Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SUPERMARKET PRICING AND CHECKOUT SYSTEMS

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, for some time there has been a considerable amount of concern by consumer groups and individual consumers about computerized checkouts in supermarkets and about their ultimate effects on the prices people pay for food.

The Consumers’ Association of Canada has voiced its concerns that if individual prices are not displayed on products, consumer awareness of prices will diminish and the ability of consumers to compare store prices and to follow price changes over a period of time will decrease. An additional concern is that prices in the system could change instantly and frequently without the need for repricing individual products.

The food industry, on the other hand, is convinced that increased cost-effectiveness will result from these technological advances and the end result will be savings for the consumer.

My ministry has been monitoring the area of computerized checkout and unit pricing from the outset in order to ensure that any system used in Ontario will not have any effects detrimental to the consumer. It is important to keep in mind that we are talking about the long term. I am told that the earliest such a system could be in place for extensive use is five to 10 years.

For those who are not familiar with a computerized checkout system, the features include a standardized coding and symbol system -- referred to as the universal product code -- and automated checkstand equipment.

The UPC provides a standardized method for identifying products according to name of manufacturer and product type including size and weight of packaging container. The system consists of a series of bars and spaces affixed to products at either the manufacturing, wholesale or retail levels, capable of being interpreted by automated checkstand equipment using optical scanners.

When a universal product code is scanned and registered at the checkstand, it is automatically linked with the corresponding product price from a company’s computer file which appears on a window visible to consumers and also on a cash register tape. About 80 per cent of items on food-chain shelves now carry the universal product code.

By way of background, about four years ago food chains operating in Ontario were considering installation of computerized equipment. Apprehension by consumer groups towards this technology resulted in hastily prepared legislation in several states in the US and alerted us to the emerging problem. The industry, aware of the lack of consultation with consumers, labour and government south of the border, was eager to work with these groups towards guidelines under which the system would be operating in Canada.

Under the auspices of the Retail Council of Canada, three committees were formed to prepare such guidelines: a steering committee, representing food chains; a technical advisory committee, composed of computer manufacturing companies and store operation experts; and a public advisory committee, whose members were invited from groups having an interest in the computerized system, namely consumer groups, unions, academia and government.

The public advisory committee submitted guidelines to the steering committee of the Retail Council of Canada. Revised guidelines were then presented to the food-chain companies. The main thrust of the recommendations was to enter a test period to determine the benefits and inadequacies of the system. The guidelines also included procedures as to price changes, shelf labels and information on tape receipts.

In the spring of 1978 this House expressed its view in the form of an endorsement of item pricing. At about the same time, a number of American states passed legislation dealing with item pricing. As more was learned about the computerized checkout system, different legislative approaches were designed to deal with what has proved to be a difficult area for legislative regulation.

For example, stores have historically sold a significant number of goods without prices marked, such as candy bars, milk and baby foods. Therefore, when New York state passed its legislation it had to provide a page of exemptions from item pricing. In the state of Washington, the consumer acceptance of the computerized system resulted in the withdrawal of a bill designed to require item pricing while other states are extending their legislation. It therefore appears that a careful review of a legislative solution is warranted.

My staff has been studying the system, reviewing the potential benefits and shortcomings of equipment on the market and analysing consumer experiences with the equipment, both with and without individual item pricing. I have also had the benefit of discussions and correspondence with the Consumers’ Association of Canada officials, who are monitoring stores operating with scanning. They are documenting for me their observations.

Members of my ministry have been closely observing three Loblaws stores which operate without item pricing in Ottawa, London and Stoney Creek, and we are assessing the popularity of these stores and the types of problems they are encountering. I have been informed by the president of Loblaws of his intention to operate three superstores without item pricing as a test -- not only to test the system but to test consumer acceptance of it. I have been assured the results of the test will be made available to me. Loblaws has agreed not to proceed further until the evaluation has been completed and the ministry will be fully informed of any decision as a result of their test market.

I have contacted the officials of major food-chain stores to obtain their comments on their use or planned use of item-price removal. I have also asked for their comments on the benefits to consumers, what difficulties they are experiencing with the equipment and what improvements they are demanding from the equipment manufacturers to satisfy the concerns expressed by consumers.

This morning my staff began conducting an accuracy test in five stores equipped with scanning, in four Ontario centres. Fifty items were selected at random in each store and shelf prices were compared with those on the tape. We will compare the results of this test with the existing manual system to determine the relative accuracy of optical scanners.

In January the ministry will conduct a telephone survey of 900 consumers who use the computerized system in Ottawa, London and Hamilton, to determine their behaviour and attitudes towards the system in general and item-price removal in particular. We will also survey consumers to determine their price awareness and how well they remember prices on a selected number of products, both with and without item pricing.

At present there is no legislation requiring pricing on products. It is important we keep in mind that any legislation proposed so far would apply to all goods and stores. In my view, however, the ultimate decision on the operation of computerized checkouts lies with the consumer, not with the government, nor even with the industry. That is why we are going to extraordinary lengths to determine consumers’ views on this matter.

In the process we will share this information with the Consumers’ Association of Canada, labour and industry. Our goal is to develop a set of guidelines for the operation of computerized checkouts which will address the needs and concerns of consumers, so that all will benefit from technological progress.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: I took it from the Premier’s answer to my question on Monday that while the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the minister are not satisfied with the present ratio of opted-out physicians, some 18 per cent or so, they are prepared to live with that ratio, at least for now. That is what I took from the answer the Premier gave me.

When the Premier gave that answer, however, was he and was the Minister of Health aware of the figures which show such very large numbers of specialists opted out, particularly in some parts of the province? When the answer was given that they could live with the present degree of opting out, even though they weren’t satisfied with it, were they both aware of the very high percentage of some specialties which now consist of opted-out doctors?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think the member himself and all of us have been aware since the beginning of the health insurance plan there have been higher degrees of opting out or direct billing in certain specialties than in general or in other specialties. I think it is a little unfair to paraphrase the Premier’s remarks to say we are going to live with it. What we have been trying to do is address the reasons behind opting out, rather than using arbitrary and what have been referred to at times by members opposite as draconian measures to bring those numbers down.

The member will recall that it is not that long ago that he was predicting we would have 40 and 50 per cent of the physicians in the province opted out. Of course, that has never occurred. It has been contained at slightly less than 18 per cent. I am confident the recent settlement with the medical association will go a long way to assisting us in bringing those numbers down further, rather than resorting to some use of clubs, as it were, which can only have a negative effect on the health-care system and on the services to the public.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Since the minister and the Premier continue to say they are not satisfied with the present level of 18 per cent of physicians opted out, and since the minister apparently says he was aware that in some specialties over half the people are opted out, and in some areas 90 per cent of some specialties are opted out -- since he admits he is not satisfied with it and since it is also clear there is no expectation that the recent nine per cent increase will have any drastic effect in opting people back in, although it might possibly stabilize the situation -- that is the Premier’s word -- therefore, can the minister tell the House what the Premier refused to tell us?

What targets does the minister have? What amount of opting out would be acceptable to the government and how much time is the minister prepared to give the medical profession to come back into the plan in those numbers so draconian measures, as he calls them, don’t have to be taken?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, we simply have to take a look at the total picture. It is attractive to some, and obviously to the member, to take individual figures and say that indicates there is no accessibility, that all the services are opted out.

I would remind the member again that 91 per cent of all the claims on the health-insurance plan are opted-in claims. Notwithstanding the fact we have slightly less than 18 per cent of all physicians opted out and in certain specialties higher figures -- in some cases much higher figures than that -- the bulk of the services being provided to the people of Ontario are being provided at opted-in rates. The use of the billing groups in the hospitals, which has broadened this year to use all the clinical departments of all the hospitals, not just the teaching hospitals, has assisted in bringing that about.

Since the beginning of our health-insurance plan in the province, physicians have had a right to choose between direct billing as opposed to billing the plan. Today we have more opted-in physicians, specialists and GPs than when the plan began, notwithstanding that the percentage figure is different today from what it was at that time, or a year ago; I don’t have a specific figure in mind. I believe the present system is one that has served the province well. We have every reason to believe accessibility and universality have been maintained without having to resort to measures which would in effect put the doctors on the payroll, as it were, and make them quasi or real employees of the government and drive a lot of them out of Ontario.

One of the things I have tried to do is to retain an atmosphere where the doctors feel they are welcome to practise medicine in this province and not to drive them away. This year the figures I have seen would indicate the number of doctors leaving Ontario has dropped by 40 per cent from a year ago. I don’t think we want to reverse that again.

[2:15]

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on April 14, 1978, the minister told the House, “We have the means, and we have been doing it regularly, to follow the distribution of physicians, not only just in numbers, in hundreds or thousands, but as between specialties and general practice and between opted in and opted out.”

Has the minister been aware, since April 14, 1978, of the fact that opting out in some specialties in major communities in the province is as high as 100 per cent? If so, why has there been no action by the ministry to get the opting out down to a reasonable level, or to eliminate it entirely?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall a number of years ago when the Honourable Dr. Potter was the Minister of Health -- when I sat two rows back of the member in what was then affectionately known as the rump -- various discussions about the question of opting out. We have all been aware, since the beginnings of the plan, that for a variety of reasons in certain specialties there have been higher than average levels of opting out. I would remind the honourable member yet again that to combat that and to retain accessibility and universality the government a number of years ago introduced the regulation that provided for billing groups -- first in the teaching hospitals and in the emergency departments and more recently in all the clinical departments of all public hospitals.

Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that slightly less than 18 per cent of all physicians -- higher figures in certain categories and certain areas -- and only about nine per cent of the claims are opted out, there are very few problems, judging from the response of the public.

Mr. Conway: A supplementary to the minister: Are we to believe that the minister is not satisfied with the 18 per cent opted-out rate, and are we to believe the comments associated with the minister and the Premier that this is not a satisfactory percentage?

If the Minister of Health is not satisfied, what is he doing to bring that figure down to a more acceptable percentage? In that connection, has the minister finalized the government’s presentation to the Hall commission on medicare? Would he be prepared to table his submission to the Hall medicare commission before the House rises later this week?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the submission has not been completed. I met with the honourable gentleman two weeks ago for a preliminary discussion -- just to get acquainted and to discuss health care in general. I’m not sure of the dates being arranged for public hearings but they will be public. Any submission we finally make will be a public submission, but it is not completed at this point.

We would all like to see opting-out figures come down. We would like to do it in such a way that we are addressing the reasons behind it.

I would remind the member that we did go for about six or seven years with a relatively constant percentage level and an ever-improving availability of opted-in specialists as well as GPs. I again remind the member that we have more of them today than we had when the plan began. Over this year, the number of physicians opted out has come down slightly. It peaked in the first couple of months of 1979 at 18 per cent and has now fallen to 17.8 per cent.

I feel that by addressing concerns about income through the fee schedule, by addressing concerns about red tape and bureaucracy and by addressing concerns about the method of payment we can bring the numbers down without having to resort to measures which I think can only lead to a regression in the quality of health care in the province and which would, in certain communities, probably deny people access as physicians would leave.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree that it is intolerable to have 3.5 million claims a year being billed by opted-out doctors at rates that are 42 per cent higher than the OHIP fee schedule will allow? Will he also not agree that because far more specialists are opted out than the proportion of general practitioners opted out, the value of claims billed on an opted-out basis will be far higher than the figure he keeps bringing back into the House?

Why won’t the government come to grips with the problem and ensure that everybody in this province can get those medical claims paid at the OHIP rate, without having to pay extra?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the member assumes again. He takes the raw numbers and he makes certain assumptions that because a physician is billing his patients directly he is billing at 42 per cent or whatever. In point of fact a number of physicians who have always been opted out or in a position of direct billing have never billed higher than OHIP. There are many in that category who, on principle, have never been participating physicians. I think we have to respect that. The services are available. The people are not being denied. The point is that only nine per cent of the claims are being billed directly and that the health of the public is not suffering.

HIRING OF CONSULTANTS

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding an item on page 48 of the provincial auditor’s report. The minister will be aware that a former employee of the ministry became a consultant rather suddenly after leaving the employ of the ministry and was hired as a consultant by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. What I would like the minister to tell the House is first of all, who is this overnight consultant who left his ministry and then was hired as such? What was he earning before he left the ministry? Who is it that hired him as a consultant? And how many others were hired as consultants in the same type of situation by that ministry?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am rather reluctant to name the person individually. I will certainly indicate his position and so on in the ministry. He was a longtime employee of the ministry in a senior position at an executive director level. He is a chartered accountant and had indicated to us in the ministry some time last year his intention to leave the public service and go into private practice. The situation that developed this year, particularly relating to the budget, in which area he had a great deal of experience and involvement, made it necessary under the provisions that are allowed in the administrative manual for purposes of continuity in program to ask him if he would stay on. This was not as a management consultant as I think the article in the newspaper stated but rather as a technical consultant and was simply to complete the process he was already involved in at that point, after he had set up his practice.

The important thing to bear in mind here is that the figure referred to both in the provincial auditor’s report and more recently and erroneously interpreted by one of the Toronto journalists is not his salary by any means. That involves the salaries for three persons who are employed under that contract.

Mr. McClellan: Plus the overheads, I’m sure. Don’t forget the overheads.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, as a matter of fact the other error that exists there is the figure of $66,450. I believe it is the one that was used and it is referred to as being applicable to a four-month period. That is not correct, either; it was for a six-month period. The employee was employed in the ministry at a salary level of approximately $42,000 which, if one includes the fringe benefits that were part of the package that he was entitled to as a civil servant, totalled about $49,500. This would have been his total earnings from the ministry prior to his leaving the ministry.

Under the terms of the contract, when one takes into consideration the salaries that are paid to the two other persons who are working under that contract in addition to himself, his net salary from that contract, on an annualized basis, is $54,000. Under the period of the contract referred to in the auditor’s report and in the newspaper article he received about $27,000, rather than $66,450.

I would point out the relevant comparison is between his former salary and fringe benefit package of $49,500 and the income he would receive on an annualized basis, if this were an annualized contract, of $54,000. That is the relevant comparison and puts the matter in perspective.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, do I take it that the minister is saying the provincial auditor is wrong in saying the agreement covered a four-month period -- that somehow or other it covered a six-month period, but the provincial auditor is mistaken?

The second thing is the minister is saying there are two more salaries. If so, would he please tell us at what level those employees were hired and what their salaries would be in the civil service if they were working in the civil service, and whether he had people in the ministry who could have been giving that kind of help if it were merely secretarial work or the kind for which he has other people already there to perform? In general terms, since the name will have to be eventually given to the public accounts committee, doesn’t he feel he should level with this House and say precisely what the situation was?

Finally, who hired him and why were tenders not called in this case?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if I can remember the sequence of the questions, I don’t know the names of the other individuals involved. I’m hesitant to name the individual but I’ll name him. I suppose it’s proper to do so. It’s not a question of focusing upon the individual involved but the principle that is the important matter.

The individual involved is Mr. Barry Dalby, who has been an employee of my ministry for a number of years. I can’t give the member the precise figure of the income of the other two. They are not secretaries, as I understand it. They are associates, people associated with him in the execution of carrying out his duties under the contract. They must be paid. If the members look at the figure of $66,450 of which he would receive $27,000, then they obviously must be receiving at least an average of something under $20,000.

The member asked why this matter was not tendered. The matter was not tendered because there was no one else we knew of who had the degree of involvement and expertise in what he had been doing. In order to ensure the continuity, it was necessary for us to ask him to extend his involvement with our ministry.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That’s rather an unsavoury practice.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It’s not unsavoury at all. It’s bloody good management, I’ll tell the member for Rainy River.

