Journal des débats 1986-juin-16 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the House that I have received notice from the Chairman of Management Board requesting permission to make a statement of personal privilege. Minister.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Some of us had been expecting a ministerial statement. The government has chosen to proceed by way of a personal explanation, which I understand requires unanimous consent. Perhaps it would be reasonable to request unanimous consent for brief responses from opposition spokespersons to the statement.

Mr. Speaker: In response to the suggestion and point made by the honourable member, I would like to read the definition of "a personal explanation" as contained in Parliamentary Dictionary.

"A member who wishes to explain, excuse, justify or apologize for, his conduct is allowed to make a statement, known as a personal explanation.... Examples of such statements are those made by ex-ministers explaining their reasons for resigning office, and those made by members whose conduct has been subject to criticism. These statements are made by the indulgence of the House, and not of right, since there is no question before the House at the time, and no debate can take place."

I remind the honourable members that, of course, there was a previous case in England, the Profumo case, and here more recently, the Spensieri case; some members will recall that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: But it is with consent.

Mr. Speaker: That is true. A member, any member, who wishes to explain -- yes?

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I have a copy of the same definition, and one subordinate clause which you left out of your statement is that a personal explanation normally takes place after question time.

My point was simply that a personal explanation in any event, particularly one that takes place ahead of question time, should require the consent of the House. My request is very simple, that we add an opportunity of a brief response from each of the opposition parties, also by way of unanimous consent, in order that we can proceed with this important statement.

Mr. Speaker: In regard to the member's point, I inadvertently did leave out "immediately after the question period." That is stated in what is written here before me. Would it be better to do this during ministerial statements?

Agreed to.

2:05 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Shymko: I rise today to urge the government and all members of the Legislature to help the Red Cross in its campaign to aid the people of Jamaica in their hour of need. As members know, tropical storm Andrew has ravaged the south coast of the Caribbean island of Jamaica for the past two weeks. They urgently require our help and generosity to cope with the serious flooding.

Ontario has a very long and proud association with the people of Jamaica, beginning in the early 1960s, when Bill Davis was Minister of Education. We sent school furniture, textbooks and other items to the people of Jamaica. In the 1970s, the then Minister of Health, the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), began the twinning of hospitals program. The first was the twinning of the Owen Sound General and Marine Hospital with the Alexandria Hospital in Saint Anne's parish in Jamaica.

Ontario has provided hospital supplies, ambulances, furniture and linen. Just a year and a half ago the government of Ontario sent more than $1 million worth of vaccine to Jamaica. Therefore, I urge the government to continue this tradition which was begun by the previous administration.

There are more than 65,000 Jamaicans now living in Ontario, many of them with friends and relatives who have been affected quite seriously by the damage done by tropical storm Andrew. It is time for us to do our part as individuals and for the government of Ontario to do its part on behalf of the people of this province.

LABOUR DISPUTES

Mr. Martel: I have a statement on work refusals at Chrysler in Windsor.

A number of work refusals have occurred at both Chrysler facilities in Windsor where management has threatened workers and then disciplined the workers with suspension. In one case, nine workers were suspended for five days. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) was involved, but he was totally ineffective and chose to hide behind subsection 24(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The union resolved these suspensions through the grievance procedure and negotiations without the help of the Ministry of Labour in enforcing the act. Meetings were held with ministry officials in Toronto, and ultimately the minister defended the ministry position of using the Ontario Labour Relations Board to resolve disputes of this nature instead of using the act.

The minister promised to investigate but stated it was too late to charge the companies. It would seem it is either too late or too soon to charge companies. The last meeting of the union and the ministry staff in Windsor was called after the task force I headed went to Windsor.

Since the ministry still refuses to enforce the act, nothing has been accomplished. The work refusals were serious matters concerning excess heat in the spray paint booth and work in the sanding booth and in the welding area. All these areas expose workers to hazards.

These workers were organized, with strong representatives working for health and safety. What of unorganized workers in a situation such as this? They would have lost their jobs and possibly their health, with the Ministry of Labour just looking on.

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

Mr. Gordon: The Premier (Mr. Peterson) is fast establishing a record of broken promises and backing away from previous commitments. None is more vivid than his commitment to the residents of McClure Crescent. These residents have been offered a deal by him that may give him a lot of public relations fanfare but keeps them prisoners on their contaminated, radioactive soil. The latest offer by the Premier is a far cry from the demands he was making for them in September 1983.

In 1983, he issued a communiqué demanding immediate action for residents; he believed then that they were being slowly contaminated by cancer-causing radiation. It was all too clear to him then that the soil was contaminated. In 1983, he was demanding that the families be compensated for the loss of their homes, for health effects and economics losses; now, in 1986, he does not have the time of day for these residents. He refuses to even meet with them.

In October, with great fanfare, he announced he would purchase those 40 homes at market value, but that is meaningless to these people. It is going to cost them much more than that to replace the homes they currently live in. Many of these residents earn the minimum wage. How does the Premier expect them to purchase new homes? They want to extend the terms of the home ownership plan under which they originally purchased these homes. The Premier tells them that was not part of the deal. Radioactive soil was not part of the deal for them either. When is the Premier going to take action on this matter?

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: The New Democratic Party caucus insurance committee released its findings and recommendations pursuant to its hearings in 15 centres across this province. Unlike the Slater task force, which was beholden to the doctrinaire private insurance philosophy of this Liberal government, our recommendations are based on the principle that whatever insurance system works the best for the public is the system that should be used, whether it is private, public or a combination of both. Therefore, a dominant recommendation from our committee is that Ontario take steps immediately to implement a public auto insurance system similar to those in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

Again, unlike the Slater commission and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter), we were not afraid to look at figures and facts, and we document the tremendous financial and other benefits of the public system. Tables and statistics are included in our report. There is a place too for government involvement in liability insurance, in rate control, in pooling, in an insurance exchange, in reinsurance and in selling liability insurance in competition with the private sector. In the long term, there needs to be a publicly operated, universal, no-fault sickness and accident insurance plan for this province.

Finally, there is no doubt that if the government of this province wants to serve consumers rather than insurance companies, it must replace the suggestions of Slater with the reforms that we in the NDP propose.

FOOD LAND PRESERVATION POLICY

Mr. J.M. Johnson: As I stated in this House on May 22, I am pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) in their policy statement on food land preservation are following in the footsteps of the previous Progressive Conservative government.

However, two aspects of this proposed policy are causing considerable concern at the local level and within the agricultural community. They are the restrictions on severances and the 10-year time limit in planning. The Wellington County Federation of Agriculture and the councils of Lambton, Grey and Wellington counties, as well as many municipal councils, rural and urban, including most of the 21 municipal councils in my riding of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, have all expressed grave reservations about these two aspects of the proposed policy.

It is felt that if these sections of the policy statement are implemented in their present form, responsibilities which should by right rest with the municipalities will be taken away and centralized at Queen's Park. Decisions will then be made by bureaucrats who in most cases cannot be fully aware of the conditions at the local level.

I very strongly urge the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to revise these sections of the policy to reflect the widespread concerns expressed in this regard.

POLICE COMMISSIONS

Mrs. Grier: I would like to express my regret at the action of the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) in refusing to allow the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to appoint a majority of the members to its police commission. Many municipalities have been victims of the provincial attitude that he who pays the piper calls the tune when the province has been paying the piper. Metro pays 88 per cent of the cost of its policing, and still the province insists on calling the tune.

This is not a new issue. In 1977, the Robarts report said Metro should be given total responsibility for its own policing. In 1983, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) moved an amendment that provided for majority control of the Durham police force by that municipality. Strong speeches in support were given by the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) and others in the then official opposition. How things have changed. Unless we had an issue nailed right down tight in the accord, the government refuses to act on things it supported while on this side of the House.

This is an issue of accountability and municipal autonomy far more than it is one of policing. The council of a city of two million people does not deserve to be treated as a junior level of government but as a partner. I hope this incident will serve to draw attention to that fact and that future relations between the province and Metro will reflect a different attitude.

2:15 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TOURISM IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Eakins: As we all know, communities in northern Ontario are experiencing higher unemployment as a result of industrial restructuring. Our government believes that one way to face this problem is to develop alternatives, to diversify the economic base as much as possible.

Increasing tourism is one alternative that has great potential. To strengthen tourism in the north, a special marketing campaign will be put in place immediately. It will feature northern communities, attractions, hospitality and outdoor adventure, and will be directed at southern Ontario and United States border states.

This is our short-term plan of action. To sustain and build northern Ontario as a tourist destination, longer-term solutions are also needed. With this in mind, our government is preparing a long-term marketing strategy aimed at more distant US cities as well as several European countries. Beginning this summer, we will train northern operators to sell more effectively in these markets.

Our northern ministry field staff will be assisted in these marketing programs by our advertising agency, Vickers and Benson. Together, they will provide onsite consulting to communities, tourism organizations and tourist businesses.

The total cost of this program will be $1 million for 1986-87 and an additional $1 million for the following year. This investment, which stems from the recent budget of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), could result in an increase of as much as $19 million in direct tourist spending, $2.6 million in provincial revenue per year and 950 permanent jobs per year.

Both the short-term and long-term components of this marketing program are being developed in close consultation with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine), his ministry, northern communities and travel associations. I am confident the decisions we reach together will have a strong, positive and lasting impact on the tourism trade and indeed on the economy in Ontario's north.

Mr. Rowe: While we welcome the government's thoughts on tourism in the north, we say they are just that. Is $1 million all the north is worth for tourism marketing; 80 cents per person? That will buy a lot of marketing, especially with a new agency called Vickers and Benson.

The minister said in his statement, "in close consultation with northern communities." Both major reports on the north -- one on the environment and the other on single-industry communities -- recommend that northern people become more directly involved. They do not recommend close consultation at 80 cents per northerner. We suggest 80 cents per person in the north will not do a lot for the tourism marketing of the great northern part of Ontario.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As the honourable members know, the government has been particularly active in the past year in its efforts to improve the province's workers' compensation system.

Today, it gives me great pleasure to inform the House of three recent initiatives that have important and helpful implications for both employees and employers in connection with workers' compensation. These three initiatives involve the office of the worker adviser, the office of the employer adviser and the Industrial Disease Standards Panel, all of which were created under the major reforms to the Workers' Compensation Act which received royal assent 18 months ago.

First, the office of the worker adviser: As the members know, this office of my ministry exists to assist workers in their dealings with the Workers' Compensation Board. At the moment, this service has three offices in Metropolitan Toronto and seven in other regions of the province. It employs 22 worker advisers and has an annual budget of $2.3 million.

I am pleased to announce today that the government has given the office permission to hire 18 additional worker advisers and has increased its budget to $3.5 million. These enhanced resources will permit the office to accommodate a case load that is one third higher than anticipated originally and to meet its objective of completing its work on each case within six months of starting work on the case.

Second, the office of the employer adviser: As the members know, this office of my ministry assists employers in their dealings with the Workers' Compensation Board. Since it opened eight months ago, it has served 1,200 employers of all sizes from all parts of the province. It is anticipated that the office will be called upon to serve a total of 2,900 clients this financial year. While more than half the demand comes from the Toronto area, 20 per cent comes from southwestern Ontario, 12 per cent from northern Ontario and 12 per cent from eastern Ontario.

Just a few hours ago, I had the pleasure of announcing in Windsor that the government was dedicating new resources to the service. As a result, offices will be opened within the next six months in Windsor, Kitchener, Sudbury and Ottawa. In addition, the Toronto office will be expanded. In total, this enhancement will involve an increase in the number of employer advisers to 14 from the current four and an increase in the operation's annual budget to $1.25 million from the current $500,000.

Third, the Industrial Disease Standards Panel: As honourable members know, the panel is responsible for investigating possible industrial disease and advising on workers' compensation for claims related to industrial disease. In recent days, I have had the pleasure of announcing the appointments of seven distinguished men and women to the panel. They are Ralph Barford of Toronto, Dr. John Peter Chong of Hamilton, Jean Louis Gagnon of Hanmer, Dr. Edward Gibson of Hamilton, Linda Ann Jolley of Toronto, Jane Levay of Kapuskasing and Dr. David Muir of Hamilton, who will serve as vice-chairman. The chairman of the panel is Dr. James Ham of Toronto.

Taken individually, these initiatives represent the effort of government and indeed the will of the Legislature to make the workers' compensation system reflect the many concerns of its clientele and to demonstrate its ability to deal with the many uncharted possibilities of devastating occupational hazard. Taken together, these initiatives will help to advance workers' compensation towards a system that is sensitive, comprehensive and fair. After all, that is the objective of this government and the mandate of the Workers' Compensation Board.

EXTRA BILLING

Hon. Mr. Elston: I wish to report to the members of the House the results of a meeting I held this morning with representatives of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The college has drawn up and approved the following statement regarding the provision of emergency care during the withdrawal of services by doctors.

"The College of Physicians and Surgeons acting in its role as a protector of the public interest has already expressed concern with the climate of confrontation between the medical profession and government. With the apparent increase in polarization and withdrawal of services, our concerns mount.

