30e législature, 3e session

L075 - Fri 4 Jun 1976 / Ven 4 jun 1976

The House met at 10 a.m.


Mr. Speaker: Before we start the proceedings of the House, members will recall that, instigated I believe by the hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), a card was signed last week by many of the members, sending get-well wishes to our Sergeant at Arms, Major Soame. This was delivered by our Clerk of the House personally and a note of thanks has been returned from Mrs. Soame appreciating the gesture very much.

I haven’t anything to report about the condition of Major Soame other than that his condition, I believe, is stable.

Statements by the ministry.


Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time this morning, I’ll be tabling the report of the construction industry bargaining commission.

This commission, the House will recall, was appointed in December, 1974, pursuant to section 34 of the Labour Relations Act, to examine bargaining in the construction industry in Ontario and to suggest methods for reducing the number of bargaining situations. Subsequently, briefs were presented to the inquiry commission and in January of this year a number of public hearings were held throughout the province.

The report recommends modification of the Labour Relations Act to permit province-wide bargaining by trade, together with the development of co-ordinated bargaining by employer associations. The recommendations would require that for the core of industrial and commercial construction the only allowable collective agreements would be those which were province-wide and which covered an entire trade. In addition, the report recommends the introduction of devices to co-ordinate bargaining by the various employer associations.

Before a determination can be made concerning implementation, a number of details, both substantive and technical, must be further explored. Accordingly the inquiry commission has been authorized to make a detailed implementation assessment of these questions in consultation with those affected.


Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to the members that the government of Ontario is increasing the funds allocated to the drainage programme by $3.8 million. This will bring our total involvement this fiscal year to $16.8 million.

Under this programme, the province, through debenture arrangements with local municipalities, assists the individual fanner to drain his land and thus improve his productivity and income. The programme provides farmers with 10-year loans for up to 75 per cent of the cost of installing drainage tile. The farmer pays six per cent interest on this loan and the province makes up the difference between that six per cent and the market rate which varies from time to time.

This programme has been well received, as is demonstrated by the fact that more than $40 million is out in 10-year loans at this time. The success of this programme is clearly demonstrated by the significant gains in agricultural productivity which are partly attributable to improved drainage.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a range of bits and pieces. Could I ask first the Minister of Labour, is there ever going to be any progress in the Haliburton-Kawartha-Pine Ridge public health nurses’ predicament?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the situation vis-à-vis public health nurses and boards of health is not limited to Kawartha-Pine Ridge-Haliburton. It is much more widespread than that.

We are having ongoing meetings with public health units and with the Association of Boards of Health in an attempt to persuade that group that it would be wise to resume negotiations or to permit the dispute to go to voluntary arbitration. We have thus far not been successful in this activity but that has not lessened our enthusiasm for the task before us nor our optimism regarding the possible solution.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary if I may. I am glad the minister has optimism. Is it possible for the minister to bring the representatives of the Ontario Nurses’ Association and the Association of Boards of Health together in her own office and indicate her personal dissatisfaction, as the Minister of Labour, at the horsing around of the boards of health and their refusal to come to good faith bargaining? Must we have so many people abused in the province as the public health nurses are being by boards which will not bargain in good faith?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the boards of health, I know, are aware of our concern regarding this. If it is possible to achieve such a meeting, that’s one of the directions we have been attempting to pursue. We are making every effort to try to bring both parties together.

Mr. S. Smith: With regard to the Pine Ridge-Haliburton area, the minister will recall my question of some time ago regarding the Ontario appointee on that board who voted for the lockout; does the minister have an answer to the question as to whether any action will be taken to replace that person on the board?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not as yet aware whether that single appointee member of the board was present at the time that vote was taken. That is something we have been attempting to ascertain. But that individual is one member only of a multi-member board which voted for this rather strange action. We’ve also been attempting to find out the reason for such activity on their part.


Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Can he indicate to the House what the terms of reference are for the inquiry he has requested at the Huronia Regional Centre for the retarded, and will be indicate whether the inquiry, to be conducted, I believe, by a Dr. Willard, will have at least part of its hearing in public?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Firstly, the terms of reference are very broad indeed. I wanted someone to go into Huronia who was objective, knowledgeable and experienced, and I feel that Dr. Willard certainly has the kind of credentials that are necessary. I have asked him to look into not only the physical plant but programming, staffing, the area of supervision, so that it’s hoped he can make recommendations to me within the month.

If there is anyone who feels that he or she has something to add, then I am sure that Dr. Willard would be happy to call them and do what he can. In other words, I want to make it as broad as possible, because I am anxious to make whatever improvements will be necessary. We have been doing something, as the members of the House may know, in terms of depopulating the area and so on.

The intention was not to have a public inquiry as such, with formal hearings and people parading ad infinitum, because frankly I don’t think that would serve too much use. But if there are any members who wish to communicate with Dr. Willard, I am sure that he would be happy to hear from them.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary, may we have an assurance from the minister that the report will be tabled upon its completion? I ask this because of the pretty intense public interest in the matter being investigated.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I would truly hope so, because I think we are all working together to try to improve the environment there. It’s not a question of politics; it’s a matter of doing what we can so that any input that anyone can give, of course, would be appreciated.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the doctor who is looking into this matter empowered also to look into the rest of the mental retardation system, and not just at Huronia? Is he entitled to look at such possibilities as including a ward which could be considered a class A facility under the Mental Health Act, for instance, or an arrangement with a nearby mental hospital to declare a certain ward of this facility as class A?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I should have added, when I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition, that of course the terms would allow a recommendation, if that was thought necessary, in connection with a unit or an area where persons could be confined. That is part and parcel of it. We haven’t experienced similar difficulties or the same high public profile in the other institutions as we have in Orillia. I am anxious to deal with Orillia first. There are ongoing improvements that are being made in the other institutions, and I think we can be guided by this particular report.


Mr. Lewis: A question to the Chairman of Cabinet, if I may. Is the minister aware of the very strong feelings and protests of the Whitefish band, that they have been given -- frankly, I am not sure of the exact number -- somewhere between one and four commercial fishing licences on which 20 families or more in the band are dependent for their livelihood, giving to them something like $500 or $600 a year in income, while they believe a large number of licences have been handed out disproportionately to whites fishing commercially in the Lake of the Woods area? Is the minister aware of it and can he investigate to see whether the anxiety and the injustice they claim is, in fact, valid?


Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, no, I’m not aware of it, and I’ll be pleased to investigate and to report to the hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask a supplementary about that: Since this is a long-standing complaint, having been raised with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) a year ago, and then more recently in a formal way, are these not things brought to the minister’s attention in the normal course of events as areas of outstanding difficulty with native people, since that is his portfolio?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, that one has not been brought to my attention. As I just told the hon. member, I’ll investigate and be pleased to assist.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Another question?


Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is he aware that a little three-year-old girl was killed a couple of weeks ago in a fatality in the township of Sandwich West, I believe, on Highway 18, which becomes Front Rd. in the village of La Salle? Can he respond to the repeated requests of the township and the residents that a stop light be placed in the village of La Salle, since there appears to have been a repeated and frequent number of accidents?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’ll certainly look into the matter. I don’t recall any repeated requests to me from the village of La Salle, Mr. Speaker. There may have been previously, I can’t say. I do get copies of all accident reports daily from the provincial police. I don’t recall that specific unfortunate case, but I’ll certainly look into it and re-assess the need for a stop light at that location.

Mr. Burr: Supplementary; Would the minister take into consideration the fact that between Amherstburg and Windsor there is a stretch of about 20 miles, and that some kind of device is necessary to slow the traffic down, because it just zooms through La Salle? The minister will find that we have made many requests about this in the past.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I say, Mr. Speaker, I don’t doubt that previous requests have been made, but I don’t recall any in my term of office. However, I will look into it. I will say that we do get requests for additional traffic signals on a daily basis from areas all over the province. We deal with each one individually, and assess the traffic conditions, the construction of a particular intersection -- and, based on all the information available, make the decision at that time.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. Lewis: I think that’s all, unless the House leader (Mr. Welch) or the Chairman of Management Board is in the precincts of the House.


Mr. Lewis: Let me ask, as he is approaching his seat, if the Chairman of Management Board will raise with his cabinet colleagues the extraordinary jury judgement handed down I think, late yesterday in Hamilton, providing an award of $349,000? I think it is the largest award of its kind ever registered, and was for a very unhappy accident involving an injury to a Marisa Zorzitto, with a driver who was insured under the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act --

Mr. Nixon: He is not insured.

Mr. Lewis: I’m sorry, who is uninsured under the Act and therefore is seeking redress from the fund, whose maximum, I believe, is $50,000? It is possible to use this case as an example of the need to change the rules of the unsatisfied judgement fund or, better still, to take another look at the way the government handles automobile insurance in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I will pass that along to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman), who deals with the fund. I really couldn’t give any comment myself, because I’m not familiar now with the details.


Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Premier. I’ll give him a moment to settle himself. Can he confirm the article which appeared in the West Hill News on June 3, in which the MPP for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) is alleged to have told a Conservative Party luncheon, “very soon the provincial government will be raising the drinking minimum age”? Can the Premier confirm or deny that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm or deny that.

Mr. S. Smith: As a supplementary, are we to take it that the hon. member for Scarborough Centre has information that the rest of the House does not have?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite conceivable the hon. member may have a point of view which, if I read the press reports accurately, is not shared by the member for Hamilton West. I am just saying he may have a point of view.

Mr. Nixon: He is the parliamentary assistant; isn’t he in a position to speak on policy?

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Can the Premier perhaps censure or discipline the member for Scarborough Centre for flying kites in this brazen and illegitimate fashion?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would only say --

Mr. Reid: That is the parliamentary assistant flying kites.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- the member performs his responsibilities extremely well. I have noticed the odd kite being flown by the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) which I sense is not totally consistent with that of his leader. Perhaps his leader has brought the member for High Park-Swansea into line by saying to him that he doesn’t agree with him in terms of the drinking age; but I am only assuming that.

Mr. Lewis: You don’t agree with that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I am not --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hamilton West, further questions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wouldn’t assume --

Mr. Samis: You don’t disagree with it?


Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Revenue: In view of the Ontario Motel Association members’ objection to remitting tax on certain items supplied to their customers, can the minister explain why a businessman running a restaurant is not obliged to pay tax on paper serviettes and the like, supplied to his customers but the same man must remit tax on facial tissues and other such items provided to the same customer in his motel or hotel room?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, when this matter first came to my attention, it was in the form of the report that certain of these people had been advised that they should not pay tax on future purchases of such articles for use in their motels. I observed that I had received no submission whatever from them and I am not familiar with the nature of their claim.

I understand they have had some discussions with the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) but unless or until I hear their arguments and see why they are putting forward this position, I think I would prefer to not make any other comment. I do invite them to make a submission to me and I have indicated that if they would like to tell me what the nature of their complaint is, I will look into it.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: Does it not strike the minister as a case of double taxation when a small motel owner -- or a large one for that matter -- providing services and certain items for a customer in the room and the customer pays sales tax on the rent for his accommodation and services?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, in the case of taxation at the retail level, tax is applied to the consumer, the ultimate user of the product, and in this case it is our interpretation that it is the motel owner. He is the consumer. In that case he is paying tax as a consumer like anyone else.

Of course, in the whole milieu of manufacturing or the provision of any kind of services where articles are consumed in the delivery of a service, with the service itself being subsequently taxable, there may well be many stages through the process, whether one is talking about a manufactured article or whether he is talking about the delivery of accommodation in a motel.

There is nothing inconsistent with there being tax calculated upon a tax and other markups in the line, ultimately developing the final price of the article or commodity being sold or rented. It is not unusual to see a multiplicity of taxes applied at various stages through a process ultimately arriving at a retail sales tax applied to the commodity at the end of the line.

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: Would the minister not agree that it is unusual -- in fact, a situation to be corrected -- if the retail sales tax is being applied over and over again on the same item, rather than a combination of other things?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member should ask a supplementary question instead of debating. Thank you.

Mr. S. Smith: I understood the minister, Mr. Speaker, to say as part of his answer, that it is not unusual that taxes are piled one on the other.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A supplementary question is supposed to be for seeking further information. If the member has one, he should please continue with that question but not debate the matter.

Mr. Eaton: Don’t get mad.


Mr. Bain: Use the interrogatory.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West.

Mr. S. Smith: As a supplementary question, does the minister know of many instances in Ontario, now that he brings this matter to light and illuminates us, where the retail sales tax of Ontario is applied over and over again on the same item and piled up, eventually showing up in the final price? That is the question.

Hon. Mr. Meen: No, it is not the question. The point is that in the course of the production of a finished product many other articles may well be consumed. As those articles are consumed in the process of the creation of the ultimate product that comes to the marketplace, then the manufacturer pays retail sales tax on those consumed articles as they go through in the process. At the end, retail sales tax is charged on the end product. I think the hon. member might get himself a little briefing on the basic principles of the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mr. Nixon: You are wrong.

Mr. S. Smith: We will in fact get a briefing, Mr. Speaker. I would love to see these motel owners who are the final consumers of the tissues. We must have the cleanest motel owners in the world in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sure they have. They are a great industry.


Mr. S. Smith: A question to the Minister of Labour. Inasmuch as the minister was acting Minister of Health and this matter has to do with industrial health, has she received the information from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health regarding --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We can’t hear the member.

Mr. S. Smith: -- the conference held on April 30, on leukemia among synthetic rubber workers? If she hasn’t received this information yet, I can certainly pass it over to her. I have it with me.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I have seen regarding that meeting is a précis which was published in the Industrial Health Journal. I haven’t seen the complete proceedings of the meeting as yet.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, is it the intention of the government, as far as the minister knows, to convene a similar conference to the one that was held in the United States, since we do have synthetic rubber plants here and since a high incidence of leukemia would be a very dreadful tragedy to occur? Is the ministry carrying out a survey among our rubber workers to determine whether or not there is a high incidence of leukemia here?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I think that the Minister of Health would probably have to answer the latter question, but I know this matter is being referred to the advisory committee on occupational health of the Ministry of Health and will be looked at by that committee.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Ask a question of the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells).