This gentleman had been engaged for a lengthy period of time and involved with the development of the budget and working with children’s aid societies.

Mr. S. Smith: Why didn’t he stay on another six months?

Hon. Mr. Norton: He had already given us notice and had set up his own practice. He had made a commitment to begin his practice. We were asking him if he would vary his plans in order to provide the continuity necessary in the work that he was doing. It was not a matter of his setting up some straw man, some false company or whatever, and then carrying on doing his same duties. He was to leave. He had made plans well in advance to leave. We asked him to stay on because it was essential there would be that continuity. He agreed to comply.

I suggest to the member that if he looked at the figures comparatively, he will see he agreed to stay on at a level of income to himself that compared very closely with what he was making before. The member cannot, on the basis of the figures I have given him, allege there was any profiteering or ripoff or anything else under that contract. I think it was a very fair contract. The man made a sacrifice to stay on with us.

[2:30]

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: The minister talks about the principle of the issue. What is the principle involved in his little buddy system over there where they give contracts in violation of the manual of administration procedures and give contracts to ex-employees who, in the words of the provincial auditor, “are one-man operations who, in the view of the audit services branch, have only one client, the Ministry of Community and Social Services.” Where is the principle he’s adhering to there, except for the maintenance of a cozy little buddy system within the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I suppose that is typical of the attitude of the honourable member opposite to express it in those terms. May I first point out that this contract we were just talking about was not in violation of the manual. As I understand it there is specific provision within the manual that under certain circumstances, when continuity of program is necessary and where alternatives are not available, these kinds of decisions can be made and have been made in this instance.

With respect to the number of consultants’ contracts or whatever the member wishes to call them, he knows as I do that there have been a great many specific projects that have had to be done by the children’s services division of my ministry in a very short time over the last couple of years.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I have had the projects that were referred to by the auditor examined by our staff. I am assured each was distinct and separate in terms of their requirements. It was not a matter of maintaining individuals --

Mr. Cassidy: You’ve lost control of your staff.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That’s malarkey.

Mr. McClellan: Save it for the public accounts.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We certainly will.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We have no hesitation at all in justifying this before public accounts. I would point out to the member I believe and I think we can demonstrate that we are saving the taxpayers of this province money by using specific people with the skills and the expertise we require on a specific project basis, rather than building up a burgeoning bureaucracy within the division that we have a commitment to a long-term basis once these projects are finished. We could have many times the number of civil servants we now have in that division if for every project we had to get done we made a long-term commitment to a civil servant. This is a much more sensible and economic way to approach it.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: Wouldn’t the minister agree that if this happened in the private sector where the president of a company found someone with their hands in the till like this, the man responsible for okaying the order should be fired? We haven’t found out yet who was the one that approved the order to do this, the deputy minister or the minister. The gut issue or the bottom line is who approved of this, the minister or the deputy minister?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Formally, I suppose, my deputy did. I was aware of it and I assume responsibility. I’m the responsible person.

Mr. Sargent: So the minister okayed it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: May I just say one thing further, Mr. Speaker? It’s important that I say this. The honourable member made a statement about somebody having their hands in the till. That is absolutely not true. I would ask him if he would like to step outside the Legislature and say that where the persons who were involved would have the opportunity to prosecute or to sue him in court for the aspersions that he has cast upon their integrity.

Mr. Sargent: Come on out; I will go out any time you please.

Hon. Mr. Norton: These are responsible senior servants of this government and I’m not going to sit here and allow the member to make such irresponsible statements. Please, step out in the hall and repeat it.

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: Point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: There’s nothing that constitutes a point of privilege.

Mr. Sargent: I don’t like what he said.

Mr. Speaker: That’s your problem.

Mr. Cassidy: They have problems, Mr. Speaker. This headline of the Ottawa Citizen says, “Ontario Liberals Don’t Want Trudeau.” They’ve got real problems.

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Now that the ministry has finally published this directory of opted-in and opted-out physicians which we were looking for as early as a year and a half ago, is the minister aware that according to the records of his ministry all of the urologists in Halton county are out of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan and more than half of the urologists in Niagara, Waterloo, York region, Peterborough, Toronto, Etobicoke, North York and Middlesex are out of OHIP?

Is the minister aware that half of the obstetricians in Halton are out and that the figure is more than half in Niagara, Sudbury, York region, Peterborough, Toronto, Scarborough and in North York? Is the minister aware that more than half of the anaesthetists are out of OHIP in virtually every centre which we were able to monitor in the short time we’ve had this particular document?

If that’s the case, can the minister say why is it that for the last year and a half -- when he allegedly was monitoring the opting out by specialists across the province -- he has engaged in covering up the scandalous amount of opting out taking place by specialists in Ontario and the restrictions on medical service to the people of the province that entails?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would have to ask for you, sir, to have that particular aspersion to me be withdrawn which was the casting of the suggestion that I was covering up. I don’t expect the honourable member to do that since I’ve sat here for eight years watching and listening to him do that kind of thing with great abandon. That’s why he’s over in that corner and not in this corner.

The point is -- I have to keep re-emphasizing it -- I’m not sure whether he said neurologist or urologist, but if you take it by county there might be one urologist in a county and there might be two or three obstetricians in a county, and because one of them has opted or the only urologist has opted, it comes out 100 per cent because there is only one of them. If there are four of a particular speciality and two are out, it comes out at 50 per cent. That’s what you can do with figures, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is that 91 per cent of the claims on the plan are being paid directly by OHIP. The fact is we have more opted-in doctors today than we ever had at the beginning of the plan. The fact is the services are as accessible or more accessible to the people of this province than they ever were. There’s the proof of it, close to 12,000 names of opted-in physicians and physicians who are members of billing groups.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the minister obviously is not aware of the situation which prevails concerning the opting out by specialists, since he maintains it’s just a matter of one or two accidents of statistics, can he explain why it is half the psychiatrists, 122 psychiatrists, in the city of Toronto are opted out; 14 urologists, which is 50 per cent of the urologists in Toronto, are opted out; 23 of the orthopaedic surgeons, or 51 per cent, are opted out; 42 of the ophthalmologists, or 67 per cent, are opted out; 77 of the obstetricians in the city of Toronto, which is 61 per cent, are opted out; or 122 of the anaesthetists, which is 85 per cent, in the city of Toronto are opted out?

Is the minister not aware that those are the kinds of figures which prevail of the large numbers of specialists who are opted out? Would the minister explain why it is that senior officials in his ministry inform people in our party that the minister, despite all of the requests we have made over the last year and a half, has not asked his ministry to give him the figures on the proportion of specialists opted out in the counties of the province until we got them in this red book today?

Mr. Rotenberg: Why don’t you opt out?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: He opted out of medical school, at one point apparently, but that’s another thing.

Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of the time in the spring when a member -- I think it was the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Smith -- raised a question about one of the hospitals here in Toronto, where all the anaesthetists were then, and I assume still are, opted out and always have been. One can take those figures and say, “That must mean that all of the business is opted out.”

In that particular example -- I think it was the Toronto Western Hospital -- 70 per cent of their accounts were opted in through their billing group, notwithstanding that fact. One can do anything one wants with the numbers, particularly when there is this distribution of specialists. There are a couple here and a couple there by county and by region, and one can almost do anything one wants.

The fact is, when we come right down to it, people are getting the services they need. Ninety-one per cent -- I repeat it again, 91 per cent -- of the claims are direct to the plan. I invite the honourable member to tell me, when we consider that in Saskatchewan, his great Valhalla, 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the physicians are opted out, does that mean services aren’t accessible in that province?

Mr. S. Smith: The minister points out that 91 per cent of the claims are still coming in in the opted-in manner. Does he not recognize that one of the reasons for that is his own ruling whereby doctors can see the less well-off patients in their hospital clinics and the better-off patients in their own offices? Does he not recognize that when he allowed doctors to be opted out in their own offices, but opted in in their hospital clinics, it allowed then for people who do not have much money to see the doctor in the hospital clinic instead of back in their own home office? Does the minister not recognize that that is a step back toward the two-level medicine, whereby the better off could be seen in the offices of the physician while the less well off are sent to line up in the hospital clinics? Does he want to return to that kind of system?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I think the honourable member does the doctors a great disservice when he makes that kind of a generalization or allegation. In every experience I have ever had as Minister of Health or as a patient, the physicians of this province have served every person with whom they come into contact as well as the last person they served, whoever they were, wherever they came from, wherever they are going to.

It’s a great temptation, I know -- and certainly that party jumps on it at all times and the honourable member seems to be sitting on the fence wondering which policy to have this week -- to use the doctors as political whipping boys, to try to ride on them. It’s not easy to stand here and not get angry sometimes at some of the crass political things that come from across the way.

I think we have been well served compared with any other jurisdiction, including Saskatchewan -- and I’ll come back to that if the members want -- including Saskatchewan. The services here are as accessible, if not more accessible, than those anywhere else.

Mr. S. Smith: You’re satisfied then, eh? Come out and say so. Don’t be political; just say you’re satisfied.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, one is never satisfied with less than perfection. We are not going to address problems and we are not going to solve problems by using the medical profession as the whipping boys.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Before the minister succeeds in his efforts to mislead the House, may I put on the record, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I think the honourable member should change the record. There is a clear implication there that somebody is being less than truthful. I think the honourable member should withdraw that and rephrase it.

Mr. Cassidy: It was almost intended, Mr. Speaker, but I will withdraw the remark and simply point out to the minister that only 3.5 per cent of claims in Ontario are billed at over the Saskatchewan medical plan rates, whereas, in this province 18 per cent of the doctors are opted out. We do not know, because the minister has not put --

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

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, will the minister explain how individuals can go to a specialist, in that specialist’s office, and be able to receive care at the OHIP rate in such communities as Halton where 100 per cent of the urologists are opted out of OHIP, or Peterborough where 100 percent of the urologists and the orthopaedic surgeons are opted out of OHIP, or Sudbury, where the only ophthalmologist is opted out of OHIP, or other communities where the opting-out rate also reaches 100 per cent?

Can the minister explain how an individual is to get care at the OHIP rate if that individual goes to the doctor’s office? Will the government now undertake to rescind the agreement between OHIP and the OMA until there is a clear agreement by doctors in this province that no patient will be billed any extra amount above the OHIP fees?

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What the doctors would like us to do in this province is to introduce the Saskatchewan plan with the three billing modes, including mode three, under which, according to what I was last told, 35 to 40 per cent of the physicians in Saskatchewan are billing some of their patients for some services some of the time. That’s opting out à la Saskatchewan. That’s the point I was making before.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is misleading the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I am not in a position to know whether he is or not, but I know you don’t have the right to say so. Now please withdraw it.

Mr. Cassidy: He should withdraw as well, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a new question?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Martel: The minister knows what he is doing. It’s 3.5 per cent and the minister knows it.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister should resign, that’s what he should do, for his coverup. He’s been covering up. That’s what’s been happening.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the member has a new question, let him put it forthwith or I will recognize another member.

AUTO INDUSTRY LAYOFFS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Minister of Industry and Tourism explain why he stated on television last night that the situation with the auto worker layoffs in Windsor wasn’t really so bad because laid-off workers were collecting supplementary benefits on top of their UIC cheques? Is the minister not aware that the Chrysler supplementary unemployment benefit fund actually ran out in late August and the only special funds now available are those to workers with 10 years or more seniority? Is the minister not aware that there are some 2400 Chrysler workers who are on indefinite layoff and whose only benefit is their unemployment insurance cheque, which is only 45 per cent of what they were earning previously?

How can the minister claim he is monitoring the layoff situation in Windsor when he is so obviously misinformed about the suffering being imposed on the workers because of these layoffs?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I regret the member got so worked up over what he believes to be the context of my comments yesterday. I didn’t see the newsclip, but the answer I gave was in response to a general question about the automotive industry. I was indicating a large portion of the layoffs in the auto industry was affecting people who were receiving the supplementary benefits I have referred to. I also indicated that was not the case for a large number of the Chrysler workers.

In the context of the question as it was asked and as it was answered, it is entirely consistent with the remarks the member has just made. That is, many of the Chrysler workers, most of them, are not in a position to get 90 or 95 per cent of what they were previously given. The member is quite right, the majority of the Chrysler workers are in the situation where they are getting about 45 per cent. We agree, and I didn’t say anything differently yesterday.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: I would like the minister to explain. Is he not aware there are close to 1,000 workers in the parts industry in Windsor who are getting no other benefits except UIC payments? Is the minister not also aware that by the end of the month there will be 1,400 Ford workers in Windsor who will have exhausted both their supplementary unemployment benefits and their unemployment insurance benefits?

How can we have any confidence in the way the minister would handle the situation if Chrysler is forced to shut down if he can’t even keep track of the real suffering occurring in Windsor, not just with Chrysler workers but also with workers in many other companies?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member wants to keep saying our figures are different to theirs. We are monitoring the situation and we know exactly what it is.

The member disregarded the answer I gave to the first question, which indicated we were aware of which workers were receiving how much assistance in both cases. I don’t dispute the figures he has just recited on Ford. We do agree on those figures and I will tell him his friends at the UAW will confirm we are in constant contact with them in order to get both their up-to-date figures and the up-to-date figures from Canada Manpower and the automotive companies. We do have those up-to-date figures. We are monitoring them and our figures are exact.

I will say to the leader of the third party, if he wants to talk about exact figures and if he wants to talk about fairness in terms of getting a good view on the picture, it does a disservice to do what he continually does -- total the different layoffs when a firm lays off workers for a week at a time, as he did last week.

Twenty-four hundred workers were laid off one week in October; the same 2,400 were laid off the third or fourth week in October for another week and he calls that 4,800 layoffs in trying to paint a picture that the layoffs were of much more monumental proportions than they are.

They are serious layoffs and we are very concerned about them. But with respect, the honourable member does the situation very little justice by compounding those figures and treating them all as gross figures, instead of giving them as net figures and giving an accurate view on the situation.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: A very brief supplementary. We have spent 42 minutes on leaders’ questions and supplementaries.

Mr. Bounsall: But not much on this last one, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister aware that besides the 1,400 Ford workers who will go off UIC benefits this month, there are some 1,000 Chrysler workers and 700 in the parts industry in the same position? Will the minister immediately impress upon the federal government -- Lincoln Alexander, or de Cotret, or whomever -- the need to establish immediately a transitional assistance benefit fund for those 3,500-plus workers whose only alternative at the end of this month is welfare, during what is really only a transitional period while Ford adjusts its production and while Chrysler recovers?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have stated earlier that, as the honourable member well knows, we can only make recommendations to the federal government. I must also remind him that my ministry has no programs whatsoever intended to look after workers in terms of supplementary payments.

Of course, the honourable member’s questions are more properly directed to either the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) here, or more properly, to the federal minister of labour. The Ministry of Industry and Tourism is not set up for nor is it mandated for providing supplementary assistance to workers that are laid off.

[Later (3:00)]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege, I want to clarify the record. I have had an opportunity now to have clarified for me by the CBC that the context in which my comments were carried about the automotive industry yesterday were indeed totally in the context of the situation in the automotive industry generally and not with regard to the Chrysler situation.

[Reverting 2:53:]

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Given the fact that Bill 100, An Act respecting the Local Government of the District of Parry Sound, passed last June; and given the fact that in section 12 of that act he has the right to incorporate two municipalities -- two townships -- into one municipality, could the minister indicate to the House whether he has received a request from either or both of those municipalities asking to be incorporated and, if so, what his response has been?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge I haven’t received an official request from either of those municipalities. I say “to the best of my knowledge” because it may be in the mail I haven’t seen -- in my office somewhere -- but certainly in any correspondence I reviewed up until yesterday I haven’t seen any request from those areas.