"We are continuing to assess the situation and gather information with regard to the temporary disruption of emergency services at the Northwestern General Hospital and the anticipated disruption of emergency services at other hospitals. With regard to the Northwestern General Hospital emergency service, our monitoring has shown that all patients who sought medical care were assessed and those seriously ill were treated.

"We wish the public and profession clearly to understand our position that:

"1. The complete closure of emergency departments is unacceptable.

"2. Disruption of emergency department services is causing increasing public inconvenience. Whether or not such disruption of emergency services constitutes unacceptable professional conduct will be based upon an assessment of a number of factors, including: the type of emergency care usually offered at that institution and the usual specialist backup; the ability of nearby emergency facilities to handle adequately an increase in activity; the adequacy of staffing at the alternative facility; the distance and driving time to the alternative facility; the extent of physician backup at the alternative facility.

"3. It is unacceptable to have a serious disruption of emergency capabilities in referral or tertiary care institutions. These special institutions with regionally agreed-upon specialized programs provide unique and essential services."

The statement is dated June 16, 1986.

Mr. Rae: I comment on the statement by the Minister of Health. I do not think any of us can be satisfied on the basis of what the minister has just announced. It is clearly set out in regulation 448 under the Health Disciplines Act, section 27, that the definition of professional misconduct includes "contravening while engaged in the practice of medicine any...provincial...regulation...." The provincial regulations under the Public Hospitals Act say, "When a member of the medical staff is unable to perform his duties in the hospital, he shall arrange for another member to perform his duties and notify the administrator."

It can clearly be demonstrated that this has not happened with respect to the closure or disruption of the emergency departments at Northwestern General Hospital, at Humber Memorial Hospital, at Scarborough Centenary Hospital or, I understand, as I heard coming into the House today, at the Welland County General Hospital.

When the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario says, "the complete closure of emergency departments is unacceptable," it means in effect that it is condoning the partial disruption of emergency services and is condoning what I would read to be -- and I look forward to discussing and debating this with the minister -- an actual breach of the Health Disciplines Act and of the Public Hospitals Act.

That is an indication of how serious the situation is and we are simply not satisfied with the steps that have been taken so far.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. Speaker: The Chairman of Management Board.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I am rising today --

Mr. McClellan: Do we have a copy of this statement?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Copies have been requested by the other parties.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Copies will be made available. My office is preparing them now. We had expected it would be as a point of privilege and information, as opposed to a member's statement.

Mr. Speaker: As this is now in ministerial statements, I will have to ask the House if it wishes the minister to go ahead without copies.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I should not respond to the interjections, but I think you are aware that this was to be a statement of personal explanation. The honourable members indicated they would like an opportunity to respond. We did not disagree with that, but since it is by the permission of the House that this goes forward and because of the fact that it is a personal statement, the honourable minister did not consider that copies would be required since she was expressing her point of view and not making a government statement.

We would like to proceed. The minister has indicated she is obtaining copies, but if she were able to proceed, then comments could come from the honourable members as they saw fit.

Mr. Harris: On the point of order or personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: Whether it is required or not, I think common courtesy calls for copies of statements to be available. It also appears that every attempt is being made to find a way around the rules so that nobody can respond to this statement. That was the case on Thursday when it came in and we unanimously agreed to hear it. We will give unanimous consent, but I want it noted that it appears every attempt is being made to get a statement out without anyone having an opportunity to respond. It is the same as on Thursday.

Mr. Speaker: I asked the House previously for unanimous consent to place this under ministerial statements. I understand there now is agreement to go ahead. Copies will be received as soon as they are available.

IDEA CORP.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I am rising today to apologize to the House for any confusion or misunderstanding that I may inadvertently have caused or created as a result of my statements last Thursday regarding my husband. I wish to take this opportunity to clarify the situation for the benefit of all members present.

As previously stated, my husband, Wilfred Caplan, has been a financial and corporate consultant to small businesses since 1971. He received his bachelor of commerce degree from the University of Toronto and a masters of economics degree from the University of California at Berkeley. He holds the designation of FCGA, Fellow, Certified General Accountants. He was past president of the Certified General Accountants Association of Ontario and last year served as national president of the Certified General Accountants' Association of Canada.

My husband's company, Damaza Consultants Ltd., was retained by Wyda Systems (Canada) Inc. in May 1985 to assist and advise Wyda in obtaining second-round financing and to assist with corporate administration. At that time, Wyda had the option of retaining my husband on a $150 hourly fee for service or an $8,000 monthly retainer; or a third option, which Wyda chose, of a $2,000 monthly retainer plus a $50,000 payment and a five per cent equity position in the company once financing had been secured. I am informed these rates are consistent and reasonable with market standards.

Following the change of government in June and following a meeting with the assistant deputy minister, civil law division, Blenus Wright, Damaza's contract was modified to effect compliance with the conflict-of-interest guidelines. The new guidelines for ministers and spouses specifically precluded Damaza from taking any equity position in Wyda or from receiving a contingency fee based on money received from the Ontario government, its ministries or agencies. The final contract therefore provided for a $2,000 per month fee designed to cover expenses plus, upon the successful completion of financing, a $50,000 payment on closing and a further payment following a formula of five per cent of Wyda's profits in 1987 and 1988 up to a maximum of $600,000.

This latter remuneration would not be paid if the financing originated from the Ontario government, its ministries or agencies. During this period, my husband pursued dozens of contacts with the federal government and private investors in Canada and the United States. The contract has since been reviewed by the office of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and has been found to be in compliance with the guidelines.

In the end, Wyda's second-round financing took the form of an equity investment by the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp., approved by the IDEA board on March 6, 1986, with the money actually being received by Wyda on or about April 16, 1986, and the principal shareholder making a more than equivalent injection of equity to that provided by IDEA. During the entire course of negotiations with the IDEA Corp., my husband's position as a financial and corporate consultant was fully disclosed to the staff and to the members of the board. The only remuneration that my husband's company received was the $2,000-a-month retainer.

Following this closing of second-round financing, my husband advised Wyda's president, Mr. Avi Dobzinski, who was his last consulting client, that he no longer wished to continue as a financial and corporate consultant to Wyda and that he would be pursuing his new business enterprise, Taurus Metal Trading Corp., on a full-time basis. Mr. Dobzinski asked my husband to stay on as a financial and corporate consultant to provide advice on the financial and accounting operations of the business and to assist Wyda in developing its search for third-round financing, as well to allow an orderly transition as Wyda sought a replacement for Damaza as its financial and corporate consultant.

The previous contractual arrangement -- that is, the discounted $2,000 monthly retainer fee plus the contingency for investments other than from provincial ministries or agencies -- could not be duplicated for the third-round financing because it covered a transition period only. Therefore, both parties agreed to the normal business retainer of $8,000 a month which was one of the original fee options available to Wyda in May 1985. This fee arrangement for the initial period of third-round financing was to be renewable at Wyda's option on a month-to-month basis for a period of not more than three months. My husband believed that he had a professional obligation to his client during the development and to allow an orderly transition.

This arrangement lasted only two months. Unlike the second-round financing arrangement, this new monthly fee was the only remuneration my husband could receive if he was successful in helping to obtain third-round financing. The agreement for this third-round financing was to have expired today. At the time that I made the statement in this House last Thursday, I did not have the full details of this arrangement at hand.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I deeply regret and apologize to the House for any confusion that may have arisen. Under this transition arrangement, my husband actively pursued prospective investors and continued to provide financial forecasting and accounting services to Wyda. In addition, he assisted Wyda in undertaking to find a replacement for the services he was providing. Wyda is currently in the final stages of negotiations for the candidate for the position.

Subsequently, Mr. Dobzinski had also requested that my husband continue to be available to provide advice on his normal $150 hourly fee-for-service basis. Although such an arrangement would have been in compliance with the conflict-of-interest guidelines, and despite a strong professional obligation to his client, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has recommended to my husband that he completely sever his relationship with Wyda.

I would like to inform members of the House that my husband has severed his relationship with Wyda. I am sure the honourable members can satisfy themselves with this explanation that there has been no conflict of interest. The dominant feature of the IDEA Corp. throughout its lifetime has been its independence in decision-making. Investment decisions are approved by the board of directors and are not influenced by the government in any way. The chairman of the board confirmed to the secretary of cabinet, "All board decisions are made on the basis of staff recommendations based on established criteria."

I accept, as does my husband, the need for complete and open disclosure of all matters which relate to the integrity of our government system.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: This is both the reality and the responsibility of public life. In cases such as this, whether by misunderstanding or innuendo, the impact on one's private life is hard. Nevertheless, I must repeat that I welcome any further investigation by the standing committee on public accounts if my honourable colleagues find such a course of action desirable.

Mr. Gillies: I look forward to having a copy of the minister's statement to review it in depth. The point is that the minister has to resign, and I think she knows that. We have definite, prima facie evidence of a serious conflict of interest. A few of the facts have to be reviewed.

By the minister's own admission and by the statement of the Premier last week, Mr. Caplan was retained by the Wyda corporation to seek out sources of capital for that company. The minister has elaborated on some of the varying financial arrangements that could have been made at that time, presumably, again contingent on the type of capital that was obtained.

The fact is that the only new injection of major capital into Wyda was the $3-million IDEA grant. The consultant, Mr. Caplan, was not successful in obtaining either federal or private sector money. Within one month of Wyda receiving a $3-million grant in public funds, Mr. Caplan's monthly consulting fees went up from $2,000 to $8,000.

The evidence is overwhelming. Mr. Caplan's firm -- in which the minister has an interest which she declared with her cabinet filing and put into a blind trust -- a company of which she is a part, has benefited, and the Caplan family has benefited to the extent of at least $6,000 per month as of obtaining the grant.

This is not a personal vendetta that I have been pursuing in this House. The question of the minister's husband's involvement in Wyda came up as a result of other research I was doing into the way this government has been using the IDEA Corp. since it took over.

I wish the minister no ill will. However, those of us who have served in the past or are now serving in cabinet in this province are well aware of the rules. I can quote the Premier's statement in the House last week when he said, with reference to the advice that was given to the minister and her husband at the time of her assuming office, Mr. Caplan was advised he "would be precluded from having any interest in the equity of a client company seeking funds from the government or any interest based on the amount of funds received from the government."

It stretches the credibility of the minister's statement. When one considers that the only change in the financing of the Wyda corporation was the obtaining of a $3-million grant in public funds through a provincial agency, and that Mr. Caplan's fee then went up by more than 300 per cent within one month, there is very much the appearance that a benefit was received.

Frankly, I had a couple of nice things to say about this minister if she had come in today, as I expected, to tender her resignation pending a full investigation. I will have to hold those in reserve.

The parliamentary convention, of which I have 30 precedents here from across Canada, is that when there is a serious appearance of conflict of this nature, the minister must resign. This is not to say that if the matter is cleared up before the public accounts committee, a judicial inquiry or any other body, the Premier could not retain, as his option, the right to reinstate her as a minister. However, I say again, the honourable course of action is that the minister must resign; she must resign today.

Mr. Philip: I respond to the statement of the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet. It is unfortunate that she has not yet tabled with the Legislature the affidavit she has claimed on two occasions that her husband has signed.

On June 12, the minister made the point that at no time has her husband ever been legally an officer of the company. That is an academic distinction. The fact is, he was the chief financial vice-president of the company and was a man of high importance in that company.

Mr. Caplan's disclosure that he would not benefit directly does not mean very much. The mere disclosure of a potential wrongdoing is not the removal of that potential wrongdoing.

I refer the minister to the Manual of Administration, a document of which she should be aware, which deals with conflict of interest for public servants. In talking about conflict of interest it says, "This includes actual or perceived conflicts and those which have the potential to be actual or perceived." It seems remarkable that the minister wants to impose on public servants a quality of behaviour that she does not wish to accept for herself.

The guidelines -- and what the Premier brought down in September 1985 were merely guidelines -- have no response to what happens when a minister violates them. The only thing that changed at Wyda from the time of Mr. Caplan's employment to the time he had an increase from $2,000 to $8,000 a month was that a $3-million investment came from the Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp. If that is not a case where there would be at least a perceived conflict of interest, then I do not know what is.

Surely, when the standing committee on public accounts deals with this, it must ask whether the fee hike that was given to Mr. Caplan can in any way be attributed to what we would call "goodwill" in business circles? Only after we have dealt with that can the minister stand in the House in all respect and take over her responsibilities once again.

There is only one line in the standing orders dealing with conflict of interest. The guidelines are very unclear and have no penalties involved. This House will be dealing with a new Legislative Assembly Act. When the Premier is preparing and dealing with that, I hope he will see fit to bring in adequate conflict-of-interest laws under that act, where we do not have to go through this kind of charade.

In the meantime, until we have dealt with the Legislative Assembly Act or at the very least until after the public accounts committee has asked the questions we want to ask of the minister and her husband and resolved the matter, the minister should step down from her post.