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Labour has the answer to a question first of all, that was asked previously.


Hon. B. Stephenson: Thank you Mr. Speaker. On June 1, my hon. colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) asked a question regarding the suspension of a Stelco worker who objected to working in a situation which he considered to be unsafe.

I have investigated this matter and should like to report to the House that the worker was a crane operator at Stelco who objected to operating a crane which had apparently discharged a part of its load two or three days before that. His objection was raised on April 26. He said he did not want to operate the crane; he felt it to be in an unsafe condition. He had a long discussion with his supervisor regarding it. The supervisor then stated that he would make sure that no one would be injured because he would clear the area completely at that time when the crane was being operated.

The operator then stated he did not wish to operate it because there might be an injury to himself if he operated it. He was apparently reassured that this would not be a possibility.


His third objection was that if he operated the crane and something did fall, he would be responsible for the damage to the truck. His supervisor indicated that the management would take full responsibility and that in fact the crane would be inspected and, if necessary, repaired. The operator then declined to operate the crane at all under those conditions and was suspended for the remainder of his shift.

The following day he contacted the Ministry of Labour, apparently after having had a very long discussion about this matter with his union. He decided, however, not to request the service of his union on his behalf in this situation but to make the complaint as an individual.

An investigation followed by the industrial safety branch of the Ministry of Labour and, in fact, no directions were issued. The crane grabs were said to be approximately 10 per cent deficient, with a small possibility of slippage. Those grabs have been replaced.

There has been a meeting between the ministry and union officials, and between the ministry and the individual operator himself, and there has been a complete investigation at Stelco.

The final complaint, which was raised about four days after the incident and which was not raised by anyone at the time, was the possibility that there would be damage to oxygen pipes going through the area if slippage occurred. That complaint was found to be of no substantial nature since the pipes are apparently covered with 4-in-thick pallets where they are exposed, and in most instances they are not exposed at all.

This situation apparently has been clarified completely to the satisfaction of the industrial safety branch of the ministry, that indeed there was not a hazard at that time, there was certainly no breach of the Industrial Safety Act and there was no contravention of the Act on the part of the company.

Mr. Mackenzie: It should be pointed out to the minister that the replacing of those dogs -- and when you are lifting a 60-ton slab of steel --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a supplementary question?

Mr. Mackenzie: it could have been done in 45 minutes. If they were replaced, why was it not done at the time?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bounsall: He asked it.

Mr. Mackenzie: Why were they not replaced at the time -- a 45-minute operation -- rather than run the risks of the job?

Mr. Speaker: Is there an answer?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have no idea why they weren’t replaced right at that moment, except that I gather it was not possible to do so.


Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier, regarding the inadequate packaging of various food products, especially milk, when displayed for sale under fluorescent lights in fend stores. The question is: Has his government any concern about the loss of nutritional value that results from exposure of milk and other food to fluorescent lighting?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure we have a concern. I must confess I don’t have a great deal of knowledge --

Mr. Peterson: That won’t prevent you from talking about it. Go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to point out to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) and the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. S. Smith), that my milk comes in three-gallon returnable containers. My compost heap is also working, I want to point that out; it’s functioning very well.

Mr. Shore: I hear you passed all the tests.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will discuss this with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) and try to get a more specific answer for the hon. member.

Mr. Burr: Inasmuch as this is the fifth time I’ve asked this question --

Mr. Nixon: I thought it was the ninth time.

An hon. member: Did the Premier say three gallons?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m sorry. Three quarts, not three gallons.

Mr. Samis: That shows how much milk you drink.

An hon. member: That’s what your scotch comes in.

Mr. Burr: -- does the Premier think he could develop sufficient concern by 10:30 next Tuesday evening?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recognize the hon. member’s very genuine concern and certainly I will try to have a more definitive answer for him before 10:30 next Tuesday evening, If, by chance, there isn’t a more definitive answer that satisfies the hon. member, I’m sure that all of us would be quite prepared to listen to what points of view he might have at that particular hour for five minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Next question?


Mr. McKessock: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In the statement yesterday with the proposed income stabilization plan, he stated, “Our programme is thus designed to embrace all commodities for which no federal support is available” -- and would the minister explain this part: “except in those cases where prices established by marketing boards are higher than the stabilization support level”?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to explain that to the bun, member. In the federal bill in Ottawa they left a loophole and we have to plug it, so we brought our legislation forward.

Mr. Nixon: Sounds like another loophole.

Hon. W. Newman: What I’d really like to tell the hon. member is this, that when the stabilization price -- which will be worked out on a formula basis -- is higher than the cost of production, then there would be no payouts. To give an example, for instance, if corn is $5 a bushel for five years and is dropped to $4 a bushel, and the stabilized price is $4.50 a bushel and the cost of producing that bushel of corn was $3, then there would be no payout. Does that explain it to the hon. member?

Mr. McKessock: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: It explains it except for the fact that the minister said that products under the stabilization plan wouldn’t be covered in the bill.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I said in my statement -- and I thought I made it quite clear -- that those commodities which would come under Bill C-50, which is the national Agricultural Stabilization Act, would not be covered by this bill. I made that very clear. I also said the commodities under supply management, or those who set quotas and also set prices, would not come under this bill at this point in time. That’s exactly what I said.


Mr. Lewis: Two years in a row, the farmers get no protection.

Hon. W. Newman: The leader of the NDP doesn’t know a thing about farming. Why doesn’t he sit down and he quiet? Why doesn’t he learn a little bit about agriculture instead --

Mr. Lewis: Did you hear what the federation said yesterday?


Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; would you bring the minister under control?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing has the answer to a question asked previously.


Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, on June 1 the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) asked if I would “inform the House of the market value assigned to lots leased to home buyers under the HOME programme at Malvern.”

The hon. members will recall that prior to the summer of 1973, buyers under the HOME plan leased lots for a period of 50 years with the provision that these lots could be purchased any time after the fifth anniversary of the lease, at the market value stated in the lease. This market value was established just prior to the lots being offered to the public.

However, by the summer of 1973, land values were escalating rapidly, leading to criticism that HOME purchasers were making windfall profits. As a result, the land lease was amended to read that the land could be purchased any time between the fifth and 50th anniversary of the lease, but that the price would be the market value at the time the option to purchase was exercised.

Because of this change there was no further need for Ontario Housing Corp. to establish formal market values for lots at the time of marketing to the public.

Last August, the HOME plan land policy was changed from leasehold to freehold. At the same time, the owners of houses on leased lots were given the right to exercise their option to purchase their land.

Following this decision, opinions on the market values for the affected Malvern lots were obtained from independent appraisers, Central Mortgage and Housing Corp., and the chief appraiser of OHC.

Letters were sent to HOME owners last fall advising them of the market value of their lots. Following a series of discussions, there was a re-examination and by March of this year, those who had purchased a home in Malvern in 1973 or 1974 were again provided with the market value of their lot.

For the information of the members, the market values established are as follows: detached lots, $32,000 to $35,000; semi-detached lots, $26,000; townhouse lots, $22,000.


Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Based on the recent study which indicated that converter workers bad an incidence of chronic bronchitis of 22 per cent, while the refinery workers lad an incidence of chronic bronchitis of only seven per cent, has the Minister of Labour indicated to the Workmen’s Compensation Board that benefits should be granted to those employees of the converter plants who suffer from chronic bronchitis?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the report of the study has most certainly been referred to the Workmen’s Compensation Board for investigation and deliberation. We have had discussions regarding the report and its contents.

One of the most interesting portions of its contents is the tremendous increase in the incidence of chronic bronchitis and other chest diseases in both groups related to cigarette smoking on the job. One of the things, I suppose, that one has to consider is, if benefits are directed to workers in either of the areas, whether those benefits will be related to whether or not the worker does smoke cigarettes.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board is examining the report at the moment. I hope that, in the near future when it is making recommendations about a number of other things, we will have some recommendation regarding that as well.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary: Is it not a fact that the study indicates that about a third would be normal -- about a third would be due to cigarette smoking -- of those suffering chronic bronchitis but there is a third which is very questionable and the minister simply can’t hang her hat on the smoking as a way of getting around paying compensation benefits?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there is an increased incidence in one group over the other group probably -- and I say probably because the evidence points in that direction -- as a result of the site of their occupation. This is something which has to be considered most seriously by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. That is precisely what we are doing.


Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Why would the minister depreciate or diminish an individual’s disabled person’s allowance if he won $1,000 in a Wintario lottery? Apparently, according to the ministry, the individual is taken off the DPA until the time he has used up the $1,000.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have heard some rumours to that effect, that there was a windfall in connection with a particular recipient. May I say that our programmes are needs tested. I gather there was some question some time ago about another case in which $100,000 was won. I would think it would depend on --

Mr. Shore: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- the amount of money. I would think it would be dependent upon the amount of money that came into the hands of the winner --

Mr. Shore: He asked you a $1,000 question.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- and his assets prior to that windfall. If the member could give me the particulars of the case, I will have it reviewed --

Mr. Shore: A thousand dollars?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- to see whether or not it affects the situation. If it is a small amount of money I would think it insignificant because what we would be doing, of course, would be inviting the person to spend that small amount of money immediately so that he would qualify. What we would surely do would be to take the sensible approach, as we always do in these matters.

Mr. Shore: Answer his question.

Mr. Reid: I don’t know how he could afford to buy a ticket in the first place.

Mr. W Newman: Is the minister aware that by taking the individual off family benefits allowance for winning $1,000 he is really confiscating the $1,000?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: No. First of all, I am not aware that the individual has been taken off family benefits. If the member could give me the particulars, the name and so on, I would be happy to check it but at first blush it doesn’t --

Ms. Bryden: We gave you the particulars a week ago.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- look too sensible to me, with someone who has come into a very small win that could be disposed of very quickly, to go through the process of taking him off family benefits only to put him on again.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a supplementary? Why is the minister digging himself into a position today which will heap appropriate public abuse on him yet again? Why can’t he be gracious enough to say when this amount of money falls into the hands of a person who is on a disability allowance, we will allow it as an additional payment, for heaven’s sake, What’s wrong with him?

Mr. Moffatt: Because that makes sense.

Mr. Lewis: Why is he being so punitive about it for heaven’s sake?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: If that is a question, Mr. Speaker, may I respond that I look at each individual matter very closely to ensure that the right thing is done.

Mr. Martel: It costs you more to look them up.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: All I have is what the member has said about this matter.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Rumours.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I don’t address myself to rumours or information members have given me in an offhand way.


Mr. Foulds: Is that intelligent information?


Mr. S. Smith: Would the minister not agree that while it is necessary to look at each case individually and while he is to be applauded for that, this points out the unnecessarily severe restrictions which his department puts on the assets which people are allowed to have in order to continue to receive family benefits. Would he not accept that’s really the question?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I think what it points out is that we have to draw the line somewhere.

Mr. Shore: Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: In one case there’s $100,000 involved. In this case, from what the member says, $1,000 is involved. We have these very hard cases which we have to look at individually. I said we would take the sensible approach.

Mr. Shore: What is it?

Mr. Makarchuk: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: No, that was the final supplementary.

Mr. Makarchuk: In view of the fact that the possible winnings are indirectly complicated --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Makarchuk: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: I announced the other as a final supplementary.

Mr. Shore: We are not getting any answers.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry. I thought it was a new question.

Mr. Makarchuk: Is there no supplementary to this, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No. It’s the same question asked over and over. We’re wasting the time of the question period.


Mr. Mackenzie: To the Minister of Community and Social Services: Is the minister in agreement with the very tough interpretation of the new welfare regulations given to advocacy groups at a meeting yesterday in Hamilton, which simply states that a wife or children, even in need, will not be a factor when a person who has either been fired or quit his job and has no other income applies for welfare? In other words, there will be no welfare granted even if there are small children and a wife involved?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Is the member asking me whether I accept that categorically as the position --

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the minister in agreement with that interpretation which was given to some 25 people in advocacy groups yesterday afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I’m not familiar with the statement but it doesn’t ring clear nor true to me.

Mr. Mackenzie: Would the minister be prepared to give us a proper interpretation of a situation such as this? If not, is his office big enough to start handling the people who are going to arrive there?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Very simply, general welfare assistance is administered at the local level through the municipal welfare administrators and we have a lot of competent welfare administrators in this province. If any of them require any assistance in terms of interpretation then the facilities of my office are available for that.

Mr. Martel: You make the regulations.

Mr. McClellan: A supplementary: May I simply ask the minister to investigate the situation in Hamilton and report back to this House on how the minister’s directives are being interpreted by the Hamilton welfare office?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: If the member can give me the precise situation I will address myself to that situation -- if he sets it down for me.


Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the same minister. Since the minister has taken the stand that Ontario will not support the proposals of the federal government in regard to income supplementation, did he take part in any other discussions at that conference, and were there proposals also made by the federal government to fund volunteer social agencies in the different municipalities across the province on a shared basis with the province?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: For the member’s information, Mr. Speaker, there were three basic matters considered. One, of course, dealt with the new proposed Social Services Act, which covers the broad spectrum of social services which will be cost-shared; there’s really a fortification of those services now.

The other aspect was income support and supplementation which is income security. The other aspect was the Canada Pension Plan. I’m not certain what particular information the member requires. If he could further define it, I would be happy to answer him.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Was there not a proposal made by which the minister and the federal government would share the costing of social delivery agencies which operate now on a volunteer basis without any assistance from either level of government? I can’t make it any clearer than that.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Then the member may have difficulty because the agreement between the province and the federal government and the funding is at that level.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s what I asked.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Most of the social services are delivered through agencies which have agreements with municipalities and we fund the municipalities.


Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier: Since at least three-quarters of a million dollars has probably been spent already on the royal commission on violence in the communications industry -- otherwise known as the LaMarsh commission -- and since the commission is largely duplicating earlier studies, including one done for the Ontario government, and largely deals with areas outside provincial jurisdiction, is it not time that the government asks this useless commission to complete its report and puts a veto on the proposed travels to Europe and other parts of the world?