Mr. Epp: Supplementary: If the minister were to receive such a request from either or both of those municipalities, could he indicate to the House whether he would incorporate those two municipalities before the first full term of three years had elapsed?

Hon. Mr. Wells: First of all, it is my understanding -- and I am just recalling from the bill -- that the councils don’t actually come into being until January 1, 1980. Therefore, we wouldn’t have received any request because there is no legally constituted council yet. That is what I understand.

The other answer to the question is that when I receive the request and the accompanying material with it, I will then consider it and make up my mind as to what my response would be.

SUPERMARKET PRICING AND CHECKOUT SYSTEM

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, as a result of the report he tabled today. Recognizing that that report is really a wait and see, and that in the interim he is going to do his own survey and use Loblaws’ surveys to determine if he is going to do anything about seeing that the price tags remain on individual products, is he not aware that exactly such surveys and studies have been done in the United States? I brought one to his attention just last week. Those studies show irrefutably that there is a substantial loss of price consciousness on the part of the consumers. Doesn’t the minister realize that the whole matter of the universal product code and the elimination of tags is handled so subtly that the consumers themselves are not often aware of the loss of price consciousness? Doesn’t the minister really think the surveys during a test period are almost meaningless and that there is enough evidence now for him to make a decision and protect the consumers?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, in rough order. One, I never recognize any survey from the United States. Two, this is not a wait and see.

Mr. McClellan: Why?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Why? If I have to explain that one, there is a very fundamental difference between society and business practices in the United States and here. I do my own work. I don’t copy it from the state of Mississippi or some other place where the member popped in to buy one of his specials again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you want a response?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am not adopting a wait-and-see attitude. If the member can read -- and I trust he had the statement available, because everybody else did -- I already pointed out the things I am doing.

I am not relying upon Loblaws; I am not relying upon the industry. I said it very concretely, emphatically, bluntly and in words of one syllable. The consumers of this province are going to decide what is going to happen in the computerized checkouts. It is not an area for the paternalism so often expressed by the member, the subtlety that consumers don’t know what is going on. The member has just insulted about eight million people across the province with that one.

The consumers of this province are very sophisticated, can deal with complex problems and have to make many decisions every day. One of the decisions consumers are going to make is how this technological advance -- and believe me what is there now is only primitive to what will be coming in the ensuing years -- is going to be handled.

The operative part of what we are doing is that this technological advance will be used to the benefit of all. What we are doing is unprecedented in North America. Ten states have tried to grapple with this. That gives you an idea how good the American surveys are, Mr. Speaker. Many of them have found that in their endeavours to grapple with it they have produced dreadful legislation that has to be constantly revised.

I went to great lengths in my statement today to say exactly what we are doing. For once the consumers of Ontario will decide, rather than have the customary paternalism of the member for Welland-Thorold who doesn’t believe they are capable of making their own decisions.

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, can I ask the minister, from his own report does he not recognize one of the major concerns of the Consumers’ Association of Canada is the likelihood that supermarkets, when not using individual pricing, will be much more apt to raise their in-stocks prices?

How can the minister check this major threat? Doesn’t he think the major supermarkets will be smart enough not to do this until the systems are in place and then they will sock it to the consumers? Why doesn’t he recognize that the elimination of price tags by the supermarkets is simply a scheme to enhance their profits and bring in legislation to stop the elimination and, once and for all, protect the consumers?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of companies who found out this week you have to get up pretty early in the morning to get around this minister. I assure you, we know what we are doing.

[3:00]

HIRING OF CONSULTANTS

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Community and Social Services a question.

The minister will recall that in March of this year I asked him a question regarding the number of consultants his ministry has hired. With regard to the person who has been spoken of earlier, would the minister answer some questions?

Did this person, after he left the ministry and started the consulting business and came back to the ministry, still carry on his consulting business as well as his duties with the ministry? Why did he have to bring a couple of employees along with him on this particular consultation job?

Third, how is the minister going to explain to all the people, the deliverers of children’s services and the parents and the children of this province who have been so sorely restrained in children’s services, these kinds of moneys to these consultants?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, once again I think it is important that the honourable member bear in mind what I said earlier. He is implying there is unnecessary expenditure here, that there is money being spent that would not otherwise have been spent. That’s not the case.

I thought I went through it in some detail -- and I’ll get more detail if the member requires it -- indicating that the man who was retained, for the reasons I explained in response to the earlier question, at most may have been receiving something like $4,000 a year more than he had previously made as an employee of the ministry.

It’s not a matter of a ripoff or a great windfall for him. He was not able to carry on his own business. He had set up his business but he gave his full time to the duties he assumed in the ministry in order to carry out the duties under the terms of the contract. He is not working half time with the ministry or anything like that. It is a full-time commitment. And I can assure the member it is the kind of full-time commitment that means I have had meetings with that fellow during the time he has been working under the terms of the contract going as late as 11 o’clock at night. He doesn’t get paid any extra for that. I went to assure the member of that. He is a very hardworking and dedicated employee.

If he had wanted to deny us access to the experiences and involvement he had had on an ongoing basis with the ministry and say, “No, I’m going into my private practice,” I’m sure he could have benefited much more by devoting his time solely to other kinds of contracts. But he gave his full time under the terms of this contract for the amount of money paid to him, which I have indicated is about $54,000 a year on that basis.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: If the minister had not been caught in this, would he do it again? How long has this been going on and to what amount?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think the amount of the contract was dealt with in the auditor’s report, the only problem being there was an error in the length of the contract in the auditor’s report. It was for six months instead of four. I can’t verify this point -- I will later -- but I believe there has been an extension of that because his work is not yet complete.

Would he do it again?

Mr. Sargent: No, would you do it again?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Absolutely. Without any apologies or reservations --

Mr. Sargent: At a rate of $200,000 a year?

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- because there is nothing wrong with what is being done. That man is doing for the people of this province work for which he has become uniquely qualified and he is not going to continue to be an employee of the ministry. As soon as this work is completed his work with us will be completed and he will go back to continue with his private practice.

I have no apologies to make -- I want to assure the members of that -- for that man being there. He is doing good service to the people of this province and I would say he is bringing to bear upon his job unique qualifications I couldn’t have found anywhere else, certainly not people with his experience. The members over there can try to create some kind of innuendo or misunderstanding or scandal if they like, but there bloody well isn’t. There isn’t. It’s clean, I can assure them. I stake my reputation on that.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN WINDSOR

Mr. Mackenzie: A question for the Minister of Labour: Given the high unemployment rate in the Windsor area, would the Minister of Labour, as a matter of some urgency, attempt to get the federal authorities to separate Windsor from the relatively high unemployment areas of London-Sarnia for purposes of unemployment insurance to allow for a longer period of coverage for unemployed workers in Windsor; and will the minister also tell us at the same time what steps he’s taking in terms of planning to protect the workers at Chrysler in terms of both wages and their pension credits?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) asked me about transitional assistance benefits. I did take the opportunity to write to the Minister of Employment and Immigration in Ottawa with that question I have not yet received a reply, so that’s one part of it.

Second, I will be glad to discuss the matter raised by the member with the Minister of Employment and Immigration as soon as I can get in touch with him.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mrs. Campbell: A question for the Minister of Housing: Yesterday I asked him if he would make a clear and unequivocal statement in order to assuage the fears in the minds of Ontario Housing tenants in Metro Toronto. He gave a philosophical position. Would he today tell me in clear terms that the NDP is wrong in telling these tenants he will be selling or may be selling these projects and they will have to relocate? Will he give that clear statement?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, first of all I take absolutely no responsibility for the inaccuracy of NDP remarks either in this municipality or anywhere else in the province, because they are prone to do it on every occasion when they see some political advantages. If the member for St. George would read the Hansard of yesterday, my remarks were as explicit, clear and to the point as they could be.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, we have all read it and tried to find an answer. The member’s Premier has boasted about his and his government’s concerns for people. Does he not realize that right across Metro Toronto, OHC tenants are lying in absolute fear because of these statements? Is he incapable of making a clear statement on this subject?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yesterday, I thought I made the point very clear, explicitly clear.

Mr. S. Smith: You didn’t.

Mrs. Campbell: You didn’t.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Do the members want the answer or do they want to keep yakking?

I said very clearly and distinctly yesterday that we had a policy and a program that wasn’t only provincial, but federal and municipal, and I said clearly that we recognized this day and forward our social responsibility in providing housing for the less fortunate in Ontario, not only in this Metropolitan Toronto area. There are other areas in the province that have similar problems.

I said clearly that if we have the opportunity of selling some of the single, freestanding homes currently owned by the Ontario Housing Corporation and they became vacant and someone made an offer to purchase them, we could very well find ourselves in a position of selling them. Obviously, in multiple-use facilities, whether they be garden homes, row housing, apartment buildings and so on, the opportunity of trying to dispose of those units doesn’t exist.

I said yesterday we were going to try and change the social mixture we have in the public ownership in Ontario. We’ll accomplish that, not only by bringing people of higher incomes into our social housing but, indeed, if we sell off some housing, or use housing for higher-income groups than we presently have been accommodating, we will have, and I said so yesterday -- and I trust the member for St. George can read -- I said clearly and distinctly yesterday that at least a similar number, if not a greater number of units, would be secured from the private sector under a rent supplement program by agreement.

PETITIONS

STORAGE OF RAIL CARS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 378 people, mostly in Port Robinson, including the mayor and eight aldermen from Thorold, addressed to the Honourable, the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

We protest the spotting and storing of railway cars containing highly toxic, explosive and inflammable materials adjacent or close to one another in the railyard at Port Robinson. We urge the Ministry of the Environment to examine the products contained in the railcars, including picric, vinyl chloride, propane and liquid petroleum, and publicly report on the interaction possible and degree of disaster which could ensure, and further, to ensure that there are plans in place to deal with any such disaster. We call on the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) to make forceful input to the federal bill, C-25, An Act to promote public safety in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods, so as to assure the bill’s adequacy in providing full safety during transit and storage.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Cassidy: I have the following petition, Mr. Speaker. It is, in fact, an addition to the petition which I submitted to this House on November 20 which, as you recall, protested the government’s program for health care, opposed extra billings by doctors and called on the government to ensure that everyone in Ontario has full health-insurance coverage.

There are 4,898 signatures in this package to add to the 275,000 signatures which have already been submitted and to the 75,000 forms which were given to the cabinet when the Ontario Federation of Labour met with the cabinet last Thursday. I call on the government to take heed of this petition, to stop extra billing by doctors and stop the cutbacks in health care.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition addressed to the Honourable, the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

We protest the government’s restraint program for health care. The quality of health in Ontario is now threatened by deterioration of services in hospitals and associated agencies. We request that northern Ontario be recognized as a unique region. We pay the same premiums as residents in the south, yet do not receive the same services. In this respect, we insist the air ambulance services be reinstated for non-emergency referrals and greater assistance be given to specialists locating in isolated communities. We oppose the extra fees being charged to chronic and other patients. We already pay a lot in taxes and we insist the government act to provide needed hospitals and health services and to ensure that every one has full health-insurance coverage.

This is in addition to the previous petition I submitted on behalf of the residents in northern Ontario. There are 294, names bringing the total to 8,605.

I call on the minister now to have OHIP cover non-emergency referrals to southern Ontario.

REPORTS

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. McCaffrey from the standing general government committee presented the following report including therein a report of the commissioners of estate bills and moved its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments, section 5 thereof having favourably been reported by the commissioners of estate bills:

Pr25, An Act respecting the City of London.

Report adopted.

[3:15]

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Villeneuve from the standing resources development committee reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Labour be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980:

Ministry administration program. $8,014,300; industrial relations program, $2,956,000; women’s program, $653,000; occupational health and safety program, $20,429,300; employment standards program, $3,074,000; Ontario manpower co-ordinating committee program, $251,000; human rights commission program, $1,862,000; labour relations board program, $2,413,000.

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Philip from the standing administration of justice committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee recommends that the fees less the actual cost of printing be remitted on Bill Pr3, An Act respecting Young People’s Theatre.

Report adopted.

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Philip from the standing administration of justice committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee recommends that Bill 19, An Act to amalgamate the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the Ministry of Education be not reported and that the Minister of Colleges and Universities and the Minister of Education reintroduce the bill with a preamble thereto.

Report adopted.

MOTIONS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that tomorrow, Thursday, December 20, the House meet at 10 a.m. with the routine proceedings to be called at 10 a.m. and a luncheon interval from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs be authorized to travel to Thunder Bay and Atikokan, Ontario, and Whiteshell, Manitoba, in the period from January 15 to January 17, 1980, for purposes related to the committee’s terms of reference respecting environment impact and health considerations related to nuclear power.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that all the government orders for resuming adjourned debates on motions for adopting reports from committees, except for the June 21 report of the standing resources development committee, and the November 1 report of the standing members’ services committee, be placed on the Order Paper on the second sessional day of the fourth session of the 31st Parliament.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to speak to the motion, if I may. I’d like to point out to you that among the reports which will be put forward for the new session is the interim report of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs, concerning our work on reactor safety during the summer of this past year. I find it ironic that at this time we’re on a motion from the government, apparently supported by the Liberal House leader and the Liberal Party, putting off debate on this report.

I’d like to inform you, Mr. Speaker, because you wouldn’t know unless you’re one of those inveterate readers of the select committee transcripts -- and not many people are -- that during the month of November, when we were considering the interim report of the select committee on Ontario Hydro on reactor safety, we in this party put forward a very strong recommendation to our colleagues on the committee that the report not be presented to the House at this time. The committee’s work involved in reactor safety was not complete and there were matters which had arisen from material tabled before our committee which had not been dealt with by the committee during its summer sessions and there were new matters which had been raised with us and brought to our attention, which must be considered before an interim report could be made of any substance. We had agreed on it, Mr. Speaker; members of the committee agreed that we would not make a report. Among the members agreeing with that was the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. Reed), and as far as I know the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) was present at that time.

We had complete agreement on the committee that we were not going to have a report; because there were still mailers outstanding we would continue our work in January and February of 1980; we would present what we felt was a substantial and, as far as we could, complete report after that period of work.

Then the procedure got changed around by the entry of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), a little late, into our meeting. I’m sure the member will recall how he arrived during our meeting, discovered that we were in the process of deciding that we would review our work up to that point but not submit an interim report to this Legislature and he decided that was not good enough for him.

As I recollect, at that point the member for Halton-Burlington left the committee. As he had been in agreement with our procedure, I think that that may have been part of his motivation for leaving the room at that stage. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk continued, in his hardheaded, hardnosed and determined way, to encourage the Conservative members of the committee to the point where the member for York West (Mr. Leluk) put forward a motion that in fact we should have an interim report.

At that stage, my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) suggested to committee members that this was not an adequate procedure for our committee, considering the significance of the work in which we were engaged. I’d like to read to you, Mr. Speaker, if I may just for a few seconds, what the member for Port Arthur said at that time because I think it’s rather important. He said: “I would just point out to the committee the dangers of that motion.” This was the motion by the member for York West to proceed with an interim report. “If you put your signature to this report in this shape, without even having gone through the thing, the committee not even having discussed the introduction,” page three -- and it goes on -- “ ... you are willing to sign the report and submit it to the Legislature, that means sitting once a week from now through the next six weeks and we still won’t get it done before the end of December.”

Here we are at the end of this session and I think the fears of the member for Port Arthur are fully borne out by what has happened. We went through the farcical procedure, nudged on by a strange combination of Liberal and Conservative members on that committee, of preparing an interim report which it is now obviously not important we discuss before this Legislature rises for the Christmas season.

