yes, I would say I know what I’m talking about; but I also wanted to mention that in case anybody should say I have a conflict of interest. I suppose any conflict of interest I would have would be as great as that of the many teachers we have in this House When we are discussing matters dealing With education.

I would like to speak against the bill, and I will give members my reasons for doing so.

When the Funeral Services Act, 1976, was passed by this House, many of the problems that had been found in the delivery of funeral services and goods to the people of Ontario Were corrected by that bill. I would like to point out that, in the two years since that act was established, there have been 34 complaints to the board. Of those 34, 31 were dealt with almost immediately as a misunderstanding or some difficulty that was not foreseen. The remaining three complaints were dealt with by the complaints committee, and the necessary action was taken in those three cases. I mention that to point out that the existing Funeral Services Act is protecting the consumers of Ontario.

I would like to mention one or two things in regard to each of the clauses of Bill 60. The first clause deals with the composition of the board, and it would change that composition so that there would be four funeral directors and three other appointees, plus a member of a memorial society, I presume. The professional makeup of the board was done with very good intentions, because they are people who know and understand the problems in the funeral service business and can more easily answer any criticism or correct any wrong. I do not believe that any one segment of society must be represented. I believe that all people in Ontario are now being protected.

As for having the registrar as a licensed funeral director, it seems only reasonable that he be a man who understands the act, who understands the practice today and who, therefore, could serve both the board and the funeral directors in a better way.

The matter of the providing of funeral supplies and funeral services by other than a licensed funeral director, I think would create a considerable donnybrook in the community. The funeral director does have everything there, and it would seem only right that is the way it should remain. When a person comes into a funeral establishment in Ontario, there is no question that all types of services and products are explained to the person. The person does have a choice. The average funeral home has anywhere from 20 to 30 caskets on display, ranging in price from the very inexpensive to the very expensive. The choice is in the hands of the purchaser.

I do not believe I could support any of the clauses that are part of Bill 60, but I would like to make one comment in addition to what I have already said. There have been many references to memorial societies and so forth. I have no brief for or against memorial societies. They are provided with the services they require when they come to a funeral home. The funeral home will do it and, if they don’t, they should be reported. However, a funeral home does not charge $20 or $25 a year as a membership fee until the time you die, as a memorial society does. It just provides the service that is asked for; so there isn’t any problem there.

Another matter I would like to discuss, and one the members ought to consider very seriously, is the prearrangement of funerals, which is a very common practice now. The member for Port Arthur made some reference to this, and I would like to enlarge upon it a bit.

When members of a family come into a funeral home at the time of a death, they are naturally confused and agitated; they are not themselves. I advise people that it would be wise to make prearrangements. This is becoming a more common practice. A person comes to a funeral home, chooses the type of funeral he wants, pays for it in advance and signs a contract. The money, by law, is deposited in a bank, trust company or the Funeral Society of Ontario. There is now $25 million to $30 million in those funds invested at nine per cent and even 10 per cent. As this money is kept in investment, there is more money made which will look after the inflation in the funeral costs which may have occurred when the time comes. If there is not an inflated cost, of course the money is returned to the person who made the contract. It is a foolproof system whereby people can come in and make arrangements for the future without jeopardizing their choice, or their money, in dealing with a funeral director.

I would just like to make one or two more comments about Bill 60. Section seven says a funeral director shall not embalm any dead human body unless he has been specifically instructed to do so by the purchaser of funeral services or unless the body is to be transported out of Ontario.

No funeral director in his right mind, or who had any desire to serve the public who come to him, would do anything without having cleared it with the family. When the funeral director gets an initial call, he always says: “Would you like us to bring the body to the funeral home and embalm it?” Thus they get an answer of either yes or no. So I think it is quite redundant to have that item in the bill.

The last item is that the administration of the act is placed under the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It is now under the Ministry of Health. That’s where it rightly belongs. Before any funeral director is licensed for his premises, he must have a preparation room and other areas of the funeral home that will conform with the act. Before his licence will be signed by the local board of health it must be inspected by an inspector of the local board of health.

Mr. Foulds: Do restaurants come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health?

Mr. Blundy: I am not speaking about restaurants right now, I’m speaking about funeral homes. I’d be glad to talk with the honourable member about restaurants later.