2:46 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier tell the people of Ontario that they will be able today to receive all the health care services they require?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is obviously a strike in some of the hospitals, but I can turn it over to the Minister of Health to answer more specifically any questions the member may have. He may refer to him.

Mr. Grossman: No. We want to hear the Premier's answer. He is responsible. Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have referred it to the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the Premier has referred it to the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I can tell the honourable gentleman that we are continuing to watch very closely the activity in each of the hospitals where there has been disruption. As the member knows, I met with the college and we have come up with a very specific statement by the college. I can tell the honourable gentleman and the public that we have guidelines now with respect to what is considered inappropriate. We will continue to monitor the situation quite closely and we will respond in situations or circumstances that are brought to our attention.

Mr. Grossman: I would like to ask a supplementary of the Premier. May I do so?

Mr. Speaker: As I have mentioned to many members, the precedents in this House are that any supplementary questions flow out of the response. Therefore, the supplementary should be directed to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Harris: The Premier partially answered the question and then referred it. Therefore, I think it would be in order to ask the supplementary the way he wants.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the members that this is question period. The supplementary must go to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Grossman: The precedent in this House is that the person who directly causes the problem should be willing to come to this House and answer for that problem, and the Premier is the one. He would not go out front to meet the doctors when they demonstrated, he locked them out of the building today and now he will not face the public in this Legislature.

The Minister of Health did not answer the question that I put to the Premier and that the Premier refused to answer. The minister is the guardian, under the Ministry of Health Act, of the care, safety and maintenance of the health care system. The people of Ontario are entitled to know from him whether he believes, as the Minister of Health, they can today receive all the health care services they require.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have reported often enough in this House, and for a minute I wondered what the honourable member was going to have left to say. He shoots his quiver empty before he gets around to the question.

There are physicians in this province who are serving their patients. In fact, when I met with a group of people who assembled on the second floor here earlier today, I could not find one of them who had been told by his physician that if he were needed, he would not respond. The patients I was able to talk to -- and I was not able to talk to all of them -- said quite clearly to me that their physicians had said they would meet their needs.

That being the case, it seems to me that a decision has to be made on the part of the physicians, when they are talking to their patients, on whether there are needs of a medical nature. My confidence is in that relationship, which has been widely reported and widely told to me to be one of some sanctity and one I should not trespass upon.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that the physicians are serving their patients. I can tell the honourable members that I do not wish to do what the Ontario Medical Association executive is doing; that is, telling physicians not to serve patients. I am committing them to do that.

Mr. Grossman: I want to put this proposition clearly to the minister. The public of Ontario is very concerned about health care today. We have emergency wards closing throughout the province. We have hundreds -- by now, thousands -- of elective surgical procedures cancelled. We have all sorts of people in the system who cannot get to see their doctors today.

Those frightened and concerned Ontarians are entitled to look to the government of Ontario and ask a simple question. That question is: Does the Minister of Health believe that all the health care services required for the people of Ontario are available today? I want him to stand up this afternoon and say, "Yes, we believe they are," or "No, they are not."

Hon. Mr. Elston: As usual, the honourable gentleman, in his own simple fashion, is trying to engage in some kind of rhetoric that will increase the concern of the public. The physicians have told me they will provide service to their patients. They have confirmed that right along. We have reported on the circumstances around the closing of the --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult to hear.

Hon. Mr. Elston: When we reviewed, in conjunction with the college, the occurrences at Northwestern, the people who were at that emergency department were assessed. The people who required it, received treatment.

When it comes time to understand what service is required in a medical fashion for a patient, it really does rest upon the medical judgement of those people who are trained professionally in this province to make that determination, and they are the physicians. It is my understanding that those decisions and determinations are being made, and they will continue to be made.

Mr. Grossman: When thousands of elective surgery cases are cancelled, the Minister of Health expresses no concern about the system.

My second question is to the Premier of this province. Does he believe there is a potential for a serious tragedy occurring in Ontario as a result of the doctors' strike?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer that to the Minister of Health.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the Premier referred the question to the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I can tell the honourable gentleman what we have done with respect to situations where there has been a closure of emergency services is that we have implemented what has been standard procedure around this province, whether it be as a result of withdrawal or whether it be as a result of an overflow of emergency services required in a hospital due to some kind of an accident.

I can tell the honourable gentleman what occurs when there is a problem at an emergency is that a contact is made with the closest hospitals in the area to advise of the circumstances. In addition, we have also provided services, which would include vehicles from the emergency services branch, to accommodate the circumstances of concern he has indicated in the question.

Mr. Grossman: It is a disgraceful circumstance, I say to the minister, that when there are thousands of patients out there trying to get medical services, the Premier of this province, winks, shrugs, smiles and laughs when a serious problem is put to him and a serious question is posed about this strike. Pierre Elliott Trudeau would be embarrassed to see that.

Since the Premier refuses to answer questions in this House now, when the going is getting tough, might I ask the Minister of Health if the Premier has expressed to him any concern for the safety of the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman will know that this government has expressed on occasions continuing concern about the people of this province. That is why we introduced this bill. We brought it in to protect the interests of the public in this great province of ours. Bill 94 is designed to do just that and there are a number of members over there who want to hold this up. They have been talking at length. They do not care about the public of this province. That is our role and we must do it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: I want to tell the minister, as he smirks during this crisis, that what has caused this strike is nothing short of the attitude of the Premier, who has called the doctors, face to face, overrated and overpaid and told them he is going to do something about it. Do not go around accusing anyone else of causing this strike that the minister and the Premier started.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: I remind the minister that one phone call from the Premier asking for a meeting will end this strike.

I want to ask the minister once again, since we cannot get an answer from the Premier, whether he would share some simple information with the public of this province. Has the Premier of Ontario expressed to him in the last 72 hours any concern for the safety and health of the people of Ontario? Yes or no?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I tried to answer the question before, but the member does not want to listen. I have told him repeatedly that we have concern for the public interest at all times when we are dealing with this particularly sensitive issue.

We realize it is a difficult issue. We realize some political parties were never able to come to grips with it. We have chosen to react to protect the interests of the public. We have indicated quite clearly that we intend to proceed to ensure that the public interest is respected because we want to govern. We will proceed to end extra billing for the benefit of the public.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am concerned, the Premier and my cabinet colleagues are concerned that the best health care -

Mr. Grossman: There is a crisis out there and the two of them are hiding. They create a severe problem and now they are running away from it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: Talk about cowards. It is the most cowardly action I have ever seen.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will now recess for 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 3:01 p.m.

3:11 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. By means of a preamble, if the Tory party is so concerned about the crisis, perhaps it will speed up the bill, stop its filibuster of Bill 94 and get on with the legislation. That would be a useful way for the Tory party to express its concern.

I am rising to ask the minister a question with respect to his statement today on what is taking place. Does the minister not realize that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has simply condoned the activities at the Northwestern General Hospital over the weekend and the other partial or practically complete closures of emergency wards that are taking place?

Can the minister tell us why the college did not invoke both the Public Hospitals Act and the Health Disciplines Act in clearly stating that it is grounds for professional misconduct for a member of the medical staff of a hospital to walk off the job without ensuring that another member of the medical staff is filling his or her position? Why did the minister not see that the college made that very clear today in the statement it made to the public?

Hon. Mr. Elston: First, with respect to the preamble on the extended debate, I was unofficially informed not long ago that we will not get out of clause-by-clause examination of this bill today. Perhaps it will come tomorrow, but we are not too certain about that.

I can tell the honourable member that I do not write the statements for the college of physicians and surgeons; it is an arm's-length group. I had a meeting with it, and we discussed our concerns about emergency room closings, myself on behalf of the government and the college on behalf of the body that provides the review for public interest purposes.

The college is interested in the individual situations as a follow-up. It has examined what went on at Northwestern, and it will continue to do so. I can tell the member and members of the public that the college displayed a high degree of activity with respect to the Northwestern situation and was on hand to discuss the matter at that facility last week.

Mr. Rae: I do not think the minister has answered my question. I want him to answer this question because it is important.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Davis: Why not ask the Premier (Mr. Peterson)? He might answer.

Mr. Rae: Watching the Tories as the cheerleaders of a strike is a refreshing phenomenon but one that would cause great concern to those patients who are looking to a medical community that will provide them with care. Let us pass the bill and see what the response will be.

The minister is responsible for the administration of a piece of legislation, the Health Disciplines Act. He will know the Health Disciplines Act defines professional misconduct; it says quite specifically that professional misconduct includes a breach by a medical practitioner of a provincial regulation. He will know by looking at the provincial regulation that if a member of the medical staff of a hospital is going to leave or is going to change with respect to his provision of service, he has to notify the administrator and obtain the services of another member of the medical staff. He cannot leave the hospital in the lurch. That is the law of Ontario. Why are the minister and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario not enforcing the law in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman will probably be pleased to know that we examine each of the situations to ensure there are mechanisms in place to ensure quality of patient care in those hospitals. We have worked very closely with respect to each of the boards in the hospitals where activity has declined on the part of the medical staff. I was at Northwestern last week; perhaps the member opposite was too. We were in a position to see that supervisory staff were in place in that facility. We have understood in talking with board members directly and in reviewing the situation that patient care in that hospital has been and will be maintained.

I think that answers the concern the member has talked about. He is suggesting abandonment, and of course each circumstance has to be met with the individual circumstances of a case. If he has a case, he should let me know; we can refer it, and we will get a ruling on it.

Mr. Rae: The minister still has not answered the question. I want to read the Public Hospitals Act to him. It says, "When a member of the medical staff is unable to perform his duties in the hospital, he shall arrange for another member to perform his duties and notify the administrator." That is set out in section 27 under regulation 865 of the Public Hospitals Act, and there are three other regulations in that same section that specifically set out similar obligations. Between nine and 10 this morning the entire staff at the Humber Memorial Hospital notified the deputy administrator that, as far as they were concerned, emergency services would be stopped at four o'clock and minimal services would be provided. Is the minister of the view that this is in compliance with the law of Ontario? If not, what does he intend to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I can tell the honourable gentleman that there are provisions for services to be provided. That was the essence of his question. He underscored quite clearly that services were going to be provided out there.

I do not know exactly what extra information he may have for me to consider, but the result of the situation at the Northwestern last week indicated quite clearly that all the people who appeared at that emergency room facility were assessed, and treatment was available for those who were in circumstances requiring treatment. That was what the college of physicians and surgeons indicated clearly. It was my understanding as well. If the gentleman has other information, I am prepared to act on it when he makes it available to me.

Mr. Rae: I will provide the minister with this information now. It has already been referred to the college this morning, but I want the minister to know about it.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a new question?

Mr. Rae: It is a new question to the minister. It deals with the question of the withdrawal of services by anaesthetists, specifically at Sunnybrook Medical Centre. A young woman by the name of Birgit Schultz has been waiting for some time for an operation for a cleft palate. We understand that tomorrow is the last day Dr. Ian Munro will be performing surgery. He has agreed to perform the operation. The woman was admitted to Sunnybrook Medical Centre this morning and was advised that the operation could not be performed because the anaesthetists had withdrawn their services.

3:20 p.m.

What does the minister intend to do about a situation where the anaesthetists, who are members of the medical staff, have declared unilaterally that they will not perform services and have not themselves ensured that another member of the medical staff will do the job? That is what is happening in this instance. Why is he not enforcing the law, and why does it have to be raised on a case-by-case basis when there are many examples of this taking place in the province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The situation is one that I consider serious. I wish the honourable gentleman could have advised me of it earlier. I hope he will advise me. With respect to the question he has raised, as I understand it that is not an emergency room type of activity. I agree with him quite clearly that it is unfortunate.

With respect to Dr. Munro, we have information indicating there are resources available in Ontario to which we can refer people who have particular situations. I will look at the circumstance to see exactly what we can do about it. I guess the member found out about it relatively late in the day. I am pleased to hear it has been referred to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. I will follow up on it myself, and I ask the member to provide me with the details.

Mr. Rae: Is it the view of the minister that any individual anaesthetist can refuse to turn up at work as a member of the medical staff and refuse to perform an operation without complying with the requirements of the Public Hospitals Act with respect to assuring the public and the hospital that an alternative member of the staff is available?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We are talking about questions that deal with elective surgery. I cannot comment on this case as I do not know what went on behind it. I do know that examinations of these cases have generally been made through consultation among the surgeons and anaesthetists. I do not know about this circumstance. With respect, those people are providing services in a situation where it is deemed an emergency or an urgent situation. If the gentleman has further information, I would like him to fill me in so we can take appropriate action.

There is another piece of information that is important. Where circumstances are such that the board determines action is required, it is empowered to take action with respect to people who are unwilling to provide or fulfil their mandates in those hospitals. There are things called bylaws. There are requirements with respect to responsibilities. I believe the boards have acted very responsibly and have done what they can to ensure continuing care.

Mr. Rae: The minister can try to slough it off on the boards, but if he is not willing to see that the act is enforced, I do not see how he can expect the boards of hospitals to be tougher than he himself is willing to be with respect to the disruption of services that are specifically called for in the act. How does the minister feel about the application of sections 26, 27 and 28, the sections dealing with the need of doctors to continue to maintain services and ensure that an alternative is available?