As a matter of fact I have to support the motion from the House leader of the Conservative Party because I believe the report is not complete enough to be worth discussing in this Legislature at this stage. Therefore, along with my colleagues from the NDP on the select committee and my colleagues here in this House, I will support the motion of the House leader. I thought you should know those facts though, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: I really appreciate the compliments extended to me by the honourable member who has just spoken. I had no way of realizing that I could sway the views of the majority of the committee so effectively.

My colleague the member for Halton-Burlington is not here to defend himself against the imputations of the reasons why he left the room on that particular occasion, but I do well remember that after the NDP did not seem to agree with the views expressed by the member for Port Arthur as fully as he wished, that he stormed out in high dudgeon, only to return rather meekly a few minutes later when he reconsidered his position.

Mind you, those comments, Mr. Speaker, are as irrelevant as those that preceded them from the previous speaker.

I do want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that you will recall immediately following the news of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident all members of this House, properly expressing their concern, added to the terms of reference of the select committee on Hydro affairs an immediate investigation into the safety of our atomic reactors in this province.

Certainly I favoured that, and all members, without equivocation, felt that the committee should set aside all other business and use the undoubted facilities and expertise available to us, through our counsel and other people, to determine whether in our view our atomic reactors are safe.

We worked diligently and hard. We had many arguments about this. I don’t want to draw conclusions that perhaps are not fair but, frankly, after careful consideration and endless arguments after hearing views from the Atomic Energy Control Board and others who were nonprofessional but extremely well-versed private citizens, we came to the conclusion, which really was fairly well-founded, that the reactors were acceptably safe. This is the burden of the report.

Having heard the members of the NDP who took part in these discussions for these many weeks, I was surprised to see when the report was published that the NDP had presented a dissenting view, signed by the chairman who certainly had expressed no dissenting view, nor had other members expressed a dissenting view, that the reactors are not acceptably safe.

It is quite appropriate for them to hold those views, but since they didn’t form a part of the coherent discussions in the committee, I personally didn’t feel the House should be thrown into a kind of a debate, such as would be required by the report before us, with this sudden dissenting view that came out of the blue and which must have come from a very hardnosed and determined member of the NDP delegation to that committee.

I don’t know who it could be. But someone who was quoted in the Ottawa papers as saying she had given up trying to convince the members of the Legislature and, apparently, her own colleagues of the importance of this matter, obviously, was successful in convincing them. Whether or not they agreed with her, that we are all going to be blown to hell in a flash some time in the near future, or whether they agreed with her political connotation of the matter, I am not prepared to say. All I know is that the usefulness of the report has been practically nullified by such dissent.

I was particularly concerned that the chairman of the committee, who is not present, though I wish he were, particularly since he was so keen that the report be debated -- I have a feeling that that keenness was probably dictated as well -- he undertook to have himself interviewed on CBC on whether nuclear reactors are not acceptably safe. I felt that that was improper for him as the chairman of the committee. It was quite proper for the energy critic of the NDP to do so. I felt that the chairman of the committee, in doing so, had to a great extent nullified his usefulness as chairman.

I apologize in no way for discussing with my colleagues in the Liberal Party and informing the House leader of the government and the House leader of the NDP that we felt to take a day, or as long as it would require, to debate the report in its present form would now not serve a useful purpose. I would say I believe that because of the irrational dissent put forward by the NDP.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise to support the views expressed this afternoon by the senior member of the Liberal caucus in the committee,

I think it was imperative that the report we have tabled before us was presented at the time it was. As the member has pointed out, since the events of the Three Mile Island incident the people of Ontario have been, to say the least, most apprehensive and concerned not only about the total ramifications of that incident but whether the nuclear component in this province had any similarities to, or any superiority over, the type of reactors that are operating in the United States, of which the Three Mile Island reactor is one.

[3:30]

There was a great deal of apprehension expressed in the news media. As a consequence thereof, I think it was imperative and a priority responsibility of this Legislature that we made known to the people of Ontario in an official capacity that the reactors operating in this province under the supervision of Ontario Hydro and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited are acceptably safe. I think it would have been totally irresponsible for this committee to have continued without making any official statement whatsoever more than six months after the event; it would have been totally irresponsible to keep the people wondering how safe the system was in Ontario.

The debating of the report is secondary, I suggest, to the important consideration that a formal official report was tabled so the people of Ontario could rest easier and be more certain that we do have an acceptably safe nuclear power program in this province.

I also must comment on what I consider to be a highly irregular feature of the report in that the chairman has seen fit to sign a dissenting report. I won’t comment further on the fact that he has seen fit to make public statements that have been something less than neutral, as would normally be the position taken by a chairman of a committee.

I think the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has made the point well and it doesn’t need to be reiterated. I do support the views he has expressed here this afternoon.

It is regrettable that we did not have the opportunity to debate the interim report in the House before the session was concluded. I was looking forward to participating in that debate. That is not to say that a most useful purpose has not been served by the tabling of the report. It was important and imperative that an interim report was tabled in the House, and --

Mr. Speaker: It is really very difficult to discern whether the member is debating the motion or the report itself.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I am using no more latitude than the members on the opposite side of the House used in discussing this matter, if I may say so.

I might conclude by stating that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, by entering into the discussions that day, did indeed do a service -- not only to the members of the committee, but to the people of the province as a whole -- by probably turning the thinking around to the point where the importance of an official report being presented to the House at the earliest opportunity was realized.

For that reason, I am pleased the interim report was tabled. I look forward to participating in the debate on the report in the spring, but I think the most important consideration was that an interim report was prepared and tabled in this House.

Mr. Foulds: I want to speak to the motion because my name has been taken in vain in previous discussion.

Mr. Eaton: Tell us why you blew up in the committee that day.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, I think I will take time to discuss that. I would like to speak to the motion rather than to the report. It is important that the motion pass, because I do think it is important for this Legislature to debate at some point the findings of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs as it affects nuclear reactor safety in this province.

I want to make a couple of remarks about what has been said previously. It is true that on the day that has been cited, I did storm out of the committee in some anger. I must confess that once every five or six years I do lose my temper. When that happens, it is much more productive for me to absent myself from the discussions going on than to engage in them in what might be a non-productive way. So I went out for a few brisk turns around the circle in Queen’s Park.

On a point of privilege, in response to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, I returned because the work of the committee is important and even in the botched kind of way he tried to force through the work of the committee it is important to try to get as good a balance in the committee as possible. It is obvious that when you have an alliance between the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and the member for Oriole, the committee needs some balance.

The dissenting report referred to previously in this debate, which I signed, did not say -- and I wish the members would understand the importance of language if they don’t understand the importance of signing their names to a report -- did not say the reactors in Ontario were unsafe.

What we said was we did not yet have enough information to make a firm declaration they were “acceptably safe.” In other words, we had additional information we had not considered which we felt we should consider and for other reasons we felt we could not make the categorical statement the members for Oriole and Brant-Oxford-Norfolk wanted to make, for reasons I know not, that they are safe. In other words, they wanted to rush through a judgement by the committee to get that concept firmly embedded in the minds of the public of Ontario. That does a disservice to the people of Ontario.

I want to use the title of an article about the British nuclear system in a magazine called the New Statesman. What we can say about the reactors in Ontario is that so far we have had no accidents, no serious accidents, that have resulted in large-scale devastation or death. The title of the article in the New Statesman was, “So Far We Have Been Lucky.”

Mr. Speaker: You are really straying from the motions.

Mr. Foulds: -- “So Far, So Good.”

Mr. Speaker: You are even off the continent now.

Mr. Foulds: One last comment. The chairman of the committee has not been here to defend himself, but anyone who knows the chairman of the select committee on Hydro affairs knows two things. First of all, he is a man of complete independence who will not be dictated to by any member of the committee, whether it is the member for Carleton East, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, or the member for Oriole. No member of this assembly should make such accusations about the member for York South. The second thing about the member for York South is that he has, in his long and honest and honourable parliamentary career, held many strong opinions, but in his role as chairman of the committee he has never been less than objective. I challenge any member of this assembly or of that committee to say the chairman of the committee has been less than objective in conducting the affairs of that committee.

It does not seem to me that just because a man accepts the responsibility of chairmanship that makes him a eunuch and that is what the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and the member for Oriole are complaining about. Because the member for York South had the courage to say what he believes, they object, because he is the chairman of the committee. They do themselves, the member for York South, this Legislature and the committee a disservice when they do that.

Report adopted.

AGGREGATES ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing resources development committee be authorized to sit during the interval between sessions to consider Bill 127, An Act to revise the Pits and Quarries Control Act, 1971, and that not withstanding the prorogation of the House, Bill 127 remain referred to this committee for clause-by-clause examination and upon commencement of the fourth session of the 31st Parliament the bill shall be deemed to have been introduced and read the first time, be deemed to have been read a second time, and referred to the standing resources development committee.

Motion agreed to.

OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY ACT; TRESPASS TO PROPERTY ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that notwithstanding the prorogation of the House, Bill 202, An Act respecting Occupiers’ Liability, and Bill 203, An Act to Protect against Trespass to Property remain referred to the standing resources development committee for clause-by-clause examination and upon commencement of the fourth session of the 31st Parliament, the bills shall be deemed to have been introduced and read the first time, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the standing resources development committee.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing general government committee be authorized to sit during the interval between the sessions to consider Bill 3, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974, and that the committee be authorized, notwithstanding any practice or order of the House, to report its observations and deliberation on the bill or the subject matter of the bill, and that notwithstanding the prorogation of the House, Bill 3 remain referred to this committee for clause-by-clause examination, and upon commencement of the fourth session of the 31st Parliament, the bill shall be deemed to have been introduced and read the first time, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the standing general government committee.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved the following standing committees be continued and authorized to sit during the interval between the sessions:

Standing general government committee to consider Bill 3; standing resources development committee to consider Bill 127, Bill 202 and Bill 203 and the annual report of the Minister of Natural Resources for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979; standing public accounts committee to consider the report of the provincial auditor, the sittings of the committee to take place during the month of February 1980; standing members’ services committee to examine the operation of constituency offices as approved by the Board of Internal Economy, the sittings of the committee to take place during the month of February 1980.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Riddell moved first reading of Bill 208, An Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to prohibit unfair practices in the marketing of farm products in Ontario. These unfair practices include the arrangement of price advantages in the form of rebate, discounts or allowances between some sellers of a farm product and some buyers of a farm product to the exclusion of other buyers and sellers of the same product. The effect of these practices is to work hardships upon the buyers and sellers who are excluded from these arrangements and eventually to reduce the level of competition in the market for the farm product.

Provision is made in the bill for orders of compliance, assurances of voluntary compliance and enforcement of orders and assurances.

Mr. Speaker, I had Mr. McGuigan second the motion as he is a man who has a great deal of knowledge and experience in the area of production. He was one of the few farmers who had the intestinal fortitude to appear before the resources development committee and he certainly had a great deal of input into the consultation leading up to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the member and his colleagues will have an opportunity to say that during second reading.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved first reading of Bill 209, An Act to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I have some remarks to make about this bill and about a paper I would like to table with the Legislature.

Over the past few months it has become apparent from the ongoing review and study of workmen’s compensation --

Mr. Speaker: How long is that? That should have been done by way of a ministerial statement.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: My apologies, sir. Do I have permission of the House to do it now?

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[3:45]

Mr. McClellan: Just this once.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Just this once; just this session. We’ve got the rules of the game straight anyway.

Over the past few months it has become apparent, from the ongoing review and studies of workmen’s compensation taking place not only in this province but elsewhere, that major changes in the present system should be considered. In order that all aspects of possible changes could be considered, I instructed the Ontario Workmen’s Compensation Board to prepare a paper for distribution to interested parties, a copy of which I am tabling today.

I am also establishing a committee which will accept written submissions from interested parties with respect to the proposals and the committee would be prepared to receive other options or suggestions for change. I shall be announcing the precise terms of reference of the committee, its composition and the expected date of its report early in the new year.

Keeping in mind the long-term proposals, I am also introducing an amending act which will provide immediate changes in many important areas.

1. An increase in the ceiling on earnings, from $16,200 to $18,500, effective July 1, 1979. This means that the maximum weekly rate of compensation payable will increase from $233.66 to $266.83.

2. Recognizing the need of injured workers who have received temporary disability benefits for prolonged periods, an amendment is included which increases their benefits by a factor of 10 per cent after they have received temporary disability benefits for 12 consecutive months.

To give full effect to the $16,200 ceiling which was introduced on July 1, 1978, and to recognize the full change in the cost of living index, I am recommending that the sections previously affected by the six per cent figure be adjusted upward to a figure of eight per cent as of July 1, 1978.

This will affect the following areas: (a) The minimum for temporary disability will be adjusted to $117 per week; (b) pensions awarded for accidents occurring on or before December 31, 1977, will be increased to an adjusted figure of eight per cent, and to recognize accidents occurring during the period from December 31, 1977, to June 30, 1978, a factor of eight per cent will be added to pensions arising out of those accidents; (c) permanent total-disability pensions will be increased to $519 per month and permanent partial-disability pensions will be raised proportionately; (d) pensions for dependent spouses will be increased to $372 per month; (e) pensions for dependent children will be increased to $101 per month; (f) orphans’ pensions will be increased to $115 per month.

4. Disability pensions awarded for accidents occurring prior to June 30, 1979, will be increased by a factor of 10 per cent effective July 1, 1979.

5. Permanent total disability pensions will be increased to $571 per month, effective July 1, 1979. Permanent partial disability pensions will be raised proportionately on the same effective date.

6. Pensions for dependent spouses will be increased to $410, effective July 1, 1979.

7. Pensions for dependent children will be increased to $112 per month, effective July 1, 1979.

8. Orphans’ pensions will be increased to $127 per month, effective July 1, 1979.

9. Pensions for dependents other than spouses and children will also be increased proportionately to those increases granted to dependent spouses.

10. The minimum for temporary disability will be increased to $129 per week, effective July 1, 1979. This means that on or after that date those workers earning $172 or less per week will receive the minimum of $129 per week and all workers earning $129 or less will receive tax-free compensation equal to their full earnings. This will include part- time workers.

11. The burial allowance will be increased from $800 to $1,000 for deaths occurring on or after July 1, 1979.

12. The initial lump-sum payment to a dependent spouse will also be increased from $800 to $1,000 on the same basis.

13. Clothing allowances will be increased from $219 per annum to $240 per annum with respect to lower-limb prostheses and back braces for permanent disability, and from $110 to $120 with respect to upper-limb prostheses.

The changes recommended are intended to provide more equitable levels of compensation pending receipt of the further report which has been requested. The cost of the recommended changes is substantial, having a total capitalized value of $120 million for existing pensions and $75 million in respect of future awards and existing claims. I therefore seek support for the amending act and the proposals put forward.

CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE ACT

Mr. Warner moved first reading of Bill 210, An Act to provide a Procedure for Reviewing Citizens’ Complaints concerning Police Conduct in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide a procedure for reviewing citizens’ complaints concerning police conduct in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. The bill places every police officer under a duty to exercise his authority as a police officer in a manner consistent with the diligent performance of his duty and respectful of the rights, liberties, inherent dignity and reputation of every citizen. Complaints concerning police conduct are to be dealt with by a registrar of citizens’ complaints and the citizens’ complaints tribunal appointed by the council of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. The bill provides for mediation concerning a dispute or for the hearing of a complaint by the citizens’ complaints tribunal. After holding a hearing under the act, the tribunal will report its findings to the police chief, the Metropolitan board of commissioners of police and the Metropolitan council.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day it’s customary, when we have a group of pages leaving us, for us to express our appreciation. One of the ways in which we do that is to have their names and their ridings read into the record. They are as follows:

Leigh Bates, of Hastings-Peterborough; Ray Boehm, of Waterloo North; Sean Bredt, of Don Mills; Peggy Breen, of Scarborough West; Gregory Brown, of Quinte; Eleanor Casson, of York Mills; Suzanne Coles, of Etobicoke; Colette Coughlin, of Windsor-Riverside; Michael Gollob, of Oriole; Natalie Horlatsch, of High Park-Swansea; Jennifer Hurtubise, of Erie; Alexander Leslie, of Algoma; Peter Maclean, of Northumberland; Troy Manary, of Huron-Bruce; Craig Martel, of Sudbury East; Patricia McCarthy, of York West; Kevin Rizun, of Hamilton East; Trevor Robertson, of St. Andrew-St. Patrick; Cathy Schick, of Mississauga East; Patricia Sherson, of Grey; Al Strathdee, of Perth; Ryerson Symons, of Peterborough; and Cynthia Vanbodeeom, of Simcoe Centre.

Will you join me in thanking them for their service here?

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 386, 395, 397 and 398 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 204, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

CITY OF LONDON ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved second reading of Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of London.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY / MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, we were somewhat limited in the estimates of this particular ministry as a fair amount of time was used up in a particular and very worthwhile discussion related to the Boise Cascade involvement. Notwithstanding that, I want to get on the record a couple of concerns that I would have liked to have put in place at that time but was not able to.

I have a concern in two areas that I would like to relate to the minister in these concurrences. I would like him to deal with them as he sees fit and perhaps at some future date to respond in a way that is going to deal with the problems.

The two problems specifically are arson and vandalism. It doesn’t come to mind exactly when I raised the question, but we had a particularly serious rash of arson-related incidents in Niagara. From time to time, it seemed to take on proportions that were way beyond what could be expected as reasonable numbers.

In following that up, we got some statistical information from the intelligence officer in the office of the fire marshal. In response to invitations from local fire departments throughout the province to investigate fires that the local departments suspect to be of an incendiary nature, he indicated such requests are often turned down due to lack of personnel qualified to conduct such investigations.

The investigative techniques used to determine the fire’s cause are becoming more and more sophisticated and, to some extent, may account for the very difficult time the ministry has in sending these kind of people to investigate incendiary fires.

It seems there has been a great change in the type of incendiary fire over the last few years. Where arson for profit used to be the major motivation, in the past few years it seems that vandalism has become the major cause of arson. There seems to be a major increase in incendiary fires in that particular area.

While in other jurisdictions they are combating this problem with awareness programs and seminars, it seems we have to address ourselves to the problem when we view the numbers. In 1965, approximately two per cent of the fires were deliberately set, and by 1977 that had risen to 16 to 17 per cent. The honourable members can see the reason I was so concerned in my attempts to get this on the record. I’m sure the minister is aware of these figures.

[4:00]

It’s always difficult to address ourselves to increased commitments in various areas in the light of increases in cost to the ministry. The numbers speak for themselves. I’m not going to try to put on the record the research that I had done. It’s somewhat of a disappointment to me that we took the time to do the research, but it doesn’t seem appropriate to go in depth into these two issues. I hope I have put my message across in that particular matter.

The other area of concern in many municipalities, which I had hoped to get into in some more depth, is vandalism. It’s another area in which we had given notice that we were going to go into in depth, but I don’t think we can because of time considerations. In passing, it seems the figures there are also astronomical. I hesitate to project what they might have been if local school boards right across the province hadn’t put in mechanisms of their own relating to burglar systems, increasing of night watchmen and such efforts as they could make because of substantial increases, not only in insurance premiums, but in the deductibles allowed because of the huge losses.

As I say, there are many other areas I would like to have dealt with in some kind of depth, but we are somewhat restricted. I don’t think this is the time or the place to go into them in concurrences, but I wanted to get those two matters of concern on the record. I’m hopeful the minister will address himself to these two serious problems and share with us now or in the future what his proposals might be relating to these two concerns I have.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise to give a synopsis of the Solicitor General’s estimates. We had an opportunity to speak about particular issues during the course of the estimates, but I would like to raise in a relatively short period of time some of my concerns in relation to policing and certain issues which have been raised during the course of estimates or during question period in this House.

I want to stress the concerns raised by members on this side of the House in relation to the roles of the Solicitor General and the Attorney General. It seems we have clear evidence that concern exists on the floor of this House, not just from the New Democratic Party, but also from members of the Liberal Party. We conveyed such concern to the Solicitor General during the course of his estimates

I hope the Solicitor General will take this issue seriously and will convey this concern to the Premier in order that concrete action will be taken to correct this situation in relation to the conflict of interest which exists between the role of the Solicitor General and that of the Attorney General by holding the same portfolio.

During the course of the estimates, I raised this concern. It’s time the Solicitor General understands that by holding the two portfolios he won’t have so much time available to look after all the issues which affect one or the other portfolio.

By talking about the Solicitor General, I express my particular concern that we don’t need a part-time minister in Ontario, especially when we are dealing with the $174- million budget he has to look after.

It’s time the Solicitor General takes this task seriously. He has a lot of issues which he has to look after, and we don’t need inaction coming from his ministry. We need comprehensive and legislative action to cover the loopholes which exist in our system and are affecting citizens of this province as well. It’s no time to gamble on this amount of money, $174 million. Because of major concerns expressed by the Solicitor General during consideration of his estimates, we need a full-time minister to look after those concerns as soon as possible.

Also during the estimates, I raised the issue of racism in Metropolitan Toronto. It’s a vivid and strong issue that must be dealt with as soon as possible. I realize the Solicitor General has been undertaking studies to solve certain problems affecting ethnic communities in Metropolitan Toronto, and I have to convey my dismay to the introduction of the citizens’ complaints bill by emphasizing the fact that police complaints are supposed to be investigated by the police.

By introducing this legislation, I don’t think such a bill is going to relieve the apprehension that exists among the ethnic communities in Metropolitan Toronto. I don’t think the new bureaucratic process being set up as a result of this bill is going to solve the concrete problems which the ethnic communities are suffering from.

I’m urging the Solicitor General to revise, in some way, the contents of the bill he introduced in this Legislature. I am aware that such a bill is going to be sent to a committee of the Legislature but, by doing so, I hope the Solicitor General is going to keep his mind open to be flexible enough that the needs and concerns of the interested groups concerned about these problems are going to be incorporated, not just within the principle of the bill, but also within the sections of the bill as well.

I would like to raise the issue of the Cardinal Carter report. The report has been appraised and, when presented to the Ontario Police Commission, it seems that members of the commission were quite happy about the contents and the spirit of the report to alleviate the racial apprehension created as a result of the concrete confrontation between ethnic people and the police force in Metropolitan Toronto.

I would like to emphasize what has been done so far in relation to the report presented by Cardinal Carter. By emphasizing that again, I would like to express my particular concern that the Ontario Police Commission has at no time taken seriously the particular task of implementing the recommendations.

In particular, I would like to give a synopsis of what has been done, and I am sure the Solicitor General is keeping an eye on the whole process. For example, only four recommendations of the Carter report have been implemented to date. The police commission has established a committee with minority groups under Etobicoke Mayor Dennis Flynn. The Metro Toronto police thief, Harold Adamson, has ordered officers to avoid verbal insults to any citizen or face dismissal. The Metropolitan Toronto Police Association president has agreed to provide closer editorial supervision of the News and Views, an unofficial police publication that has printed racist remarks in the past. All six Metro school boards have instituted programs of different intensity to combat racism in the schools. The six other recommendations are under study.

Again, if the report has been overwhelmingly accepted by the Ontario Police Commission and by interested groups here in Metropolitan Toronto, I guess it is understandable enough that some sort of speed is going to take place in relation to the general concerns that have been expressed through the contents of Cardinal Carter’s report.

The bill introduced in the Ontario Legislature on Wednesday proposes a three-year pilot project and a civil review procedure for complaints against police. In relation to that I don’t want to miss in some way the particular concern I have raised in previous estimates, that one of the major problems affecting the citizens of this province when they are in contact with the police officers is the behaviour of police officers.

I guess a lot of problems can be eliminated and completely excluded if the police in some way are going to change their behaviour when they are dealing with or when they are in touch with the public as a whole. In the past I have said that the Ontario Police College should play an important role by making sure that such behaviour is going to change to ensure that relationships between police officers and the public are going to greatly improve in the future.

One thing should be said to the Solicitor General. There is no structure that can be effectively implemented in Ontario if the police behaviour won’t change. Again, I don’t want to accuse all the police forces about their behaviour. There are bad apples, as the Solicitor General and other members have said, in the past and at the present time. But it is the bad apples with the police forces that are causing the problems, and sometimes really serious problems.

It is foolish in a way that the public has been waiting for the citizens’ complaints bill, and here we are confronted again with the same issue, that the police force has to investigate the complaint first and then other components are going to look after the citizens’ complaints.

[4:15]

The attitude expressed by the Solicitor General through the presentation of this bill urges us to present a bill in the Legislature dealing with this issue. We know there is a growing concern in our society about this bill. Dismissal of the main issue, that investigation should be independent and should be seen to be independent, is again incorporated through a bill which won’t solve the problem at all.

I don’t understand why Metropolitan Toronto is faced with this concern. I remember during the course of the Solicitor General’s estimates there was talk about police forces and the Ontario Provincial Police being used as strikebreakers in Ontario, and the Solicitor General was clear in stating that the OPP are not used as strikebreakers in Ontario. But when someone -- I don’t remember who -- raised the issue about regional police officers, the Solicitor General said, “I don’t know anything about that.” I can’t quote the Solicitor General exactly, but the main concept he expressed was that the OPP is not used; there is a possibility that police officers belonging to regional police forces are used, although he was not aware of it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, that is not what was said. Perhaps the honourable member misunderstood what was said, but we certainly didn’t say that.

Mr. Lupusella: The minister said he was not aware of police officers belonging to municipalities, or something to that effect.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I certainly have no information of that nature.

Mr. Lupusella: I agree with the minister. I was trying to state the general principle.

The point is that the Ontario Police Commission in some way falls under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General. The province appoints members to the police commission, and the police commission in turn has full responsibility to report to the Solicitor General all the activities which take place in the regional municipalities. I am sure the Solicitor General should be aware of and should make an attempt to clear up situations like the racial tensions which have developed in Metropolitan Toronto, by making sure the Ontario Police Commission in some way introduces new methods to solve these local problems.

The reason I am saying that is to emphasize two things: Either the members sitting on the Ontario Police Commission do not have a clear and concrete perspective of what is going on in Metropolitan Toronto or they are not interested in solving the problem. My assumption in making this allegation is that there are other municipalities more concerned about local problems, in particular those relating to the general makeup of the ethnic people living in certain municipalities.

As an example I would like to report to the Solicitor General what is happening in Windsor. That municipality has always been concerned about the problems affecting ethnic communities. The police commission in Windsor has been studying, for I don’t know how many years, the makeup of their society by taking into consideration the needs of the ethnic communities as well as of the general populace.

Just a few days ago, for example, I was going through clippings of newspapers, and I was able to find one dated November 24, 1979, from Windsor Star. I want to point out that in Windsor, after 125 years of erratic growth and occasional social turmoil, racial attacks on individuals, or examples of racial discrimination in the work place in Windsor, have been few and far between in recent years -- at least those incidents that reach the courts or draw headlines.

What have they been doing to solve this particular problem? This comparatively benign situation -- and I am just quoting from this article, Mr. Speaker -- can be attributed in part to those agencies preparing to defuse problems before they arise -- groups and individuals dedicated to preventing the rash of problems that Toronto and other Canadian centres have experienced recently.

For example, the Windsor police department includes studies on ethnic attitudes and sensitivities in its annual training program and refresher courses, and is preparing to participate in seminars with new arrivals next year. This is a concrete action, a concrete interest, from the Windsor police department, to try to take into consideration the special lifestyles expressed by different ethnic communities living in that particular area.

If they have been doing that for years, I don’t understand why the Ontario Police Commission is not frying to incorporate or implement concrete studies which defuse this overwhelming problem affecting lots of ethnic people living here in Metropolitan Toronto.

“Windsor now” -- just continuing the quote from that article -- “has become a byword around the world for its harmonious environment. Windsor can be a mean city right now. It is a mean city because the old economic anxieties are here again.”

The recent problems in Toronto between police and black immigrants -- violent, sometimes fatal, confrontations, have led to investigation by Gerald Emmett Cardinal Carter of the treatment of racial minorities in that city. Other Canadian centres are examining their own attitudes to new arrivals. The police department here has attempted to stay ahead of potential problems by training its personnel to better understand foreign customs and attitudes.

We have actively sought to recruit from among the ethnic communities in this city. Just two weeks ago, I received a few phone calls at my office from some people belonging to the ethnic community who had applied to the Ontario Police Commission to become police officers; it seems their applications have been turned down. I don’t know the reason. It seems the Ontario Police Commission has said it would be open to the public. But applicants are receiving a simple letter thanking them for their interest in becoming a police officer, but saying their application has not been accepted. I would like to know what is the matter. What is going on when someone tries to apply. I am sure the Solicitor General is going to receive a few letters in relation to that. I hope he will be able to give me an explanation why ethnic people’s applications have been turned down. Maybe there are reasons; I don’t know, I am not aware of them. I would be interested to know why their applications have been turned down.

The police chief of Windsor stated it took some time before fully understanding that some immigrants enjoy standing on the street corners on a hot summer night and that such action does not indicate preparation for a riot. At least, Windsor has been prepared to take some concrete action, as I stated before, to understand the lifestyle of ethnic people. Sometimes the presence of police officers might create problems among the different ethnic communities.

Concluding this particular concern, the point I would like to raise is that the Cardinal Carter report was praised when it was introduced but to date it seems there is little action going on aside from the studies that are going to be completed -- I don’t know when. I hope the Solicitor General will see some sense of urgency in relation to these particular issues in order that those studies can be finalized as soon as possible.

I am sure the Solicitor General is aware that the citizens’ complaints bureau also has been criticized in an editorial in the Toronto Star. By emphasizing the principle of that investigation or investigations which are to be conducted by the police force, they won’t be seen by the public as being independent.

As I stated before, I am trying to be relatively brief, but I don’t want to miss the opportunity to raise the issue of the Ontario Police College. The Ontario Police College at present is a waste of time and money, because the police officers are going there. I had the opportunity to visit such a centre a few years ago with the then Solicitor General, and it seems the prime objective of recruits’ spending time there -- before, it was 12 weeks, and now it has been extended to 15 weeks -- is simply to do physical exercise and to learn how to shoot.

My prime concern is that the Ontario Police College should be the university of the police forces in the province. If we are going to revamp and restudy the programs that are conducted in 15 weeks, an overall study of what the Ontario Police College can be in the future would also be a good investment for the efficiency of the police officers. In turn, the police officers will show such efficiency in our society as well.

I hope the Solicitor General will take me seriously when I state that an overall study should start immediately to make sure the money currently spent at the Ontario Police College is worth it and the programs are of prime importance. I want to re-emphasize the principle that, as far as I am concerned, the way I sense and view the Ontario Police College is that it should be transformed into a place in which the recruits are going to take full advantage of their training and not just be there and spend their time only in physical activities and training to shoot. We need more than that.

[4:30]

There has been a concern lately about increasing the number of OPP officers as a result of the carnage taking place on the highways. I share the Solicitor General’s concerns. I share his prime objective to reduce fatal tragedies on the highways; so the only solution for him is to increase the number of OPPs.