Dealing with a dead human body is not something everybody is prepared to do or is capable of doing. If the body is not properly looked after it could become a health hazard. I realize that for a simple funeral, where there is no visiting and where burial is to take place relatively soon after death, it is not necessary. It only is necessary if it’s conveyed by a public conveyance in Ontario or it is transported out of the province. However, I don’t believe handling a human body is something we could leave in the hands of completely untrained people. The training provided to those who work in a funeral home and who are licensed to operate a funeral home is under jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health. Many of the subjects taken are health subjects, such as pathology, anatomy and physiology.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Blundy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m sure that I have convinced every member of this House the legislation we now have is sufficient to the needs of the people of Ontario. I would suggest we do not vote for Bill 60.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the principle of this bill.

Mr. Eakins: Just the principle?

Mr. Breaugh: I am the first to admit I do have some reservations about some of the mechanics of this bill. I feel that in the committee stage and clause-by-clause debate some alterations could be made to some of the mechanical features of the bill. I am not quite convinced the exact numbers have been struck correctly or that there aren’t problems which couldn’t be pointed out and corrected at that stage, but I am firmly in support of the principle expressed in this bill.

I was a little confused when I got a telegram from a local florist telling me he was upset with this bill. I do not read anything in the bill that has anything to do with florists and I couldn’t make the connection. I don’t believe there is a connection, quite frankly.

I think, too, there are a number of legitimate concerns that were raised with me by people in the funeral industry that have to be met and that have to be discussed and confronted quite frankly. I am satisfied that can be done during the debate on clause by clause.

To get to the supportable part, which is the principle of this particular bill, I think without question you have to support the principle that people have a right to have a choice in making funeral arrangements. That’s often difficult to do depending upon exactly where you live and exactly what funeral directors are at work in that area. In some places alternatives are available and the choice can be made by the family; in other areas it is not quite as convenient or as possible or as probable as it ought to be. So that part, I think, is certainly a supportable one to provide for the alternative, whether that’s what’s commonly known now as a memorial society or some other version of making funeral arrangements.

I think we are all aware in this House or should be that a number of people have brought to public light the high cost of dying. I think some alternatives must be found. Whatever the alternatives might be and whatever formulas might be worked out and mechanisms put in place, people in Ontario have a right to seek such alternative forms of providing funeral services.

[5:15]

I think we share their concerns that they be provided properly. That kind of mechanism is laid out in this bill. We will have the members of this House address themselves to and take evidence from both sides and then make some final decisions on it. There are some parts of the bill which I suppose are not of great concern to the public at large, but I think undeniably the supportable part has to be the part which says for people in a situation where there has been a death in the family, although sometimes there is no family to make this Mud of a decision at least where there is, alternatives are present and those involved clearly understand the financial obligations they are getting into. They must understand choices are available to them and that it need not be the costly experience some people find themselves caught up in.

I think we are well aware, as members of this House, that there have been some incidents where people in a rather tragic situation have been borderline exploited or outright exploited. In other words, someone has sold them something they frankly could not afford and that was not necessary. I must say I cannot recall an instance in my own constituency where someone has presented to me that kind of a problem, but I am aware that in other constituencies around the province such cases have been brought to light.

I think whether or not it has happened in your own riding, the pertinent point is it shouldn’t happen anywhere. There really is not a need for that to happen. The law ought to provide for a clear explanation of the financial obligations people are getting into and of the legal requirements under the laws of Ontario. That should be explained to people in that situation in a language and terminology which they clearly understand.

The second part, or the second major principle that’s incorporated in this bill which I find highly supportable, is the notion that ordinary people, lay people if you like, play a role in making key decisions in the application of this act. Whether the balance is correct I think is a debatable point, but certainly they ought to be present. They ought to be active and they ought to have, as consumers, an opportunity to express an opinion. Recognizing we are prepared to take professional advice from almost anybody these days, the least we could ask for is a balance in that process.

Mr. Speaker, the final point I want to make in support of this bill is that one of the principles of the bill is to move the responsibility of this from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I support that, initially because I have very little confidence in the present Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell). I find that ministry has enough trouble looking after the living, let alone the dying or the dead, I don’t think they could handle it.

I have more confidence in the present Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) who at least appears to take an interest in matters bearing on the consumers of the province of Ontario. Whether that ministry would be more effective than the current ministry is a good question, but at least I see there’s potential for a better and fairer way of providing funeral services to the public at large. In a theoretical model, that’s where it more properly belongs.

No one is denying there are many of the qualifications necessary for funeral directors or people who work at funeral homes, and much of their training will take place in matters related to health, but without question the aspect we are looking at in the principle of this bill is the financial aspect to ensure that people can get proper funeral services at a level desirable to all concerned and that alternatives are available to them. Mr. Speaker, I find that an ultimately supportable principle.