There is the case of a single male in his mid-20s, a schizophrenic with uncontrolled epilepsy who traditionally is admitted to hospital about 10 to 12 times per year. On Thursday, his doctor at St. Michael's Hospital said he would be available if needed. When the patient called on Friday, the doctor's secretary said the doctor was on strike and would not see the patient. A whole process of panic took place. The patient threatened to kill himself and finally was allowed to attend as an inpatient and was admitted at North York General Hospital. How does the minister feel about that level of service this weekend for this single, 20-year-old schizophrenic with uncontrolled epilepsy?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am concerned that this sort of event occurred, because the physicians have told me they will provide the service when the service is required. In the vast majority of cases, I believe it will continue. I invite the member to provide me with the details of that circumstance. It will be referred on. We will deal with it.

We will continue to work and deal with the legislation we have. I urge all the members to ensure that we move on and do the clause-by-clause in a most reasonable and expeditious fashion so we can pass the bill and get on other matters. I can tell the honourable gentleman that the circumstances he has outlined should be brought forward to us at the first appropriate opportunity.

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier. While he winks goodbye to Dr. Munro, I wonder whether he will share with us the following information, on which I am sure he has been briefed as Premier: How many hospitals have had their emergency wards closed today; how many boards of hospitals have resigned; how many medical advisory committees are not functioning; and how many hospitals have cancelled surgery? Surely he will have that information in this critical circumstance.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The minister can give the up-to-date information on that.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have some information with respect to the current status --

Mr. Davis: Would the Premier like a bowl and cloth to wash his hands of the whole thing?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It has been suggested there will be some closures today. I will not give a total rundown, but the member already knows about the ones that are closed; for instance, Northwestern General Hospital. There is some suggestion that Peel Memorial Hospital will close at 6 p.m. There are unconfirmed reports that Mississauga Hospital is considering. There is information that Humber Memorial Hospital is considering closing at 4 p. m. I can tell the member that in each of these circumstances, it is my understanding there is going to be a physician available to do the necessary assessment and consider who requires treatment.

We can give further information about others if the member has specific inquiries, and I will be pleased to deliver that to him. However, what we have in place is the ability to meet the needs of the system by referring the patients who are looking for treatment.

Mr. Grossman: This is a scary situation. In day five, not in the first hour, of a prolonged walkout, the Minister of Health cannot tell the people of this province which emergency wards have been closed. If he has the information, we would appreciate it if he would send it across to us. He cannot tell us which medical advisory committees have resigned; they are, after all, the fail-safe mechanism for quality of care in hospitals. He cannot tell us how many boards of directors have resigned, and he does not even know which hospitals in Ontario have cancelled emergency surgery.

Is the minister, in this circumstance, totally devoid of any information that would allow him to prevent a tragedy from occurring, given that his main response is, "Send Murray Elston some information and he will investigate"? Can we have this information with regard to what is happening in the system?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I provided some information with respect to which hospitals have advised --

Mr. Grossman: Send it over.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I could send it all over, but the member would be of no help whatsoever. He has been out there telling people to do whatever they can to resist this bill. He has been spurring on the debate to such a length that he will not even let us get on with the bill.

Ms. Fish: The minister does not know.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do know; I have lots of information.

Mr. Grossman: The minister does not know what is happening in the system; he has no information.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member is no help.

Mr. Grossman: Send us the information; we will tell our constituents what is happening over there.

Interjections.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the members they are wasting a lot of other members' time.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Chairman of Management Board, a cabinet minister for whom I have a lot of respect. She will be aware that the Manual of Administration, over which she presides, states with regard to senior civil servants that a conflict of interest includes "actual or perceived conflicts and those which have the potential to be actual or perceived." Furthermore, one of the remedies, when someone finds himself or herself in even a potential conflict, is to "temporarily remove the public servant from those responsibilities which cause the conflict."

In all sincerity, does the minister not agree that if she were a public servant and found herself in the position she finds herself in now, she would probably be removed, at least temporarily, until the matter could be resolved? Will she not apply the same standards to herself as she would apply to a senior public servant and step down until the standing committee on public accounts can clarify the potential conflict?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Let me answer in all sincerity. I believe I am not in contravention of the conflict-of-interest guidelines, and neither is my husband. In fact, I know he has attempted over the past year -- and I say this in all sincerity -- to adhere scrupulously to those guidelines.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Philip: The issue is not whether the minister is in conflict; the issue is whether there is a perceived or potential conflict. That is fully clear in the Manual of Administration and it does not distinguish.

In the minister's statement she said, "During the entire course of negotiations with the IDEA Corp., my husband's position as a financial consultant was fully disclosed to the staff and to the members of the board." Does she not agree that the reason for conflict-of-interest guidelines or rules in any Legislature or parliament is not simply that there be a disclosure but that some action be taken?

Why did she have this matter disclosed if there was not at least a potential conflict? Is that not an admission that there was a potential conflict? Why was no action taken on it? Why does the minister not do the honourable thing and step down until the matter has been clarified?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The IDEA Corp. is an autonomous crown corporation of the government. At the time I was sworn into the cabinet, my husband had a client and he asked if he could continue in his business. He said that from time to time he might have a client who applied to an agency or ministry and he asked under what conditions he was able to work. The conditions were clear and he adhered to them.

He was totally and completely open. He signed an affidavit and he did not receive any benefits from the equity investments IDEA Corp. made. Therefore, I do not believe there is any perception of conflict. The guidelines were adhered to. We have been completely open about this and I do not believe there is any problem.

Mr. Gillies: My question is of the Premier. He will be aware, as any other member of this House is aware, of the developments that have come up in the Caplan affair since Thursday when the House last met. It has now been clearly established that within several weeks of the IDEA Corp.'s $3-million equity going into Wyda, Mr. Caplan's fee was increased more than 300 per cent by Wyda, from $2,000 to $8,000 a month.

The Premier himself has said it does not look good. He has asked Mr. Caplan to sever his relationship with Wyda, but he knows that more is required. The parliamentary convention is that the minister should resign her post until such time as this matter has been adjudicated. Why has the Premier not asked the minister to do the honourable thing and resign?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is no question this matter causes me concern, as it causes the member opposite concern. It originally was brought to the attention of the House by the member, who made allegations at that point of some undue influence on the IDEA Corp. I think that was the charge levelled in this House. When I became aware of that, I immediately asked the secretary of cabinet to investigate and to talk to the people involved in the situation to see whether there was any hint of that kind of situation.

On a quick and cursory look at the situation, I came back to the House the next day and said that to the best of my knowledge there was no suggestion of influence being exerted in any way. I reminded the member that IDEA Corp. is independent of the government and the directors were appointed by the previous administration, not by us. I reminded him of all those situations. The people there -- the chairman, the president and a variety of others -- were prepared to attest there was absolutely no conflict of interest. They were aware of the situation and there was full disclosure.

I shared that with the members of the House, but at the same time I recognized the difference that sometimes exists between reality and perception. I said I had satisfied myself on the basis of what I knew that there was no problem, but I recognized how others could perceive this. As a result, I said to the member last Thursday that to satisfy himself, we would have an investigation of this matter by the standing committee on public accounts. He could call anyone he wants to call, including the minister, her husband, me and the IDEA Corp. and satisfy himself of the facts.

As I said to the member, my assessment on the basis of what I knew was that, prima facie, there was no undue influence or any influence whatever exerted on anyone. There was complete disclosure; in fact, there was no conflict. That is why I came back to the member and said what I did. That may not reflect his view or the view of the third party, but I have told the member, on the basis of the facts as I know them, that is how I see the situation.

Mr. Gillies: We welcome the opportunity for the standing committee on public accounts to consider this, but the Premier has said many times over the past year that he wants to set new standards for government conduct. What is the standard? The existing standard in this Legislature and every other chamber in the country has been that when there are serious allegations and compelling evidence of this type, the minister must resign.

I draw the Premier's attention to four resignations since January I of this year: Sinclair Stevens in Ottawa; Billy-Joe MacLean, the Nova Scotia Minister of Culture, Recreation and Fitness, who resigned in April of this year in very similar circumstances; Stephen Rogers, the Minister of Health of British Columbia; and Tom Waterland, the Minister of Forests in British Columbia. They all resigned because of apparent conflicts that had to be adjudicated by their governments.

Why would the Premier not set at least the same standard of conduct for his ministers and require the minister's resignation, as is being done in every other jurisdiction in the country?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the point of the member, but there is nothing to prevent him or any other member of this House from standing up on any occasion and accusing someone else of a conflict of interest. That is one of the realities of public life. People in public life are accused of all sorts of things. I looked very carefully at the facts of the situation and there are always very hard judgement calls to make in these situations. If there is a prima facie case --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There are charges regularly. If the members of the Conservative Party had resigned every time we alleged a conflict of interest, there would never have been a cabinet in the previous government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: These things happen.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am trying to answer the question, Mr. Speaker. When people's in-laws are awarded a lottery licence and things such as that, we ask ourselves whether there should be an immediate resignation. I am sharing with my friends opposite the difficulty of making the judgements with which I am most uncomfortable. I looked at the facts and my sense was that there was no conflict and no undue influence being exerted.

Subject to the advice of this House, obviously, we have said: "Look at this on a nonpartisan basis. Put it before the standing committee on public accounts. Do that expeditiously." I again invite members to take advantage of this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:40 p.m.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mantel: I have a new question for the minister responsible for the swamp, the Minister of Labour. On May 13 I asked the minister a question concerning the death of Francis Spurgeon who was killed on November 19, 1985, when he was run over by an asphalt truck.

I asked: "Is the minister aware that at the inquest, held on May 7, 1986, evidence was presented that indicated the death was the result of the violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, regulation 130, for construction sites? The truck backed up without a signalman to direct it, and there was no signalman assigned to the work site. Why, when the minister's inspector wrote the report on the order after the death, was that order also ignored?" The minister said he would have a response perhaps within the next 49 minutes.

Since the 49 minutes have long passed, can the minister tell me if the order issued against Bennet Construction has now been complied with?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member will know that the company in question was involved in a work site in Oshawa. I believe there was no indication the order was not complied with. At the time the inspector went back to that work site in January 1986, Bennet Construction was no longer present on the work site. We attempted to get in touch with the health and safety representative for the Canadian Union of Public Employees because part of this whole matter was as a result of a letter from Mr. Lambert. I am sure the member has a copy of it. Mr. Lambert indicated in his letter that he had no specific information regarding the continued failure of Bennet Construction to provide that kind of safety flagman.

Mr. Martel: I have a more recent letter dated June 2, 1986, from Mr. Colin Lambert, and he is asking that prosecutions be initiated because the company did not provide a signalman to back up the truck, ignored the original order of the Ministry of Labour and refused to provide adequate training for employees. Can the minister tell me when he is going to make a decision about whether there will be a prosecution in the death of that worker for a violation of section 130 of the construction safety regulations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act? When is he going to move?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We are back to the same kind of game and it really is rather a silly game the member insists on playing. This is a very serious occurrence and the matter is proceeding through the proper channels, and that will be from the inspection report up to the director of the branch, through a number of other steps, and ultimately a decision will be made as to whether we will prosecute. There is a 12-month limitation on prosecutions.

Other than to stand up and ask questions day after day, I am not certain why this honourable member insists on asking whether prosecutions are going to be undertaken literally within hours of a work place incident. We take these obligations very seriously, particularly as they pertain to fatalities, and if a prosecution is called for, a prosecution will be launched.

Mr. Martel: Back to the swamp. How long does it take for a Highway Traffic Act violation?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SENIOR CITIZENS' SERVICES

Ms. Hart: My question is to the Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for senior citizens. In the white paper which the minister recently tabled, he informed all members he would be reviewing extended care facilities and would subsequently introduce new legislation. What type of review process is the minister considering?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: We perceive that the process of rationalizing extended care is going to be a very complex process, because we intend to review inspection services, programming, staffing, quality of care, physical plant standards, and also -- another two additional very significant factors -- there is a need to assess the funding system to make it more uniform, and beyond that, the whole process of patient assessment and placement needs review.

To do this, we will be talking with the various providers, including the Ontario Nursing Home Association and the Ontario Association of Homes for the Aged. We will also be talking with such advocacy groups as the Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities, the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, and because we are dealing not only with nursing homes of the for-profit variety but also the charitable and municipal homes, we will be dealing with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

Ms. Hart: There are a great many seniors in the riding of York East, and they are very interested to know approximately how long it will be before we see any introduction of legislation in this regard.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: I am sure all members will recall the very long time it took to come up with the revision to the Child and Family Services Act. It took many years to accomplish that. The reform of the Family Law Act took a long time.