Mr. Nixon: They’re already there.

Mr. Kerrio: Do you have a space programme?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the question and in the manner in which it was raised by the hon. member. I could take a great deal of time in replying to it. I have to say this, I was very encouraged yesterday in the position being taken by the president of CFTO and the head, I guess, of CTV of Canada, who said in a public announcement yesterday that partially because of the LaMarsh commission, the concerns being expressed to the commission and, I assume, to him and many others, as to the amount of violence in the media, they have made a policy decision that no programmes containing violence will be shown prior to 9 o’clock p.m. In fact, they’ve extended this even to the -- what is it -- the Saturday night movies. They have said that if the film contains violence it will not start at the usual hour, it will start at 9 p.m.

I think it was also interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that one of the very major advertisers -- Colgate or whoever it was -- with a fairly substantial budget, has recognized there is a concern -- which the hon. member perhaps does not share and I’m very surprised and disappointed that she doesn’t --

Mr. Yakabuski: Aw.

An hon. member: Shame. Shame.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- which once again, I think, is as a result of the public interest. The member can be critical of Miss LaMarsh and her colleagues but there is no question --

Mrs. Campbell: We are not critical.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that that commission has succeeded in creating a degree of public interest so that those people who are involved and have responsible positions in the media --

Mr. Reid: Especially in their salaries.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- are now doing something about it.

Mr. Nixon: Nonsense. Nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there have been other studies, I will acknowledge this, but not by the government of this province. There have been studies conducted in the United States. Nothing has happened as a result of those studies. More has happened in this province which I think will have implication in the United States with respect to violence in the media because of the LaMarsh commission --

Mr. Peterson: As leader, you will get another medal.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- than anywhere else on this continent or elsewhere.

Mr. S. Smith: Because Johnny Bassett is going to move his programmes an hour later? Big deal.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may disagree with Miss LaMarsh and her colleagues going to Europe, except I should point out to the hon. member -- and I’m sure she studied it herself very carefully and is totally knowledgeable in this subject -- that they have in some European jurisdictions developed policies whereby the degree of violence in the media --

Mr. Reid: Especially Poland and Hungary.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- is not as great as it is here in North America. If the hon. member is saying that she is totally satisfied, that she believes that there is no impact by the media in terms of the acceptance of violence in our society --

Mr. Nixon: We’re totally satisfied your commission is wasting money.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- then that’s fine. I happen to fundamentally disagree.

An hon. member: Time. Time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: While one can perhaps quarrel with some aspects of the commission the fact remains, and it’s beginning to emerge now, I think, in a very public way, that people who have some responsibility --

Mr. S. Smith: That has nothing to do with the commission and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- are reacting to it and, as a result, certainly for younger people, there will be less exposure to violence in the media than has been the case in the past.

Mr. S. Smith: Sanctimonious nonsense.

Mr. Peterson: That is ridiculous. If they are not to hear obscenities, don’t give that speech on television.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.


Hon. Mr. Davis: If you like violence --

Mr. Nixon: I would like to do violence.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I have a petition, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The petition is signed by members of the Association of Family and Children’s Services of Norfolk and other concerned citizens. These petitions represent the concern for the restraints imposed on social services, especially the Children’s Aid Societies, by the provincial government.

I also have another petition, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) and it’s in regard to the seatbelt legislation. It does not necessarily refer to the concern for the use of seatbelts, but the concern of the legislation making it mandatory.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the second annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council on Multi-Culturalism. I would like to acknowledge the presence in the Speaker’s gallery of Dr. George Korey, who is assuming the chairmanship of this particular advisory council.

Hon. B. Stephenson presented the report of the industrial inquiry commission into bargaining patterns in the construction industry in Ontario.

Mr. Moffatt, from the standing administration of justice committee, reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977:

Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations

Ministry administration programme....$ 2,545,000

Commercial standards programme......11,752,000

Technical standards programme.......... 5,718,000

Public entertainment

standards programme........................ 7,002,000

Property rights programme............... 15,304,000

Registrar general programme.............. 2,232,000

Liquor licence programme................... 5,792,000

Rent review program ....................... 13,985,000

Resolution concurred in.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.


Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answer to question 112 standing on the notice paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.


Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury East.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Hold it, wait until I leave.

Mr. Martel: The other evening I had just started my remarks. There was some comment about the socialists by the previous speaker and I wanted to put on the record the comments of Norman Webster on --

Mr. Peterson: What riding is he from? Is he a new member here?

Mr. Martel: -- the one of two provincial governments that had a surplus in their budgeting for this coming year. It was the “socialist hordes” from Saskatchewan who are showing a surplus and not a $2-billion deficit as is the case in Ontario. For my friend from Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague), I hope he takes note that it isn’t the Tory Province of Ontario, with all its largesse, that has a surplus, but we have a very large deficit created by his friends as they tried to buy themselves back into power.

I also want to read from a publication of one of the industrial companies, “Motorways Miler,” from Saskatchewan. Let me tell members what the sales manager says:

“It is always pleasant to be the bearer of good news. Over the past several years it has been generally difficult to come up with cheerful observations about Canada’s economy, unless you happen to be talking about Saskatchewan.

“At the present, this prairie province, which has had more than its share of tough going in the hard times of the past, is enjoying the third year of boom, which seems to be showing no signs of slowing down, in Regina, building and investment are at an all-time high. Business has never been better and the city is launching into a massive downtown redevelopment scheme that will see hundreds of acres of old railcards and badly deteriorated real estate converted into spanking new business complexes.”

I am sorry to see my friend leave. He was the one that gave us all this claptrap the other night and now he leaves.

An hon. member: He is going to the Ku Klux Klan meeting.


Mr. Martel: That’s unfortunate. The other comment I want to make for the member for Dufferin-Simcoe, just before I get into the main remarks, is about the sell-righteous platitudes that I heard, again from the member from Dufferin-Simcoe, the other evening about my colleague from Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), followed none other than by the Premier (Mr. Davis) and by the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) about some money-grubbing members of the Legislature. I just want to chart what’s happened in those Tory back benches so the press will get the significance of their sell-righteous hypocrisy.

Mr. Grossman: Not me; I’m not getting any extra.

Mr. Martel: I am going to come to you, Larry, and your two select committees in a moment -- not one, but two for you.

Mr. Grossman: Renwick is on three.

Mr. Martel: Let’s take a look at it. The member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Belanger) is on a select committee; he also gets extra remuneration as a whip.

Mr. Peterson: I don’t get any. Can you help me out?

Mr. Martel: I am not trying to help anyone. I am just trying to show the hypocrisy of those people. For example, we have the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), who puts out a newsletter to his constituency on what the select committee is discussing. We have got none other than the Premier making comments. We have also got the member for Kingston and the Islands making some comments. And the member who spoke the other night, whose remarks prompted me to reply, has only served on two select committees in the past eight months. “Self-righteous money-grubbing individuals who take it via the back door.”

The member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) is on a select committee. He is also a parliamentary assistant. So we are talking about $5,000-plus. The member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), who is on his second select committee in eight months, is also one of the government whips, so he picks up two or three grand for that as well.

Talk about hypocrisy: The member for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), chairman of a committee, also is on a select committee. The member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) -- remember, he was the fellow who raised the question and started it all -- is on a select committee and chairman of a committee. The member for Mississauga East, who was on a select committee, now has changed to yet another select committee where he’s chairman. That’s the composition of the Tory party on one select committee.

Let’s look at the next one, the select committee on highway safety. The member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. Johnson), who’s just on that select committee, got shortchanged. The chief government whip is on that select committee; he also picks up five grand, by the way, via the back-door route as the chief government whip, so he gets it two ways. I want to ask the question, of course, when I come to the end of this, but I am wondering if those parliamentary assistants, when they are serving as members of a select committee, lose their salary as parliamentary assistants, because they can’t be doing double duty.

Mr. Grossman: They work twice as hard.

Mr. Martel: They do?

Mr. Eaton: You want to believe it.

Mr. Martel: They do that from long distance, and then they do the regular member’s work -- 32 hours a day, eight days a week.

Mr. Grossman: Gives your candidates a chance to work in the riding.

Mr. Martel: The member for Parry Sound (Mr. Maeck) also serves on that select committee, the second one, and gets $5,000-plus. The member for Dufferin-Simcoe, the man who spoke so glibly the other night, served on a select committee on Hydro and is now going to serve on a select committee on highway safety. What a money-grubbing way of doing it, eh? And then you have got the audacity, you self-righteous hypocrites, to get up and be critical.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member use a little more parliamentary language?

Mr. Martel: Self-righteous is pretty parliamentary. Hypocritical, if it is factual -- what do you want me to say? He’s the one who brought it up.

Mr. Peterson: Weasel.

Mr. McCague: Who promotes select committees?

Mr. Martel: Let’s continue down the list --

Mr. Lewis: You could say, “feeding at the public trough.”

Mr. Martel: Yes, that’s right. Pardon me, he’s not self-righteous. He’s not hypocritical. He’s just feeding at the public trough.

Mr. Peterson: I hope you deal with the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) before I leave. I want to hear what you say about him.

Mr. Martel: The member for Kingston and the Islands, who has made some rather slanderous remarks about it, is a new boy, a one-tripper, who is a parliamentary assistant and on a select committee already. That’s not bad for picking it up, is it? And the self-righteous indignation, of course, always comes to the fore. That’s the second select committee.

Mr. Grossman: He is single.

Mr. Mackenzie: He doesn’t have the expenses either.

Mr. Martel: Let’s go down to the third one, company law. The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick is on his second select committee in eight months. Third? Pardon me! They are really ripping it off! But they do well, don’t they? They get around.

Mr. Peterson: He has to support his dad these days.

Mr. Martel: The member for York North (Mr. Hodgson) -- he is a parliamentary assistant and serves on select committees. The trough is big, isn’t it, for the Tories?

Mr. Speaker, I must apologize but the member for Simcoe East does exactly the same thing.

Mr. Peterson: Shame, shame.

Mr. Eaton: Rule him out of order.

Mr. Martel: He occupies the chair as the Acting Speaker, and at the same time he’s on a select committee. Now, we also have --

Mr. Acting Speaker: Thank you for speaking with such reverence.

Mr. Martel: I apologize.

The member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) is a parliamentary assistant and he is also serving on a select committee. My, oh my. Then we go down to Hydro where some of them were before. Who was there? The member for Algoma-Manitoulin? Yes. The member for Dufferin-Simcoe was there as well at the trough. Another parliamentary assistant is the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) and he gets five grand, plus. And the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick was there, too.

Mr. Grossman: What about your House leader?

Mr. Martel: Can you imagine? And, finally the new boy on our select committee. I also happen to be a member of a select committee. But the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) picks up five grand as a parliamentary assistant. He is also feeding at the trough on select committees. And they are all so self-righteous.

My colleague documented very carefully what was going on in the other sectors. All the self-righteous Tories, one at a time, led by the Premier, got up and were critical of the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).

Mr. Lewis: You are making a good point.

Mr. Swart: Is there a single one who doesn’t get the extras?

Mr. Martel: There isn’t a single guy over there who doesn’t get it via the back door. They are the phoniest, the most hypocritical group I know.

Mr. Grossman: Is a select committee the back door?

Mr. Martel: They should take their self-righteousness and go and purge their souls somewhere.


Mr. Mantel: Damned hypocrites!

Mr. Lewis: The fact is that they all make several thousand dollars above the average, and then criticize members on this side for talking of salaries.

Mr. Martel: Hypocrites.


Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Sudbury East has the floor.

Mr. Martel: I just wanted to put that on the record, because the member for Dufferin-Simcoe shot his face off about it again the other night. And via two select committees in eight months he picks up $2,000 or $3,000 or $4,000 -- and it’s disturbing, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: And the member for Middlesex comes to one meeting and disrupts the work of the committee at his first meeting.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Sudbury East has the floor.

Mr. Eaton: That’s right, somebody needs to. Going to disrupt it some more, too!

Mr. Martel: I want to, Mr. Speaker, if I might, go back to what I was -- well, let me talk about a couple of other things first; just a couple of comments. There’s been a lot said about Dave Barrett and the loss of the New Democrats in BC. It’s interesting to see that Barrett took 70 per cent of the vote last night.

Mr. Gaunt: Were you out there campaigning for him?

Mr. Mantel: Yes, it’s an indication of what’s coming here next. There’s been a lot of criticism about the auto insurance.

Mr. Grossman: Are you finishing?

Mr. Mantel: No. I’m just warming up. I have the report of an actuary and there have been a lot of comments --

Mr. Lewis: Back in an hour to catch the end of the preamble.

Mr. Martel: Fine.

I have the report of an actuary on what’s happened in the BC auto insurance, by the way. And what’s really happened is the money, that was allocated by the government from the gas tax simply hasn’t been put in place, and that’s why the deficit.

The man who directs it is Mr. Byron Straig. He was asked by the BC government to investigate Autopac, and here’s what he says with respect to it:

“The total expenses in the first year, including commissions, were nevertheless below the amount that would have been incurred by private companies insuring the same risks for the same amounts under the conventional types of insurance operating in force in British Columbia in 1973.

“The total expense of ICB for operating the auto plan in the first year were about 22.8 per cent of the premiums actually collected, and that would have been a lesser percentage of the adequate premiums that should have been collected. This compares with about 30 per cent of premium experienced by British Columbia auto insurance in 1972, after eliminating premium tax of two per cent of premium.”

That’s not bad for a start-up year, but both ministers here want to give it back to the private sector so they can continue to gouge.

Certainly in BC they had built in an ability for the gas tax to cover part of it. What else? I hear everyone here screaming that we should be using revenue from the truckers and so on for the highways. Why not revenue from gas tax going to cover auto insurance if the government wants to reduce the cost to those people who are driving automobiles?