In summary, I suspect there may be some problems that have to be worked out in clause-by-clause debate on this bill. I suspect that when this bill goes, if it can, to social development or whatever other committee of the House deals with it, we can have those hearings and deal with those mechanical problems.

The basic principle is people in this kind of a situation ought to have the circumstances clearly explained to them. This is certainly eminently supportable. They ought to have the choice, and they ought to have an alternative form for provision of the same services available to them, that ought to be there. The proposal that the consumer ought to have a say in how this bill is governed is also certainly eminently supportable.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize there are those who have written us letters and made phone calls to us pointing out some problems with the bill. There are problems with every piece of legislation that comes through this House. That is hardly a reason to throw the whole thing out. That certainly may well be a reason to take it off to committee and study the bill a bit further before it is brought back in here, but I find the principles espoused in this hill are eminently supportable. I would urge other members to support it.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, in rising this afternoon to participate in this debate, I will not pretend to have the expertise or the professionalism of earlier speakers, such as the member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy).

Mr. Roy: Very few of us have.

Mr. Jones: I find myself sharing a lot of the feelings that my colleague the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) expressed. I would like to avoid repetition. I know the previous speaker, the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), spoke, as we must before coming to committee, to the principle of the bill. As I look at the principle of Bill 60, I can’t help do other than to look at a couple of the sections that do jump out and cause me some curiosity, namely, sections 4 and 6 as outlined in the explanatory notes of the bill.

Section 4, according to the explanatory notes, removes the restriction that only licensees under the 1976 Funeral Services Act may provide materials for funeral services. The thought behind the inclusion of the words “providing funeral supplies” in section 5 of the same act was based on the premise that anyone who is engaged in the profession of directing funerals is a provider both of funeral services and the necessary supplies. Often it is the case that a funeral home does more in the way of providing the latter than it does the former. I am not talking about florists for a moment.

I felt it was important, and I sense that the drafters of this legislation obviously felt it was important, to regulate that part of the business dealing with the provision of these supplies. In this act I am sure it was originally intended, to police and control the whole area of funeral services, the most important feature of which, except for embalming, is the supplying of materials.

There is an additional consideration. In defining what constitutes directing funeral services, or for that matter funeral supplies which also are not defined specifically under the act, could provision of advice for funeral arrangements or assistance with arrangements by those primarily interested in retailing funeral supplies be considered direction of funeral services? My point is simply that it appears to me that if unlicensed persons were permitted to provide funerals to the public there could in some instances cease to be any control and protection of the consumer.

Beyond this, I have a few questions concerning section 4 of Bill 60. I admit I do not have the answers, but I am still concerned about them as we address ourselves to the bill. For example, what degree of commercialism would be imposed upon the professionalism now maintained by the funeral directors if Bill 60 were passed? Would safeguards against injury to and contamination of public health in any way be endangered through less direction of funerals by those trained and regulated by professional regulatory bodies? Would it become more difficult to enforce the legal aspects of compliance with the vital Statistics, Coroners and Cemeteries Acts if more and more of the public conducted funerals?

I don’t really think the members of the third party have the answers to those questions. I sense the member for Oshawa, when he spoke in favour of the principle of the bill, admitted that he still would find need for clarification of some of the specifics.

I was interested to note in the inclusion of comments about it so far we dealt with legislating, and we seem to be talking almost as was the case in similar previous debates in this House when the honourable members were involved in talking about the legal profession. Many of those taking part were members of the legal profession and they were dealing specifically with the practice of advertising. We are now dealing with regulation of another profession. The resolution there seems to me to be similar to this bill. I am equally interested to note the similar lack of direct expertise by those engaged in this debate, putting aside for a moment the member for Sarnia and his comments. This is not to say, of course, that we have to be experts on everything we debate in this House, but it seems unrealistic to me that we can be ignoring for a moment the professionalism aspect, and I have to worry that that would not suffer if this bill were passed on second reading.

I notice that previous speakers spoke to the fact that no funeral director would -- “in his right mind” I think were the words -- proceed without the clear approval of family as to specifics of a service. I would have to think, from a common sense point of view and not being involved in that profession, that certainly makes sense to me, given their need to maintain their position in the community, et cetera. I will not be so naive as to think there have not been abuses, I am sure there have been.