Our schedule is that we will consult with the various advocacy and provider groups, starting in August. We hope that consultation will be complete by late fall; if not, then certainly before Christmas. Then the process of rewriting will begin, and we hope to do that as quickly as we can in early 1987.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Over the past 10 years, the population in the town of Bradford has more than doubled. The Simcoe County Board of Education has had a new Bradford public school as a top priority item for some time now. Ministry officials deemed the elementary separate school necessary to fund, which was number three in the separate board's priority list. What rationale did they provide in not recommending funding for the public school request, which was the number one priority in the whole county of Simcoe?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The honourable member will know from a previous conversation that the criterion was enrolment growth, which was determined by the regional office to be great in both Simcoe county boards but, in the Bradford area, greater in the separate board. As the member will know from talking to me and from listening to his colleague the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), the Ministry of Education tries to respond as best it can to the capital needs of the Ontario school sector, and this government, under the able leadership of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), has substantially increased the capital grants to the school boards of Ontario in both last year's budget and this year's allocation.

Mr. Rowe: The educational needs as perceived by the local elected school board trustees seem to have no credibility in the decision-making process the minister is currently following. Will he give this house the assurance that an overcrowded, 33-year-old public school with eight classrooms and seven portables is not acceptable by today's standards and that he will immediately move to correct this most serious situation in Bradford?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I very sincerely appreciate the concern the member has expressed to me, both by letter and in oral communication, about his constituents in that part of south Simcoe. I will do everything I can to alleviate the pressures that he and his colleagues on the Simcoe County Board of Education have identified. However, as the member knows, we have a capital allocation process that, in my view, works rather well, by and large. We always need more money. It is my job to continue to fight with my colleagues to ensure that money is made available.

I want to repeat, at the risk of being slightly self congratulatory, that in that respect I have been more successful by a considerable degree than any of the honourable member's colleagues.

3:50 p.m.

BRIDGE REMOVAL

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning the removal of bridges along the Shabotic River near White River in northern Ontario. The minister may recall that my colleagues the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) and the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), both of whom are in their ridings today, raised this issue with the minister, and the minister promised to consult with them further before anything was done. Then this morning crews appeared at the bridges to demolish them, only to find that they had been occupied by local people.

Why did the minister proceed after he had promised to consult with my colleagues, knowing full well the detrimental effect that the removal of those bridges would have on local hunters and fishermen and the local tourist industry?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Consultation has been a very high priority of this government, and I did discuss the bridges with the two gentlemen. I have a report from our engineering staff in the area which indicates that the bridges were built of timber 25 or 28 years ago and are no longer structurally sound. I have a great deal of concern, and the member can understand with insurance rates and the kinds of things that are happening in the province today relating to accidents, that the ministry feels they are unsafe and should be removed. We are doing something, where we can, to produce a culvert and an access to one of the areas. This need not have been done, but we were considering it.

I talked to the honourable gentlemen and I had hoped they understood that, after investigating, we found out we were having a serious problem in maintaining those bridges.

Mr. Laughren: What a silly response. The minister knows those bridges have deteriorated because his ministry has allowed them to deteriorate. Why will he not put adequate resources into maintaining those bridges so that people can travel on them? There are tourist operators in the area who claim that up to 25 per cent of their income will go down the tube unless those bridges are maintained. Why has the minister not consulted more widely with the local people, not to mention having broken his word to my colleagues from Lake Nipigon and Algoma?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would accept part of this question, but I cannot accept the fact that I broke my word with the honourable members. This determination was made back in May, and I stopped it from happening because I was discussing the possible alternatives with my ministry.

If a bridge made from untreated timbers is 28 years old, it poses a very serious hazard to the public. If we have to look at them and decide whether they are going to be needed in the future, it seems to me they are not, other than being on side roads, going to be kept up, because we have all kinds of involvement in maintaining the main roads in that area. We are in the process of doing this and we are giving good access up to a point.

However, I am certain the honourable member would not accept that the government should maintain many bridges that were built years ago for a different purpose, are no longer needed and are now a tremendous danger to the public.

DAY CARE

Mr. Cousens: Instead of asking the Premier (Mr. Peterson) this question, because I know he would divert it to his minister, I will ask the Minister of Community and Social Services. It is a very important question that affects a lot of children and young people.

What action has the minister taken to resolve the current strike at the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Three children's aid societies are negotiating at the present time. The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto is expected to take a vote today. The Jewish Family and Child Service of Metropolitan Toronto is expected to take a vote in about two weeks. We have reason to believe that both of those will be satisfactory.

As the member well knows, however, the Metro children's aid society took a vote last Wednesday, decided to go on strike on Thursday and has been on strike since then. There are in excess of 100 management nonunion members who are carrying out all the important functions and taking children into care. Our office is monitoring that very carefully. To this point, we have no reason to believe that the children who need special care are not getting it.

Mr. Cousens: The whole world knows that more than 12,000 children are served by the Metro children's aid society and that they are being served by only a few management people. Does the minister not consider this to be a crisis that requires his direct intervention? He cannot just stand by and let other people do things. It is time to get involved. Does he not agree this is a crisis that requires his involvement?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would not agree it is a crisis situation. I would rather agree that the members of the Metro children's aid society staff who are not on strike are managing the needs at the present time.

I also point out that a children's aid society is an independent, autonomous body. We were asked very clearly by the board of directors and by the chairman not to intervene, that their negotiating process had to be carried forward. Therefore, I have clearly indicated that I would not intervene.

IDEA CORP.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: In recent days, questions have been raised about the financial transactions made by my husband, Wilfred Caplan, and the Wyda corporation and about how these transactions may in some way have breached the conflict-of-interest guidelines of this new government.

Today and on Thursday last week, I endeavoured to state very clearly what actually took place in these matters, and I can assure all honourable members that I have, to the very best of my knowledge, put all relevant information before this assembly.

My husband and I have spoken with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and assured him that we believe our conduct has been consistent with government policy in this very sensitive area.

Regrettably, this afternoon I have taken note of the fact that honourable members in the opposition do not appear to accept what I have put before them. That being the case, I feel I cannot carry on my responsibilities as a minister of the crown. Therefore, I have tendered my resignation to the Premier pending an independent examination of this matter.

I deeply regret any embarrassment I have caused my colleagues in government. I am very confident I will be vindicated when the inquiry is concluded, and I hope perhaps I will be able to serve in the future.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I intend to move, as the first order of business this afternoon, the following resolution:

That the matter of the alleged conflict of interest concerning the Honourable Elinor Caplan be referred to the standing committee on public accounts for its immediate consideration by the committee and report of its findings.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs leave to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act.

4 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the member has a few brief comments.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Bill 30 has taken a lot of the time of the standing committee on social development during the past year. I want to thank and commend all members of that committee for the very hard work they undertook and the incredibly long hours of public hearings they underwent through the summer and fall last year.

I note somewhat ironically that we completed our work on clause-by-clause two years to the day after then-Premier Davis introduced the legislation. I would have hoped some members of the House might have been interested in that fact.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt you, but there are quite a number of conversations and it is most difficult to hear.

Are there any further comments?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: If there is disagreement, it must go to committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is fine for people to murmur "no" and so on, but there are House leaders here and perhaps we could have their views. There is no sense in sending it to committee unless there is to be further debate and amendment. If there is going to be just debate without amendment, it can go to third reading.

Mr. Speaker: I will again put the question. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House.

Mr. McClellan: Let the record show that the Conservative Party has broken its agreement.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I placed the question to the House. There was not unanimous consent; therefore, it goes to committee of the whole House.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: There has been an allegation that the Conservative Party has broken some agreement. We have not broken any agreement. In view of your insistence on dealing with this and not giving us two seconds to communicate, I believe the answer you heard from our party was correct. If you would like to stand it down to give us time to look at it and deal with it later, we would be prepared to do that.

Mr. Speaker: I have some difficulty in standing it down. The question is before the House. Is it possible to stand it down?

Mr. McClellan: It is always possible to do whatever we want. We can seek unanimous consent to do whatever we want.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that. There has been a suggestion by the member for Nipissing that this matter be stood down. Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to know when it will be raised again. Will it be raised after the routine proceedings tomorrow?

An hon. member: Check with your House leader.

Mr. Laughren: Problems in caucus.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I believe that will be dealt with and announced by the government House leader.

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It is my intention to introduce amendments on Bill 30 in committee of the whole House. There is no sense in not putting it into the committee of the whole House. I understood it was going to be put into the committee of the whole House -

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the matter has been stood down. It will come up again in the House to decide where it will go. Therefore, there is no need to discuss it further at present.

Mr. Sterling: I have a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of order? Mr. Sterling: I am opposed to standing it down.

Mr. Speaker: I asked for unanimous consent and I got unanimous consent. I placed the question before the House. There was unanimous consent. I have to go by that.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Grande moved first reading of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Grande: The purpose of the bill is to provide for heritage language instruction in Ontario. The bill sets forth a procedure for the establishment of heritage language programs in order that a heritage language may be taught as a subject or language of instruction.

When a school board decides to institute a heritage language program, the bill requires that a local heritage language advisory committee be established to provide continuing advice to the board concerning the nature and content of the heritage language program. In the case of a dispute between the board and the advisory committee, the bill provides that the matter in dispute may be referred to the minister for determination.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Bernier: Before the orders of the day, I rise on a point of privilege. On many occasions we have been told that this government is open and has no walls or barriers. On December 9, 1985, I placed a question on the Orders and Notices paper. I received an interim reply on December 20. I was told the final reply would reach me by February 28, 1986. It is now six months since I tabled that question and there has been no response. Mr. Speaker, would you please intervene on my behalf?

Mr. Speaker: First, I would inform the member that is not a point of privilege; it is a point of order. I am sure the government House leader will take note of the request.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have been informed by our parliamentary adviser, the Clerk, that it would be in order for me to move the following resolution.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Mr. Nixon moves the following resolution:

That the matter of the alleged conflict of interest concerning the Honourable Elinor Caplan be referred to the standing committee on public accounts for immediate consideration by the committee and report of its findings.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will speak after everyone else if there is a debate.

Mr. Harris: We intend to support the motion. I draw to the attention of the House the referral "to the standing committee on public accounts for immediate consideration by the committee." I indicate to the Legislature that the committee, as is the case with all committees, will itself consider the order of business it deals with. I have no difficulty with the direction coming from the Legislature, but I do not believe the Legislature can direct the committee as to what it will do and when.

Mr. Polsinelli: Yes, we can.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We are the one body that can.

Mr. Harris: I suggest that is not the case. Notwithstanding that, we are comfortable supporting the resolution with that understanding.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: On behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I want to say we feel the government has done the right thing with this referral. We also feel the minister has done the right and very courageous thing by resigning pending the outcome of the investigation.

I say to the government House leader and the opposition House leader that we would expect there would be a speedy investigation into this matter. While the opposition House leader has indicated correctly that the committee does set its own timetable, I am sure all members of the committee will want to reschedule the work of the standing committee on public accounts so this matter is dealt with expeditiously.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the comments made by the other two House leaders. However, I disagree with the opposition House leader in one respect. I believe this is the only body that can direct a committee on what its work should be; in fact, the committee is an extension of this House, and if by our vote we tell the committee to take up the matter forthwith, then I believe it does not have any choice.

There was some consideration as we were considering the motion that a time limit should be put on it because we do not want it to go on in any extended way, although in every respect we feel the committee ought to have the opportunity to order its own business once it takes this subject to its consideration.

On that basis, I hope that the House will give unanimous support for the resolution and that the committee will consider it its duty to proceed without delay. The committee may decide it should have additional sittings and the House leaders and whips may be able to provide that time, even though our schedule is extremely busy, as we all know.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

HEALTH CARE ACCESSIBILITY ACT (CONTINUED)

Consideration of Bill 94, An Act regulating the Amounts that Persons may charge for rendering Services that are Insured Services under the Health Insurance Act.

Mr. Chairman: When we last left Bill 94, apparently all discussion had been completed regarding section 4. The question now is, shall section 4, as amended, carry?

5:18 p.m.

The committee divided on whether section 4, as amended, should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 61; nays 32.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Elston moves that the bill be amended by adding the following sections:

"4a. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make a regulation prescribing the administrative charge for the purpose of subsection 3a(2).

"4b.(1) Subsection 8(1) of the Health Insurance Act, being chapter 197 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, is amended by striking out `and not more than nine' in the second and third lines.

"(2) Clause 44(2)(a) of the said act is amended by inserting after `act' in the first line `the Health Care Accessibility Act, 1986. "`

Hon. Mr. Elston: The first section is to allow the Lieutenant Governor to set an administrative charge in his discretion with respect to the costs that are incurred with respect to the administrative mechanism under section 3a which, as earlier passed, is an amendment to the bill.

Section 4b, which deals with the Health Insurance Act, allows us some housekeeping. It allows us to remove the upper limits on the number of members under the Health Services Appeal Board and to add the Health Care Accessibility Act to clause 44(2)(a) of the act.

These are matters that are required to place effect to the legislation.

Mr. Chairman: Before the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) starts, will the members please either take their seats or remove themselves from the chamber. Please do not stand around talking, because the noise level is very high.

Is the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) speaking to this motion?