I had the opportunity to go through the contents of a letter sent by the Premier to the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke), in relation to this issue. The Premier expressed just concern about this problem.

As a result of the restraint program, there is no way action will be taken to make sure some money is going to be allocated so the number of OPP officers will increase.

I can accept in general terms the Solicitor General’s view. It might be true that, with more visibility on the highways, the number of fatal accidents will be reduced. I don’t know. For me, it’s just a dilemma. But I don’t understand why the government is so persistent, as a result of the restraint program, not to share the concern of the Solicitor General.

The Premier, instead of following the route of increasing the numbers of OPP officers, wants new methods implemented to make sure such a decrease eventually will take place. I don’t know if such a system of new methods is going to work. The OPP has I been trying to experiment with new methods. Even the last one, eventually suggested by the Solicitor General, to increase the visibility of the OPP on the highways, I don’t think that situation changed.

My last concern -- I don’t want to spend one hour expressing this concern to the Solicitor General -- is that in the past I have been critical of police officers spending 75 per cent of their time in issuing traffic violation tickets.

The Solicitor General is aware that crime is increasing in Ontario. When I talk about crime, I am talking about serious crime as well. With the present system, the police officer has an obligation under the Police Act to make sure that any offender appears before the courts. There is no problem about this, but there is one thing which is so anachronistic. I want to share this concern with the Solicitor General.

When people are appearing before the courts for traffic violation tickets, when the judge is stating whether or not the offender wants to pay his fine or wants to go to jail, it seems the only position that is pursued is to make sure the offender is going to pay instead of going to jail.

The reason I emphasize this particular problem is that I received a letter from a constituent of mine who was inclined to go to jail instead of paying the ticket. Since his licence was suspended, there was no option open to the offender but to go to jail. I hope the Solicitor General in his capacity also as Attorney General is going to correct the situation, at least when the verdict is stated in court. Why is the judge asking the offender whether he wants to go to jail or to pay the ticket? At least, the option is open. If the final result is that the offender has to pay the ticket, why is the judge asking the question if he wants to go to jail? It’s something which the Solicitor General should take a look at.

Serious crime is of great concern to our society. A survey has been taken lately asking the question of the public what its main concern was. They all answered that crime was the big problem. Even though I realize that OPP officers, in co-operation with municipal officers, are carrying out certain tasks to fight crime -- and I am making particular reference to Operation Alpha, which has been a successful one -- I would like to see Operation Beta and Operation Gamma. Eventually, I would like to see Operation Omega. I hope this type of co-operation is going to increase. I hope the Solicitor General is going to emphasize more the role of the police officer to combat crime instead of spending time on traffic violation tickets.

I hope the Solicitor General in the course of meetings with municipalities -- and I am making particular reference to one which took place in Sudbury -- expresses his particular concern about the time that is spent by police officers in court and outside to catch traffic violators and about the frustration they feel by going to court when offenders are not paying the tickets. We understand that. I don’t want them to be on the streets.

I know the Solicitor General and I are concerned that the law enforcement process is taking place. As I stated before, the public is more concerned about serious crime and that something should be done. Realizing that 75 per cent of police work is spent on the streets just to issue tickets, I see something that is really anachronistic.

I also read articles that organized crime is a problem. The Solicitor General is aware that the figures show almost 1,000 people -- I hope not all are in Ontario -- almost 1,000 people who are involved in organized crime are living here in Canada. I don’t know what kind of activities they are performing, but I hope the Solicitor General is also emphasizing the need to solve this serious problem.

None the less, something else should be said about white-collar crime. Computer crime now is something to which we have to devote our time to make sure new techniques and new programs are going to be implemented to ensure that society is going to be protected.

The motto of the police force is “To serve and protect.” If we are going to undertake the task of fighting serious crime in a very serious and concrete way, then I will be sure the public is getting in return the protection for which the public is looking.

I would like to conclude my statement to the Solicitor General by saying that I hope some of these concerns are going to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have one brief item I want to raise on the concurrence.

First of all, I want to thank the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) and the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) for the courtesy they extended me during the debate on the estimates in committee, because I did take a considerable amount of time. I thought it was worthwhile, but I really appreciate the courtesy that the Liberal Solicitor General’s critic extended in the committee.

I want to raise one item with the Solicitor General as it relates to the matter of search warrants which I raised during his estimates but involving a subsequent event. I know this is not a committee debate so we can’t have questions back and forth.

I’ve been disturbed because for the last three or four days in northwestern Ontario there have been rumours -- and I say categorically they are rumours; I have no substantiation on this but when I checked back with Thunder Bay today the rumours persisted -- that 20 to 30 new search warrants have been issued through sworn information by the OPP involving individual homes in northwestern Ontario, either in connection with the dispute of lumber and sawmill workers and Boise Cascade Canada Limited or the so-called bombing threats or spite incidents.

Frankly, I hope such warrants have not been issued, certainly not in that blanket way where apparently 20 to 30 have been so issued. I would hope I could get from the Solicitor General the assurance that, if such warrants have been issued, they will not be used in the way the six warrants issued on October 5 were, to harass individuals and trade union members. That is a blatant misuse of a search warrant.

I want to get a categorical assurance from the Solicitor General I that search warrants will not be used to harass either trade union members or the officers of a trade union who are engaged in a legitimate strike. I want to suggest to the Solicitor General that if the OPP are considering issuing further search warrants in connection with the incidents to which I refer, they had better be far more sure than they were the last time that they have substantial evidence before they go ransacking either through union offices or people’s private homes.

[4:45]

I found the rumours disturbing. I state that they are only rumours as far as I know. I would like to know if the Solicitor General has been informed by the Ontario Provincial Police of their actions in this regard. I would like the Solicitor General to let the House know whether, as a matter of policy, he is informed ahead of time when such action is contemplated by the OPP, particularly in a sensitive situation like this one.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) is concerned, I’m not aware of these search warrants. I will certainly convey his concerns to the OPP. I think they will obviously be interested in the concerns of any member of the Legislature. I will be happy to do that.

There were a number of matters raised by the members opposite during this concurrence, much of which had been raised during the estimates, so I don’t propose to deal with them in detail now. I’d simply like to say once again that their concerns have been noted.

I would like to express to the members opposite my appreciation for their contribution to the estimates process and to say, as I said to the Attorney General’s critics this morning, that my door is always open. I’m always very happy to discuss these matters with the honourable members at any time. I think it comes with the duties of the Solicitor General which largely relate to effective and fair law enforcement. We all share the same desires and the same goals in that respect. I want to assure them I’ll be happy to deal with these matters further at any time that is considered appropriate by them.

Resolution concurred in.

Resolution for supply for the following ministry was concurred in by the House:

Provincial Secretariat for Justice.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the minister to something that is a continuing problem in my own area and maybe in many other areas. Brought to my attention quite often is the problem of finding nursing-home beds for people discharged from hospitals on the recommendation of their doctor or the doctors in the hospital, if they’re assigned to a certain division of a hospital.

What we’re finding in some cases is we’re removing people from hospitals and putting them in lodging homes that are not equipped for nursing-home care, although these patients have already had approval given for nursing-home care. I want to draw that to the attention of the minister. I know he has been waiting and has had some recommendations about nursing home beds in Essex county and the city of Windsor. However, I want to draw that to his attention today. It’s a recurring problem and I think it’s getting worse. I would hope that something could be done soon.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a few moments to the concurrence in the Health estimates and to note, among other things, the travels of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) in these recent weeks where he is clearly going around with his new-found financial resources. This morning I noticed a story in the Toronto press about the visitation of the honourable minister to east Hamilton, where he has announced another capital project which no doubt has been greeted with a great deal of local and regional applause.

It wasn’t too long ago that I read he had visited Mississauga and blessed that particular community with an addition to one of their large hospitals. It wasn’t very long ago when I read in the Scarborough press -- which I read with great regularity -- that he had announced another project which had been promised some time ago to the citizens of Scarborough. It is interesting in this connection to reflect upon how this particular year began for the Minister of Health.

When we give concurrence this afternoon, it is worth reflecting upon the circumstances under which the putative Premier, the now Minister of Health, came to the social development committee with his estimates and projects for the year 1979-80. He came to the people earlier this year offering the message of restraint, offering new active-treatment bed ratios that were going to have the practical effect of restricting growth in the public hospital sector in this province. In fact, he had announced other related projects which were going to materialize from his restraint ethics.

We had the opportunity in this past year to look at the particular program he was offering, and in particular to assess the active-treatment bed ratios that were going to be the hallmark of his projects and program in the active-treatment sector. I must say I feel a great deal of credit is owed to all members of the social development committee. While it hasn’t been too public, the effect of that particular exercise this May and June has been a significant one.

We can’t prove it, but those of us given to the direction of revelation know that some time, probably early in June, it was a plaintive and, some tell me, a pitiful Minister of Health, who knocked on the door of the present Premier (Mr. Davis) and simply said:

“I refuse to be the bum-boy for this government any longer. I cannot abide the kind of assault that is being continuously waged against the program which I cannot defend.” The social development committee of May and June made it very clear that the poor, beleaguered, ambitious, the rumoured upwardly mobile Minister of Health was being put in an increasingly untenable position.

I understand from very good sources that his friend the Premier, the man who on a regular basis he supplies with medication here in this question period, was understanding, recognizing in the member for Don Mills certain images of his earlier days, did grant what the press reported were rather significant supplementary estimates in the order of $60 million to $80 million.

I just want to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleagues in the social development committee, for in that one limited initiative they stopped the destructive Ministry of Health from realizing what it wished to earlier this particular year. I expect and fully anticipate I will never again see a minister of the Treasury come before this House and expect us to allow a 3.5 per cent increase in Ontario Health Insurance Plan premiums. I never again expect a Minister of Health -- this one or a successor -- to come before the House generally, or the social development committee particularly, and try to put over the kind of ill-devised scheme, such as the one that the Minister of Health had dissected before his very eyes this past spring in the social development committee.

I congratulate him for extracting more money out of his cabinet colleagues to stop an assault on the public hospital sector in this province, and I wait with great interest to see some indication of a similar success in the medical sector.

It was interesting to hear the Minister of Health pontificate in question period today about the initiatives and views of his friend the Premier and himself on the medical question. We never did get an answer as to what, if anything, the government is going to do to redress its own admitted public dissatisfaction with the 18 per cent opted-out physician rate in this province.

Can he confirm or will he deny the reports in the press the other day and the statements in this House that the Premier and the minister and the government generally are unhappy and are not satisfied with the rate of opting out? If it is the case that they are not satisfied, will he undertake to indicate before the House rises this week what strategies he is going to apply to deal with this dissatisfaction?

I want to see something more than the kind of sleazy politics that have taken place here over the past six months with private members’ bills, where the government has played a sleazy game in finding it necessary to block recorded votes on certain initiatives from certain private members but being so duty-bound as to allow votes to take place on other matters of related interest. I don’t hold the Minister of Health responsible for that. It is his junior colleague, and that’s the kindest word I will ever offer to the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), the government whip, who I suspect was responsible for the rather anomalous way in which those two private members’ bills were dealt with.

I want to know from the Minister of Health what his dissatisfaction, if any, is with the present situation. He knows there is in this province a body of opinion which reflects very unhappily upon the present situation. We have discussed it in estimates, and I was interested to hear from him today. I wasn’t satisfied in my interest as to what he plans to do to redress the alleged dissatisfaction of his government in that regard.

I am going to be most interested to see what this government has to say to the Hall commission on medicare. I await, from the present Minister of Health, a leadership which I might respond to in something other than press releases which indicate his ongoing pleasure and personal satisfaction, if not in kissing the babies, certainly in cutting the ribbons at these new hospital projects, expansions or whatever.

Mr. Ruston: You mean he has stopped kissing babies?

Mr. Conway: It is rumoured that it happened a short time ago. But I do want to hear from the minister at a not-too-distant opportunity what it is he is going to tell the Hall commission. Is he satisfied with medicare as it’s currently funded and controlled by the federal authorities? If not, what is he going to suggest to his friend from the federal administration as to remedial action?

I expect this government will take a forward, progressive and a leadership role in that inquiry struck by the federal government, an inquiry which is very appropriate and very timely.

I conclude by recommending to the Minister of Health that it might be time to exercise some leadership in issues in health where I feel he has not done so in the past. He is, as I said earlier, never so happy as when he is piling bricks upon mortar and smiling for the cameras across the province. In his travels, his resilience in the cheque-handing-out process is unequalled. There are many across the way who would do well to enrol in the Dennis Timbrell school of political advancement.

[5:00]

In conclusion, I want to suggest that the Minister of Health owes it to those of us who supported the recommendation we signed in the select committee report on health-care costs and financing to analyse thoroughly the impact in the first year of the chronic-care copayment scheme. I have increasing reason to believe that in some restricted categories we are advancing, allowing and supporting an intolerable discrimination which is a particular hardship for senior citizens.

Both publicly and privately, I have spoken to the Minister of Health of my concern in this connection; I, for one, will be looking forward, in the early part of the new year, to seeing from him some kind of statistical analysis and general policy assessment of that particular initiative in terms of the impact financially and, more important, in human, social terms.

Unlike others in this chamber, I do not retreat from or retract my earlier commitment. I fully believe in the principle of proper incentives in those areas, and that is well known by the minister. But I will not support, and I will not allow my colleagues to be drawn into supporting, some kind of selective discrimination of those on fixed incomes in particular. They are not in a position to deal with the kind of discrimination which appears to be implicit in some cases, and explicit in others, in that particular program.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, there are three issues I want to deal with, and it will come as no surprise to the minister that the first issue is the Etobicoke General Hospital and the shortage of beds we have been having there.

The minister will recall his own study showed that in November 1978 the borough of Etobicoke was in need of 130 beds.

The Peel study similarly showed the need for beds at Etobicoke General. The minister wasn’t content with that. He gave various excuses, after giving us some beds in the psychiatric ward and some obstetric beds; somehow he seems to think we could put our medical-surgical patients in the psychiatric ward. He then sent it to the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto. That council has come out and said Etobicoke General definitely has the need for beds. I would like to know when the administration of our hospital is going to get written confirmation from the government that it is prepared to fund those beds.

I understand that the deputy minister has been telling the hospital to go ahead and organize because they are going to have those 36 beds; however, they have no written confirmation of adequate funding for those beds. We would simply like to know when they are going to get that little piece of paper that will give them the security to go ahead.

Needless to say, in this particular case, the Etobicoke General has been turning patients away. I have confirmed that with the ministry. Without in any way wanting to be provocative, or wanting to use a personal example, I have to tell the minister that I experienced the effects of this in a very direct way.

Very recently my mother had a growth that needed to be removed. It was an open sore and had to be removed, but it was not deemed to be emergency surgery. She is 75 or 76 years old and was in a certain amount of discomfort with this sore. She had to wait a couple of weeks to get into Etobicoke General, even though her surgeon was prepared to perform the operation at the earliest possible date. I know there are a number of people who have experienced similar discomforts.

Admittedly, there was no danger of my mother dying as a result of this open wound on the top of her head which had resulted from a skin growth. She was in no kind of danger but it was a painful experience, one of concern not only to her, but also to those of us around her who saw the unnecessary discomfort and suffering which resulted from the shortage of beds. I am sure there are many other cases I could have used. I simply used this because it is a case that was very personal to me. I don’t in any way feel my mother is any more of a martyr, or that I am or that my family has in any way suffered greatly as a result of it, but it was something that really impressed on me in a very real gut way the problem of the shortage of beds.