I saved the last little clipping from BC to the last because it deals with what went on in BC. They have some choice words for some of the people who joined that party, that group which will be around for another couple of years and then decimated. Let me tell members what they said about -- by the way, it’s from the Vancouver Sun which is not noted for being sympathetic to the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Warner: Far from it.

Mr. Martel: It has some kind remarks for -- let me tell the House:

“Finally there are the three shameless Liberals -- McGeer, Gardom and Williams -- who are absolutely breathtaking in their bare-faced audacity. They moved, of course, into the Majority Movement in an attempt to outflank Bennett before they finally submitted to his whip.”

“If you just read even sections out of McGeer’s book, ‘Politics in Paradise,’ written expressly to detail his disgust for Social Credit -- or check the trio’s quotes in Hansard -- their conduct today is an appalling documentation of political expediency with power in sight.”

Mr. McClellan: The highest traditions of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Martel: In the highest traditions of Liberals. We have three of them sitting over there. There are three of them across on that side of the floor who used to run as Liberals.

Mr. Swart: They did better here; they only took two days to change their minds.

Mr. Martel: To continue:

“The usually mild-mannered Gordon Gibson, in a remarkable burst of candour, said into the Webster microphone that the three had stabbed Ray Perrault in the back, had stabbed David Anderson in the back and that Bill Bennett should be warned that they are just as likely to do the same thing to him.”

Mr. Kerrio: You should be running in BC.

Mr. Martel: No. I have listened very quietly during this section of the reply to the budget. The references to BC have come from both sides of the House and I thought I would put on the record some of the comments of those people who are there to view it at first hand.

Mr. Peterson: When are you coming up with the line that we have more moves than Masters and Johnson?

Mr. Martel: It is typical, though, isn’t it, that the member for London Centre, the would-be Liberal leader, says that I make a comment about --

Mr. Peterson: I want you to know our party is filled with socialists who matured.

Mr. Martel: -- the Liberal position, the new leader, having more positions than Masters and Johnson. Obviously when we look at the three Liberals in BC they suffer from the same disease. It’s a disease of saying certain things depending on where you are.


Mr. Martel: Position never matters. I could go on about some of the Tories who ran as Socreds out there, for my Tory friends.

Mr. Peterson: When you grow up you are going to be a Liberal, too.

Mr. Martel: That will be the day. I made my mistake. I once voted Liberal. Everybody is entitled to one mistake in his life and that was mine.


Mr. Kerrio: Everyone is entitled to a flash of genius.

Mr. Martel: I want to go back, if I might, to Laurentian Hospital. Surely, if there has been a problem in the Sudbury area it has been around Laurentian Hospital. If there has been a problem in this Legislature, it has been the answers we received when we raised questions with the acting Minister of Health (B. Stephenson), most of which left those of us from the Sudbury area with a sense of disbelief in what she was saying.


Parliamentary language doesn’t allow me to say that she misled the Legislature but I might say she was dissembling and I want to document why. Before I do that, I want to tell the House that the whole of this mess is an effort to keep the Ministry of Health out of the limelight. The Ministry of Health has gone around this province doing a lot of things, cutting here, cutting there -- the whole business. The Ministry of Health’s conduct in Laurentian Hospital has got to be looked into because they did two things that are unforgivable.

The first thing they wanted to do, and they succeeded in doing, was they got rid of the Grey Nuns. I hold no brief for the Grey Nuns, but the way it was done is something to behold. They had started the first hospital in Sudbury almost 100 years ago and they were eased out by the Ministry of Health, and I’m going to show in a few minutes how.

The other thing the Ministry of Health did was it gave large amounts of money when the land that the hospital was being built on still didn’t belong to the hospital board. It continued to belong to the Grey Nuns. The Ministry of Health gave all kinds of money, in fact, the structure was started when they found out. That’s why the Ministry of Health, the Ontario Hospital Commission was willing to pay $369,000 or $370,000 for a piece of land that could have been purchased for $68,000. They wanted to get rid of them quietly.

By the way, I want to put on the record too that the Ministry of Health, when the inquiries started, indicated that they had no knowledge that the land belonged to the Grey Nuns. That’s not true. The Ministry of Health and the Ontario Hospital Commission knew in 1966 to whom the land belonged. I have the minutes of a meeting.

Mr. Kerrio: Did they search the title?

Mr. Martel: No, they didn’t search the title. They knew. At a meeting in 1966, of which I just happen to have the minutes -- Dec. 20, 1966 -- Mr. Young of Inco is speaking. He did the purchase. He was the one who negotiated the purchase of the Idylwylde golf course -- a portion of it -- on behalf of the Grey Nuns. Present at the meeting where the land was discussed were none other than -- get this list -- Mr. Stanley W. Martin. Do you know who Stanley Martin is? He’s the fellow who just stepped down as deputy minister. He was at the meeting. He was then chairman of the Ontario Hospital Commission. Also present were Dr. Donald Twiss, who is still with the ministry; Dr. J. Aldis, who is still with the Ministry of Health; Mr. Teasdale, who is still with the Ministry of Health; and Mr. Kenneth Box, and I’m not sure about him. Those five men attended that meeting in 1966, where the following was said:

“It is the feeling of the board that we would co-operate with the General and Memorial Hospitals and follow the suggestions of the Sudbury and District Hospital Council in as long as the three hospitals followed them. But I would like very much to report to my board that we have the ‘Go’ sign at Paris St. as I know that they expect us to come up with this out of this meeting. They want an answer.”

Paris St. is the location of the new hospital. This is in 1966 at a meeting with five of the chief people in the Ministry of Health today, where people are attempting to make us believe that the Ministry of Health had no knowledge -- absolutely none -- that the land in fact belonged to the order. And that’s why they had to pay so much money to get out of the mess. They knew all along.

That’s a symptom of what’s wrong with the Ministry of Health. I think if there is an investigation it shouldn’t be into what Chesley Hospital needs or what Doctors Hospital needs, it should be into the decisions reached and the moneys spent by the Ministry of Health. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this attempt to focus all of the blame on one individual in Sudbury, who certainly should be removed from the board, is nonsense because though he is implicated, they are too. By that, I mean the Ministry of Health was aware that the land was held by the sisters and there’s no way out. As I say, I have named the five Ministry of Health people who were at that meeting in 1966.

Let me go on, because in 1972 it became obvious what the Ministry of Health wanted. It wanted the nuns out and wanted them out in the worst way. I’m going to read the letters which went to the Ministry of Health. The former acting Minister of Health shakes her head in disbelief. Mr. Speaker, I’m going to leave it to your wisdom, for your interpretation of what these mean. Okay? This is a letter written to Mr. Martin, the Deputy Minister of Health -- no, he’s writing the letter:

“The purpose of this short note is to request that you extend the closing date of all tenders for your proposed building project by 30 days. During this interval, I would request that you take steps necessary to complete the following: To acquire the land.”

Stanley Martin was at the meeting in 1966. The date of that meeting I have put on the record and he was at that meeting; he, along with Teasdale and others, was there. In 1972, the hospital started and it has to buy the land.

The second thing I want to draw to members’ attention, now that Martin has decided we can’t build a hospital with land belonging to someone else, is a letter from Mr. Bains to Mr. Lebel in which he tells him categorically to get on with the land transaction, get it completed. Then we have this second interesting thing. Listen to this. This is written by Johnson to Clusiau; the acting minister would know his name. It was Exhibit 127 in that inquiry. It contains a summary with respect to Laurentian and its administration. On page 2 he deals with the bylaws and says:

“In November the writer was asked to review a set of draft administration bylaws for the Laurentian Hospital.”

“This was done and it became apparent to the writer that these draft bylaws would not form a document suitable for a hospital incorporated under a non-religious charter. These bylaws were, in turn, reviewed in some detail with Judge Michel for legal opinion and he concurred completely with the writer’s opinion.

“It is understood that the bylaws, which were to go to the board for approval, were rejected by the body and n new bylaw committee was struck under the chairmanship of Judge Michel. [I’m quoting now from counsel] There we see starkly that the whole idea of the origins of Laurentian Hospital are cast aside.

Then we have this one, this other letter I want to quote from, on page 34, with respect to the bylaws. I’m quoting again from Johnson to Clusiau:

“A rough draft of a set of administrative bylaws has been prepared by Judge Michel which has been distributed to the bylaw committee. This draft was discussed with Judge Michel, a copy brought to Toronto for review. In general, it can be stated that this draft forms the skeleton for a set of bylaws which would be acceptable for a lay incorporated hospital.”

Don’t tell me -- the former acting Minister of Health can shake her head and say, “There was no intention of getting rid of the nuns.” In 1972, that was correspondence among the staff. She can call it what she wants, but it was a deliberate attempt -- and I hold no brief for the Grey Nuns -- that’s the way it was done. The Ministry of Health was heavily involved in getting rid of them.

I could go on, if the acting minister would like, but I won’t bother.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The hon. member knows that he is misrepresenting the situation.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, would the minister like to get up and accuse me of misleading the House?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, I would as a matter of fact.

Mr. Martel: Get up and tell me I’m misleading the House.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of that kind of letter was to co-ordinate hospitals throughout the province on a similar basis. There was no thought of getting rid of the nuns in the provision of service within the institution, none whatever.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, let me quote the rest of the letter now that the minister has had her little say, because in fact the intention was not to allow the nuns to have the administration of the hospital. They go on:

“This draft was discussed with Judge Michel and a copy brought back to Toronto for review. In general, it can be stated that this draft forms the skeleton of a set of bylaws which would be acceptable for a lay incorporated hospital.

The original intention of Laurentian was that it would be under the nuns in 1966. By 1972, the ministry had decided it would be a lay incorporated board, not the nuns. That letter is from Johnson to Clusiau, both in the Ministry of Health. Let me go on:

“A detailed review is now being completed of the bylaws and, in the interests of expediency, the writer is going to return to Sudbury to review these in detail with Judge Michel. [Here is the key.] It certainly was ‘in the interest of expediency’ as it is an expediency of change [that was desired].”

That was the first real flaw in the hospital situation, that they moved in to move the nuns out.

“Secondly, the ministry didn’t bother to check the ownership, so they say. But five of the top people in the ministry were at a meeting on Dec. 20, from which I quoted the minutes, where the purchase of land from Idylwylde by the Grey Nuns was discussed and none other than Stan Martin, Teasdale and so on were there.”

As I said earlier, it’s an indication of what’s wrong with the Ministry of Health because they weren’t satisfied. We’ve got a hospital that has an operating budget, I think in the neighbourhood of $10 million. It’s not totally open. It’s almost like the Ministry of Community and Social Services. It has a 100-bed expansion at Pioneer Manor and 50 lie empty because of budgetary restraints. That’s a kind of a false budgetary restraint to have 50 beds empty. We’ll talk about that in a few minutes too.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You don’t believe that either.

Mr. Martel: Listen to what Howard says -- this was the solicitor:

“I do not know how much we heard over the past 45 days, but it was approved by the ministry. It is all very well to say there is a fine physical plant there, but in fact what’s there is a 424-bed Cadillac, fully equipped, fully administratively staffed and only presently used to 40 per cent of its capacity; 175 beds we now open.”

Simply divide that 175 beds into $10 million and you find out what the operating costs per bed are per year. And that again is the type of planning that goes on with the Ministry of Health.

I want to get to the former acting Minister of Health. She’s beside herself there and I want to talk to some degree about some of the things she said in this Legislature too. I’m going to quote Hansard. On April 22 I asked the acting minister the following question:

“A question of the acting Minister of Health: Why was the Ministry of Health willing to use what it now considers an illegal board at Laurentian Hospital to oust the Grey Nuns, and why at this point in time is this minister appointing a new hospital board?

“Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Judge Waisberg who is an eminent jurist [and all that went in, and finally she gets down to it] Because we felt Judge Waisberg’s advice was valid advice and should be adhered to, we immediately contacted the hospital planning council in Sudbury, the chairman of the regional government, the present chairman of the board of that hospital, discussed the matter with them, asked for nominees to the board, and we suggested to them that it was the responsibility and probably, not probably but very definitely, the right of the individual groups within Sudbury to make those nominations at that tone.

“They selected three people from each of the two groups which I have mentioned. The regional hospital council and the regional council each nominated three persons.”


That’s not true. The regional council had absolutely no say. It was never discussed at regional council. It was decided by Joe Fabbro, the regional chairman. He ultimately admitted that to the press. A couple of days later, the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) got up because one of the people he knows well on that board, my former Liberal opponent, Mike Solski, raised it with him. He rose in his place on April 26 and he asked the following question:

“I have a question for the acting Minister of Health. On April 22 she advised the hon. member for Nickel Belt that the interim new board for Laurentian Hospital was appointed partly on the nomination of the regional council of Sudbury. Can she explain how this worked, when at least one mayor who is a member of the council assures me that no such discussion ever took place and no such nomination ever took place on the regional council?”

I suggest that some of the minister’s staff might not have been giving her factual information because she certainly was convinced that the procedure she asked to be followed was adhered to. We were trying to get through to her at that time, very early in the game, that she was not receiving factual information as to what was transpiring in Sudbury. This minister doesn’t believe that maybe one checks once in a while. Maybe it’s her character but she tries to pull it off pretty well without always being precise.

I’m going to go on to two or three other examples, all dealing with the same issue. On that day I asked a supplementary question:

“Is it not tone that all of the appointments were made on the recommendations of the regional chairman?”

The hon. minister said:

“As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they were not. Three were made on the recommendation of the hospital planning council and three on the recommendation of the regional council.”

That’s not true. I’m sorry, it just didn’t happen that way.

Let’s go on, because I can’t really understand why the minister played the role she played. Surely, if she didn’t know the answers to questions she would have done like some of her colleagues and said, “I don’t know. I’ll find out and come back and tell you.” Not this minister. I guess she’s been reading too many of Norm Webster’s articles which indicate she is champing at the bit to take a run at the Premier’s job. I wish her well, but she’s not going to do it that way. She’s going to get in trouble that way.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You are the most gullible person in the world, really.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: He is incredible.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Both gullible and incredible at the same time.