Mr. McClellan: No.

Mr. Chairman: All right. The member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) is standing right beside the member who is trying to speak.

Mr. Andrewes: Can the minister tell us specifically what the administrative fee covers?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is a gathering of the information required to make a judgement as to whether there should be a holdback with respect to the disbursements that would normally be made.

Mr. Andrewes: I am not sure I quite understood the response. I sense the minister is saying the administrative fee covers the gathering of information to support the action taken by the general manager, as set out in section 3.

Our concern with this section is that it is somewhat vague. It allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing the administrative charges for the purposes of subsection 3a(2). In making those regulations, there should be some opportunity for those who would be paying those administrative charges to know what the charges are for.

This is not a new concern that is specifically alluded to in this legislation. It is a concern that many of us have had brought to our attention on other matters relating to government administration. Specifically, the permissive manner in which the section allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations may open the door for activity that could be punitive in the view of those who will be required to pay these fees.

In a past amendment, the minister saw fit to reduce the fine from the original $10,000 level to a more specific $250 level on first offence or whatever; I guess "offence" is the wrong terminology, and I am surprised I am not being called to order. However, that is what the amendment did. It is not clear in this section whether the punitive intent of the fine is replaced by some other mechanism to suitably punish the practitioner being called to task by this amendment.

We have an amendment that we would like to propose to this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member never bothered telling us about it, did he?

Mr. Andrewes: I gave the minister a copy of the amendment. I am not sure whether the table has a copy.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member did not give us much notice.

Mr. Andrewes: There was about as much notice as we had on some of the amendments the minister brought in.

Hon. Mr. Elston: He has had all this stuff for a long time. He changed his mind, did he not?

Mr. Andrewes: I remind the minister that clause-by-clause study of Bills 54 and 55 --

Hon. Mr. Elston: This bill was going to be carried this afternoon in committee.

Mr. Chairman: Order, the minister and the member for Lincoln. Does the member have copies for other people? Does the minister have a copy now?

Mr. Andrewes: Yes, he does.

Mr. Chairman: Does the third party have a copy?

Mr. Andrewes: I believe it does.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I do not.

Mr. Andrewes: One was left on his desk. If it is not there, I have a second copy.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have it.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Riverside has it.

Mr. Andrewes moves that section 4a be amended by adding thereto, "such charges not to exceed $150."

Mr. Andrewes: The amendment expresses directionally our concern that the regulation should not be open-ended in terms of setting administrative fees that might be punitive. We have considered what might be a practical level for these administrative fees to reach. If others disagree with $150 being a practical level, I will be glad to hear from them. In our view, it is a reasonable and reasoned figure, which we would like to include in this amendment.

We have expressed our concerns relative to the section. I am prepared to answer questions regarding the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York East.

Mr. Cousens: It is York Centre, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your concern.

Mr. Mancini: How long have those two known each other?

Mr. Cousens: Long enough to respect each other.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Will he respect him in the morning?

Mr. Cousens: Thank you. The concern that pervades the whole House at present is that something is going on outside this House and that what is going on in the House is not important, but it is. Some people would have us rush through this legislation without considering the details in intricate discussion and understanding.

5:30 p.m.

I have a feeling that if the letter of the member for York South (Mr. Rae) that was sent to our leader today were understood, he would like to have all this out of the way so everything would be harmonious. The doctors who were locked out of the Legislature today would not have to be locked out, the legislation would be passed, the people of this province could go on and things would get back to being just fine. That is not true. The government, with the support of the honourable members of the third party, has started a war on the health care system of our province, which is undermining it in a way we have never seen happen in this province before and has never -

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What has that got to do with it?

Mr. Cousens: It has a lot to do with it because it has to do with the very spirit of what this punitive bill is talking about.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for York Centre knows he is straying from the amendment of the member for Lincoln.

Mr. Cousens: I will challenge the chair if you are going to keep interrupting me, because I have strong feelings.

Mr. Mancini: Just a minute ago, the member said he respected the chair.

Mr. Cousens: I said I will - if.

I am concerned. A number of points go behind this amendment, which has been placed by the member for Lincoln. When it says not to exceed $150, it has to do with the spirit of this bill and the punitive nature which the government --

Mr. Martel: Challenge the chair.

Mr. Cousens: I am surprised the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), who is a nice, good-hearted person, would be party to this type of action against a group of people such as the doctors. If this were to be done to any other labour group in Ontario, if it were to be done to the Canadian Auto Workers or some other union of which he is very supportive --

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for York Centre will please address the chair. The member for Sudbury East will please not interrupt; the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) also.

An hon. member: The member's government sent labour leaders to jail.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Cousens: The last thing I want to see is any more in jail. We can hardly handle the number of people there now. One more would be too many.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) is not in his seat.

Mr. Cousens: The decision before this House today is part of an overall picture of what the people in our province are seeing happen, where the government is asking for control over a profession which can take them further than anyone would even know or think of at present. There have to be limits to that, and the limits have to be put in legislation.

The spirit of vindictiveness that is party to the actions by the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson), being supported by the members of the third party, is of great concern to the people of this province. I do not want to see people taking sides on issues. We in this House should be able to discuss intelligently and clearly the issues that are before us. We are very concerned that this legislation -- and there are so many aspects to it -- is undermining the long-term benefits we have come to respect and appreciate in Ontario. The fact that we are trying to narrow it down, limit it and control the government excesses is something we believe is a responsible action.

This legislation is too important to try to speed through or to push on. I know some people would like to be out of here and off on summer holidays. I happen to know that the members of the Progressive Conservative Party are prepared to stay here as long as it takes us to deal with this section.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member is straying. The member must address himself to section 4a.

Mr. Cousens: I do not appreciate your interruptions.

Mr. Chairman: I cannot help whether you appreciate them or not. You must stay in order and speak to the amendment.

Mr. Cousens: I am speaking to it. My whole theme ties into what this bill is all about. We are talking about the limits that are being placed on doctors by this bill and by the amendment that has been laid out here by the Minister of Health. If we are not able to talk about it in this House, then there is something seriously wrong. This is where democracy begins, and we have to stand up for it. This is where it counts, and I do not appreciate the fact that you are saying I am steering away from the bill. I am talking --

Mr. Chairman: No. You are steering away from the amendment, and that is what must be discussed.

Mr. Cousens: This amendment is implicit to the whole problem of the bill. The amendment is part of it and the bill is an even larger part.

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry. You must restrict yourself to discussion of section 4a and the amendment of the amendment of the member for Lincoln.

Mr. Cousens: I have that before me. I know what I am talking about.

Mr. Chairman: It must tie in with that.

Mr. Cousens: I am talking about government control of a profession. I am talking about the outrage that, if we do not have this amendment placed and agreed to in this House, it will further erode the whole relationship that has existed until now between our government and our professional people, especially our doctors.

If we do not see this amendment carry, we could see this government bring in further punitive legislation that would affect other professions. In the meantime, we are concerned with what it does to doctors. It treats them in a way they have never been treated before and in a way that says we do not care how much it is going to be; it could be any amount of money.

Let me give the members an example of an administrative charge that was levied recently. Not too long ago in conversations between the Ontario Medical Association and the Minister of Health, the doctors asked for data on their services. These data are available in a computer readout that gives doctors an understanding of how many different kinds of services they provide, what they are billing for, who they are serving and the kinds of services that are being offered in their offices compared with other doctors' offices across the province. That very simple computer readout, comparing one doctor to the average or norm across the province, bears a charge of $50. The minister is charging $50 for that readout.

It is that kind of prejudgement of an administrative cost which comes down from someone in the civil service or that goes up to the minister -- the minister probably does not even know of the service I am talking about, which is being provided through the Ontario health insurance plan to the doctors. Doctors are being charged for a service from OHIP. They have asked for and are getting it, but the charge is $50.

When someone comes along and levies a bill for services, there is not a lot of discussion of it. The discussion should happen now, prior to when someone comes along to Queen's Park and says, "Here is what you are going to have to pay." It is up to us as responsible legislators to be concerned that the action that will follow from this legislation is not punitive or counterproductive and is not going to hurt further the relationship between the province and our doctors.

The charges that are being levied and everything else the government does are getting out of line. Just in the past couple of weeks, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) has had to reverse one of his earlier decisions on the charges that were going to be given --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I understand the degree of feeling of this member, but it might be helpful to the debate if he would understand -- and it is my understanding -- that both the other parties are going to support this amendment. Let us vote on the Tory amendment and get on with the bill. Why filibuster?

Mr. Chairman: That is not a proper point of order. In his debate the member was talking about administrative charges, and he was on point until he entered into a discussion of the Ministry of Natural Resources. There, he was getting away.

Mr. Cousens: It was an illustration, and I ask the indulgence of the Chairman, who has the best interests of the House in mind in that interruption. May I comment very briefly on that point of order?

Mr. Chairman: No. There is no need to comment on an interruption.

Mr. Cousens: If the members of the third party are going to support this amendment, that is news to me, and I will be very pleased to see them do so.

I would also like to know why the member for Windsor-Riverside uses such words to describe my speech. In so doing he is taking upon himself a form of judgement that he is not capable of making and is certainly not respectful of the office we all have in this House.

I was referring to an illustration in which the government came along with a charge for seniors in camps during the summertime and then, after reaction by seniors in Ontario, had to reverse it. Last week the Minister of Natural Resources said, "Oh well, in the light of the reaction and the lateness of the decision and because so many people are concerned, we are not going to be charging what we said we would." In the meantime, the charge fuelled the concern and alarm of many people who were anxious because of the arbitrary way those charges were being laid down by the Minister of Natural Resources.

5:40 p.m.

That is the kind of thing that can happen in the Ministry of Health, and now there will be no one to police them. They will be free to do whatever they want. The New Democratic Party cannot police it. The other ministers will not be able to police it. Elinor Caplan will not be able to police it.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Oh, come on.

Mr. Chairman: The member should refer to members by their riding or their ministry.

Mr. Mancini: That was really clever.

Mr. Cousens: I just ask, who is there honourable enough to police the situation? Unless we have certain restrictions in this House delineated, defined and understood by us all, we are leaving ourselves open to a government that can levy any penalties or charges on a profession it has already tried to shove into the ground, one to which it has already tried to say, "We do not trust you."

That is part of the reason the doctors were parading up Queen's Park today: to protest their grievance against a government that has ceased to communicate with them. There is a breakdown in trust. The government is not willing to have a mediator to work things out. There would not be a mediator on the charges that could be levied by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Now is the time to define that kind of thing. I find it quite reprehensible for a government that said it wanted to be open, that last year came along and had the swearing-in ceremony of its cabinet ministers on the steps of the Legislature, to close down the thinking in this bill so that there cannot be any discussion. It is not worthy of the words that have been spoken by the powers that be.

We are seeing the opportunity for punitive action against the medical profession once it withdraws from working to rule. There could well be action taken against that profession by a government that has been bruised through all the negotiations that have broken down. Instead of taking it out on itself through responsible action, it will take it out on the doctors. They are doing it now with other professions, so why not do it there?

We are seeing a government that wants supreme control in legislation that will allow it to do what it wants, when it wants and how it wants, without any deference to rules or guidelines. In this amendment we are asking for some guidelines, some limits, some common sense. The problem we are dealing with is a bill that is going far beyond anything we have seen before in the medical system in this province or even in the jurisdiction of Canada. We are seeing a government that says, "It will be our way and only our way."

There is no freedom for our doctors. We are moving into a socialized state of medicine not unlike what one sees in Britain. If the minister shakes his head the other way, I am saying to him, we are. That is the hurt that is going to be done to our system, because neither this government nor any government is going to be able to fund the quality health care system we have been able to have up until now. It not only will not fund it but will lower the morale as well; it will separate itself from the professional bodies that provide that health care system. It is a further aggravation to what would be progress or would be seen as progress or a continuation of a working relationship.

The administrative control and the administrative charges we are talking about in this give supreme control to the government, more supremacy across the way. I do not go for that kind of control in the hands of anyone. It should be distributed; it should be understood. It is good to have a relationship that has a balance between those who are going to be involved in the discussions and the debate and those who are laying out the rules. Right now, only one group is laying out the rules.

I suppose it is fuelled by support from the third party, but the government is not even prepared to talk during question period about the background to some of the causes of this bill. Unfortunately, the Premier is backing off from all questions. He does not face up to the challenges being put before him by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman).

We will be coming into this House with abuses to section 4 of this bill, because there will be grievances against this that we will have to face.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Would it be out of order for me to refer to the member as a pompous hypocrite?

Mr. Chairman: It would not be in order and the member will withdraw it.

Mr. Breaugh: That is a pity.

Mr. Chairman: Will the member for Oshawa please withdraw?

Mr. Breaugh: I just asked you a simple straightforward question, sir. I asked, "Would it be?" You said it would, and I said it was a pity.

Mr. Chairman: No. The use of those words is disruptive and insulting in their intent. Will you please withdraw those words?

Mr. Breaugh: Certainly.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Member for York Centre, will you please remain closer to the amendment.