As we address ourselves to how we maintain the discipline of that professionalism, I turn my thoughts to other parallels in our community. For example, dental surgeons supply necessary services to our community, and they charge certain rates for this service. All of us here have heard someone, at some time, complain about the expense of dental fees. Why, then, aren’t the regulations governing the College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario within the responsibility of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations? Personally, I think the answer is obvious: for the same reasons that those covering doctors and pharmacists and other professionals in the health field are not.

Unlike the member for Oshawa who said his choice would be based on personality -- it sounds as though he is a little fond of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations who is with us; and I cannot but agree, a truly great minister and a lovable fellow to boot -- but that is hardly a reason to decide that ministry should be the one to administer the disciplines of this particular profession. For my part I would feel, for the reasons offered, that it should remain under the Ministry of Health.

In conclusion, there is much in this bill which is confusing and much that is unnecessary. I think the previous speaker also confirmed that. Transferring the responsibility for this act to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is but one of those matters. For this reason I would find a bill such as this most difficult to support. Rather I stand opposed to it.

I noticed the previous speakers pointing out that at present -- and this is important to me, important to our philosophy on the government side of the House -- we find ourselves noting the importance of choice. We, of course, as has been demonstrated and mentioned by the member for Sarnia coming from that profession, have that choice now in this province within that profession. So I would have a great deal of difficulty in supporting the bill, although some of the specific concerns as mentioned by the mover of the resolution I can agree with to an extent. But I am very clearly opposed to the principle of the bill we are addressing today.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the Funeral Services Act in December, 1976, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) presented at some length the comments of a number of people in his constituency, particularly those of Mr. Eric Gowen, on behalf of the Memorial Society of Thunder Bay. Indeed, it took generally, as one can see in Hansard, from page 5459 to 5462 to present those comments and the information from several memorial society members within the province.

I was present at that time and I think it was useful for the record of the House that all of the information available, with the opinions of memorial society members, was presented then.

[5:30]

In the committee stages of the bill, on December 15, a further substantial debate occurred on the membership of the Board of Funeral Services. That debate, I think, is really what we are seeing repeated here today, since in my view that membership, as suggested by the member for Port Arthur, is the real principle of this bill.

My view is that the proportion of membership, as it now exists on the board of funeral services, is satisfactory and does not need to be changed. I recall the comments made during the debate by the member for Scarborough Centre, now the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea). He stated then that in the five years of conducting the action line program for the Toronto Telegram, of the 250,000 complaints which he and his staff had handled there was not one that dealt with the matter of funeral services and their provision.

I must add to my remarks made during that debate in that I have not received a single complaint about the provision of funeral services in my constituency of Kitchener during the almost 12 years I have had the honour to represent those 70,000 people. There are some 1,500 persons in the Kitchener-Waterloo area who are members of a memorial society. I understand all of the funeral directors, at least in our area, co-operate as asked by anyone who wishes a low cost and preplanned funeral, whether a person be a member of a memorial society or not.

In my opinion, the consumers’ interest in the provision of funeral services is attended to by the present proportion of membership on the board. There are at present five funeral directors and three members of the public. The members of the public consist of two clergymen, the Rev. Kenneth Bagnell and the Rev. Agnew Johnston, and the third person is Mrs. Edith McIntosh, a lady whom I know rather well since she ran as the Conservative candidate against me in 1971. She is a former mayor of my city and she is a former president of the Consumers’ Association of Canada. I suggest she is well able to represent the consumers’ interest without being an adherent of the memorial society membership, as would be suggested as a condition for membership for one of the persons who would be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as set out in this bill.

I think the principle therefore is one which the House has considered at some length, as it looks at the membership of the Board of Funeral Services. That membership is in a proportion I find satisfactory as it presently stands. It is clear in the Law Society Act, or with respect to the medical association or the accountants or any other professional group, the public interest can well be represented by appointees by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I know of no occasion where the majority of a professional body is appointed from members outside of that profession or calling. I don’t see why there is any requirement it should be so in this instance.

Other items, of course, appear in the bill, and members have alluded to them; but to me, as I have mentioned, the real principle of this bill is the matter of membership of the board. Since I favour the membership of the board in the proportions as it now stands, in my view I am not in favour of the principle of the bill. As a result it is my intention to oppose the bill on second reading. I do hope, however, that the bill will come to a vote so that members will be able to stand and be counted on the basis of their views on this item. If the bill does receive second reading there would be the opportunity for further input if the members of the House so wish. However, as for my view, I would oppose the bill on second reading.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, it’s disappointing to learn that although once again, as the member for Kitchener pointed out, we have the issue before us, yet once again the efforts, which are really efforts to protect the consumer, are going to be thwarted by the government, possibly with the support of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Gregory: You are putting the cart before the horse.