Mr. Martel: Let me go on. I raised a question with respect to Laurentian Hospital a couple of days later. On May 3, again I’m quoting from Hansard:

“I have a question of the acting Minister of Health… A member of the council… [and so on]”

The minister replied:

“I was in error in saying that the entire council had been consulted regarding these appointments but I have been informed that several members of council were consulted before the names were submitted.”

They must have been some of Joe’s Tory friends because they weren’t other people on the council. I’ve done some checking too. That was Joe’s decision. Let me tell you what he said the other night; he said, “The minister asked me to pick some -- ”I keep forgetting the word; not responsible but --

An hon. member: Reliable?

Mr. Martel: No, an even better word than that; he didn’t say but he implied it. He picked seven people, all of them Tories and they were the people who were to be responsible. There was no one else in that community except professional people and Tories.

I happen to have another letter from Mr. Gionet, who is the former chairman of the board. He talks about representation and I’m going to quote that in a few minutes too.

Again I asked:

“Could the minister tell me why the government waited until the day following the termination of the appointments of Judge Michel and Mrs. Evans?”

It just so happened that the appointments followed one day after the termination of the two government appointments on the board -- Judge Gerry Michel and Mrs. Evans. That was just coincidence of course. That’s what the minister said.

There are those of us in Sudbury who really don’t --

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: My point of order is that this is a very important matter and I want to ask my colleague whether he thinks there should be more members here.

Mr. Martel: No, I have the minister here.

Mr. Renwick: You’re quite happy?

Mr. Martel: I am quite happy the minister is here.

Mr. Kerrio: NDP members, you mean?

Mr. Bain: There are lots of us.

Mr. Martel: It is not just coincidence that that came the day after. There are too many coincidences around this hospital.

Let’s go to the next one. I couldn’t be here on one day, so I asked my colleague, the leader of the New Democratic Party, to raise on my behalf a question with the Minister of Health, and he did. This is what was said:

“Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the acting Minister of Health: When the board of Laurentian Hospital was reconstituted, following the interim recommendations of the judge, why did the minister leave on the new board only one person from the old board, the single most-controversial person of all, about whom the inquiry largely dealt, and that is J-P. Lebel?

“Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it was the judgement of the judge investigating Laurentian Hospital that the specific member was one of the two members who were, in fact, properly appointed to that board -- and therefore should be left on.”

There were three: Fr. Bertrand, Sister Claire Dupont and J-P Lebel. Again, that’s member for Riverdale, both of them. what I mean about the minister not getting the proper information; there were three. It goes on:

“Mr. Lewis: If I understand -- we haven’t yet seen the interim report; I think it is still at the printer’s, is it not? -- is the minister saying that Judge Waisberg himself suggested that J-P. Lebel should be on the new board or was that a decision that was taken by the ministry in conjunction with Mr. Fabbro and others?

“Hon. B. Stephenson: No, this was not a decision taken by the ministry. The recommendation of Judge Waisberg was that those members of the board who, in his terms at least, had been inappropriately appointed to the board and were therefore probably not legally members of the board, should be asked to resign from the board, and that the board should be reconstituted by leaving the two members.”

And they were Sister Claire Dupont and J-P. Lebel.

Mr. Eaton: He was going to call a quorum.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Jim, you can’t leave now. The member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) left and now the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). The member for Sudbury and the member for Riverdale, both of them.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Grossman: He wanted someone else.

Mr. Martel: I want to repeat that final statement. This is the minister saying it: “That the board should be reconstituted by leaving the two members -- and there are two, Sister Claire being the other -- who are legally, properly constituted members of that board.”

Is the minister saying that Waisberg, in fact, said, “Keep them on”? Waisberg did not say keep them on. Waisberg, in fact, said the opposite. In his addendum he said, “Remove them all.” Again, I say, how does the minister get trapped and why doesn’t --

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I don’t see a quorum in the House.

Mr. Acting Speaker ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Mr. Acting Speaker: I see a quorum.

Mr. Foulds: I came back.

Mr. Martel: He came back. Let me tell the members what --

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That gives you six over there.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury East will continue and ignore the interjections.

Mr. Martel: Judge Waisberg in his report, in his addendum --

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: There goes one of them. You have got five.

Mr. Martel: He says:

“In case these recommendations have not said is clearly, it is emphatically my view that no person who served as a member of the Laurentian board or who is presently a member of the Laurentian board should now be appointed as a director pursuant to your powers.”

That isn’t what the minister told the House. The minister told the House that Waisberg definitely stated Lebel and Dupont should be on. She hasn’t apologized for those facts which inadvertently led to people making conclusions that they shouldn’t have, but that’s at least the second one.

I want to go on because I came back to this problem because my colleague, the leader of the pasty, raised a point of privilege on May 10. I can’t find anywhere where the Speaker has attempted to straighten this matter out but maybe we are still awaiting a response. Maybe we will get it from the Speaker someday. It went a little further and the leader of the New Democratic Party and the member for Wilson Heights again raised this. On May 11 my leader said:

“I won’t assume that’s a threat. I will go to another question ... Why did she not tell us in the Legislature, when we were questioning her about the Laurentian Hospital, of the subsequent directive from Commissioner Waisberg, her letter requesting the resignation...”

We got to the letter. The minister has led the House to believe that letters were sent to various members of the board asking for their resignations. There was one letter sent out. One letter was sent out to Mr. Gionet. I have it here. I have the letter which was submitted on April 14 to Roger Gionet. There were not extra copies sent to any of the other board members.

Mr. Gionet was supposed to run this letter off, as I understand it, and give it to the other board members. The rest of the board members got letters directly from the Ministry of Health last week, the same photostat letter. This was on April 14 and that letter was addressed to Roger Gionet, Esq., and I will read the letter to the House.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, copies of the letter to Mr. Gionet were sent to every single board member a few days following the original letter to Mr. Gionet; every single one.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask that you investigate this because that’s not factual.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It is the truth.

Mr. Martel: That is not factual. I have checked with a great number of the board members personally and they received the letter about a week and a half ago. They have not received this letter. Mr. Gionet was supposed to Xerox this apparently and give it to them at a board meeting on April 20. It was almost the end of May before this letter was sent to the board members. I suggest the minister check it out.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I did.


Mr. Martel: No, I think the minister had better check it again. I will give her the names of the people to check with: Mr. Homer Seguin, United Steel Workers; Mr. Paul Guertin; Mr. Richard Pharand, a lawyer. If she wants to check with those people I suggest she do so. I am telling her they did not receive a letter until, at the latest, two weeks ago.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the letters were sent out.

Mr. Martel: A letter was sent to Mr. Gionet and I will quote it:

“As you know, during the recent inquiry serious doubt was raised as to the legal status of the present directors of Laurentian Hospital.”

In fact, this is a letter that was sent out to people who donated four or five years of their time free, no thanks, no nothing, to that whole board. It continues:

“I understand that you have obtained a legal opinion from counsel to the effect that, except as to the original applicants for incorporation, the present directors were not validly elected or appointed and accordingly never became directors of the corporation.

“Judge Waisberg in an interim report which he has submitted to me has made the same point. He considers that the matter requires urgent action ‘to protect the legal status of the Laurentian Hospital and further to protect any and all parties who may be dealing with or entering into any transaction with this hospital corporation.’”

I might digress for a moment. Mr. Gionet was the acting chairman of the board after Mr. Lebel stepped down as chairman but not as a board member. And I am going back to the letter now:

“I am, of course, deeply disturbed by the situation for the reasons which prompted Judge Waisberg to submit his interim report. Apart from other, obvious reasons, the expensive provincial funding of the hospital makes it imperative that the legal status of the directors and the either corporate affairs of the hospital be beyond legal question.

“Judge Waisberg’s report recommended that the following steps be taken forthwith in order to remedy the legal impasse:

“All board members be requested to immediately submit their resignation; and

“Directors be named under Section 9(11) of the Public Hospitals Act in order to create a board.

“Pursuant to the second recommendation, a panel of directors is being appointed under Section 9(11) of the Public Hospitals Act. The function of these directors will be to ensure that the corporate affairs of the corporation are put in proper legal order and in particular to ensure that the necessary preparations are made for valid election by the general members of the corporation of the board. [The final paragraph]

“In addition to, and also pursuant to Judge Waisberg’s recommendations, this is to request that the present directors of the Laurentian Hospital submit formal resignations to the corporation and cease to exercise the function of directors of the corporation. I realize, of course, that the formal resignations may have no legal significance in the case of someone who never became a director of the corporation. I believe, however, that a formal resignation from each board member would have a salutary effect; the resignations would constitute a significant demonstration of the willingness of the present directors to cooperate with the minister in the resolution of the problem and thus of their goodwill to the community which the hospital serves.”

That was directed to the acting chairman of the board, Mr. Gionet.

As I say, there was never a letter directed until recently to other members of the board; within the last two weeks some of them have received it. I would ask the Speaker to check it out as being factual. I give you the names of just three people who had not up until two weeks ago received a copy of the letter. You will note that this letter is directed to Mr. Gionet.

I might ask the former acting Minister of Health if it was a Xerox of this letter that was addressed to Mr. Gionet. It is too had the other board members didn’t get it because I also have the board meeting minutes. You will notice the date of that, April 14. That is an intriguing date because just a couple of days later a telegram was sent, Mr. Speaker. Listen to what the telegram says:


And I hope the acting minister listens to this.


That’s no. 1 on the list.


It is signed by Alan Backley, the Deputy Minister of Health. When I asked this question in the Legislature how was it that the letter which was dated April 14 asking for the resignations was followed up seven days later by a telegram asking for the re-appointment of J-P. Lebel to the board, the minister said that’s because his name appeared first because L comes first in alphabetical order ahead of the rest. I suggest to the House: Bellamy, Demers, Cook and Hebert. But that was the type of glib answer we got.

His name appeared first because the significant thing was that the Ministry of Health was in fact reappointing J-P. Lebel to the board. There’s no way the minister can get out of that, because that’s in the telegram that I have before me and we’re still awaiting an explanation of how that occurred. When I suggested that maybe it was because Mr. Lebel had too much influence with the board, as he bragged during the inquiry, the Premier (Mr. Davis) said, “Oh, that’s old stuff.” The acting Minister of Health said, “Oh, that’s the worst answer I’ve heard all day.”

I want to ask the minister, why does she appoint a man seven days later after she’s dismissed him?

Hon. B. Stephenson: He was not appointed.

Mr. Martel: He was by this telegram. It says, “For your information, the legal members of the board of the Laurentian Hospital are: J-P. Lebel ...” That’s seven days after the minister’s letter.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is simply a fact in answer to a question.

Mr. Martel: Seven days after the minister’s letter. Let me tell her what Mr. Gionet has said about that. The telegram is saying the legally appointed members of the board are J-P. Lebel --

Hon. B. Stephenson: It doesn’t say “newly appointed.” It says “legal members.”

Mr. Martel: No, no, it doesn’t say “duly appointed.” It says: “For your information, the legal members of the board of Laurentian Hospital are: J-P. Lebel ...” and then lists the other seven. That’s seven days after the minister’s letter went out.

Mr. Hodgson: What’s the matter with that?

Mr. Martel: They had just been fired seven days before.

Hon. B. Stephenson: He had not been fired. His resignation had been requested.

Mr. Martel: Why would you reappoint him and say he’s a legally constituted member?

Hon. B. Stephenson: He was not reappointed. You’re misleading the House again, Elie.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker there’s a letter dated May 6, from Mr. Gionet the chairman of the board -- a rather interesting letter. It’s to the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller), dated May 6, 1976, signed by Roger A. Gionet.

“I’m writing to you as chairman of the board of directors of Laurentian Hospital to inform you of our position following the events which have taken place during the past three weeks and to request that you meet with a delegation from our board to discuss the situation as it exists in Sudbury.

“In a letter dated April 14, 1976, a copy of which is included, there is mentioned that we have obtained a legal opinion to the effect that the present directors never became directors of the corporation.

“The opinion which we have received, a copy of which is also included, states on page 4 thereof that it may well be established that a quorum of duly qualified directors was present at the Aug. 30, 1972, board meeting, and that the interim administrative bylaws were accordingly properly enacted.”

You never discussed that with them.

“Could this be the reason for Judge Waisberg to recommend that all board members be requested to immediately submit their resignations? For your information, very few members submitted their resignations.

“Another recommendation from Judge Waisberg was that directors be named under 9(11) of the Public Hospitals Act, in order to create a board able to act.

“This section gives the ministry the power to appoint provincial representatives to the board of directors. I understand that following the order in council, your ministry gave instructions to our staff that the new named ‘representatives’ along with Mr. J-P. Lebel were to be recognized as the board of directors.”

Now, you tell me about that one. That’s Mr. Gionet.

Hon. B. Stephenson: That is Mr. Gionet’s opinion. Opinion.

Mr. Martel: He goes on:

“We fail to understand where this new body is legally constituted to ensure that the corporate affairs of the corporation are put into legal order.”

Let me go on, because it gets more intriguing, more interesting.

“The state of affairs of April 14, 1976, was as follows:

“We had instructed our solicitor to take steps to legalize the board if it were not properly constituted. The finance committee has done a lot of work on proper internal control. Our final bylaws were almost ready for approval. Our building committee was hard at work clearing up deficiencies. Negotiations with CUPE were well in hand. The bilingual aspect of the hospital was being reviewed. Our auxiliary was functioning well. In the words of an official from your ministry, Laurentian Hospital was giving you very little trouble, considering that we had recently opened our doors and had taken over from an existing hospital ...”

I might say that was largely due to the labour representative on that board, who in fact played a major role in getting the Laurentian board to agree to accept all of the staff from St. Joseph, carrying all their rights and services with them. That’s one of the reasons I’m so upset that there’s no representation from labour.

Hon. B. Stephenson: There will be as soon as the new board is elected.

Mr. Martel: Yes, there will be.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You know that.

Mr. Martel: Yes, I know that, right.