I would like to bring up a second matter with the minister, and I would like him to answer only in a way that will in no way reveal the name of the physician or the people involved. A number of months ago, I brought to the minister’s attention some allegations and a sworn statement concerning a particular doctor who had an interesting way of overbilling by putting ads in a newspaper advertising for help and then doing medical examinations on people who applied for the position and sending the bill to OHIP.

I understand some charges have been laid. If the minister cannot answer at this time because he doesn’t in any way want to affect the case I will understand that. If he can give me an answer, either on the record or simply the promise of a letter, I will be happy to learn what is going on in that particular situation.

There is another matter I would like to deal with, which is a matter on which I wasn’t sure whether I should deal with this minister or the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman). I expect this minister can bring the matter to the attention of his colleague and perhaps come to grips with it. It concerns a bid for the Mississauga Hospital contract. I am in no way suggesting the bid was improperly awarded. It simply poses a problem to which I would like the minister to address himself.

Isolation Systems Limited is a company in the Queensway area that manufactures hospital equipment. It put in a bid for the Mississauga General Hospital contract. The components of the bid were for 72 active-treatment units, 22-bed intensive-care and coronary-care units, four floor-ceiling isolation power columns, eight ceiling columns with isolated power and one neonatal service strip. Under the terms of the bid on the contract the suppliers were requested to supply a lot price, which was broken down by individual elements of the total.

We can look at the bidders. As per the specifications, Isolation Systems were the base bid, the preferred product, and they prepared a bid. Isolation Systems is a Canadian manufacturing company recently purchased, incidentally, from an American ownership -- with facilities in Arnprior and in Toronto. Other manufacturers in the action included Canadian Liquid Air, which is Canadian- owned; Amsco, which is a US-owned distributor of wall systems manufactured by Quebec-based Paramedico, which is privately owned and subsidized by the Quebec government; Borg-Warner, a US-owned company which came in with a high bid; Hill Rom, which came in with no bid; and Ohio Medical, which offered no bid.

The bidders’ prices were given to five competing contractors. The winning contractor was Ellis-Don Limited, but the projected costs were approximately 50 per cent over budget. At the close of tenders for wall systems, Isolation Systems and Amsco -- that is, the American Sterilizer Company -- were extremely close. The proximity of the bids was in the nature of less than five per cent on a bid of $211,000. To date this company has not been able to discover just how close these bids were, but hearsay has provided the following comments: Amsco submitted solely a lot price on the date of the close of the bid. I am informed the company in my area was beaten slightly on every component of the total bid, Subsequently, various sources inform us that Isolation Systems had indeed provided lower prices on portions of the total bid. While we are unable to identify the exact total bid figures, the two bids were extremely close.

The problem is not that this Quebec-based firm got the bid. The problem is, I have here another contract or an application for contract to the Verdun hospital in Montreal. We can see when we go over the contract that our Ontario competitors, which include this company that was outbid very slightly, by less than five per cent, for a contract in Mississauga, in fact lose the bids in Quebec because of Quebec’s policy to penalize out-of-the-province manufacturers.

The Amsco and Isolation Systems bids reflect the strong competitive nature of both of the manufacturers. They are both quality manufacturers. However, this US-owned manufacturer distributes a product subsidized by a provincial government. This Quebec manufacturer has a virtual stranglehold on the Quebec market, and is able to come in and ever so slightly underbid an Ontario-based manufacturer who cannot have access to the same kind of bidding in the Quebec market.

It seems to me we had a problem with chickens and eggs a while back. Both this government and the Manitoba government responded very quickly, as well they should. If we have a Confederation, if Quebec is still a part of Canada, then surely they have to behave in the way the other provinces behave. If not there should be certain con- sequences to that. If we are able to respond on behalf of our farmers, as well we should have, and as well the Manitoba government should have, then surely there must be some answers to protect some of our Ontario-based manufacturers from what amounts to unfair competition from Quebec when the Ontario manufacturers cannot have the same access to competition in that market.

I realize it is a difficult problem. I would hope the minister can discuss it with the Minister of Industry and Tourism. However, if he has any comments or insights at the present time, since much of the financing of the hospitals does come from his ministry, I would appreciate hearing his comments.

Mr. Ziemba: I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Health the Ontario Drug Benefits Plan and some of the problems that exist with the plan. I am sure he realizes that the way the Tory government has administered it this is one of the most wasteful plans. It is buccaneer free enterprise run amok.

This plan was originally designed for people on welfare but it was extended to people who receive old age pensions. The billings have gone up from $69.8 million in 1976 to $86.6 million in 1977 and $108 million in 1978. There wouldn’t be any 1979 figures yet, but the figures are up from $69 million to $108 million in three years of operations. People on welfare receive it as well as those receiving family benefits, vocational rehabilitation assistance and people in extended-health facilities.

When the Ontario Pharmaceutical Association agreed to opt into the plan they insisted they maintain their 30-day dispensing fee period. This might have made some sense back in 1975 when welfare recipients were receiving Ontario drug benefits. The argument then was somebody might go back to work; so why put them on benefits for any longer than 30 days; keep them coming back. But the pharmacists had another motive, and that was they liked the $2.82 dispensing fee coming in every 30 days.

I learned about this when I was first elected. A woman wrote to me from west Toronto and I’ll read her letter into the record.

[5:15]

“I am inclined to have slightly elevated blood pressure and have been taking two 25 milligrams of hydrochlorothiazide tablets for the last two years. My doctor then gave me another prescription for the same kind of tablet. I decided to use, for the first time, my privilege card for drug benefits.” She had just received her drug benefit card.

“Since I was determined to get the best deal possible for the government, I took my prescription to three different local pharmacies and asked the price of 100 tablets. I received three quotations: $3.60, $3.65, and $3.31.

“When I presented my privilege card I was promptly informed that I could have only a month’s supply. Since I needed the tablets I had the prescription filled for nine tablets. I asked the pharmacist what he would charge the government for that prescription. It was $2.35. I multiplied $2.35 by 12 and obtained $28.20. Then my blood pressure really rose.

“I could purchase a year’s supply of my needed tablets for $3.31, but under the drug benefit plan the taxpayers would have to pay $28.20, a bonus for the pharmacist of $24.89, minus the cost of 11 plastic containers.” That would just add to our pollution problem.

She concludes: “Most citizens are delighted that such a plan has been implemented and do not object to supporting it with their taxes, but this is no reason they should be asked to pay exorbitant sums to a business group that has been doing quite well financially, even before the drug benefits plan came into effect.”

Earlier this year I contacted 19 pharmacies across this province -- pharmacies in Toronto, Scarborough, Burlington, Windsor, Thunder Bay and Barrie -- and only one of those 19 pharmacies offered to fill a three-month supply. Most of them didn’t know that this was allowed under government regulations.

Two of the pharmacists stated: “If we put though an extra two-month’s supply the government will only pay for one month.” That’s the confusion that exists in the minds of most of the pharmacists. The remaining 16 pharmacists flatly refused to dispense for more than 30 days, stating that this is a government regulation.

The provincial auditor had a look at the way the plan was administered, and he talks about the 30-day dispensing period.

“It is estimated that in the 1979-80 fiscal year approximately $49.5 million will be paid by ODB for dispensing fees alone. If the number of prescriptions were reduced by 10 per cent as suggested, almost $5 million in savings would result. However, no basis was provided for the 10 per cent reduction.”

I would suggest that the cost of this plan could be reduced by more than the $5 million the provincial auditor suggests by simply extending the 30-day dispensing fee to the normal dispensing fee period. Why should someone who receives an Ontario drug benefit card be discriminated against by the pharmacist simply because they have the card? Why can’t they get their prescriptions in the same way they were getting their prescriptions before they came on the plan?

I have received some mail on this issue that I would like to read into the record. This was written by somebody in Arnprior, Ontario.

“The report of your concern with the abuse of the Ontario Drug Benefits Plan certainly was welcome. I have been fighting this unsavoury practice on a personal basis for some time and so far have succeeded only in having my doctor prescribe for 100 tablets to be taken as directed. Prior to the inception of the plan, I was able to get prednisone tablets by the 1000 from the Vanguard Prescription Drug Store Limited in Toronto. The last order was returned marked, ‘We cannot send prescription drugs through the mail.’”

Even this, I don’t believe.

“I am obliged to take three separate drugs daily for the rest of my life, and this refusal by the druggist to dispense more than a month’s supply could leave me with an obligatory visit to the drug store monthly for 20 years.”

This man has to go back every 30 days for the rest of his life. Here he talks about letters he says he has sent to Honourable William Davis, Honourable Frank Drea, Honourable D. Timbrell, Paul Yakabuski, Mike Cassidy, asking all of them to please put a stop to this costly, wasteful and inconvenient practice which seems to make it as difficult for those over age 65 as possible.

“Thank you for your efforts, do keep up the good work.” Well that’s as it should be.

Here’s a letter from someone in Weston:

“Early last week the drugs and pricing department of the Ministry of Health contacted me by phone and asked if one of its liaison officers could call. He arrived later in the day and explained that many complaints came from senior citizens who would find it very difficult to journey to the department’s offices on Overlea Boulevard. He explained that one of the conditions in the drug benefits plan was that prescriptions would be filled by the month. In reply I stated that the government shows irresponsibility with the taxpayer’s money and weakness in allowing such a condition to be imposed.

“I pointed out that many senior citizens, whose health is obviously not the best, are forced to walk a considerable distance to have a prescription filled. Under wintry conditions, especially those we have recently experienced, such a person’s health would suffer more than it gained by the prescription. A six-months or even a three-months prescription is not only far easier on the citizen’s health and safety but also on the government’s pocketbook.

“He then pointed out that oftentimes a doctor will change a prescription. I countered that the doctor would or should know of that possibility and therefore stipulate the smaller time limit on the prescription form.

“Finally, he mentioned the government is constantly seeking ways and means to improve this service in all of its aspects and some thought has already been given to extending the monthly prescription period. Like so many political statements and promises given these days, this is so nebulous as to be meaningless.”

I received a number of letters as well, Mr. Speaker, from pharmacists who supported the 30-day plan. Why not? They are getting $2.82 every time someone comes in.

“Dear Sir: As a third-generation pharmacist, I resent very much your accusation that the pharmacists are ripping off the drug benefits plan. The government of Ontario agreed to the 34-day supply at the time Parcost was introduced and seems to prefer that the pharmacist submit their accounts once a month. The up-to-date thinking re health care for the elderly is that loneliness is the biggest problem. Therefore, if they visit the pharmacy once a month they have at least one social contact. For example, long before the drug benefits plan was thought of I had a customer who telephoned twice a month for half of her prescription. The reason was that I would visit her after hours, twice a month, instead of once a month.

“Pharmacists are now expected to keep drug profiles of customers and once-a-month monitoring is good. It also reduces the supply of drugs for accidental or improper use and encourages patient compliance.”

He makes an argument for social contact, but that social contact, Mr. Speaker, is costing the taxpayers over $50 million a year. The letter also makes a few other arguments that I won’t go into because they are just self-serving. I believe this free enterprise approach to the Ontario Drug Benefits Plan is improper. I have complained about this since April 1976 and the government still continues to mismanage this program. The provincial auditor has finally twigged to this scam. He is strongly urging the minister to do away with the 30-day limit for dispensing. I hope the minister agrees to the provincial auditor’s suggestions.

Mr. Warner: Just briefly; today’s answer in the House, and to questions posed regarding the number of opted out physicians, particularly the specialists, certainly confirms what I suspected from the outset of this serious issue. I think perhaps it’s the most serious social issue we have grappled with in this province for some time. The minister, from the outset, has been on a course of premeditated destruction of the health-care system.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, privilege or whatever: We’re here to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Health and not to consider some kind of ridiculous fiction being created by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. It’s patently ridiculous.

Mr. Warner: It’s hardly a point of privilege or order as the Speaker certainly recognizes.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Will the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere continue with his arguments?

Mr. Warner: Yes. I was attempting to be brief; so I certainly won’t be provoked by the irresponsible remarks of the Minister of Health.

The debate that went on in the estimates, the questions which were asked and the questions which have been asked consistently in session period by my leader and others, have indicated very clearly, and we’ve read the answers back to the minister, that the minister is allowing the health-care system in the province of Ontario to deteriorate. He does that; he does it deliberately.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Oh come on. I’m ashamed to even think you represent a Scarborough riding and talk like that.

Mr. Warner: I didn’t quite catch that last comment.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Will the member ignore the interjections and just proceed with what he wishes to say?

Mr. Warner: I’ll ignore the interjections. The government would love to return to those days of insurance company involvement. That’s what it’s all about. Members opposite know that and I know that, and that’s why they allow it to deteriorate. Otherwise they wouldn’t sit on the sidelines doing nothing, they would attempt to solve the problems which exist in the health-care system instead of allowing it to deteriorate, but they sit idly by.

Perhaps the minister is right and my allegation is unfounded. It isn’t a premeditated destruction; it’s simply his incapacity to be the Minister of Health. He isn’t able to solve the problems.

Whether the minister is willing to admit it or not, there are problems in the healthcare system. That should come through to him at some point: there are problems. There are doctors who are upset with the system and yet he is unable or incapable of finding an answer to it, or he is simply allowing it to deteriorate. In either case, I don’t find that acceptable. I think it’s incumbent upon the minister to find an answer to the problems, to ensure that our citizens have the health-care system that they deserve, which is the best health-care system, instead of sitting on the sidelines.

It gets worse. He wasn’t alarmed, obviously, he showed no particular concern about it; but I’ll tell him I’m alarmed when I learn that 85 per cent of the anaesthetists in Metro Toronto had opted out. That doesn’t bother him, he really doesn’t care about that; I do, because I happen to know there are constituents of mine for whom that will pose a problem. But you see, Mr. Speaker, that doesn’t mean anything to the minister; if it did he would do something about it, he’d solve the problem. I wish he would solve the problem, but I hold no hope for it.

[5:30]

In conclusion, I certainly enjoyed participating in the collection of one part of the 275,000 signatures on the petition we presented. Of course it’s beyond that now. I found in my own area, as I went about the shopping centres and door to door, that people are deeply concerned. They knew what the minister is doing and they do not understand the inaction, they just don’t. They are losing faith in the Conservative government.

Whether the minister wants to believe it or not, the health-care system is the most important social gain we have made in this province. It shouldn’t be removed.

Mr. Conway: I have a brief point, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: You have already spoken.

Mr. Conway: It is a point which I think you’ll allow if you’ll just give me a moment or two. It just dawned on me when I concluded my remarks earlier, Mr. Speaker -- and I know you would not wish the opportunity to pass -- that we will not have an opportunity prior to the great event in the spring to wish our good friend the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) all the happiness marital bliss is going to bring him early in March. I’m told that on March 8 Dennis ceases being a menace and that he will become a reformed and more positive personality. I know, Mr. Speaker, you’ll join with me in wishing him well, and that in depth.

Mr. Speaker: Is that from one who knows?

Mr. Conway: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: First let me join in the remarks of the previous speaker in wishing the minister well in at least one area of this life. I’m told that as long as either one’s personal life is in a satisfactory condition or one’s professional life is in a satisfactory condition, or one’s financial life is in a satisfactory condition, if one of those is all right one can maintain one’s hold on sanity. I’m sure all of us wish the minister well in his personal life and even his financial life; occasionally we have some questions about his professional life.

I just want to speak very briefly on one issue that has been raised largely by my friend and colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman). That’s the question of transportation costs for people from northern Ontario going to southern Ontario for health services, particularly when they are not emergency services.