Mr. Cousens: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the member for Oshawa for at least listening, though not understanding, the issues before this House. He does not appreciate the grave problems that are being brought on the province because of the unusual behaviour of his party, his leaders and this government.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The reason those unparliamentary words did spring into my mind this afternoon is that my friend Lucie Nicholson was on her way to jail about an hour and a half after his government decided the hospital workers were not allowed to strike.

Mr. Chairman: That is not an appropriate point of order.

Mr. Cousens: If we may speak to the bill and the amendment before us, we should understand that we are asking for certain limits to government. In this amendment we are saying, "such charges not to exceed $150." We are asking for a level of responsibility on the part of the government that is placed in legislation and not just in the hearts and minds of certain people in this House. We are asking that it be delineated and defined so everyone knows exactly what those fines are going to be. If the member says that does not make sense, I do not know where he is coming from.

I believe it is for us to come along and stand up for what we believe in. If some people say we should not, that is a different problem. I happen to believe the amendment put before this House by the member for Lincoln speaks very clearly to what government's role can be in the future. It should not be unlimited. It should have some way in which there are limits, and that is why there is great sense to this amendment.

We are facing a state system of medical care in this province that is controlled by a few people in the Ministry of Health. No longer will doctors make decisions that have to do with that relationship, because the doctor is going to be expected to provide certain forms of care and attention, possibly under certain guidelines that are defined by the government. The government will control everything that goes on within that doctor's office by delineating and defining what the standards are.

Where does that leave the relationship between the doctor and his patient? The doctor is now dealing with the government and the patient comes second. It has always heretofore been a relationship of the doctor and his patient. An insurance coverage in a government scheme was not meant to intrude on that fundamental and basic relationship. We are saying now that it does.

The fact is that this whole bill is garbage. This very specific section is part of what I call poor legislation, a poor approach to dealing with a professional body of people. I look at the Chairman and think of the whole future of our province, where we have enjoyed quality health care. We have had a relationship with the medical profession that has not always been an easy one, but we have been able in previous governments in this province to maintain the peace, the quality and the spirit of working together in spite of disagreements over certain parts of financial schemes, OHIP schedules and certain others things.

Never in this province have we seen the withdrawal of services by the medical profession that we are witnessing today. Unless there is some kind of softening in this bill in a few places, such as through this amendment, we will aggravate the relationship between our government and our doctors even further, and that is going to happen after the bill comes into law. The time to make those amendments is now, before that happens, so we have a chance to anticipate the very negative reaction that the medical profession will have.

This is not something to be taken lightly. For those of us who are here looking at the long term it is important to realize we should be doing everything we can to build the spirit, the relationship and that whole sense of co-operation between government and the medical profession again.

5:50 p.m.

It concerns me that there is such a mean-mindedness to this bill. We have an example of that in the $10,000 fine. That was part of the bill initially. I know there was talk of reversing that. Has it been done already?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member has not been here much. If he paid attention, he would know that has been changed. He just voted against that section. He just voted against the change.

Mr. Cousens: I come and go. It is too much. This bill was initially carved out in stone by the Liberals and the New Democratic Party, developed in the concept of the accord they had this past year. What we have seen since is a sense in which this government wanted to penalize the profession with a $10,000 fine.

Mr. Chairman: No, that $10,000 fine is part of section 4, which has been passed.

Mr. Cousens: I realize that, but it is indicative of the kind of fine or penalty, the kind of administrative charge the government could come out with. I believe what we are seeing here is a bad example of a good working relationship.

There are a number of other things I would like to say. I know other members of the Legislature want to speak to this amendment. I stand in dismay and with a sense of disgust at the fact that we are even having to debate this at this time. While we are doing so, we are seeing the health care system in our province seriously affected. I see as quite a separate thing that while we are here debating Bill 94, a withdrawal of services and other things are going on across this province. We will deal with that separately, and if the government realizes something should be done, I and the honourable members of the Legislature will be keen to see whatever we can do to restore the health care system.

The place to start restoring the faith of the medical profession in the health care system is in this bill and in this section and in this whole approach we are going to have. If we can begin now by accepting this amendment, it will show something of the spirit of a good working relationship between the government and the medical profession.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Very briefly, I have no problem with the amendment to the amendment. The member has wasted I do not know how much time on an amendment the other parties have indicated to him they would support.

Mr. Cousens: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: When did the honourable member indicate they were going to support this?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I indicated it about 15 minutes ago. The member may have forgotten. We will support the amendment.

The kind of tactics being used in this Legislature this afternoon to delay this bill while the doctors' strike goes on, giving false messages to the doctors of this province that their strike should continue, and the Conservative Party being responsible for people's --

Mr. Cousens: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: That is absolutely wrong and I ask the honourable member to withdraw that. Anything we are doing here is quite separate from the actions of the doctors outside. The fact that they are marching on Queen's Park and the fact that they are withdrawing their services have nothing to do with this bill. What we are debating in this bill is the horrible, heinous legislation of this government.

Mr. Chairman: That is not an appropriate point of order.

Mr. Cousens: It is not appropriate for him to be making those statements.

Mr. Chairman: I believe I heard him say, to paraphrase, that the official opposition was wasting time. That is not out of order.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I will be more specific. What is happening here this afternoon is that the --

Mr. Chairman: Will the member now please speak to this amendment?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I am talking about the amount of time spent by that party on an amendment the other parties have indicated they are going to support. The tactics being used here this afternoon by the Conservative Party are putting people's health at risk.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Just as I admonished the member for York Centre to stay on the amendment, I ask the member for Windsor-Riverside also to stay on the amendment of the member for Lincoln.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I indicated we are going to support it. I hope the Conservative Party will vote on the amendment and the original amendments presented by the government and get on with passing this bill instead of the continued filibuster tactics the Conservative Party is using here this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Our party will support this amendment.

Miss Stephenson: I wonder whether the amount we specified was appropriate. We looked very carefully at what seemed to be the outside limits of administrative costs. It seemed that would be an appropriate outside limit. Certainly "not to exceed" would ensure that in many instances it would be considerably less than that and therefore could not be considered punitive. We felt it was appropriate to have a limit within the bill. Is that a reasonable outside limit? That is the question my colleague asked the minister.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I just said we were supporting the amendment. I indicated we are supporting the amendment that says the charge is not to exceed $150.

Mr. Cousens: Why is it that we did not get some clarification on this earlier from the minister? It just goes to show that we have to sit here and discuss this thing carefully and intelligently and then we have to drag it out of the government.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The member should not be so stupid. He is making an ass of himself.

Mr. Cousens: I happen to know it is a fact. Will the member withdraw that?

Mr. D. W. Smith: Sit down.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York Centre is quite entitled to stand and speak as many times as he wants, but always on the amendment, not on the minister's conduct or lack of it.

Mr. Cousens: I ask for a withdrawal of that last comment.

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry; I did not hear the last comment.

Mr. Cousens: I ask for the withdrawal of that comment. The member knows what it was.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for Windsor-Riverside wish to withdraw his comment?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe I said anything that is unparliamentary. If you want to review Hansard, you can report back.

Mr. Chairman: There was noise over to my right as well as in several other places. I did not hear the member for Windsor-Riverside say anything. I did not hear him, period. I cannot really make a comment and ask him to withdraw when I do not know the words.

Mr. Martel: Why does the member not tell us what he said?

Mr. Cousens: What is going on in this Legislature is very important; it is important for the long-term benefit of health care in our province. If some people want to impute motives or make statements about other members' behaviour, that is up to them. I happen to represent a riding in this province that cares about what goes on within the province. I will speak out for the people in York Centre and the people of Ontario.

I believe what I have said is responsible and right. I believe what the government is doing is fundamentally wrong for the health care system and the doctors of this province. If the member wants to say I am making an ass of myself, which is what he said, then I will be glad to continue to do that in the spirit I have described. If you do not make him withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, I will be proud to represent the people of my riding, especially when it has to do with the very best interests of the people of this province.

Mr. Chairman: Did the member for Windsor-Riverside use that expression?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, it was completely accurate. I would like you to show me where that word is unparliamentary.

Mr. Chairman: Under standing order 19(d)11, any language that is abusive and insulting and likely to create disorder is out of order. It is my ruling that the expression is insulting and likely to create disorder.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I will withdraw and I will say the member is making a complete fool of himself.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Andrewes has moved that proposed section 4a of the bill be amended by adding thereto, "such charges not to exceed $150."

Motion agreed to.

6 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: We are now back to the minister's amendment.

Miss Stephenson: Could you please read that amendment?

Mr. Chairman: The minister has moved the addition of section 4a and section 4b. He moved that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"4a. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make a regulation prescribing the administrative charge for the purpose of subsection 3a(2)."

That section would now continue, "such charges not to exceed $150."

We are now speaking about section 4a as amended. I believe all interested members have copies of the new section 4b.

Miss Stephenson: Are we voting on section 4a?

Mr. Chairman: They were moved together by the minister. What is the pleasure of the House?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As I understand it, they were moved and accepted for debate together.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, they were. However, the chair had better make a ruling. Section 4a has been amended, and it is possible a member will want to vote for or against section 4a as amended and not section 4b, or vice versa. It is entirely possible. We had better take them separately.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: You accepted both amendments. They are additions to section 4, and they should be voted on as additions to section 4 as one vote.

Mr. Chairman: Section 4a now has been amended.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is correct.

Mr. Chairman: It has been amended. It is not fair to the members to take together something that now is different from what was presented.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You can have sections that have subsections to them that are all voted as one section of the bill.

Mr. Chairman: It is a question of whether we vote for them together or separately. They are not now as presented; one has been amended.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, I do not have any problem if you wish now to put the question on section 4a.

Mr. Chairman: That is what I was preparing to do.

There being no further discussion on section 4a as amended --

Mr. Cousens: Will you read it, please?

Hon. Mr. Elston: He just got through reading it.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I just read it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion of section 4b?

Miss Stephenson: I have a couple of questions of the minister. I am aware that the Health Services Appeal Board has been busy from time to time, but I feel the number of members on that board has always been relatively sufficient if the board was actively pursuing the responsibilities assigned to it. I wonder what the purpose is of striking out "not more than nine." Is the number to be unlimited? Are they going to sit in panels? Is the minister saying there might be 100 members of the Health Services Appeal Board? Why is he moving such a dramatic change in the membership of this board?

Hon. Mr. Elston: In response, I advise the honourable member that under the mechanism in section 3a, a member sits on his or her own. One member is assigned to each case where a determination is to be made in that review. The answer to the question about panels is that under this legislation they will not sit on panels. As the member knows, they do sit on panels for other purposes in making determinations. In most cases, I understand they sit in groups of four to make sure they are able to hold a quorum of three under the other legislative requirements.

The answer is no. Under our bill's requirement, they sit as individual members. As the member said, they are often busy. The need is that we be able to add members as required to deal with the volume and that we deal with the administrative mechanisms with dispatch and without delay, so there is no undue hardship in coming to a determination when a review is requested by the physician under section 3b. That is why the additions are thought to be needed. We do not know at this time the exact numbers that might be required, but we want them to carry on their other case load as well.

Miss Stephenson: I wonder whether the minister will tell me which quasi-judicial body he is using as a model for the establishment of the figures. He has to have some kind of ball-park figure about the numbers he thinks he is going to require in this area. The way this is organized is going to be rather important to the function they are going to be asked to carry out. Surely he must have some idea of the size of the board he is going to have to appoint.

He has said nothing about modifying the criteria for such appointments. Is that part of this as well, or are the criteria that have been in existence in the past still going to be used for appointment to this body?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The criteria are going to be very similar. We wish only to remove the maximum number, which is nine under the current legislation, so we can provide ourselves with maximum flexibility to be efficient in dealing with the number of inquiries that may have to be made as a result of requests for review.

Miss Stephenson: Which one is the minister using as a model for this? I am unaware of any other that has an absolutely open-ended number, and I find this a bit disconcerting. Is this a new approach, or is there another quasi-judicial body with unlimited membership?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It would be limited to those who are appointed.

Mr. Cousens: How is the minister going to budget for this committee? Is this a new kind of budgeting that is going to come into it? If the minister does not know how many, how can he determine the costs and do any kind of accurate future balancing of the costs? People have to know beforehand how many people there are going to be. The total costs can then be determined once the minister has answered the question asked by the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson).

Hon. Mr. Elston: The costs are going to be determined by the number of people who wish to have reviews and, obviously, by the number of people who wish to violate the legislation. We end up having to assume we need more than nine because, under the regular business of this appeal board, we have groups of four who sit in determining the questions put forward. Since four are required in any other number of cases, we have seen the need to provide the flexibility for us to appoint a number of members sufficient to deal with whatever review is requested by physicians. At that stage we can take care of the budgeting.

Although I note the concerns for the job our fine Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has done so far, we will continue to monitor the expenditures required to make sure this piece of legislation operates efficiently.

Mr. McFadden: Do the members of this board hold a fixed term, or is it at pleasure?