Hon. B. Stephenson: This is an interim board and you are making a monstrous mountain out of a molehill.

Mr. Martel: Let’s see what else Gionet says. He also says the following:

“Since April 24, 1976, your representatives took over with very little knowledge of the affairs of Laurentian Hospital. They have to rely completely on the staff and on Mr. J-P. Lebel for guidance. One of the new directors phoned [and get this] to ask, would you imagine, if I would act as a resource person. He stated that he could not trust Mr. Lebel and that the staff is now in a position to write its own ticket.”

Some reliance on those new people the minister picked. It goes further:

“We are prepared to co-operate with the new directors but not on a unilateral basis and not as resource persons. Furthermore, a lot of the people around us feel that our new representatives are not very representative of the various elements of our society.

The minister can cut it any way she wants and tell this House anything she wants but I know my region. I know it very well. I don’t know Roger Gionet very well except that I know he’s above reproach. I want to tell the minister, she’s done those people on that board a disservice because she didn’t even have the courtesy to write a letter of thanks acknowledging the efforts these people have made in the past or anything. She sent one letter to Roger Gionet and Xerox copies of that letter went out several weeks ago to others.

I want to tell the minister that she’s mishandled this thing from beginning to end and she has brought to the House on more than three occasions material which was really not factual. She really hasn’t attempted to clear it up.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, I have.

Mr. Martel: She’s tried to bluff her way through this. I’ve been here a few years and I have never seen anyone try to bluff their way through a situation the way this minister has. I really haven’t and I’ve been here nine years.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s about time you had some other experience.

Mr. Martel: Yes, your party will never do it.

Mr. Bain: Is that kind of glib answer the best you can do?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member -- ?

Mr. Bain: That’s typical of your performance!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I did clarify this situation completely in the House. If I did not apologize abjectly to satisfy the member for Sudbury East, I shall very happily do it right now. I take full responsibility for any misleading or misrepresentation on the basis of my lack of information, but not very long ago, I did clarify the entire situation within this House. The member for Sudbury East, unfortunately, was not here to hear it --

Mr. Martel: I read Hansard.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- because he was too busy at home writing his diatribe to attack me.

I am sorry but I now have to leave. I have other commitments.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. members speak through the Chair, please?

Mr. Martel: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, that I read what’s in Hansard. I didn’t mislead the House; she did.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You didn’t read all of it then.

Hon. Mr. Meen: You sure didn’t comprehend it then.

Mr. Martel: I comprehend it well.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: There is a difference between reading and comprehending it.

Mr. Bain: The problem is he does understand it.

Mr. Martel: Let the minister, the new bright boy who just spoke up, tell me how a telegram reappointing seven days later those you’ve thrown off the board -- how that happens?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: You tell me; you are the authority.

Mr. Martel: No, it’s your minister who’s been misleading or misrepresenting.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Can we get back to the hon. member’s formal remarks?

Mr. Martel: Let me tell you -- I want to end it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hodgson: I have never heard so much crap in nine years.

Mr. Martel: I want to end it. Here is the last letter I want to quote and get the date, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Hodgson: Have you got anything to talk about?

Mr. Martel: May 27, last week, the Minister of Health wrote to Mr. J-P. Lebel. After all the claptrap we’ve just heard, the minister wrote J-P. Lebel the following letter:

“This will refer to the subject matter of our telephone discussion today.

“You have asked that the request for your resignation as director of Laurentian Hospital be made specifically to you rather than as a part of a general request for the request for the resignation of directors.”

What did the minister just say to us -- it went to individual members? Now, here’s the Minister of Health saying what has been requested of him.

“I understand that your situation differed from that of the persons who were acting as directors in that you were a first director of the hospital upon its incorporation.

“As you know, Judge Waisberg recommended in his interim report that all board members must be requested to submit their resignations and that I appoint new members. In a subsequent addendum, Judge Waisberg made it clear that he referred to all persons acting as board members, without distinguishing between them. Therefore, in pursuance of Judge Weisberg’s recommendation, I would request that you voluntarily submit your resignation.”

That is dated last week -- May 27 -- despite what the Minister of Revenue’s friend, the acting minister, just said. Does the minister understand that language? Or the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth), who said I am an expert? Maybe he understood the last letter.

Mr. McClellan: They seem awfully busy reading it right now.

Mr. Martel: That was signed last week by the Minister of Health. Maybe they’ve got a come-back. Maybe they can tell me about it. There’s been one distortion of the facts after another. I don’t need the apology from the minister, but I want to tell him who does -- the people, some of whom gave up to 10 years from the time they started planning that hospital until it was opened a couple of months ago. When that board was dismissed, there wasn’t even a thank-you note to them for the service they had rendered to the Sudbury basin. That is what is unforgivable.

The other thing that is unforgivable, of course, is that the labour representation was left off the board. After all, I would suggest that at least 85 per cent of the people who work in the Sudbury basin carry a lunch pail. And that is no disrespect. They pay a fair share -- in fact, they pay the biggest share of the tax in the Sudbury area. Certainly they have entitlement to representation on that board, but it is not there.

One final point on the hospital situation is that all of this has not been done without some reason; as I said when I started my comments on Laurentian Hospital, it is to cover up what happened there at the beginning -- the ousting of the nuns, paying for land when the title hadn’t been searched -- I am sure the Solicitor General would know what that means -- and building a building when you don’t own the property and the Ministry of Health advancing the funds to do it. That’s incompetency at its highest point.


While they use that to cover up, to keep the heat off the Ministry of Health, they do another thing too. There’s great talk about Laurentian Hospital costing $33 million. In fact, Laurentian’s cost is $22 million. It is only a very small percentage off the original forecasts of the cost of the hospital. But there are two other things there, namely what the other two hospitals got to add beds. For example, to add 40 beds at the General Hospital, the cost is going to be in the neighbourhood of $7 million, as approved by the Ministry of Health; and for a small improvement at Memorial Hospital, the total is more than $2 million, which is more money that was supposedly allocated in the beginning on the cost-sharing agreement amongst the three hospitals in Sudbury. If we can keep the heat on one individual who deserves to be removed from the board -- I state that categorically -- we don’t then look at the other problems. What I’m saying is that we have to look at the total number of problems surrounding the three hospitals and the action of the Ministry of Health in this whole mess.

While the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor) is still here, I want to turn very briefly to the budget of the Children’s Aid Society in the city of Sudbury. Like others, I guess the Sudbury board doesn’t have much clout; it’s not that big a board. But, with the minister in attend wee, he might be willing to give the Sudbury board some assistance. In 1975, the budget estimate -- I checked it out last week; the minister still hadn’t met with them -- was $2,415,434. The actual amount spent was $2,547,254. In fact, by no choice of their own, they spent $130,000 more than the ministry had approved, so they had a deficit last year. To meet this year’s expense they would need at least 9.5, the very minimum but the minister is holding them to 5.5. They have no control over who the courts send to them. They have no control over how many come from social and family services. They have no control over that. They are in the position of having overspent by $130,000 what you approved last year. There is no way they can cope with the 5.5 because to break even --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: When did you talk to them last?

Mr. Martel: Last week. Last Thursday.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: And they hadn’t heard from me? You’d better check again.

Mr. Martel: No.

Mr. Hodgson: That was yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Meen: You mean yesterday?

Mr. Martel: I spoke to them Thursday. I tell the minister I spoke to them --

Hon. Mr. Meen: Why don’t you get more current --

Mr. Martel: I tell the minister I checked it out last Thursday and I had no response. I want to go on though --


Mr. Martel: We go on Thursday. I suspect they have --

Have you some information then? Could the minister share with us any information as to what has happened since then? Has he given them the 9.5 minimum plus -- they need 19, really, to operate. Already, due to unemployment they are ahead in the number of children they have received over and against last year.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t disturb the bears.

Mr. Martel: Because of acts of this --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You check and you will see that I have checked with them very clearly.

Mr. Martel: You tell me what you have done since last Thursday and I will believe you.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is making a speech. It’s not the question and answer period.

Mr. Martel: Certainly I’m making a speech.

What do you think I’m here for?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member should realize that the Speaker is speaking as well.

Mr. Martel: Right. Through you, Mr. Speaker, the Children’s Aid Society has received from welfare and mental retardation and because of changes in the juvenile delinquent Act, more children at this time now than it had last year. Quite a substantial number. It must now cut programmes as of last Thursday.

I thought I was going to speak last Thursday night and that’s why I checked it out on Thursday morning. I suspect my assessment is correct and they haven’t met.

There are 80 kids in Sudbury who are in outside treatment. In other words there are no resource places in the city of Sudbury for these children, 80 of them. We would need four group homes at a cost of about $135,000. Of course, there is no money to start up group homes. If it has no money to start up group homes; if its budget is greater last year than the ministry had approved, if it is already carrying $135,000 debt, then it is in real trouble. The provincial caseload average I guess is -- what? 42 to one? No, 22 to one. In the Sudbury area it is 42 to one -- caseload per worker.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: What are you talking about? It varies.

Mr. Martel: It varies, but the provincial average is 22 to one.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It doesn’t mean that much, you know.

Mr. Martel: It does when you --

Mr. McClellan: How can you say that?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Very simply, because the statistics don’t establish the true nature --

Mr. McClellan: That’s a lot of nonsense. I do know what I’m talking about. It’s obvious you don’t.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member for Sudbury East continue his remarks, through the Chair, please?

Mr. Martel: What I was trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is that we’ve got 80 children who need outside care. If they’re going to have to cut back they are not going to be able to get the type of group home treatment necessary.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: We are not cutting back.

Mr. Martel: They will cost us more money in the long run because they will miss the treatment they need now. They’ll go back home, we might try to help them a little bit, but they are not going to get the type of care they need now. They are going to cost us a heck of a lot more down the road.

Secondly, the average is 42 to one. It’s so had in Sudbury that despite the former Minister (Mr. Brunelle) bringing in a good piece of legislation last year which allowed putting a homemaker into a home, the Children’s Aid Society in Sudbury has not had the money to even get one.

I was the critic at that time and complimented the minister for bringing that particular piece of legislation in, because it was the beginning, I thought, of an attempt to salvage the family in the home before they broke up totally. But we haven’t been able to hire one homemaker. As I say, despite all that and despite an overrun of money last year, the minister is going to try and hold the Sudbury board to 5.5. He’s going to meet with them.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Are you saying there are no homemakers in your community?

Mr. Martel: I am saying that the Children’s Aid Society does not have a homemaker.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: All right. Are there any homemakers?

Mr. Martel: Yes, sure. That welfare board has a number of homemakers, but the Children’s Aid Society simply haven’t been able to get one on their staff who they could utilize in preventing the family breakup or taking children out of the home. There is no sense in having it in the Act if you can’t afford it. It will look good, providing you are putting the funding in place to utilize it. It is going to save money in the long run. I am sure the minister is aware of that -- it will save money in the long run. They are going to cut programmes in Sudbury this year.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I doubt that.

Mr. Martel: Well, the minister might doubt it; he could prevent it. He could prevent it if we could shake him loose from some of the dollars that he has over in that ministry. As I said, 20 of the 80 children will not get institutionalized care. And I don’t mean in some big institution, but some group home treatment, some specialized treatment that is necessary. We don’t have it in Sudbury -- 20 out of 80 -- okay? And with the kids from three different sources, the need is 9.5 -- and one of the cuts already is summer vacation. Now that sells well with the public, by the way. If you say, “We are not going to be able to send a child to a summer camp” -- that sort of thing sells well. Because people say, “Well, my kids don’t go to summer camp either.”

But you have to take into consideration the kids we are dealing with. They are kids who have had some very serious problems in their background, otherwise they wouldn’t be in the care of the Children’s Aid Society. Or they have no parents. That’s the sort of thing that many of us just accept as commonplace. To this group of young people, it is tremendously beneficial.

We won’t be able to hire students from the social service programme. We are training them at university, but my understanding is that the Children’s Aid Society will not be able to hire any young people to give them the experience needed.

Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, the minister will have further information as to what they have done in Sudbury, when his estimates are up next week.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I have it now.

Mr. Martel: Well, tell me what you have done.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You are not interested in it.

Mr. Martel: Tell me what you have done.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is a debate. As the hon. member knows, he must address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, he says he has done something and I am saying he hasn’t met with them.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You are not interested in what has been done.

Mr. Martel: And if he has got something with which to indicate to me -- something of which he can say, “Yes, we have given nine per cent.”

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You are not interested in the facts.

Mr. Martel: “Or eight per cent; or we met with them last Wednesday, or yesterday” -- fine, let him say so.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You are not interested in the facts.

Mr. Martel: You tell me when you met with them.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You are only interested in the creation of public opinion.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will continue his remarks to the Chair. Thank you.

Mr. Martel: Yes, I am trying to create public opinion. I wonder what the minister was doing. I can’t help it -- I resent that. Let me talk about public opinion, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: That’s slander.

Mr. Martel: Here’s the Globe and Mail. It says: “Which Mothers, Mr. Taylor?” What type of public opinion do you think, Mr. Speaker, the minister was talking about when he complained about the women who would not get out of their kimonos, and would go back to bed after the kids went to school? What public opinion do you think he was creating?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I didn’t say that, and you know it is not correct.

Mr. Martel: What public opinion do you think he was attempting to create, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You are deliberately misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: He has to withdraw that statement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: Name the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister knows he cannot make a statement like that. I will ask him to withdraw those remarks of deliberately misleading the House.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I said --

Mr. Speaker: No, there’s no ifs or ands. He must withdraw the statement.


Hon. Mr. Taylor: A point of personal privilege.

Mr. Bain: No, withdraw.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: On a point of personal privilege, I was misquoted.

Mr. Bain: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: That’s different.

Mr. Bain: You can’t have a point of personal privilege against the Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I was misquoted by the member from Sudbury.

Mr. Speaker: That’s a different thing. I said you must not --


Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister or anyone else may not say that an hon. member is misleading or has misled the House, deliberately or otherwise, and I would ask him to withdraw those remarks please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Then I will withdraw those remarks, Mr. Speaker, and ask for an apology.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.


Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury East will continue.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Apologize.

Mr. Hodgson: He is not man enough.

Mr. Bain: That minister should apologize to all the kids in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Sudbury --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, why should that member have the privilege in this House to deliberately attribute to me remarks which I did not state, which are absolutely false?

Mr. Laughren: You are quoted in all of the media.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I am not, that’s incorrect.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is also a rule that if a member says he did not say something that must be accepted by all people in this House, including the member for Sudbury East or anyone else. If the hon. minister has stated he did not make those remarks that must be accepted, so the hon. member will be guided accordingly.

Mr. Laughren: He is a bit thin-skinned.

Mr. Martel: I am just saying what was quoted in the newspaper and I make the point because it was the minister who had said it. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, he accused me of trying to arouse public opinion, and I just throw back at him what’s in the newspaper.

Mr. Laughren: Shame, slanderous.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member please continue his remarks through the Chair?

Mr. Martel: I simply ask the question then, who is attempting to do what? I look at Norm Webster’s article, and the heading says: “Humane Outlook Needed.” It starts: “It was the first question period in two months and one of the flattest in memory ...”

Later it says:

“In brief, they must deny themselves the luxury of welfare-bashing. And here both the minister, James Taylor, and his government will bear watching. Tightening up on welfare makes sense, both financially and socially, but it is all too easy to get carried away. Welfare budgets have to be watched.”

Everybody is watching the minister. He grabs headlines but he makes accusations against other members who are attempting to create public opinion.

I just want to talk briefly on two more points about Sudbury, and one is the day care in Sudbury. The city of Sudbury was funding and assisting in day care only children who were children of working mothers -- mother-led families -- and it has been forced to reduce the number of children who, in fact, were subsidized.

Again, I checked that out last Thursday and the number is down in the neighbourhood of 22 or 23 less. If the intent --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The number of what?

Mr. Martel: Children subsidized.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Because they are not attending?

Mr. Martel: No, because the city doesn’t have the money to pay for the subsidization of too many.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The places are there; more are being built.

Mr. Martel: The places are there, but if the city is not going to subsidize them because it doesn’t have the money, what good are the places?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: There is a francophone one going in.

Mr. Martel: What good are the places if we haven’t got the money to subsidize them? The city of Sudbury or the region has had to cut back on the amount of money for subsidization.

Mr. Laughren: He sure is a provocative minister.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It is a question of municipality in terms of the priority.

An hon. member: Straighten him out, Margaret.

Mr. Martel: Finally, Pioneer Manor is a home for senior citizens and it has an addition of 100 new beds.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I was there.

Mr. Martel: Right, they opened the place.

Mr. Laughren: Your own reception too.

Mr. Martel: They were only able to open 50. It is hoped that funding can be found to open the other 50 in September or October. The only reason they have been able to open it up, I understand -- and my colleague was at a meeting with me -- was that under the restraint package they were, in fact, going to cut 15 people off in the existing staff and they took that existing staff and put it in with the 50 new beds.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: No, no.

Mr. Martel: They have 80 or 90 people on a waiting list and they have 50 beds vacant. What type of false economy is it? It should be open right now. It’s a false type of economy.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You know it and I know it that a budget has been projected for the full year.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Sudbury East will continue with his speech.

Mr. Laughren: The minister is being provocative.

Mr. Martel: They have opened 50 beds. You have 50 beds vacant.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: They have overbuilt if they are not using them.

Mr. Laughren: You are misleading the House now.

Mr. Martel: They have a waiting list of about 90 people and they cannot open it up because of funding. As far as I am concerned, that is the worst type of restraint going. There is a need. There is a facility. There just isn’t enough money for staff.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Any new facility was provided with funds for its operation.

Mr. Martel: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that a minister can sit there and bark the way he is going on now at me when in fact he is responsible.

Mr. Laughren: What did you say?

Mr. Martel: Bark.

Mr. Laughren: I thought you said bark.

Mr. Martel: I said bark. In fact, he knows that facility is there. He knows there is a need. He knows we can move into it tomorrow. All he has to do is say yes. That’s a false type of restraint.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: That’s not the reason for it. That is a non sequitur and you know it.

Mr. Martel: Here is a statement by the Canadian Council on Social Development, released March 1. It is headed: “Ontario Restraint Programme Called Arbitrary and Punitive.”

“Reuben G. Baetz, executive director of the Canadian Council on Social Development, today criticized the arbitrary nature of restraint measures announced in Ontario as well as the intimidating and punitive tone of the announcement. ‘They give the impression of a public purging of the parasitic poor carried out for the general good.’”

I suppose Reuben Baetz is trying to escalate it too. He was responding to the statement by this ministry.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You have said it.

Mr. Martel: I am quoting directly from his statement. I am not making any of it up. It is in this statement. Let me go on.

“One recently announced restraint measure is that welfare recipients who refuse to work will be cut off benefits.”


Mr. Martel: I didn’t make that statement.

Let me repeat that.

“One recently announced restraint measure is that welfare recipients who refuse to work will be cut off benefits. ‘Unfortunately this implies that there are many people on welfare who choose not to work’ [I am quoting Mr. Baetz].”

That is the impression that the government of Ontario attempted to leave in its restraint package this spring, because it’s the hardhat, redneck approach.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: That’s false and you know it.

Mr. Martel: You gain all kinds of votes that way at the expense of people who can least afford it.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You are hurting the very people you profess you want to help.

Mr. Martel: To continue from Mr. Baetz:

“Any measures to help employable people on welfare find work are obviously to be welcomed. But a positive rather than a punitive approach is surely in order because determining who is employable or unemployable is a highly complex matter and should be approached with understanding.”

That is something this government has never understood.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Which it is and always has been.

Mr. Bain: You are about as understanding as Scrooge.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Sudbury East will continue his remarks.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I will just make one final comment from Mr. Baetz.

“The suggestion that prodding welfare recipients to find employment will save a great deal of money is totally unrealistic because there are not many people on welfare who can find work and because it may cost more money in some cases to have these people work.”

That is what I suggest about the working mothers in the city of Sudbury. They lose because of the government’s restraint package. If children are forced to be taken out of daycare centres because they don’t have the money to be subsidized and the mother must leave the workplace, what we’ve got is a greater cost to society than anything else.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It’s a needs test for day care and you don’t believe in that.

Mr. Martel: Yes, I know it’s a needs test. I also know that if the municipality doesn’t get the adequate funding to provide it, then you can have all the needs tests in the world and the children aren’t going to get there. It is the minister who put in the restraint package.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The municipality determines the priorities; they don’t provide the funding.

Mr. Martel: One final point, Mr. Speaker, I have just a comment on the latest study in the United States called, “The Real Welfare Chiselers,” which was put out recently by a specialist in welfare reform. I just want to quote a couple of very important points because Ontario doesn’t understand it. For the past few yeast I begged the Minister of Community and Social Services, previous to this minister, to spend as much money on advertising what the real facts were surrounding welfare recipients as we have spent, for example, in trying to get a dial-a-bus system going. That was $300,000 a couple of years ago. This is to present the facts as they really are. I quote: “In the United States it’s been recently found a government investigation of fraud determined that 0.4 per cent, or four out of every 1,000 cases of all welfare cases were fraudulent.”

Four out of a thousand. When I stand around this Legislature and listen to all the rednecks who tell me about the people who are taking the system for a ride, my stomach does a flip. Why? The government’s own studies indicate that not more than 1.5 per cent of those on welfare take it for a ride. The myth is deliberately perpetuated out there so they can become the scapegoat for all the hardhats who say it’s easier to stay at home than it is to go to work.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: That’s a distortion because you have to distinguish between fraud and abuse or misuse of the system.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will continue.

Mr. Martel: It’s less than two per cent anywhere in North America.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Why don’t you talk straight for a change?

Mr. Martel: This government won’t spend one red cent to put those facts across to the public because it’s too easy. As with your predecessors -- the present Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) and the former Treasurer of Ontario, Charlie MacNaughton, who used to stomp around the province talking about all the long-haired kids who didn’t want jobs -- their studies destroyed them. So it continues.

The minister played the game this spring; we didn’t. We didn’t make up the headlines in the Globe and Mail; they came from the minister’s press statements because he made press releases.

There was never anything positive. The whole thing with the hospitals was part of the restraint package which was going to demonstrate a government concerned primarily with bringing inflation under control and concerned about bringing social costs down. The people it attacked are the very people who could not support themselves. Members know the Tories fell flat on their faces. All of them fell flat on their faces.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: How many more hundreds of millions do you want us to spend?

Mr. Martel: Here it comes. This is the concerned minister. How many hundreds of millions? In my four years as a critic I have never once suggested the minister go out and spend more money.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: What are you doing now?

Mr. Martel: No, I didn’t say that at all.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Sudbury East has the floor.

Mr. Martel: I’m saying you’ve got to --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: We’re spending more millions this year than last year.

Mr. Martel: Sure.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, would you call him to order?

Mr. Acting Speaker: The Speaker is calling him to order.

Mr. Martel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m suggesting, as I’ve suggested all along, we have to create some meaningful work, some opportunity for people to do things, to retrain and rehabilitate. The minister has cut those places or hasn’t moved ahead in them.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: That’s nonsense.

Mr. Martel: It’s nonsense I know, but I’m telling the members that’s what’s happened. The minister fell flat on his face --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You’re just playing politics.

Mr. Martel: -- despite all his restraints at the expense of those people who could least afford it. Where fear was most rampant, where they were most susceptible to what was going on, that’s the group he attacked. He moved in on that; the government moved in on hospitals. I want to say the Tories moved in to show they were tough and could bring it into line after they blew $1 billion last year to try to win an election. That just didn’t cut any ice with the people in Ontario. I want to tell the Tories they didn’t believe them not one jot.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: What are you trying to do? You’re trying to hurt the very people we want to help.

Mr. Martel: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I’d like to go to an election on these issues because I have just finished a questionnaire. The intriguing thing about it was the people hammered the hell out of the Tories when it came to hospital cutbacks and so on; they really did. They thought -- the public; the people who answered questionnaires -- that the Tories were sick. They fell flat on their faces and now they’ve got to find another one.

As the Premier (Mr. Davis) said, he’s got to have an emotional issue. All the claptrap he spouts about the people not wanting an election; the Minister of Government Services (Mrs. Scrivener) flaps about not wanting an election; the leader of the Liberal Party says he doesn’t want an election. Let me say that if the Premier could find an issue tomorrow to go to the polls on, he’d be there and he wouldn’t care what the people wanted, what it cost or anything. He’d call it. He hasn’t found the issue yet.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: That’s more irresponsible nonsense coming from you.

Mr. Martel: That’s precisely what would happen. As the Premier said, Mr. Speaker --


Mr. Mackenzie: Do you want to place a bet on that? Do you want to make book on that?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Sudbury East will ignore the interjections and continue.

Mr. Martel: I want to say that we are ready for an election, and we will do it on this budget if the Liberals have the courage to support us.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I want to identify myself with the usual felicitations that have been expressed to you and to the Deputy Speaker on the excellent manner in which you conduct the proceedings of this House. I certainly understand and appreciate the difficulty you have from time to time, but I say under sometimes trying circumstances the job is well done.

As far as the budget is concerned, I don’t know what one can say about the budget other than that it doesn’t come to grips with the basic problems that we have in this province. Certainly it doesn’t come to grips with the problem of unemployment. It doesn’t come to grips with the big deficits we have been experiencing in this province over the past number of years, which in turn are fuelling the fires of inflation and causing extra pressure in the economy in so far as inflation is concerned.

When one has a drop from about $2 billion to about $1.2 billion in terms of the budget deficit, I suppose that can be construed as making some progress; but certainly the progress in that respect is very limited indeed and indicates that the government really hasn’t learned its lesson from the 1975 provincial election.

As far as the budget is concerned, it certainly doesn’t do very much for the dairy producers who stormed Ottawa yesterday. While I don’t condone for a moment some of the things that happened there, I think it certainly does reflect their anger and frustration at what has happened at the initiation of the federal government and compounded by the provincial government.

Mr. Eaton: Be careful where you put the blame.

Mr. Gaunt: The Milk Marketing Board has indicated that, as far as it is concerned, it is prepared to help in some areas. I believe they have come out with a policy of buying market share quota at three cents a pound and selling it back to those in the greatest need for two cents a pound. Presumably those in the greatest need would be the new producers, and I understand there are some 400 in the province who have been in the business less than a year. I presume that those people would be construed as being those in the greatest need, and hence would be eligible for this kind of assistance.

The one question that remains in my mind is whether or not there is going to be enough market share quota to fulfil the requirements of those new producers, given the fact that many of them have greatly increased their herds and are really in the position of establishing a new base, although they really hadn’t had time to do so. They were just moving up to that point when all of a sudden, this new policy was announced. They have been cut off in midstream, as it were, which is certainly unfortunate and is certainly a reflection of the method by which the province undertook to encourage producers to increase their production with obviously no long-term guarantee that, having done so, they would be assured of a reasonable market for their produce. Need I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the province came in with its IMPIP loans to fulfil a purpose, which purpose was fulfilled in part -- that is to obtain a greater share of the national quota?

We were losing market share quota to other provinces simply because we weren’t filling it. In order to overcome that problem the province came in with its IMPIP loan programme, which has served a purpose but at the same time has left producers out on a limb -- at least many producers -- because while they were being encouraged to improve their production on the one hand, the new federal policy came in and they’ve now been placed in a very difficult financial position indeed as far as some of these producers are concerned.

Interestingly enough, I understand the Milk Marketing Board is going to enter into buying and selling Group I Pool quota as well, which is a new undertaking for it and one that I certainly support. I can recall back to the days when we were debating the provisions of the Hennessey report. That was back in 1965 or thereabouts. One of the controversial items at that time was whether or not quotas should be salable. There were very firm arguments presented on both sides of the question but the Ontario Milk Marketing Board came down with the decision after much deliberation and much study abroad that the best programme, the best method by which to proceed was to come in with salable quotas, which would be negotiable.