I might first of all relate a personal experience. I have a young son who has a minor hearing problem that we had referred to a specialist in Toronto. When we got to the office we got very good service. We found the doctor had opted out, but we went through with the examination, in spite of my ideological preferences, because there’s no doubt that when it comes to one’s own family health comes first, it comes before ideological preferences. It is important to all of us just how much that affects us.

The interesting thing was that the doctor happened that very morning to have a patient who had a minor skin cancer whose operation he had to postpone three months, this was during the summertime, simply because a bed was not available. I put it to the minister that in that case -- first of all in the case of transporting my own son, that’s relatively easy for me.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Was he at Sick Kids?

Mr. Foulds: No, he was sent to the Wellesley. He has a hearing problem.

As I was saying, the transportation part of it is relatively easy for me because I’m flown here fairly regularly. I’m fairly well off. A member’s salary is no great shakes but it’s not bad; it’s not as good as a cabinet minister’s but it’s not had. I can afford the fare.

The service we got was excellent. There’s no doubt about that. I have no quarrel with that.

However, it did strike me that it was unfortunate we had to bring my son to Toronto. It occurred to me there are a lot of people who would not have done So for the relatively minor problem he has, in other words, there would he a block to access to medical services in different circumstances. He has a slight hearing impediment for high notes. It means he can hear normal conversation perfectly well.

We are relatively well off because I come to Toronto regularly. That’s easy for us because as a member I maintain an apartment here in Toronto, I don’t have extra accommodation costs for my son. But every other person who comes from the north for care incurs those costs and is inhibited from complete and total access to our health system.

It is important that in more serious but not emergency cases the minister take a look at the situation. Maybe he has to discuss this with the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) and bring in other ministries involved, but I believe that someone who has a detached retina -- I had a case like this I spoke to the minister about; the doctor in Thunder Bay, who is a very good eye specialist, did not think he should do the operation himself, maybe because he didn’t have the backup staffing or whatever. He arranged for a specialist in Toronto to do the operation within five days because he felt, and I had a letter written to the effect, that if the woman did not have the retina reattached very quickly she would go blind in that eye. That was not considered an emergency operation when it was appealed to the minister through his ministry so no part of that woman’s fare was paid.

I know the family involved. The couple is retired. They’re not broke, they can probably absorb the cost, but they should not have had to. I feel very strongly about this issue, I feel the cost of transportation from northern Ontario to the specialist centres -- Toronto or Winnipeg, because in some cases it is cheaper to go to Winnipeg when the service is available -- should be met.

I know it is a difficult problem for the minister because unfortunately this government, although I don’t think this applies to the minister personally, has a narrow view of the responsibilities of each of its ministries. That’s why I’m glad the Provincial Secretary for Social Development is here, because I saw the letter the minister sent to my colleague from Algoma regarding the case of Lesley Voznek, in which the minister talks about the cost involved being a social cost, not a medical cost.

I put it to the minister that that is a very narrow definition. In a large number of cases he is extending that definition of social cost much too widely, because in the case I raised with the minister by correspondence, and that I’ve referred to here, there was not just a social cost involved. There was a legitimate medical cost even with the minister’s narrow definition, because the doctor in Thunder Bay was concerned that if the operation was not done quickly -- it didn’t have to be done tomorrow but it had to be done within a very short period of time -- she would have suffered permanent damage. That may not be an emergency in the fashion we immediately rush people to a hospital in an ambulance because of severe trauma as a result of an accident, but it sure is an emergency to that person.

I want to leave those thoughts with the minister. I really hope that in the new year, when it comes to making his New Year’s resolution, if there is any single problem he undertakes to solve, besides the big problem of the hospital beds and all that difficult area, it will be this problem of transportation so people in the north truly have legitimate access to our health-care system. I hope that problem is solved.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would like, as briefly as possible, to respond to --

Mr. Peterson: Take your time.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Is that right? I didn’t realize you had a second. By the way, that’s a great card that came the other day.

Mr. Peterson: Aren’t those handsome children?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: They are; whose are they?

The member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) raised the question of the number of nursing home beds. He sent me details of a particular case which I will be glad to have my staff look at for him to see if we can be of some assistance.

I can’t recall exactly, but I believe we anticipate having a report from the Essex District Health Council within the next couple of months outlining, as a result of a review of long-term care needs in the county, some recommendations with respect to nursing home beds. I would only point to a number of other areas of the province, such as Timiskaming, Peterborough, Lindsay and so forth, where we have in the last six months approved additional nursing home beds based on local studies, and indicate to him that assuming there are no problems with the study I would anticipate we would be able to address that situation in the not-too-distant future.

It is possible, of course, to bring nursing home beds on stream much faster than institutional hospital beds. The construction costs are considerably less, and also those costs are borne by the private sector so we don’t get involved in having to get in the queue for the available capital funds, even including the recent infusion of lottery funds. That doesn’t mean we can do everything in a short period of time; it means we can catch up a bit but we still have to stretch our capital program out over a number of years.

The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) compared the beginning of 1979 to the end of 1979. I wouldn’t mind taking the opportunity to talk about what we set out to do and what we have achieved. There is no denying it has been a tumultuous year, professionally as well as personally; as the member so kindly interjected, though it was unbeknownst to me he was going to do that.

We obviously set out to do two things. First and foremost to maintain the quality of the system at a time when the pressures on it are enormous. There are pressures of change in the demographics, and they are accelerating in almost geometric proportions, as well as pressures of changes in technology. Ten years ago who had ever heard of a CT scanner, or what it could do or what it would cost to operate?

Mr. Foulds: Especially the latter.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Especially the latter, right.

There were changes in medical personnel; both in numbers, where we have continued to see a tremendous growth in the total of physicians and allied professions in the province in the last number of years, and in addition all the host of other pressures of change which have been exerted on the system.

At the same time, in doing that we set out to do it within our ability to pay, within our means.

We set out, in early 1979, to limit the growth in spending by the hospitals to 4.5 per cent on base budgets for active treatment; 5.3 per cent on chronic care and on outpatient care; and overall to keep the increases in spending on hospitals to something of the order of about seven or eight per cent, as I recall.

[5:45]

We have during the year, as part of that process, seen a number of hospital beds in the province converted to chronic care, that has been one of our goals as well. We will end the year, I think, with around 450 beds having been converted from acute care to chronic care, which obviously is not taking them out of service. I would argue that in most of the communities where this has occurred it has improved service. Previously, a number of people were actually chronic patients but were lost in acute-care programs, in acute-care wards where they were not getting the proper attention persons with chronic ailments, diseases or injuries require.

When we approve the conversion of these beds, it is not just a matter of changing the label at the foot of the bed. When a conversion occurs the hospital must submit for our approval a program to go with that conversion. If it is a case of establishing a chronic-care unit or expanding one, either way they have to justify the program they are going to provide to the chronically ill patients. That is one thing we set out to do, and that is one thing I think we are being successful in doing.

We have certainly gone back to cabinet during the year. I have said, “I need some more money.” I will be magnanimous and share the credit with the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), or whomever, on that; but I would point out that, as I have before in previous years where I found I needed more money, whether it was for additional nursing-home beds or to allow appeals on budgets to maintain usually agreed-on levels of service, I went to cabinet for more money and I got it.

I don’t know whether the member was in the House the Friday morning in March when $66 million in supplementary estimates for my ministry went through virtually at the snap of a finger. I was amazed. I thought I was going to be here the whole morning and I was here for 10 minutes getting that approved. I don’t know whether the member wants to take credit for that too; I will share it, he can have that too; and for the year before and so forth.

We do watch very carefully in the ministry, through the area teams, what’s happening with the accreditation reports and various other indices to be sure we are maintaining an acceptable quantity and level of care. All through the year I have been visiting various parts of the province to engage in the process I have always engaged in as a minister, and that is to keep in touch with what is happening around the province. The member would agree if he was on this side, or ever happened to sit on this side, that it is important to get out and around to find out what is happening in his area of responsibility.

I have also made it a point that where we are approving new projects I am available to go and take part.

Mr. Nixon: You heard it here first, he’s available.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s right, but only until the first part of the new year.

It is important to emphasize, particularly in the area of the capital program, that we are constantly approving new projects, although not as many as some would like. I remind members we have had the lottery proceeds allocated to us so we can catch up with some of our capital program.

The member also raised the question of the submission to the Hall commission. As I indicated during question period today, the hearings of Mr. Justice Hall’s commission will be public and therefore, our submission will be known. I will be interested at the same time in seeing the honourable member’s submission.

We will certainly emphasize the accomplishments of the last 21 years since universal hospital insurance and then universal medical care insurance were introduced, as well as some of the difficulties being faced at this time and some ideas that we have on them,

The member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) raised the question of the beds at Etobicoke General Hospital. I can tell him, and I think it was on Monday, if not late last week, that staff has been meeting with officials of the Etobicoke General. All we are discussing now is the budget; it is not a question of the beds.

The Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto has agreed we will go ahead and open the 36 medical surgical beds at Etobicoke General, over and above the -- what was it, 19 psychiatric beds and 10 obstetrical beds, or was it the reverse? I can’t recall which is which now, but we will take another look at it as part of the overall review of beds for Metropolitan Toronto the first part of which we should have in the first quarter of 1980. That deals specifically with the chronic and extended-care needs of Metropolitan Toronto. The big pressure in Metropolitan Toronto, particularly in the west end, is in the area of chronic care and extended care.

If we can get a handle on those two areas, that will take the pressure off the acute-care beds, because there are all kinds of people backed up into acute-care beds and chronic-care beds --

Ms. Philip: Not in Etobicoke General.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, even in Etobicoke General. It is part of the problem. I am not saying it’s all, and we have acknowledged that, because this will have added 65 beds in total this year to the Etobicoke General. This is in addition to the 130-bed addition which is being added to the Mississauga General Hospital, the 60-bed addition which has been approved for the Peel Memorial Hospital, and the completely new hospital approved for west Port Credit area. I can assure members that once we have the hospital council’s review we will be acting on it as well, just as we did on the review done three years ago that resulted in conversion of the Grace to chronic care and private care.

Mr. Philip: You stalled for months. When are they getting their money? That’s all I want to know.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We are negotiating on the budget. I am not going to give them a blank cheque, because I don’t get blank cheques from the taxpayers. They have submitted a budget which is under discussion, because what they submitted is in our opinion far too high when you consider we should be talking about incremental costs, not total baseline costs per bed; however, that will be sorted out very quickly so they can get on with it.

With regard to the physician about whom the member wrote to me, I can’t give him any information right now in this forum, but I will give him what I can. It was followed up immediately by us and everything possible is being done in reviewing that particular physician’s practice and involving the medical review committee. I will communicate further.

Mr. Philip: I understood criminal charges were laid. Is that true?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I don’t believe we have laid criminal charges. I don’t believe so, but I will check on the current status.

With regard to the problem the honourable member raised about his constituent firm’s bid at the Mississauga project and his description of the situation in Quebec, it is very tempting, and this is a problem which was drawn to my attention a number of years ago when I was first a member here. A printing firm, the head of which lived in my constituency at the time, came to see me about some work involving forms for the Quebec government, on which he had bid in Quebec. Even at that time, and there was a Liberal government when I saw it, he faced the problem that the Quebec government, throughout the entire system, gives -- what is it, a 15 to 20 per cent advantage to Quebec firms?

Mr. Philip: Ten per cent.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Well in some areas it is 15 or 20 per cent. In this particular case, in the printing area at least, I recall 15 to 20 per cent.

We have not, as a government, fallen into the trap of retaliating. To be sure, it is very frustrating and it makes it very difficult for Ontario firms to compete there. It is even more maddening for the affected individual or firm when a Quebec firm comes in here and gets a contract.

I suggest, though, that if we were to retaliate that would be the signal to every other province that they should do the same. The principle of free access and transfer of goods and services in Canada would be destroyed; it would be a nail in the coffin of Confederation.

I think we have to attempt to work out these kinds of problems, and we must try to do this with Quebec. I really can’t see any particular benefit to Canada in Ontario retaliating in kind to that kind of policy; that can only lead to heightened tensions, which would be to fall into the well laid traps of some of our separatist friends.

The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba), who has apparently left the chamber, referred to the Ontario Drug Benefits Plan and the comments of the Provincial Auditor. I would only say, sir, I wish he had read that portion of the auditor’s report containing our response to those comments of the Provincial Auditor in which we indicated what action is being taken. We are moving to do something about this 30-day prescription period in negotiations with the pharmacists’ association.

Discussions have already been carried out between the medical association and the pharmacists’ association resulting in an agreement that if a physician’s note on the prescription is not to be altered -- I forget the exact wording but what it amounts to is if the duration of the prescription is not to be altered it will not be. I anticipate we will be able to resolve that problem in 1980.

Mr. Warner: Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sorry. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere and I apparently and obviously are never going to agree philosophically on most things.

Mr. Foulds: If you did he would resign.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Don’t tempt me.

Mr. Warner: We’ll make an exception.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, I appeared on his television program about seven or eight months ago. We sat there and I went through the facts about the health-care system and what is happening: the fact, for instance, that we are ending up this year with approximately the same number of beds in the province as when we started -- we are about 600 beds in total ahead of about four or five years ago; the facts about the number her of services. I remember well we had a very honourable discussion, and being the host of the television show he said, “There you are, medicare is in crisis. Good night.” Before I could get another word in, there we were.

With respect, the member, for his political purposes, has started out with the conclusion which he has been trying to sell and which the people aren’t buying, they are just not buying.

As I said to Ontario Federation of Labour representatives last week, when we had a very good discussion, if you go to people and ask do they support medicare, they are going to sign a petition. If you say to them, If you don’t want all the doctors to opt out please sign this, they are going to sign the petition. There is no question, health care is the most important service which this government funds, bar none. If you were to do a poll every other service funded by the government would fall way back in the pack.

Mr. Nixon: What about reforestation?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Reforestation? Well, that may be close.

Mr. Peterson: What about fisheries?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Well, especially around Lake Erie that’s right, that would be front and centre, the most important.

My gravest concern, of course is always to retain public confidence in the medicare system, which for the member’s political purposes he has been trying to attack. I don’t think he is being successful because the facts deny the kind of message he is trying to put across.

Reasonable people, by far the majority of the population of this province, understand that in a massive system there are going to be problems, particularly at a time when this country is beset by so many problems of living within our means. They know too that the basics of the medicare system are sound and that the kind of message the member is trying to put across just doesn’t synchronize with the facts.

I want to finish off on the question of transportation costs. I sympathize entirely with the kind of situation the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) has described. I haven’t always lived in Metropolitan Toronto, in Don Mills. I come from rural eastern Ontario where the nearest hospital was 25 miles away. Quite frequently people in our village had to travel to Toronto or to Montreal or wherever for services.

Mr. Peterson: Was it a log cabin, Dennis?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, it was stone, limestone as a matter of fact.

Mr. Peterson: But it was small and poor and you did walk to school.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, it was big; but there was a hole in one window or somewhere, I forget.

The fact is that in the Ministry of Health we have a great many demands on us for a variety of health programs, and we do everything possible to ensure that we are in fact funding necessary and required health programs.

When we have nonmedical costs, I’m sorry I have to draw the line at what I can consider funding through the Ministry of Health. That isn’t to say that in those cases where people have difficulty with transportation costs or accommodation costs in getting to resources, whether it’s in Toronto or London or Kingston or Ottawa or wherever, that we shouldn’t do something about it.

I outlined in my letter to the member’s colleague, the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), the fact there are programs available to look after those cases of hardship. Nobody is being denied access.

I’m sorry I can’t agree that nonmedical costs should be covered out of OHIP.

I think the time has concluded.

Resolution concurred in.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.