Hon. Mr. Elston: At the moment there is a term, usually for a period of three years. I am not sure of the dates of each of the members at the moment, but some were appointed as recently as March 1985, as I understand it, and those expire in 1988, if I am not mistaken. It is three years.

Mr. McFadden: How many members are currently on the board? Is it nine or is it some lesser number? Does the minister know?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is currently nine, but it is about to become one fewer. There is a resignation because one is moving to the Northwest Territories.

Miss Stephenson: Would it not be rational for the minister to suggest that in this section he state a specific figure?

Hon. Mr. Elston: You are going to cause delay.

Miss Stephenson: Cause delay with what? The minister has no idea whether it will or not. For example, if he were to have 21 members of the appeal board available for call, they would deal with most of the problems that would arise. If it becomes apparent they will not, then he can have a minor amendment or regulate it.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Nothing in this bill is minor. There is no such thing as a minor amendment here.

Miss Stephenson: In this area, if the minister found he had to increase the number, I would consider that a relatively minor amendment.

6:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not think it is appropriate for the member to tell us what she projects for the future. We found out last week that the bill would come out of the committee of the whole House today. It becomes very apparent that this bill is not going to come out of committee of the whole today. How can I rely on something she says she will see as being a minor amendment down the road?

We would like to have the maximum flexibility so we do not disadvantage people who wish to have reviews. I do not see any need to put a cap on the number of members of this appeal board. It is appropriate that we allow the government the ability to appoint people to handle the work load.

Miss Stephenson: It is most intriguing that the minister suggests he was given information about there being some type of arrangement whereby this would be finished today. As a member very much involved with this bill, I had no such information. I probably would have been as informed as well as the minister.

I believe there would be a rationale for citing a specific number in this bill. I cannot understand why the minister thinks he has to have wide-open capacity to do this, just as he thought in the previous amendment. He thought the previous amendment was sensible and that putting a cap on it was a reasonable thing to do. Surely putting a cap on this, at least for the period of the introduction of his piece of legislation, which is horrendous anyway, would be a reasonable suggestion to pursue.

Mr. McFadden: Is the minister now saying this board is overworked as it stands, or is it the anticipation of the minister that when this bill goes through, the work load of this board will increase so much that he will need an unlimited number of board members to deal with the load which the board will be confronted with?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The president of the Progressive Conservative Party has asked a question about work load. I suppose the work load has gotten to him with respect to his duties. I presume there will be a new right president for that party who will ask such sensible questions --

Mr. Chairman: The minister will please return to the bill.

Hon. Mr. Elston: He asked about work load, Mr. Chairman, and I was briefly commenting on work load. We need more than nine members. We should provide ourselves with the flexibility to ensure that we do not delay those people who wish to have reviews.

As the bill is implemented, we will know better, but we ought to make sure we are able to carry out the traditional work of the Health Services Appeal Board. We do not want to see that go into delay because it was taken to deal singly on this legislation. It is appropriate that we allow ourselves the flexibility to find the members who would be willing and able to serve on that and, by the way, to augment the people who are currently sitting on the panels around the province with their full work load.

Mr. McFadden: The minister referred to my other avocation.

Mr. Chairman: It is not necessary to respond.

Mr. McFadden: You did not cut him off, Mr. Chairman. I wish to clear up one thing. First, I assume the members of this board will be better paid than I am as president of the party, unless they are volunteers. Second, our party generally does make the right choice for president --

Mr. Chairman: Order. That is not appropriate. Please return to the bill.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Who is he supporting? That is my question.

Mr. McFadden: I am chairing the convention. It is my third convention in 18 months.

Mr. Chairman: Order. You can speak about those things out in the hall. Stay with the bill in here.

Mr. McFadden: I will be happy to. The minister raised those points on the floor of the House, so I thought I would deal with them.

What worries me about this amendment is that it is my recollection of most bills that there is a minimum and a maximum number of members on boards. There is probably legislation where this is not true, but that is generally the case. What strikes me as unusual is that the minister expects the business of this board will increase tremendously as a consequence of the passing of this legislation. I do not know what the current delay is in hearing cases -- perhaps the minister would be prepared to tell us -- but what worries me is that the minister is assuming there will be a major increase in the case load of this board as a result of the passage of this bill.

This validates many of the concerns we have had all along about this bill. It is going to lead to more contention and more acrimony in the relations between the government and the medical profession. That can only indicate that in the future we will be facing some problems with the medical profession in addition to those we have been having heretofore. That surely is one of the reasons the medical profession and our party have been concerned about this bill.

In the amendment proposed here it is very clear that the government itself is now admitting to the House completely by implication that it anticipates problems and is going to need a far larger board to be able to deal with the problems of the future. We do not know whether nine will be enough. The minister is not sure whether 11, 15, 21 or 50 will be enough to deal with the case load.

In the light of this, though, I am curious whether the minister can tell the House the average length of time it takes to have a hearing before this board. Are we led to believe that the current nine cannot deal with the current case load?

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect, some of them can become quite complicated sometimes. Right now I travel to various parts of the province to deal with cases. Sometimes I hear expert evidence placed by OHIP. Sometimes I also hear evidence placed by the practitioner. The questioning at the hearings can and does become very extended.

Right now all I am asking is that we remove the upper limit and allow us to have the flexibility to appoint if there is the need. We are not sure we will need anybody, but it is well that we should be prepared if there is a need for the extra members.

We are not admitting to the House that there is going to be a need for any of those extras, but the people who are working very diligently on this board should not be disadvantaged in having an extra case load. Neither should the people who request a review be disadvantaged because we do not have the manpower in the Health Services Appeal Board.

I am asking that we be allowed to appoint some extra members. It would be appropriate if this amendment were to go through.

Mr. McFadden: Can the minister tell me why he anticipates an increase in case load? I know he has said he was not sure, but why does he anticipate there will be one?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We are adding a new act for the purposes of the administration of this board. It is fair to think there may be an increased work load. There are nine members for the work load that was scheduled for them originally. We are adding the Health Care Accessibility Act to that, and we expect there will be some need to appoint some members if a new act is added to their mandate.

Mr. McFadden: What does the minister consider a reasonable length of time for a hearing before this board? From the time a complaint is received, is there some standard at least that the minister has in mind that he would use as a guidepost in making a decision about how many people should ideally be on this board? Is there any kind of standard with regard to the time that should be incurred by a complainant from start to finish in an appearance before a board like this?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have a review by a person who is independent of the minister. I am not going to tell the person how long he has to review the information. There may be a great deal of information; there may be a little. All I am saying is that we should have the manpower to deal with the review required. It is appropriate that we have the opportunity to have this amendment in place so we can appoint enough people to handle the work load. I am not sure of the length of the reviews, because we have never had one.

Mr. McFadden: There must be a reason this amendment was put forward concerning the service level that was expected for dealing with things such as how long it would take and the basis on which the government will make a decision on whether more members are merited. I am trying to determine the basis on which this House can make a decision on whether the government should be given this kind of authority.

So far the minister has not indicated any standard that he is even going to apply. We have not heard the length of time for an average complaint to be dealt with today. I am curious to know, and we still do not have an answer, what test he as minister would recommend to cabinet as a basis on which this board would be increased in size. Would they be appointed by the minister personally or would it be by order in council? To correct the earlier part of my question, what standard would he use in deciding whether the board should be increased in size?

6:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to case load, we would have to take a look at what they are doing currently. It is fair to say that if people are busy now, as I understand they are under their current mandate, we could expect that by adding another piece of legislation, they should have more members.

The member for York Mills is trying to get the member to ask another question. Obviously, she is not happy with the way he is putting his questions. He should get some more counselling.

The whole point in taking this is that if we do not have sufficient people to carry out the work load, which is important, other people will be disadvantaged. A practitioner has the right to expect that the Health Services Appeal Board will hear its initial mandated hearings with dispatch. It is doing that now, but I do not wish to place on the nine current members the potential load of a new piece of legislation without being able to have more members appointed.

The member said it is unusual. It is not unusual. The Ontario Labour Relations Act allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council to appoint as many members as are required in equal number. That seems to work out well, and I think it will work out well in this situation.

Miss Stephenson: That was the question I asked; I thank the minister for the answer.

Mr. McFadden: I have one final question for the time being on this line. As far as the board members are concerned, is this a per diem arrangement or are they full-time board members?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is per diem and expenses.

Mr. McFadden: Given the current situation, do these board members meet every week for X days, or do they meet once a month? What kind of experience do we have with this board as it is now constituted as far as the time commitment of individual board members is concerned?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is determined by case load. That depends on where they are going. For instance, sometimes they will sit in Ottawa or wherever. It depends on the case-load requirement. If there are no problems or appeals from decisions made under OHIP, then we do not have them sitting often. I understand they sit for perhaps four days a month. It may be more often. They may sit every two weeks or whenever they need, let us put it that way.

Mr. Cousens: Are the qualifications of the people the minister will be adding to the board different from those who have traditionally been appointed? Is he looking for more of a legal background or judicial background? Does he sense a different kind of board with, obviously, the increased number of cases it will have before it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We are not sure that is obvious. The member was not listening to my earlier answer when I said we do not know how many cases we are going to have.

Mr. Cousens: No; the kinds of cases.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We are expecting at least some increase because there is a new piece of legislation they will have to deal with.

The chairman has some judicial experience. There are people with various other sorts of experience on that board. It would stand us in good stead if we were able to have some people with a legal background, but I do not think the potential members should be inclined exclusively to that way. For instance, right now some members of the board are medical people.

Mr. Cousens: The minister moved to the answer of the question I was asking. What are the criteria or characteristics the minister will be looking for in the additional members of this board? What kinds of qualifications is he going to be looking for?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I did provide an answer to that.

Mr. Cousens: I do not think he did. That is an important question, because already we are seeing an awful lot of Liberals appointed to many different boards. We are seeing police commissions being taken over by Liberal appointments. We would like to see a cleaning up of the appointment process so it will bring in the kinds of qualities we want to have on these important bodies. The characteristics the minister has in the back of his mind and what he is looking for are very important to this House. We would like to hear from him.

Hon. Mr. Elston: If the member is suggesting that his former colleague Bob Elgie should not have been appointed, he is wrong. He is stating that his former colleague --

Mr. Cousens: I beg to differ. I do not think he is on this board, is he, Mr. Chairman?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I did not say he was on this board. The member said the appointments process was such that only Liberals were being appointed. I am saying Bob Elgie was not a Liberal and --

Mr. Chairman: We have gone far enough down the line. Each of the members has had his little comments on that part, which is not directly on the amendment and the qualifications. Maybe the minister would like to appear --

Mr. Cousens: I did not hear an answer; he was just starting to give the answer. Mr. Chairman, will you please allow the minister to continue?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, so long as it on point on his own amendment.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have already said it would be nice to have some people with legal backgrounds, but I do not think that is an exclusive requirement. The people who are appointed should come from a number of backgrounds. I indicated some people from the medical profession are currently serving on the Health Services Appeal Board. That being the case, I do not see any reason to change the distribution of qualifications.

Mr. McFadden: The Minister of Health mentioned people with more legal background. Are there a lot of lawyers on there now? I do not know. Given the area in which the board would be working, I am not sure whether we want more lawyers on it. We want people with some experience in the social services and in health related fields, obviously not doctors, but people in the health-care area. Perhaps I misunderstood what the minister meant to say, but I wonder whether a lot of lawyers on a board such as this would be very helpful in expediting things.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I cannot tell the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) that when he relinquishes his role as president of the party I will have for him as a lawyer, as I know he is, a job on this board. He can apply and I will consider his application. The member for York Centre was trying to get me to indicate whether there was room for another lawyer; I told him some people with a legal background would be helpful, but I did not think it would be an exclusive requirement to be a lawyer. There is a good mix of people there now, and I do not see any reason to change the mix that is available.

Mr. Cousens: I would appreciate knowing the kinds of problems the minister expects to have once this legislation is passed and why he is going to need far more of the board's time. Can he explain what some of those situations are going to be?

Mr. Chairman: The minister indicates he has nothing to add.

Mr. Cousens: That begs the whole question. We are seeing the government bracing itself for problems with the medical profession, which is exactly the point our party has been making, or I have been making a big fool of myself, according to the members of the third party.

We are seeing a government that is saying, "We want to build up the armour and the fortifications so we are in a position to deal in whatever way you want with those people." By virtue of the fact the government is going to have an unlimited number of people on this board, we could end up having a relative of each member of the Liberal Party on it. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) could get his favourite gas station person on it. We would then see a board of horrendous size.

The implications to the medical profession, and to those of us who are questioning what is going on, beg an awful lot of questions from all of us. I would be interested in knowing whether the minister has ready any names of those who he is going to be appointing to this board.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The minister would consider answering that question when we next consider this matter.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

DISPOSITION OF BILL 30

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day, there was some discussion on the disposition of Bill 30 and whether it should go to committee of the whole House or directly to third reading. There has now been agreement that the bill should go to committee of the whole House.

The House adjourned at 6:29 p. m.

16 juin 1986