Mr. Warner: I think that what my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) has put forward is a bill which can be viewed as being in the interests of consumers.

On occasion I have met with memorial societies whose members feel that the interests of all citizens in the province of Ontario are not being adequately met under our present conditions. Many of us face the problem of not knowing how much is a reasonable amount of money to spend on funeral preparations and services. There should be some better way of finding out other than to be left to the moment of the unfortunate event. Similarly, there should be a way to ensure that the whole embalming procedure is not automatically assumed to be law.

That’s why I say if we get to the basics it really is a consumer protection bill. I was absent from the House on some other duties and I don’t know if my colleague from Scarborough Centre spoke on the bill. He didn’t speak? I would assume that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) would be anxious to support this bill because it’s the kind of protection that should be built into his ministry.

Mr. Bradley: He’s nodding “no.”

Mr. Warner: He’s either nodding “no” or falling asleep.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The answer is no.

Mr. Warner: I don’t know why the minister, who on occasion has expressed concerns about protecting the consumer, would not want each citizen of this province to know precisely what’s involved in what obviously is to all of us a necessary service. We should know what’s involved and we should know the prices. We should be able to exercise our judgement only when we are given all the facts. We’re not guaranteed that we can do that now.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has had the opportunity for some time to incorporate this kind of protection and he has chosen not to do so. My colleague as the member for Kitchener drew to our attention, spoke previously and spoke well, he tried to put forward the arguments during the debate on the other piece of legislation, and once again he put forward the arguments on this bill.

I suppose at some point in time the people of Ontario will get an opportunity to have better consumer protection in this important area. From what’s about to happen in the chamber in a few minutes, that at least as of today the interests of consumers will not be protected. The interests of consumers will be voted against by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and by the Liberal Party in its coalition with the government this afternoon.

Mr. Bradley: How many of your members are going to vote against it?

Mr. Warner: I know my colleague from Thunder Bay will be back again with his legislation. He will put the point forward again.

Mr. Eakins: Is that a threat? It was brought up at private members’ hour before.

Mr. Warner: I recall private members’ hour. I also know the government often chooses to guillotine the bill; and that’s about what we’ll see today with the enthusiastic support of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Epp: David, with your holier than thou attitude, you’ve done that too.

Mr. Warner: Never guillotined a bill.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Port Arthur like to use his seven minutes now?

Mr. Foulds: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if I may. I wanted to mention that two of my colleagues, the members for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) and Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall), were anxious to participate in this debate, as they did in the 1976 debate. Unfortunately, the former is in justice committee and the latter has an engagement that has to do with the portfolio he presently has responsibilities for in our caucus, education.

I am frankly disappointed with the response of the House to the bill --

Mr. T. P. Reid: We’re all out of step except you.

Mr. Foulds: No, no; it is partly because what I perceive is once again a great “nyet” on the part of the Liberal-Conservative Party of Ontario.

Mr. Bradley: You had the votes over here a while ago.

An hon. member: I’ve never heard them described as the Liberal-Conservative Party of Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: I readily admit if the bill proceeds past second reading into committee some consideration should be given to some of the clauses. They may not be as perfectly drawn as I would have liked. I was trying to fit it within the framework of the presently imperfect act we passed in December 1976.

I want to suggest there has been some information put forward in the House that is not accurate for the province as a whole. That is, I defy any member of this House to tell me every funeral director in this province on every occasion when he provides a funeral service, says clearly to the consumer embalming is not necessary in Ontario, the embalming costs so much, and asks if the consumer wishes to purchase this optional service? I defy anybody in this House to tell me that happens in even the majority of eases where funerals are provided in this province.

Second, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, it is not common practice to provide an itemized list of supplies and services with the prices attached, which is urged upon us by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations in other areas. I suggest we should urge it upon the funeral directors in this case.

I want to tell of a specific ease, because we’ve heard that complaints aren’t given to the Board of Funeral Services. May I suggest to members that a person who has gone through the experience of having to arrange a funeral on behalf of a friend or a relative -- because the responsibility is on them to initiate the complaint -- is not likely to complain as they will not want to relive that experience and go through that hassle again. That accounts for the low number of complaints which has been constantly cited.