That policy has pertained from that point until now. Now the board is actually in the business, as of this point, of buying and selling Group I Pool quota. They’ve now set a maximum price at which these quotas can be traded. At least it’s a movement in the direction toward non-negotiable, non-salable quotas, which I presume perhaps will be effected in the future -- hopefully not the too-distant future.

I want to turn to another matter that causes some concern because it is an important matter and I think it will become even more so in the days and years ahead. That has to do with gravel extractions and the fact that the government at the moment really doesn’t have any long-term policy with respect to that matter.

As an example, I want to use the case of Lake Ontario Cement Ltd. and TCG Materials Ltd. This is a matter which has been dealt with on an appeal filed by these two companies to the OMB to have a zoning change made from rural agricultural to El, which is extractive industry, to permit the establishment and operation of a sand and gravel pit to be established in Erin township just outside the village. The township refused to make the change, hence the appeal to the OMB.

Strong objections to the application were registered by Erin and Erin Township Concerned Citizens’ Association and several other ratepayer groups. The hearing was rather extended; I believe it went on four weeks. There were 159 exhibits, with expert witnesses being called to support the causes on both sides of the issue.

I believe the total acreage involved by both applications is something in the neighbourhood of 600 acres. Obviously, if this were allowed, we would be talking about another Caledon operation extending over many years, perhaps up to 50 or even longer.

To make a long story short, the OMB found in favour of the applicants even though the board ignored the water table problems and to a certain extent the noise problems; although the board said in its decision that if the permits were granted to both companies, the truck traffic for area residents would become unbearable.

Essentially I think what the OMB did in its decision was to force Erin township into rezoning the land south and east of the village of Erin for extractive use. Interestingly enough, this is the fastest growing and most densely populated area in all of the Guelph and suburban planning area. That being the case, one can readily understand what a gravel operation of this kind of magnitude in a basically rural and residential area could do to that community.

As a result of the OMB decision the concerned citizens’ association has appealed to the cabinet. The only point I would make at this juncture is that I hope the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) does not issue the permit for these operations under the Pits and Quarries Act until the decision by the cabinet has been made. Otherwise I think he’s prejudging the decision.

I understand that the minister has made a comment or has made an indication to some of the citizens in and around Erin that he intends to issue the permits pending the decision. I think that action in a sense prejudges the decision of the cabinet and I hope that the minister would withhold on that point.

The appellants have asked that the appeal be considered on a number of bases, the most important of which, I believe, is that the Ontario Municipal Board decision be reversed and the land declared zoned for agricultural use. That’s what those lands are now and the council and the concerned citizens of that area are taking the position that it should remain as agriculturally zoned land.

As alternatives they ask that the Ontario Municipal Board be directed to hold public hearings to determine the impact of the two gravel operations located in close proximity of each other and to the village of Erin; that the OMB be directed to hold public hearings into the merits of the two appeals on the basis that the official plan does not designate the lands for potential gravel pit areas; and that TCG and Premier be directed to enter into development agreements as a condition of the rezoning. Those are really the points covered in the appeal to the cabinet.

There is, however, a broader issue. It is estimated that there are 60 to 70 million tons of aggregate in the proposed pits. According to the Proctor-Redfern report there are 990 million tons of aggregate in the entire township. With that kind of reserve it seems to me that it would be absolutely essential for the government to do an inventory of all gravel deposits in the province. Once that is done we should put these deposits on a timetable by which they can be extracted.

In this way some rational approach is brought into the operation of pits and quarries and it removes the haphazard, helter-skelter development of pits and quarries. I suggest that for the long-term benefit of good planning and certainly from the environmental standpoint, this kind of thing is absolutely necessary and will become even more so in the future.


I think it’s only sensible that we catalogue our reserves of sand and gravel in this province and then put them on a timetable so that we don’t get the private sector coming in, almost overnight, and saying, “That land is owned by us. We are running out of deposits elsewhere, and we want to open it up.” That has tremendous ramifications for the communities involved, it has tremendous ramifications for the planning process and, generally speaking, it is very disruptive to both. In the long-term interests of the citizens and of these various communities where there are gravel deposits, I think that kind of inventory-taking and timetabling should be undertaken as quickly as possible.

There’s one other matter with which I want to deal, and it concerns the government’s programme of embarking on closing arenas, at least in my part of the province. It really don’t know what the government has against our part of the province, other than the fact that most of us vote Liberal --

Hon. Mr. Meen: That is enough.

Mr. Gaunt: That may be enough. That’s what we are suspicious of.

Mr. Eaton: The way to find out is to change.

Mr. Gaunt: In any event, we went through this rather trying and difficult period in which the government was trying to close some of the hospitals in the area. Now we have got that one cooled out, at least for a period -- with the help of the courts, I might add, for which we are grateful. We will take any help we can get in that kind of situation.

Mr. Martel: You could have voted for our amendment.

Mr. Gaunt: If we had voted for your amendment, it wouldn’t have kept the hospitals open.

Mr. Martel: Sure it would.

Mr. Gaunt: We weren’t voting on that. We were voting on whether we would have an election or not. It had nothing to do with the hospitals in that respect. In any event, let me get back to the arena closings. I want to talk about the arena closings today --

Mr. Worton: Does the NDP want an election on that? They are on pretty thin ice.

Mr. Gaunt: I gather they have closed about seven arenas in my part of the province; if they haven’t closed them down completely, they have asked that major mortifications be made to those buildings in order to meet the standards set out in the National Building Code. Let me make it abundantly clear that I am all for safety. I hope I don’t have to make that point; surely that goes without saying.

Mr. Nixon: We are right with you there, Murray.

Mr. Gaunt: I am obviously all for the inspection of the arenas to seek out any structural or other defects that make the buildings unsafe for public use. But I have to take issue with the way the programme is being implemented. I don’t know what it is with the government. They seem to have the facility to take any worthwhile programme, distort it, mutilate it and completely discredit it.

Mr. Nixon: They make it expensive.

Mr. Gaunt: And make it expensive. That’s what’s happened with this programme. The Ministry of Labour officials inspect the buildings or ask for a report from an engineer indicating the structural condition of the building. None of these arenas seem to meet the standards, so the ministry in some instances just moves in and orders the arenas closed. Interestingly enough, these closings were ordered after the winter was over and hence the greatest danger has passed.

There are several aspects about which I want to comment in this regard. Before I go on, let me digress for a moment. One of the arenas that has been ordered to make significant alterations is an arena built only two years ago with steel underpinnings.

Mr. Good: Unbelievable.

Mr. Gaunt: If the ministry passed those plans just two years ago, how can it now come in and say that that building is not safe, or is not up to standard?

This brings in the whole question of whether or not it is proper for this government to make the National Building Code retroactive and apply it accordingly. And that is exactly what is happening. The National Building Code has been changed. And so what the government is doing is applying those standards retroactively.

What is to say that next year those amendments, or those regulations under the Code will not be changed again? In which case, the operators of arenas who have made modifications this year will then find themselves in the position of not qualifying under the new regulations and amendments. And so we just keep going on and on and on.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I think this kind of situation is getting somewhat out of hand. It is costing the local communities a tremendous amount of money, when in actual fact what we need in this instance is a common-sense approach.

An hon. member: And a new government.

Mr. Good: Better check this funny farm.

Mr. McCague: Right or wrong.

Mr. Gaunt: If they are unsafe, they should be asked to modify the building and improve it structurally, so that the building is safe for public use. No question about that; I made that point initially. All I’m saying, Mr. Speaker, is that you can make the arena safe, but it doesn’t have to be so strong that you could drive a Sherman tank over it. And that is what is happening.

The requirement in our area under the National Budding Code is 75 lb per sq ft. That is roughly 40 to 50 in. of snow over the entire roof. And my friend from Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague) would suggest, I am sure, that this would never happen.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Ever hear of a good rainstorm on top of 12 in. of snow?

Mr. Gaunt: Of course I have heard of a good rainstorm on top of 12 in. of snow.

Mr. Ferris: Ever see 40 in. of snow on top of a building?

Mr. Gaunt: But the fact of the matter is that the requirements under the National Building Code are somewhat unrealistic. If you ask any good engineer or architect, Mr. Speaker, he will tell you the same thing. I have asked a few for my own information, and they have indicated to me that they feel the requirement is unnecessary and unrealistic.

Let me get back to the points I was going to make in this respect. There are several aspects about which I wanted to comment in this regard. The first point is that to my knowledge the National Building Code is never applied retroactively -- to my knowledge -- but it is being applied retroactively in this case.

Mr. Good: Take it to court.

Mr. Gaunt: If the ministry wants to apply the 75 lb per sq ft, which, as I mentioned before, would sustain 40 to 50 in. of snow over the entire roof, that’s fine, But to apply it to arenas or buildings already standing, that is quite a different matter.

Is the ministry now going to come in and apply the same standard to schools and to other public buildings, or to this building? Is the ministry going to require that this building support 75 lb per sq ft in order that those who occupy the offices and this chamber can be assured of the degree of safety to which arenas are subjected?

Mr. Nixon: The place may be about to fall in.

Hon. Mr. Meen: We will let the roof fall in.

Mr. Gaunt: I doubt it very much. And I doubt very much if the Ministry of Labour will come out to the front door and put the padlock on, because it can’t support that kind of weight.

Mr. Good: You don’t even have insurance on this building.

Mr. Nixon: Not one cent of insurance.

Mr. Good: Fiddler on the roof, that’s it.

Mr. Gaunt: The ministry’s obligation insofar as existing arenas are concerned is to ensure that they are safe for use and occupancy; that the roof won’t cave in with the people in the building. But the National Building Code requirements go far beyond that. The ministry takes the position that it will abide by the engineer’s report on these buildings. The only thing the engineer can do is to measure the building against the National Building Code standards because otherwise the engineer is legally liable for anything that happens. Any engineer in his right mind isn’t going to stick his neck out and give an honest opinion as to what is required to make the building safe. He’s going to go by the National Building Code standards, thus removing any legal liability he might otherwise incur.

An engineer has told me that if that legal liability were removed, he could give an honest common sense opinion as to what has to be done to make the building safe, but under the present circumstances there is no way he can do that unless the legal liability is removed. His comment to me was that these arenas have to be safe, but they don’t have to be strong enough to drive a Sherman tank over them, and that was my comment earlier.

Obviously, in my view, the legal liability on the engineer should be removed. The final aspect of this entire problem is very important. The government does not, in my view and in the view of some legal experts with whom I have checked, and I have checked with the best legal advice I can afford, I may say, and they tell me --

Mr. Nixon: I know what that cost.

Mr. Gaunt: Which means, in effect, I checked with the hon. member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer).

Mr. Worton: That’s good enough.

Mr. Gaunt: We have gone over the various sections that apply under the Industrial Safety Act. He tells me, and I concur, that the government doesn’t have the right under the Industrial Safety Act to close arenas. It doesn’t have the legal right under the Act to close these buildings down.

Mr. Nixon: They didn’t have the right to close hospitals.

Mr. Gaunt: The power to do so under this Act is even more tenuous than it was in the case of the hospital closings, and we all know what happened there. Nevertheless, the government persists, even though it does not appear to have the legal power to do so, in ordering arenas to close down. I don’t know what it is with this government. Sometimes I think they’ve taken leave of some of their common sense, but I don’t want to dwell on that too long.

I do suggest, however, that the government undertake and search out immediately as to whether it does have the power to close these arenas. As I said before, I don’t think it has. I have read the Act as a layman. One of my colleagues has gone over it as a lawyer and he has indicated that the power is not there. That being the case, I would have thought that the government would have taken the precautions to check this matter with its legal experts, but obviously it feels it can do precisely what it wants, whenever it wants and whether it has the power to do so or not.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. If the hon. member reaches an appropriate spot to adjourn the debate, the Chair would recognize the motion.

Mr. Gaunt: I just have another paragraph and I’m through, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Hurry up.

Mr. Ferris: We can hear you next Friday.

Mr. Gaunt: If the House would indulge, I would certainly finish up in the next minutes.

I suggest two courses of action: First of all, remove the legal liability from the engineer. This would allow him to give an honest common-sense opinion as to the safety of the building without being legally bound. I suppose the other alternative is to reduce the requirement under the National Building Code, but I realize that is going to be very difficult to do, so I suggest the first alternative as the logical approach.

Secondly, I would suggest the Ministry of Labour should stop ordering arenas to be closed down and instead work with the community which should be making the changes in their arenas to make them safer. If the proper approach is taken, communities will respond. They do, however, object to the hammer, knock-out, strong-arm approach. This arena closing has become, in my view, nothing more than a racket and should be stopped.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, may I indicate the order of business for next week.

On Monday in the afternoon we do estimates until 5 p.m., and according to the arrangements they will be the estimates of the Ministry of Education; and from 5 p.m. until 6 p.m. we have the private members’ hour, a very historic debate in which you, Mr. Speaker, will be engaged, I understand.

Mr. Acting Speaker: No.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Are you not doing that?

Mr. Acting Speaker: No, it was changed.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Is it the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald)? I think his motion, then; but that will be equally historic, I would think.

We will sit in the evening on Monday. May I repeat we are sitting Monday night, when we will do legislation; hopefully look after the legislation which now is in committee of the whole House, that is the legislation standing under the second order, being Bills 54, 55, 64 and 87. We will be in session Monday evening from 8 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.

Mr. Good: In that order?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, I think we will simply call them in the order they stand in committee.

On Tuesday, in the afternoon and evening we will do legislation. Tuesday, June 8, there will be legislation afternoon and evening. May I indicate we will proceed, at that time, with second readings of Bills 84, 90 and 96.

Wednesday, of course, is committee day.

On Thursday, both afternoon and evening, we will do estimates; and it is my understanding that at that time we will be starting the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

There is no sitting on Friday; the House will not sit Friday morning.

Mr. Edighoffer: The roof is going to fall in.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.