I want to give members the example of someone in my own constituency, a young woman, a single parent, whose father happened to die suddenly. That young woman was thrown into the situation where, although she had brothers and sisters who lived in other parts of the country, she had the responsibility of arranging the funeral service. She was a working woman. She had four children. She had a grieving mother and she had relatives coming in from all over the country.

[5:45]

She went immediately to a funeral home and purchased a service that was packaged, and nut itemized, and it cost her $600 more than she could have got the service for in Thunder Bay. It was because of that situation, where she panicked and wanted to get the thing out of the way, that she went into debt and had to borrow the money to pay for the service.

If that happens once in Ontario -- and I suggest it happens far more than once -- we must avoid it. It is not the time when a consumer should be exploited, whether deliberately or inadvertently.

We should pass this bill on second reading simply to avoid eases like that, and I would like to assure this House that there is more than one ease.

With regard to the composition of the board, I am certainly willing to look at the balance in the composition. It may be that it should be 50-50. But I do not buy the argument that because the other self-regulating bodies in this province have a majority of their people on the board of directors of their governing body -- the boards that are formed under the legislation by which they are governed -- that that should apply. It’s time that society’s interests came first rather than the self-interests of the self-governing bodies, whether they are medical doctors, pharmacists or embalmers and funeral directors. It’s about time we looked at the consumer interest and more seriously than we do now.

I admit we made one tiny step forward in 1976. All I suggest is that in 1979 it’s about time we took another large step forward -- not a giant step; just a large step.

Finally, I want to sum up by saying that in most cases in this province people go in and buy a package not knowing, specifically, what is in that package. No one in this debate, whether from the funeral industry or speaking on its behalf, or simply speaking against the bill, has itemized even the items that are provided by funeral directors at the present time.

I want to re-emphasize what I said at the beginning. In no way is this bill designed to -- nor can it, if passed -- do away with the traditional funeral. The bill simply seeks to achieve a certain amount of redress in favour of the consumer.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind the honourable member that his time has expired. However, I will allow him to continue if no other member wishes to speak.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the House for that unanimous consent, for the precedent it has set. I would like to say that this is perhaps why we should set a precedent in terms of establishing consumer representation on the Board of Funeral Services.

Basically, as I said at the beginning, the bill is simply a modest attempt to reform the Funeral Services Act. One of the things that has surprised me is that, although I have had complaints from florists -- which I think are not based on reality -- I have had not a single complaint from a funeral director in this province; and the bill has been on the order paper for a good two and a half weeks. I have received some supporting letters and telegrams from individuals and from memorial societies, but I want to emphasize that the bill is not one establishing memorial societies. Nor does the bill take away the right to provide funerals by funeral directors; it is simply an attempt to establish some consumer protection.

In a case like this, where the service must be purchased and when the consumer must purchase it at a time of stress, the utmost thing in the minds of the Legislature should be the protection of that consumer.

ONTARIO HYDRO ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 61:

Ashe, Baetz, Bennett, Brunelle, Drea, Eaton, Gregory, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, J., Jones, Kennedy, McCaffrey, McCague, McNeil, Newman, W., Norton, Parrott, Ramsay, Rollins, Rowe, Scrivener, Smith, G. E., Stephenson, Taylor, G., Timbrell, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wiseman -- 31.

FUNERAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Mr. Foulds motion for second reading of Bill 60.

Mr. Speaker: There are two members who are present in the chamber who haven’t voted. They must vote on one side or the other.

The House divided on Mr. Foulds’ motion for second reading of Bill 60 which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Breaugh, Cassidy, Charlton, Davidson, M., Davison, M. N., Foulds, Germa, Hennessy, Isaacs, Laughren, MacDonald, Makarchuk, Samis, Warner, Wildman, Young -- 16.

Nays

Ashe, Baetz, Belanger, Bennett, Blundy, Bradley, Breithaupt, Brunelle, Campbell, Conway, Cunningham, Cureatz, Drea, Eakins, Eaton, Edighoffer, Epp, Gaunt, Gregory, Haggerty, Hall, Havrot, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson, J.

Jones, Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Lane, MacBeth, Mancini, McCaffrey, McCague, McKessock, McMurtry, McNeil, Newman, W., Nixon, Norton, O’Neil, Parrott, Ramsay, Reed, J., Reid T. P., Rollins, Rotenberg.

Rowe, Ruston, Sargent, Scrivener, Smith, S., Smith, G. E., Stephenson, Sterling, Taylor, G., Timbrell, Turner, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Worton -- 66.

Ayes 16; nays 66.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.